686 Plus quality control issues.

[Doggtown]

Hello all. I owned a 686 for many years, and like a dummy, I sold it to my brother. I've been kicking myself ever since. I thought it was time to get one agian, so I just bought a new 4" barrel 686 Plus. At first glance, everything looked okay, but upon closer inspection, I noticed a few issues.

1st, the bead blasting near the rear sight is even and uniform, but the blasting near the front sight is uneven, deep, and almost looks pitted.

2nd, the lettering stamped (or rolled) into either side of the barrel has smearing or smudging around the letters.

3rd, the rear sight blade doesn't have the white outline under the aperture, and it wiggles like a loose tooth.

Smith and Wesson has already said they would fix it. Please take a look at the pictures and let me know what you guys think. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Rock185]

Hello and welcome. I've owned several 686s since shortly after they were introduced, carried one every working day for a few years, and recently bought another. I don't know that any of my L-Frames, since the early '80s, would be considered perfect. The roll marks on my 686s are cleaner than on your new 686. The rear sight blades on my adjustable sighted S&Ws do wiggle a bit. Without having your new 686 in hand, I can't comment on the bead blasting on the top strap. The only thing I can see from afar that looks really bad to me is the roll marking. Send it back with a polite and detailed description of your concerns. They will fix you up.

 

[Well Armed]

What input would you like. All we can say is to contact S&W, which you already did. Other than that, we can offer the advice to look over the gun BEFORE you accept the transfer or buy it. S&W QC is worse than Taurus, but they get a pass. I purchased 5 in the past 5 years, and my examples have been fine. I've seen countless others who haven't been as lucky.

 

[Yendor357]

I think a couple swipes with an ink eraser is what I’d have done on the side of that barrel. It doesn’t look that bad to me. The bead blasting looks ok.

The 686 Plus MG that I recently bought, make your issues look pretty minor.

Your gun is not quite correct. And for what they cost, gun shouldn’t be a do-it-yourself fix-up project.

The new Pythons are a lot higher quality than anything Smith is cobbling together nowadays; Just my opinion based on experience.

 

[Well Armed]

The new Pythons are a lot higher quality than anything Smith is cobbling together nowadays; Just my opinion based on experience.

The fit and finish on Kimber, Ruger, and even Taurus is a lot better than what I've been seeing countless others post about. I'm not sure what's going on with them.

 

[Dump1567]

To me, it's a nothing burger. I really don't get too caught up on cosmetic issues. If the guns timed right & is accurate, I'm fine with it. Most all of my guns I buy with the ability to carry. So, wear will be normal. If I find any real issues that I can't fix, I'll send it back to S&W. Unfortunately, a lot of manufactures lack final QC inspection before shipping a product out the door. I guess it's cheaper to deal with returns.

 

[stansdds]

First, welcome to the S&W Forums!

S&W has had its share of ups and downs when it comes to quality control. Sadly, it seems that since the COVID-19 pandemic, they have been on a downhill slide when it comes to quality products. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of new S&W handguns that are well made, but there are a good number that fall short when it comes to finish and sometimes fit quality and proper function. With those handguns that have issues, my advice is to contact S&W and have them make it right. Part of the purchase price is the cost of warranty service, so make use of that service.

 

[afret]

I don't think S&W is any worse than the others. I've been lucky the last couple of months in that out of the 7 or so S&W revolvers I bought during that time only the 629 MG had to go back.
I bought a Ruger SRH recently and it had so much end shake that the cylinder was hitting the forcing cone causing light primer strikes. I sent it to Ruger and it came back with about .005 end shake and the note said it was within specs now.

 

[Doggtown]

I think a couple swipes with an ink eraser is what I’d have done on the side of that barrel. It doesn’t look that bad to me. The bead blasting looks ok.

The 686 Plus MG that I recently bought, make your issues look pretty minor.

Your gun is not quite correct. And for what they cost, gun shouldn’t be a do-it-yourself fix-up project.

The new Pythons are a lot higher quality than anything Smith is cobbling together nowadays; Just my opinion based on experience.

 

[Doggtown]

I took your advice and used a rotary eraser in a drill. It eliminated the smearing by 90%. I bet I could put a little more time into it and make it 100%. The bead blasting near the front sight still bothers me. I own a tool company/ machine shop and have a bead blaster. I could easily tape everything off and re-blast the top. That's a little riskier proposition than using a rubber eraser. Here is another picture of the section I'm talking about.

 

[mckenney99]

If it were me, I would take it out and shoot it, to ensure there are no functional issues that might require factory attention also. No need to send it in for cosmetic issues only to have to send it right back for undiscovered functional issues after you get it back.

 

[Doggtown]

If it were me, I would take it out and shoot it, to ensure there are no functional issues that might require factory attention also. No need to send it in for cosmetic issues only to have to send it right back for undiscovered functional issues after you get it back.

I agree. I'm going to put a few boxes of ammo through it before I do anything else.

 

[Well Armed]

I don't think S&W is any worse than the others. I've been lucky the last couple of months in that out of the 7 or so S&W revolvers I bought during that time only the 629 MG had to go back.
I bought a Ruger SRH recently and it had so much end shake that the cylinder was hitting the forcing cone causing light primer strikes. I sent it to Ruger and it came back with about .005 end shake and the note said it was within specs now.

I'm on over a dozen firearm forums, multiple Reddit firearm related forums, YouTube, and other social media outlets. I don't hear or see anywhere near as many complaints about the "others" than I do with S&W.

 

[balin]

I worked in manufacturing all my life the scrutiny a product is given to ensure it is free of faults will drive up cost even more then it is now. Many would be unhappy with that. As long as a manufacturer makes good i have no issues with them. Speaking for myself. in all my years of buying new Smiths i have never had an issue. I have passed on Rugers that i saw at my LGS as their quality was sub par for me. But i don't think that means they are worse. Just my experience. I think people expectations for S&W being a better quality my be some of the reason for peoples complaints about them.

 

[66fan]

Hello all. I owned a 686 for many years, and like a dummy, I sold it to my brother. I've been kicking myself ever since. I thought it was time to get one agian, so I just bought a new 4" barrel 686 Plus. At first glance, everything looked okay, but upon closer inspection, I noticed a few issues.

1st, the bead blasting near the rear sight is even and uniform, but the blasting near the front sight is uneven, deep, and almost looks pitted.

2nd, the lettering stamped (or rolled) into either side of the barrel has smearing or smudging around the letters.

3rd, the rear sight blade doesn't have the white outline under the aperture, and it wiggles like a loose tooth.

Smith and Wesson has already said they would fix it. Please take a look at the pictures and let me know what you guys think. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Boy that is really rough looking. I would just trade or sell that one. Maybe get another model of same gun and good luck.