NH Old School
Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2015
- Messages
- 65
- Reaction score
- 67
I just purchased a new (current production) model 67 4" about 5 days ago. I am going to describe my journey with it to date. I have shot it every day but one, averaging about 100 rounds per range session, and had it in my fairly well equipped shop every day between range outings.
Some background first. I have been shooting S&W revolvers ever since my father bought two 4 screws (27 and 53) about 1960. I have been taking them apart and tuning them for 30 years or so. I have lost count of how many I have had. I have owned all frame sizes and several calibers.
I recently lucked into an unfired 686-1 6", which I have been enjoying thoroughly. Nice smooth action and decent if not light DA trigger. I also recently bought a new production model 442 with no internal lock. I am very happy with that, as it has a decent DA only trigger, and shoots where it looks.
I have owned a couple of K frame specimens with MIM internals before, but I think the 67 is the first with the internal lock.
OK - first impressions after getting it home:
1. The DA trigger was much heavier than the 686-1, and heavier than even the 4 screw model 27 my father bought all those years ago.
2. It was not at all smooth. There was noticeable creep and even a grinding sensation, and it went through a series of hard then less hard stages before letting off. I know that some of this is normal for S&W DA triggers, and I consider the feedback to be a good thing. But this gun, as purchased, went way beyond normal for a Smith. For starters, the first bit of pull was very hard, due to the cylinder not moving freely.
3. Accuracy was and is excellent with a variety of factory ammunition and handloads.
4. Single action trigger was fine if a bit heavier than normal for a Smith.
5. The gun was very tight. There was no endshake whatsoever, and very little cylinder movement with the trigger pulled all the way. On Smiths the hand ends up next to the ratchet, and if it's well fitted locks it up with less play than the locking bolt alone can accomplish. The only loose spot was and is some play in the crane: it can be pushed out a bit from the frame when closed. It's tight at the back, but the front lockup is not positive. The little cone/wedge shaped plunger doesn't go into the front of the ejector rod far enough, and/or is not shaped properly. As long as the gun is accurate I'm not going to worry about that one.
The fun begins:
Upon taking it apart I noticed right away that the non-MIM parts were very rough. The frame and side plate may be machined forgings, but they were finished crudely. The entire gun was dry as a bone - not a hint of any kind of lube anywhere. The hammer and trigger studs were rough and fit quite snugly to their respective holes.
The first time I put the rebound spring in I had a devil of a time. I thought I must be getting old and clumsy until I realized that the spring was longer than I had seen before.
Before my first range outing I polished everything under the sideplate and lubed lightly with Ballistol. Specifically, I polished and lubed the frame and sideplate where the hammer and trigger, and bolt contact them, the hammer, trigger, hammer and trigger pins, cylinder latch, hand, bolt, bolt pin, and rebound slide. Also the frame where the rebound slide rides. This smoothed things up quite a bit. I think that's it, unless I forgot to list something. The gun shot well from the beginning, but I wasn't satisfied. I wanted it to feel good in DA mode. I almost never shoot SA.
Before my second range outing I ground a couple of turns off the rebound spring and backed out the strain screw a full turn. That lightened the DA trigger nicely. No misfires. Almost there. The only problem left was the hard spot when initially pulling in DA mode due to the cylinder not moving freely. Still shot well.
Before my third range outing I started really paying attention to the cylinder rotation. It was stiff. I came to the conclusion that the fit of the cylinder was actually too tight. I polished the little ring on the back of the ratchet (extractor) that actually rides on the frame interior. I polished the spot on the frame where it rides. I hit the end of the cylinder pivot on the crane with some 220 grit wet/dry dry, and then polished it. I went very slowly with this step, testing frequently, as I wanted the cylinder to turn freely without creating noticeable endshake. I was also very careful to keep the end of this part square. When there was maybe a thousandth or so of endshake I called it good.
Before my fourth and last range outing to date I made a shim for the strain screw, as I noticed that it was walking out on me. I rather dreaded that job as tedious and time consuming. I wanted to lock the screw out from fully seated anywhere between .018" and .025". Then I had a stroke of (ahem) genius. I miked a few pieces of random soft wire. A small paper clip miked right in the range I wanted. So I curled a piece of it around a small allen key, cut the excess off to make basically a cir-clip, and clipped that into the small diameter stretch of the strain screw right under the head. Bingo! It's nice because it won't come off the screw by itself, but can be easily removed in case I want to lighten the trigger pull some more.
Since I failed to mention it, I did clean the gun after each range session, and did lube everything I did with Ballistol after any and all work done.
My fourth range session was this morning - shot about 100 rounds, and am now happy. I don't foresee any need for any more work. The DA action is smooth and consistent - like the older Smiths always were, like the new 442 I just bought is, and like I would have expected.
Would I buy this gun again knowing what I know now? Yes. I don't mind doing some work in the shop, and I like the gun. I still prefer Smiths to Rugers because I think they're easier to work on, particularly in the cylinder/crane area. Also, the last two Ruger revolvers I bought new (one SA and one DA) had far more serious QC issues than this model 67, so I'm a little soured on Ruger right now. I may not have liked the trigger pull on the Model 67, but it worked reliably and probably would have been accurate had I done nothing. I cannot say as much for those last couple of Rugers.
Still, I think it's a shame that, with several major brands of revolvers, it's gotten to the point where one must think of them as kits to complete at home, rather than finished products.
