Got my 617 back from warranty work, S&W destroyed the frame

afultz075 said:
Well I already typed my letter and packed the gun up to be sent back as it makes me sick every time I look at that crack. Just need to get a shipping label to slap on the box and send it back to S&W where it belongs. It took me two hours from the time I opened the original package until I packed it up again to be sent back. Unbelievable.


I can't say S&W is the only company i've had QC issues with. I had to send the Ruger LCP I used to own back for a deep tooling mark in the chamber and I had a Single Six with an off-center crown. Actually, thinking about all the different makes of handguns I own, about the only two manufacturers i've never had trouble with have been CZ and the 3 Springfield 1911's I own are perfect as well.
Click to expand...

Sorry for your luck. But you make a good point. Quality control on S&W and Ruger handguns has gotten bad. Also, S&W is not the only gun company that can't fix a gun right the first time. I bought a brand new Ruger GP100 about two years ago and the revolver would lockup firing at the range. The revolver was ok dry firing. Two trips to Ruger and they say "there is nothing wrong with the revolver". I have had others say there is a problem including a gunsmith.
Bottom line. With todays quality control issues and sometimes poor customer service, I prefer to buy the older S&W revolvers and Ruger revolvers.
Regards,
Howard
 
I'm glad they fixed it for you.

Don't be too hard on S&W. I went off them because of the quality of a 686 snub I had and went to Rugers. The two I bought (an SR9C and GP100) had issues that needed correcting.

To be fair to Ruger, they fixed the problems very speedily and their CS was beyond polite and helpful.

I have been eyeing a spanky new 686 for myself and have been fondling several in the gun shops. All of them had perfect barrels and fit and finish was excellent.

If I do get a dud, I am confident S&W will fix it.
 
I didn't realize Rugers had problems too since I don't own any. Does anyone belong to the Ruger forum and are their QC issues talked about?
Admittedly, another company having QC issues is no excuse for S&W having them.
 
I can't believe that they think that a good QC dept. is more expensive than a full time repair dept. Just the word of mouth is more damaging to their reputation, than having a QC crew, manned by 'qualified' gunsmiths, to catch these things before they get out the door.

EarlFH
 
"Appearance-wise, there's always the plug." QUOTE

Forgive my ignorance, but where can you get this "plug"? Other than cosmetically covering up the hole, I presume, does the plug render the lock to be inoperative-so that a failure of same won't tie the gun up at the worst possible moment? Thanks.
 
I hate to say this, but until things change, the only new S&W i'd buy is a J frame...the only new Colt i'd buy is a 1911...we are/were spoiled with the finer old quality.
 
I feel everyone's pain. Here's my list: New 340 M&P back; new Ruger LCP back twice (they replaced the gun); and new Springfield 1911 MilSpec back twice.

I'm considering a new gun but may have to go the used route. What is going on out there?
 
Old cop said:
I feel everyone's pain. Here's my list: New 340 M&P back; new Ruger LCP back twice (they replaced the gun); and new Springfield 1911 MilSpec back twice.

I'm considering a new gun but may have to go the used route. What is going on out there?
Click to expand...

It's pretty much, the "I don't give a **** attitude, and hurry up and give me my paycheck on Friday".....
 
Not to speak ill of 'any mfg' in the US.....I had a KelTec that had many fine qualities and several foul treacherous faults that took THREE trips back to repair...and the final trip back to me resulted in selling it to my gunsmith as that's what he was looking for.

And I don't want to get into some other issues with a rifle that had so many issues the dealer took it back and returned my purchase price.

Over the years I've had plenty go back to the factory....from most of the makers still in business, and many of those were 20 or 30 years ago when I bought 'em new and had to return them.
 
Occasional bad guns from Smith are nothing new. I sent my
Mountain Revolver (1990) right back within a week. It had numerous
problems to the extent they replaced the frame. They overstamped
the serial. It looks kinda funky. I hope the law never has to look at it :)
What I got back was the tightest S&W I own and one of my
favorites to this day.

Recently bought a Charter Bulldog that had so much endplay
and headspace that the firing pin didn't reach the primer. The
cylinder was loosy-goosy. Just got it back and they replaced the
barrel and crane, setting the cylinder back where it belongs. So far so
good. I have not fired it yet but it functions properly with the
Triple-K snap caps.

What I don't get, as an engineer myself, is why don't these businesses
realize that getting it right the first time might take a little longer
and cost a little more but would save them money in the long
run. Maintenance costs mucho bux.

