Depressing first post (Pictures added)

[Stainz]

My first new UDR (4/10) had it's front sight all the way over. I chased it with the rear sight for a few shots - then I got wise and looked at that front sight. I visually centered the front sight (brass rod) and rear sight... it was one click off when I shot it. Perfect barrel and very nice trigger out of the box. It was better than my 5/08 627 Pro - which I had resprung and cleaned up. It was evil - I sold an old friend last fall and bought another UDR a year ago - and it was perfect. Of course, both had poor fitting Eagle boot grips - finally got a good pair from S&W, but I had already discovered better grips from the Performance Center:

That's a bargain of a holster - from Lobo Leather - and a horrible belt. The S&W grips are not on S&W's website, but you can order them, if you want them. Call 1-800-331-0852 and order SKU #414170000 ~$50 + s/h. When you get your UDR back - with a straightened barrel - you'll love it! It's accuracy belies it's short barrel!

Stainz

 

[DCWilson]

Is your gun the original "Bloodwork" release, or the more recent PC 627-5? I thought the new guns used the two piece barrel, in which case a tipped barrel shroud speaks to a more serious problem than an overclocked barrel. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong about this; with the recessed muzzle I can't tell if I have a two piece barrel or not; it's clearer on other modern revolvers.

The barrel and front sight on my 627-5 (produced earlier this year) are properly aligned. I looked at some of my other S&W revolvers, and almost all have the front sight TDC -- but a very few are either overclocked or underclocked.

 

[XTrooper]

Is your gun the original "Bloodwork" release, or the more recent PC 627-5? I thought the new guns used the two piece barrel, in which case a tipped barrel shroud speaks to a more serious problem than an overclocked barrel. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong about this; with the recessed muzzle I can't tell if I have a two piece barrel or not; it's clearer on other modern revolvers.

The barrel and front sight on my 627-5 (produced earlier this year) are properly aligned. I looked at some of my other S&W revolvers, and almost all have the front sight TDC -- but a very few are either overclocked or underclocked.

The "Bloodwork" revolvers, original and reissue, do NOT have a two-piece barrel.

 

[dogdoc]

I too have noticed slightly canted barrels for years. If you look close enough you can see it on many.The width of the barrel ribs on either side of the center line can vary a little bit as well giving an impression of a cant. The same goes for the frame where the barrel fits. I used to get ocd about all those things but no longer unless the condition is extreme.Enjoy the guns and shoot them.

dogdoc

 

[TSQUARED]

If the gun shoots well - what's the problem? Are we paying too much attention to cosmetics instead of function?

 

[Fishjager]

Smith claims to have a life time warranty. But you are right, this gun should never have left the performance center. You pay top dollar for these guns, you should get top quality. Good Luck!
Now if we can only get them to take that ugly lock off the side.

 

[aphelion]

Ok - I've got a few S&W's in my collection - nothing compared to many on here but I also work part time in a local gun shop (Work for gun parts, basically) and I've seen a ton of S&W's come in and out.
My observation has been this: If you look close enough, I am afraid more often than not the barrel is not perfect.
I know people to claim they have dozens of S&W's that are all dead on. I call BS on that. Either they are not looking close enough, or they need their eyes checked.

I suppose if you made up some sort of fixture where you could level the frame perfectly and measure the front sight with a dial indicator you would find most front sights wouldn't be perfectly straight up and down. But that isn't the point. Being off a thou or two isn't the problem. It has nothing to do with the mechanical accuracy potential of the revolver. The problem is when the canting is visible. If you can see the cant, then you cannot line the sights up precisely. The sides of the front sight must be parallel with the notch in the rear sight and the top of the sights must form a straight line. If that isn't the case, repeatable sight alignment is very difficult. If you are shooting short range at large targets it may not be important to you. But some of us like to shoot at small targets at longer range. A properly fitted and dimensioned S&W revolver can be very accurate. It needs correctly aligned sights be take advantage of that accuracy. It is not merely a cosmetic issue like some here keep insisting.

So call BS all you want. My eyes are fine and I can consistantly hit a 6" square steel plate at 100 yards or a 1 1/2" wide ground squirrel at 60 yards with any number of my Smiths. There are people that can do better than that, so that isn't particularly remarkable. But the sights need to be right or it becomes much more difficult.

 

[JohnAC]

I suppose if you made up some sort of fixture where you could level the frame perfectly and measure the front sight with a dial indicator you would find most front sights wouldn't be perfectly straight up and down. But that isn't the point. Being off a thou or two isn't the problem. It has nothing to do with the mechanical accuracy potential of the revolver. The problem is when the canting is visible. If you can see the cant, then you cannot line the sights up precisely. The sides of the front sight must be parallel with the notch in the rear sight and the top of the sights must form a straight line. If that isn't the case, repeatable sight alignment is very difficult. If you are shooting short range at large targets it may not be important to you. But some of us like to shoot at small targets at longer range. A properly fitted and dimensioned S&W revolver can be very accurate. It needs correctly aligned sights be take advantage of that accuracy. It is not merely a cosmetic issue like some here keep insisting.