In wrapping up, I apologize for lack of photos. I wasn't thinking in terms of an Internet forum post when I was tuning the gun. If anyone really wants, I could take it apart one more time and take some "after" shots, but they wouldn't mean much without the "befores".
Some background first. I have been shooting S&W revolvers ever since my father bought two 4 screws (27 and 53) about 1960. I have been taking them apart and tuning them for 30 years or so. I have lost count of how many I have had. I have owned all frame sizes and several calibers.
I recently lucked into an unfired 686-1 6", which I have been enjoying thoroughly. Nice smooth action and decent if not light DA trigger. I also recently bought a new production model 442 with no internal lock. I am very happy with that, as it has a decent DA only trigger, and shoots where it looks.
I have owned a couple of K frame specimens with MIM internals before, but I think the 67 is the first with the internal lock.
OK - first impressions after getting it home:
1. The DA trigger was much heavier than the 686-1, and heavier than even the 4 screw model 27 my father bought all those years ago.
2. It was not at all smooth. There was noticeable creep and even a grinding sensation, and it went through a series of hard then less hard stages before letting off. I know that some of this is normal for S&W DA triggers, and I consider the feedback to be a good thing. But this gun, as purchased, went way beyond normal for a Smith. For starters, the first bit of pull was very hard, due to the cylinder not moving freely.
3. Accuracy was and is excellent with a variety of factory ammunition and handloads.
4. Single action trigger was fine if a bit heavier than normal for a Smith.
5. The gun was very tight. There was no endshake whatsoever, and very little cylinder movement with the trigger pulled all the way. On Smiths the hand ends up next to the ratchet, and if it's well fitted locks it up with less play than the locking bolt alone can accomplish. The only loose spot was and is some play in the crane: it can be pushed out a bit from the frame when closed. It's tight at the back, but the front lockup is not positive. The little cone/wedge shaped plunger doesn't go into the front of the ejector rod far enough, and/or is not shaped properly. As long as the gun is accurate I'm not going to worry about that one.
The fun begins:
Upon taking it apart I noticed right away that the non-MIM parts were very rough. The frame and side plate may be machined forgings, but they were finished crudely. The entire gun was dry as a bone - not a hint of any kind of lube anywhere. The hammer and trigger studs were rough and fit quite snugly to their respective holes.
The first time I put the rebound spring in I had a devil of a time. I thought I must be getting old and clumsy until I realized that the spring was longer than I had seen before.
Before my first range outing I polished everything under the sideplate and lubed lightly with Ballistol. Specifically, I polished and lubed the frame and sideplate where the hammer and trigger, and bolt contact them, the hammer, trigger, hammer and trigger pins, cylinder latch, hand, bolt, bolt pin, and rebound slide. Also the frame where the rebound slide rides. This smoothed things up quite a bit. I think that's it, unless I forgot to list something. The gun shot well from the beginning, but I wasn't satisfied. I wanted it to feel good in DA mode. I almost never shoot SA.
Before my second range outing I ground a couple of turns off the rebound spring and backed out the strain screw a full turn. That lightened the DA trigger nicely. No misfires. Almost there. The only problem left was the hard spot when initially pulling in DA mode due to the cylinder not moving freely. Still shot well.
Before my third range outing I started really paying attention to the cylinder rotation. It was stiff. I came to the conclusion that the fit of the cylinder was actually too tight. I polished the little ring on the back of the ratchet (extractor) that actually rides on the frame interior. I polished the spot on the frame where it rides. I hit the end of the cylinder pivot on the crane with some 220 grit wet/dry dry, and then polished it. I went very slowly with this step, testing frequently, as I wanted the cylinder to turn freely without creating noticeable endshake. I was also very careful to keep the end of this part square. When there was maybe a thousandth or so of endshake I called it good.
Before my fourth and last range outing to date I made a shim for the strain screw, as I noticed that it was walking out on me. I rather dreaded that job as tedious and time consuming. I wanted to lock the screw out from fully seated anywhere between .018" and .025". Then I had a stroke of (ahem) genius. I miked a few pieces of random soft wire. A small paper clip miked right in the range I wanted. So I curled a piece of it around a small allen key, cut the excess off to make basically a cir-clip, and clipped that into the small diameter stretch of the strain screw right under the head. Bingo! It's nice because it won't come off the screw by itself, but can be easily removed in case I want to lighten the trigger pull some more.
Since I failed to mention it, I did clean the gun after each range session, and did lube everything I did with Ballistol after any and all work done.
My fourth range session was this morning - shot about 100 rounds, and am now happy. I don't foresee any need for any more work. The DA action is smooth and consistent - like the older Smiths always were, like the new 442 I just bought is, and like I would have expected.
Would I buy this gun again knowing what I know now? Yes. I don't mind doing some work in the shop, and I like the gun. I still prefer Smiths to Rugers because I think they're easier to work on, particularly in the cylinder/crane area. Also, the last two Ruger revolvers I bought new (one SA and one DA) had far more serious QC issues than this model 67, so I'm a little soured on Ruger right now. I may not have liked the trigger pull on the Model 67, but it worked reliably and probably would have been accurate had I done nothing. I cannot say as much for those last couple of Rugers.
Still, I think it's a shame that, with several major brands of revolvers, it's gotten to the point where one must think of them as kits to complete at home, rather than finished products.
In wrapping up, I apologize for lack of photos. I wasn't thinking in terms of an Internet forum post when I was tuning the gun. If anyone really wants, I could take it apart one more time and take some "after" shots, but they wouldn't mean much without the "befores".