...Nemo...
 
I had a friend that bought a new 629 back in the 80's-when he went to shoot it for the first time the firing pin would hit in- between the cartridge chamber holes-there was no way that his 629 was even test-fired at the factory. S&W lost a customer that day-when S&W sent the 629 back to him properly timed, he quickly sold it. He never bought another S&W again.
 
Change subject a bit but same topic- bought a TS .22 conversion for my GLOCK 2nd gen G17 -Back to company twice and still would not work on my gun or any other 1st- 2nd- 3rd- 4 th gen we have tried it on but the company swears it works when they have it. Same ammo etc. It must transform in-transit to me ?? Baloney
 
I don't own a 617, but, after buying my 1981 vintage 34-1 last year (and after owning a taurus 94 that we'll just forget about), I started paying a lot of attention to any thread that talked about .22 revolvers. Whether they are 617's, 34's, colts, taurus, rugers or whatever. Am I missing something, or are .22 revolvers generally problematic? The 34 only holds 6 rounds, but after a bit of shooting, ejection becomes problematic - you have to clean the cylinders after every few shots). The rugers go to 8 rounds, the taurii to 9 - I know for a fact that the taurii 9 shooters are virtually impossible to extract with the extractor rod, you have to do them one-at-a-time. I imagine the new SP101 isn't shipping anymore (they only shipped one batch) because they all went back with bent extractor rods. I now understand why Ruger stuck with the Single Six's for 100 years - because you really have to use a ramrod to extract the casings - one at a time.

Are .22 revo's typically that problematic? Or am I 'attention focusing' on the problems?
 
Sorry to hear of your troubles, but Smith & Wesson will make it right. They are one of the few companies that do stand behind their product, even if their current QC seems to be non-existent. I am sure it is a company decision to spend less on in-house QC and just repair the (relatively) few that get sent back.....Sucks to be the one that has to do that, though. In the long run they will lose customer loyalty. But no companies focus on the long run anymore, just next quarter's profits.
 
M3Stuart said:
I don't own a 617, but, after buying my 1981 vintage 34-1 last year (and after owning a taurus 94 that we'll just forget about), I started paying a lot of attention to any thread that talked about .22 revolvers. Whether they are 617's, 34's, colts, taurus, rugers or whatever. Am I missing something, or are .22 revolvers generally problematic? The 34 only holds 6 rounds, but after a bit of shooting, ejection becomes problematic - you have to clean the cylinders after every few shots). The rugers go to 8 rounds, the taurii to 9 - I know for a fact that the taurii 9 shooters are virtually impossible to extract with the extractor rod, you have to do them one-at-a-time. I imagine the new SP101 isn't shipping anymore (they only shipped one batch) because they all went back with bent extractor rods. I now understand why Ruger stuck with the Single Six's for 100 years - because you really have to use a ramrod to extract the casings - one at a time.

Are .22 revo's typically that problematic? Or am I 'attention focusing' on the problems?
Click to expand...

Maybe modern ones, but my twenty-five year old Mod. 63 has been flawless...for 25 years.....
 
All the bad old guns have been trashed already. Time filter. I have a an IL 617P which has been flawless and heavily used. Better to work with S&W than to drop them. That practice in general could eventually eliminate all manufacturers.
 
There are a few of us still around who have never bought a defective new S&W revolver. I have a used one from '96 and '99, but the rest are from '01 or later. Other than two poorly fitted Eagle boot grips on my two PC627 UDRs, they have been perfect. I've also owned Bangor Punta-era S&W's (80's) - ANIB, even. One had more QC issues than the worst Ruger I've ever owned - and that's saying a lot. Thirty years ago, S&W was Brazilian owned - then the British had it. Now it's American owned. Thank God it's not the same company it once was! There would never have been an M&P series - or .500 Magnums. And, the IL is an ugly wart - I'll agree to that - but it's really innocuous. They've built IL-equipped revolver for ten years now - and have yet to spend a dime defending themselves from a lawsuit over it's inclusion or use.

I am sorry for the comedy of errors the OP had with his new 617. You shouldn't have gotten a bad example to begin with - and certainly, that crack should have been found before it left the repair department. But... I feel villified that he had a good final outcome. Sadly, we never hear from the happy owners - just those folks who have had the poor QC examples. Maybe it's time for a 'happy' thread?