So call BS all you want. My eyes are fine and I can consistantly hit a 6" square steel plate at 100 yards or a 1 1/2" wide ground squirrel at 60 yards with any number of my Smiths. There are people that can do better than that, so that isn't particularly remarkable. But the sights need to be right or it becomes much more difficult.

I agree with everything you are saying. My point is that if you look hard enough to find imperfections, you will find them. If people are going to examine the barrel fit to the frame on every gun they purchase to be sure it's *dead nuts* straight, they better find a new hobby.

As I said in my previous post, most of my Smiths are off just a bit one way or another. It doesn't bother me in the least since I can not detect the issue when I sight them.

I believe the OP should send his gun back to be corrected. That barrel is way off. The problem will be what the gun looks like when he gets it back. He will no doubt examine it like a forensic pathologist - And what happens when it's still off by a few thousandths? Will he still be disappointed? I'm sure many would.

 

[aphelion]

I believe the OP should send his gun back to be corrected. That barrel is way off.

Me too. Sorry if it seemed like I was picking on your post, but yours seemed representative of the attitude expressed by some that the issue is of no concern (a "cosmetic" problem) and the OP should quit worrying about it. That would be a disservice to him and poor advice. I don't understand why so many are willing to let the factory off the hook on this when it only encourages them to let quality slide even further. The factory knows that most guns they make will never be shot that much so they will never have to address most of the below standard stuff that goes out the door. Back in the silhouette days I saw Dan Wesson put out some absolute garbage because they knew they could get away with it most of the time. Same thing with outfits like Taurus and Rossi. It is sad to see S&W using that same "business model."

 

[Stainz]

If the barrel is off center enough, as in the op's pix, the ball detent won't seat properly when it is closed. I think that alone would be reason enough for me to return it, accusations of 'ocd' aside.

Maybe if we were more demanding as to the quality of our delivered new revolvers, PC shop and production alike, we could affect the general QC. Our only viable path here, it would seem, is to avail ourselves of their warranty services. A bean counter there is bound to see that the back and forth overnite FEDEX charges alone is excessive, not to mention the man hours in shipping/receiving and warehousing a customer's revolver, the actual shop time probably being similar whether it was returned by an internal QC inspector or a customer. I've said it before, but perhaps mandatory vision tests for final QC inspectors really is important.

Stainz

 

[ldp4570]

I'm evidently the luckiest revolver buyer on this board. Not one of my forty three S&W revolvers has a canted barrel. Than again I examine what I'm buying fairly closely.

Of course all of them, except one, were made prior to 1999.

I would send that back to S&W and see if they are capable of getting it right the second time. Good luck! Regards 18DAI.

I'll second that, as none of mine are canted, but they also don't have the lock or MIM either!!!

 

[ldp4570]

If the barrel is off center enough, as in the op's pix, the ball detent won't seat properly when it is closed. I think that alone would be reason enough for me to return it, accusations of 'ocd' aside.

Maybe if we were more demanding as to the quality of our delivered new revolvers, PC shop and production alike, we could affect the general QC. Our only viable path here, it would seem, is to avail ourselves of their warranty services. A bean counter there is bound to see that the back and forth overnite FEDEX charges alone is excessive, not to mention the man hours in shipping/receiving and warehousing a customer's revolver, the actual shop time probably being similar whether it was returned by an internal QC inspector or a customer. I've said it before, but perhaps mandatory vision tests for final QC inspectors really is important.

Stainz

I spent over 15yrs as an Ammunition QC in the US Army, an as a civilian working for the US Army. There is no way in the world every round can be checked unless a specific lot has been determined faulty. Same applies to the gun industry(I'm not trying to play "Devils Advocate" here), QC will pick out x-number of guns to inspect, an if anything is found wrong its sent back to be fixed. Plus they also have QC's at differing levels in the manufacturing process, an the same applies for them as stated above. Lemons get out the door, its just a fact of life, and it doesn't matter if its the PC or the regular production line.

 

[handejector]

I'm evidently the luckiest revolver buyer on this board. Not one of my forty three S&W revolvers has a canted barrel. Than again I examine what I'm buying fairly closely.

Of course all of them, except one, were made prior to 1999.

I would send that back to S&W and see if they are capable of getting it right the second time. Good luck! Regards 18DAI.

I'll second that, as none of mine are canted, but they also don't have the lock or MIM either!!!

I'll bet you are both mistaken.
I've handled many thousands of Smith's, and very few barrels are dead-on. Very few.
Most people don't know how to check them.
You check from the muzzle.
Might want to unload the gun first -
Hold the gun at eye level.
Align barrel towards eye.
Plumb the sides of frame to vertical.
Now, sight across top of front sight, checking against front of frame and/or top of rear sight.
You'll find more are 'off' than 'on'.
You'll also begin to see more bad news- many rear sights of the target variety are not truly perpendicular to the frame sides. If the frame is truly plumb, the rear sight won't be level.

This is a truism from the Mod 1899's all the way to present day, including the 'cadillac' guns- the Reg Mags and the Pre-27's.
Just a fact of life you'll have to accept or move on away from.

