Discovered Cracked Frame on my 638-2

[TAC]

Originally posted by ArchAngelCD:
So it doesn't bother you that you bought a gun without a lock and because of something S&W did incorrectly you are now forced to carry a revolver with a lock?

I truly hope this never happens to me because I do not want a defective replacement for their defective product.

Can you give a link to one documented case where the internal lock has caused a problem? Other than personal opinions and forum posts, I have never see one documented case.

 

[Dtech]

Of course I would greatly prefer to have a 638 without a lock, but given the ability to disable/remove it if I choose, not to mention the fact that I received a brand new gun for the cost of a transer fee, I'm ok with it. Not thrilled, but ok.

Do I plan to buy any more S&W with locks? Not really. I have the 638-3 and my recently aquired PC 327 M&P R8 and I'm happy with that. The 638 is the only one I plan for active "guard duty" (concealed of course) on occasion. The R8 falls into a special occasion investment/collector/range piece for me, even though I dislike the IL.

I have other guns I use for everything in between.

 

[ColbyBruce]

Everytime I see one of these threads I wonder if the frame will crack on my daughter's S&W #331 TI.

 

[shawn mccarver]

Originally posted by Dtech:
You would actually think that they would actually make an effort and go out of their way to produce something the way people want it. Seems like that's what most other manufacturers of any kind of consumer products tend to do.

Regardless of them either continuing to "roll over" like a nice gun manufacturer for certain government considerations or just wanting to sell locks, give the people what they want for peat sakes!

There excuse might be "well it would be a liability for us if we took the locks off now". They can't use this excuse any more thanks to the law that was passed regarding not holding firearms manufacturers liable for producing a product that is not defective (with or without a lock for that matter). Then again, I wonder what they might have to say if someone were seriously injured or killed because one of their locks malfunctioned at the wrong time?

This suggestion is about as interesting an idea as griping to Chevrolet for not offering their vehicles without seat belts.

 

[pinkymingeo]

The 331 has a Scandium frame and 2-piece barrel, I believe. No fear of cracking.

 

[Dtech]

Originally posted by shawn mccarver:

Originally posted by Dtech:
You would actually think that they would actually make an effort and go out of their way to produce something the way people want it. Seems like that's what most other manufacturers of any kind of consumer products tend to do.

Regardless of them either continuing to "roll over" like a nice gun manufacturer for certain government considerations or just wanting to sell locks, give the people what they want for peat sakes!

There excuse might be "well it would be a liability for us if we took the locks off now". They can't use this excuse any more thanks to the law that was passed regarding not holding firearms manufacturers liable for producing a product that is not defective (with or without a lock for that matter). Then again, I wonder what they might have to say if someone were seriously injured or killed because one of their locks malfunctioned at the wrong time?

This suggestion is about as interesting an idea as griping to Chevrolet for not offering their vehicles without seat belts.

It depends on your point of view. Would not Chevrolet still be responsible if you used the seat belts they put in the car to protect you and they did not work as designed?

Same pricinicple with the IL except the opposite. S&W placed a locking mechanism in a gun to protect from an accidental discharge that allows the firearm to fire normally under all other conditions, yet even if you don't use it they would still be liable if that device malfunctioned and caused the gun not to fire when needed.

A product that does not work as designed is a defective product, regardless of if it's a gun, car, or a widget.

 

[MaineProbation]

Aluminum is a highly overrated material. Where weight is a major factor (aircraft, vehicles, etc.) it is often used but does have its limitations. Although often having the reputation for being "soft," aluminum, depending upon the particular alloy, can also exhibit the trait of becoming brittle and cracking without warning. Another thing many people don't realize is that when aluminum is used in a machine element (firearm part, engine part, etc.) in combination with parts of steel, the different coefficients of linear expansion due to temperature change along with different rates of heat transfer can cause various problems. Keep in mind that every time that gun was fired, the barrel (stainless steel) was expanding with heat at a different rate than the frame (aluminum alloy). Although it "should" not have happened, it did. I have never seen the same with an all steel revolver except one that was seriously abused or fired with excessive charges.

 

[TAC]

In addition to that, when you compare the physical mass of a J-frame to that of a K, L, or especially the N frame, shooting the same loads, it's amazing the J holds up as good as it does!

 

[Glock 'em down]

Originally posted by ColbyBruce:
Everytime I see one of these threads I wonder if the frame will crack on my daughter's S&W #331 TI.

I'm sitting here thinking the exact same thing about my model 38 Bodyguard (circa 1985) and my model 12-2 (circa 1970). Of course, they are both "vintage" models, but they ARE Airweights. The model 12-2 is a pinned barrel. The model 38 is not.

Should I be concerned at all?

 

[OSD]

I went through this on a 442 last year and I posted a 6 weeks ago that my 642-2 had the frame crack under the barrel. So, that's 2 air-weights I've had the frame crack on and neither one had ever had anything but range ammo through them.

This last time was a cluster%^$# from the get go. When they say they are only replacing the frame, that's just what they mean. If they say they are replacing the whole that is different.

I sent this one in and called about 2 weeks later to check on it, was told they were backed up and it might be another 2 weeks before they got to it. OK, called back in 2 weeks and was told they were going to replace it with a new one and they would get ahold of me in a couple days when it was ready to ship to get the name of the FFL I wanted it shipped to. No call for a week, so I called back and was told it had somehow been scratched and it was being refinished. I was upset now, to say the least. They called 3 days later and said they had shipped it to my FFL. I asked how they did that since I had never given them the name of my FFL. There was complete silence on the other end of the phone. Then he took my phone number and said a supervisor would call me in the morning. In the morning a very nice lady named Kate called me. We discussed everything that had happened and she said she would call me back. One hour later she called and told me they had not sent the gun, but wasn't sure where it was. Someplace between the repair shop and customer service and they just had to track it down. I told her I really didn't want it after being repaired and refinished, and could I get a steel framed gun instead and I would pay the difference. She said that she could do that. Well, after looking they had no steel framed J-frames in stock. She said she would do some more checking and call me back. About 2 hours later she called, they had 6 Model 36 classics shipping to a distributor and if I would accept one of them as a replacement, she would arrange it. I said sure, how much up charge? She said after all this mess....Nothing, enjoy your new gun.
Was it a mess, yes. Did they finally get things right. Yes.
I went to my FFL 2 days later and picked up the new 36 Classic. No transfer fee because the paper to the FFL states it is a replacement gun.

In the end it did work out, but what a hassle to get it resolved.

 

[Glock 'em down]

Did it have the big ol' zit on the side?