Stainz
 
M3Stuart said:
I don't own a 617, but, after buying my 1981 vintage 34-1 last year (and after owning a taurus 94 that we'll just forget about), I started paying a lot of attention to any thread that talked about .22 revolvers. Whether they are 617's, 34's, colts, taurus, rugers or whatever. Am I missing something, or are .22 revolvers generally problematic? The 34 only holds 6 rounds, but after a bit of shooting, ejection becomes problematic - you have to clean the cylinders after every few shots). The rugers go to 8 rounds, the taurii to 9 - I know for a fact that the taurii 9 shooters are virtually impossible to extract with the extractor rod, you have to do them one-at-a-time. I imagine the new SP101 isn't shipping anymore (they only shipped one batch) because they all went back with bent extractor rods. I now understand why Ruger stuck with the Single Six's for 100 years - because you really have to use a ramrod to extract the casings - one at a time.

Are .22 revo's typically that problematic? Or am I 'attention focusing' on the problems?
Click to expand...

IMO the issue is that some 22LR AMMO is Problematic.

I have a 1992 vintage 617 and extraction isn't a problem at all, however when shooting Winchester Wildcat or the 500 bulk pak, loading becomes an issue after about 50-60 rounds downrange. It will start with needing a firm push to fully seat a fresh cartridge and by the time 75 rounds have been fired it gets bad enough a hammer might be needed. Since I'm not about to use a hammer to seat a rimfire cartridge in the cylinder I'll just pack it up and take it home. Where cleaning it up well takes about 2 hours of work between soaking it and scrubbing the chambers. Oddly enough the barrel doesn't seem to lead up at all, it's just the filth that accumulates in the chambers that's the problem.

Now contrast the issues with that cheap Winchester with the Federal 550 Bulk ammo. With this ammo I can shoot 200 rounds without any issues with either ejection or loading. Start to finish and the casings come out easy and drop right into the chambers. Another plus is that cleanup takes only 30 to 40% of the work that cleaning up after shooting the Winchester takes. The only downside is that group sizes with the Federal run about 40% larger than with the Winchester.
 
M3Stuart said:
I don't own a 617, but, after buying my 1981 vintage 34-1 last year (and after owning a taurus 94 that we'll just forget about), I started paying a lot of attention to any thread that talked about .22 revolvers. Whether they are 617's, 34's, colts, taurus, rugers or whatever. Am I missing something, or are .22 revolvers generally problematic? The 34 only holds 6 rounds, but after a bit of shooting, ejection becomes problematic - you have to clean the cylinders after every few shots). The rugers go to 8 rounds, the taurii to 9 - I know for a fact that the taurii 9 shooters are virtually impossible to extract with the extractor rod, you have to do them one-at-a-time. I imagine the new SP101 isn't shipping anymore (they only shipped one batch) because they all went back with bent extractor rods. I now understand why Ruger stuck with the Single Six's for 100 years - because you really have to use a ramrod to extract the casings - one at a time.

Are .22 revo's typically that problematic? Or am I 'attention focusing' on the problems?
Click to expand...

Just found this forum and your posting, and would like to reply. I have three S&W .22 revolvers, including one model 63 and two model 317 AirLites. I have also had several Kit Guns and model 17 K-22s in the past.

Over the years, I have found that the only .22 ammo that reliably extracts from these revolvers is the Remington Hollow Point in the green box. Every other brand I've tried binds up in the chambers and is very difficult to extract.

I don't know why this is so problematic for me, but it is.

I'd be interested to see what you experience with the Remington ammo.
 
Upon further examination of my "repaired" Charter Bulldog,
the front crane latch, which did work, no longer engages properly.
I am going to have to send it back a second time :(
Once it is good I want to get the action improved.
It may be more than 6 months between the time I got the gun
and when I get to actually shoot it.
Feh.

...Nemo...

sorry for the rant
 
nharrold said:
Just found this forum and your posting, and would like to reply. I have three S&W .22 revolvers, including one model 63 and two model 317 AirLites. I have also had several Kit Guns and model 17 K-22s in the past.

Over the years, I have found that the only .22 ammo that reliably extracts from these revolvers is the Remington Hollow Point in the green box. Every other brand I've tried binds up in the chambers and is very difficult to extract.

I don't know why this is so problematic for me, but it is.

I'd be interested to see what you experience with the Remington ammo.
Click to expand...