There are 360 degrees in every circle. There are 60 minutes in each degree. There are 60 seconds in each minute.
0 degrees, 0 minutes, 0 seconds is a definite, specific point so finite it has no width- none.
Claiming every barrel you have is set to 0 degrees, 0 minutes, and 0 seconds is ludicrous.
Sorry.
They just ain't made that good, and if they were, only kings could afford them!

 

[aphelion]

I'll bet you are both mistaken.
I've handled many thousands of Smith's, and very few barrels are dead-on. Very few.
(snip)They just ain't made that good, and if they were, only kings could afford them!

All your points are well taken. But as I have said in my posts in this thread and a couple of others on this subject, it is only a problem when the cant is apparent to the eye. No manufactured item is perfect and it is futile to expect it. Everything is built to tolerances. The problem begins when the tolerances become sloppy enough that it begins to affect performance. Ask a bullseye shooter if visible cant is OK, or a silhouette shooter who attempting to hit .22 chicken silhouettes at the 200 meter line in a shootoff if visible cant is going to affect his or her success. No question the factory's standards have changed over the years because of economic realities. But some standards have to be maintained for the product to continue to be worhwhile. If the factory can't maintain those standards at a reasonable price, then their product isn't worth having.

 

[handlebar]

I have a 637 with a slightly canted barrel-clearly visible from the business end of the barrel. It shoots great.

 

[K1500]

Yes, I have a new 617 that has the same problem. I ordered the gun, so it was bought and paid for before I ever got to see it. It seems about par for the course these days.

 

[handejector]

'Visible' cant of the sights may be different to every eye.
Since I noticed it more than 40 years ago, I notice it on every gun I look at, including my shooters. I can't "not see" it.
I just don't let it bug me.
I have a good eye, probably from many years in construction. I can usually tell you if a corner is plumb without a level. I can usually tell you if a line is level. I still check with a level, though. I also check a level every time before use.
If a rear sight is so out of level that it bugs me, I just decide whether I'll shoot that gun with the sight level (meaning the frame is not plumb), or look at the rear sight sloping and hold the frame plumb. I usually go with a level sight.
Once sighted in, as long as the same position is held (level rear sight), it is a moot point and has NO effect on accuracy.

A sight picture is perfect, or it is not. If perfect AND consistent, all bullets go in one hole, theoretically, assuming the gun is capable of that degree of accuracy.

 

[aphelion]

'Visible' cant of the sights may be different to every eye.

No question about that. Like most things, it is a matter of degree (pun intended). Revolvers are not the only thing built to a tolerance, so are we. Since I like S&W's I am glad the factory has been more consistent in their build quality than the one that turned us out.

Once sighted in, as long as the same position is held (level rear sight), it is a moot point and has NO effect on accuracy.
(snip)
A sight picture is perfect, or it is not. If perfect AND consistent, all bullets go in one hole, theoretically, assuming the gun is capable of that degree of accuracy.

And that is the point I am trying to make. Canted sights, front or rear, make that consistent alignment much more difficult. It is detrimental to accuracy just as incorrectly dimensioned chamber throats or bores can be.

I would not be too skeptical of those who claim their guns have no perceptible cant. They may have done as I have done over the years, which is examine and reject a lot of specimens, then keep the ones that happenstance allowed to be mostly correct in all the many ways a revolver can stray from "goodness."

 

[Wheelgunner686]

Received notification from S&W today that they'll be sending me a prepaid label to send my 627PC back to make the repairs. Great experience with customer service so far, we'll see how things go. Thanks to Stainz and everyone else who helped.

 

[AveragEd]

My minor-league S&W collection consists of 12 stainless revolvers, the newest of which are two -4 686s and a -4 629. None of them have a VISIBLY canted barrel. If any are canted, I can't see it and that's good enough for me.

A custom shop gun should be a lot closer to perfect than a production piece. It's a shame to see a Performance Center revolver leave the shop like that, but S&W isn't alone with such problems. A year or so ago, I bought a Model 700 M-KS from Remington's Custom Shop. With the scope bore-sighted with two bore-sighters of different designs and with the scope bore-sighted the old-fashioned way (looking through the bore), the rifle shot 14 inches to the right of the point of aim at 100 yards. It took either most of the scope's internal adjustment or almost all of the rear scope base's windage adjustment to get the gun shooting where it looked and if the latter method was used, the scope was visibly misaligned on the receiver.

I checked the usual things - that the new Leupold scope was shipped with the reticle centered, that the scope base mounting holes were centered in the receiver and that the barrel was not bedded unevenly in the Kevlar stock's barrel channel. I then contacted Remington and was sent a UPS call tag to return the gun.

After several weeks, Keith from the Custom Shop called to tell me something I couldn't believe - they had tried two replacement barrels and both did the same thing, even in another stock! Keith said that apparently all their barrels were defective and he ordered one from Shilen for my rifle. When it was returned, it shot to within a half-inch of the point of aim after bore-sighting.

As I said, S&W isn't alone in the quality problems department.

Ed