I typically shoot: the same remington HP you mention (green and yellow bulk pack), Remington T-bolt, CCI mini-mag (both HP and SP), Winchester bulk - Super X maybe, some CCI stingers and probably a couple others I can't think of right now - oh, and Federal blue stuff.

There's an old saying: "The only consistent feature of all your problems is YOU". So, I'm guessing I just need to work on it some more.
 
ladder13 said:
I didn't realize Rugers had problems too since I don't own any. Does anyone belong to the Ruger forum and are their QC issues talked about?
Admittedly, another company having QC issues is no excuse for S&W having them.
Click to expand...

I do and yes, there are those that have the same problems with Ruger's as well. I have only ever had 1 issue with a firearm and it was a Ruger MKIII. My Uncle put the mag in backwards. Cost him $150 after it was all said and done - basically a new gun in the end! I do not generally buy new guns though. The vast majority of my modest collection is used. Maybe 6-7 are new, all the others are used. I think we expect new guns to be free from defect and fail to inspect them as thoroughly as we do used ones. It is the same with new/used cars. QC is probably statistically the same as in the past, but seems more frequent due to the increased production. So, from a percentage standpoint all is status quo. From a purely numbers stand point, it is up and the dissatisfied bark alot more than the satisfied!
 
ladder13 said:
I didn't realize Rugers had problems too since I don't own any. Does anyone belong to the Ruger forum and are their QC issues talked about?
Admittedly, another company having QC issues is no excuse for S&W having them.
Click to expand...

I belong to two Ruger forums, albeit not as long of a period as this forum. I see some of the same issues, Ruger seems to take care of them "relatively" well, one of the common gripes is when a gun is sent back with internal aftermarket parts installed (Wolff springs, Power Custom hammer/trigger sets, etc.) and it comes back with all factory parts... Ruger's policy as explained by CS, if a gun comes in non-factory, it goes out factory original specs, because they won't assume liability for anything happening due to the custom parts. If they left them in, it would be considered tacit approval by Ruger.

My own experience was with a new Ruger Vaquero with the "color cased" finish, a small area on the frame had no finish, just plain steel.

Sent it back (on my dime), it was return a few weeks later with a great finish and some extra work must of been performed as the sides of the hammer were polished and the action was smooth enough to generate one of those "particular" :eek: dreams... it wasn't that way when I sent it off.

I have 2 other Blackhawks, SP101, Speed Six, 10/22 and a Deerfield carbine... all are without a hitch.
 
nharrold said:
Just found this forum and your posting, and would like to reply. I have three S&W .22 revolvers, including one model 63 and two model 317 AirLites. I have also had several Kit Guns and model 17 K-22s in the past.

Over the years, I have found that the only .22 ammo that reliably extracts from these revolvers is the Remington Hollow Point in the green box. Every other brand I've tried binds up in the chambers and is very difficult to extract.

I don't know why this is so problematic for me, but it is.

I'd be interested to see what you experience with the Remington ammo.
Click to expand...

I have a '50's vintage K22. It shoots with 100% reliability. The problem I have is with Remington Thunderbolts. They lead the bore so bad it is ridiculous. No other ammo does that in this gun so far. The bore itself if not rough by any standard.
 
I have over 25 Smith's and 1 GP-100 3 inch .357. The GP is the one I sleep with.
 
That is the exact reason why I will never buy a new gun from SMith and Wesson ever again. They have lost pride in workmanship and also have no quality control, its sad. Also, I will never send a gun to the performance center idiots to have work done again, those guys do not know craapp.
Eric
 
Hey guys,
Finally got to shoot the 617 two weeks after I got it back. This story has a happy ending after all. She's a fantastic shooter! And i'm happy to report no problems whatsoever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ddeanjohnson
  • Locked
WITHDRAWN -- Collection reduction: 40 guns (15 S&W + Colts, etc.)
Replies
26
Views
11K
ddeanjohnson
ddeanjohnson
S
617 Action Work - Gunsmith Recommendation
Replies
8
Views
7K
roaddog28
roaddog28
one eye joe
THE NEW 586
Replies
21
Views
7K
stantheman86
S
F
627 Performance Center - Fail or make it right
Replies
24
Views
22K
muddocktor
muddocktor
T
  • Locked
S&W 5906 PPC9 6" (BACK IN SAFE NO LONGER FOR SALE)
Replies
7
Views
6K
TampaSS
T

Latest posts

Back
Top