Huge mistake with new 57!!

GJS did this happen the first time you cleaned yours or did it take a few cleanings? Was it only on the cylinder face or the whole cylinder/gun? You mentioned that S&W quoted 7 months on re-bluing? Did they re-blue yours under warranty?
 
So Smith & Wesson now uses a blueing that will be destroyed by the one gun cleaner that millions of customers have been using for as long as they've been alive? I cant even wrap my head around that. That's like making a car that will blow up from putting gasoline in the tank...or a windshield that will melt from having glass cleaner sprayed on it. Who is running that place these days??
 
After reading this thread, you guys have me spooked! I used our beloved Hoppe's #9 the first couple of times I cleaned my 442, but after reading some of the horror stories of what the solvent might do to alloy frames I switched to M-Pro 7 (good stuff BTW). The last time I cleaned my revolver I noticed some wear on the front of the cylinder where the charge holes line up with the forcing cone. I thought it was normal wear after 500+ rounds. Now I'm wondering if this has something to do with the "new" S&W finishing practices? See the pic below:

View attachment 157240

That cylinder kind of looks like the chambers are inserts. Are they protruding above the cylinder face? Hard to tell from the pics and I am not familiar with the newer models. Looks like the finish is flaking.

I believe that Hoppe's #9 formula was changed some time ago but dont know why or how. Something to do with the EPA I think.
 
You know, I can handle the lock . I don't like it, but it is what it is. Bluing that is easily damaged by one of the most common cleaning solvents in the world is unacceptable.

I've long been a fan of S&W, even the new guns, but this is truly disturbing and makes me question the quality of their current products...


Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk
 
ralph7, maybe so but, I'd still like poster to answer, please? Relax, no dig intended. I believe this is still an open forum where questions can be asked?
Steve
 
Yeah IronHead, I do think the charging holes are some sort of insert. They are perfectly flush with the front of the cylinder. Luckily the charging holes were the only blued portions of the cylinder. I followed through with the cold bluing and here's what I got. Not bad if I do say so myself. YEAH Birchwood Casey! Now I won't have to give up my EDC for a 2-3 week trip to the mother ship! It sounds like the OP's whole cylinder was blued and consequently ruined by the Hoppes. Good luck GJS and let us know how it turned out.

image.jpg
 
Last edited:
JohnHandcock: Thanks for the info. Chamber inserts. I cant imagine why they would do that. Must be some kind of alloy. Nice job on the cold blue.
 
Ok we need to know an answer on this?

Is it the solvent?

Is it a change in the bluing process?

I just retired 10 years ago from one of the top ten engineering groups in the world. Worked in the world headquarters engineering lab. We did R&D ne product development, life testing, accident investigations. We also did outside vendors product testing for reliability.
My point is I'm sure s&w has an r&d lab and your solvent manufacturer has a test lab too. There probably not talking when I think they should be?
I think if they did talk together then we would be better advised on what solvent to use? What solvents not to use?

Like where I worked. R&D leads to engineering change, with testing scheduled at a later time. By then, $$$$ has been spent on R&D and EC incorporation, and any testing problems that show up are too "minor" to justify backing up. We experienced that when the EPA required us to change from a solvent based prime to a water based prime. Problem was, the prime and paint "burned off" in flight.
 
Yeah IronHead, I do think the charging holes are some sort of insert. They are perfectly flush with the front of the cylinder. Luckily the charging holes were the only blued portions of the cylinder. I followed through with the cold bluing and here's what I got. Not bad if I do say so myself. YEAH Birchwood Casey! Now I won't have to give up my EDC for a 2-3 week trip to the mother ship! It sounds like the OP's whole cylinder was blued and consequently ruined by the Hoppes. Good luck GJS and let us know how it turned out.

View attachment 157363

Don't forget to oil or grease the freshly cold blued places. They will rust.
 
My 57 less than a day old. Went to range and fired a few rounds and was greatly impressed. Very pleasant to shoot and accurate and beautiful. Came home to clean and right away I noticed the bluing coming off the front of the cylinder. On the sides there was only a very, very small spot that looked damaged. That's where I think something is different with the process used on the front of the cylinder. Just 2 weeks before I got the 57, I got a new 6.5 inch STAINLESS 44magnum. I think I will test fire it today to see if there are any issues. I guess you don't know what you don't know. I also really appreciate all the input on this. I think we all learned something from this unfortunate issue. Thanks once again. I will keep everyone informed.
 
Question did you let the CLP mix with Hoppe at the same time?

Just wondering what can happen if you mixed them during cleaning?
 
Thanks for the warning.
If Hoppe's #9 removes the finish then that finish needs to be changed, I don't know what they are trying to do but that finish will not be durable at all.
Any problem with stainless steel guns becoming damaged by cleaners?

Gary
 
I've always used Hoppes to clean all my guns except on the nickel' also I was always told never to use a lead cleaning cloth on a blued gun.
I guess if this is what Smith has done to there bluing process whether EPA invoked or not, which IMHO the EPA needs to be put in there place if not out of business. I guess there are no new blued Smiths in my future!
I've always loved the original bluing on the older Smiths and my Winchesters!
Never had a problem with my stainless though! ;)
 
Well, the 57 was just delivered by FedEx. I was surprised to say the least when I saw the truck stop. The 57 has been returned to its normal beauty. A lengthy list of parts that were also inspected was included. A short note from the workman was that this will happen again when I shoot it. I certainly realize this is just a tool, however every S&W I have shot looks like new. I take great pride in them and will do all I can to provide proper maintenance...I appreciate the fast service S&W provided in rebluing the cylinder. Looking ahead I doubt I will add to my S&W collection any blued ones. This is just my opinion and not a complaint on S&W. I see several stainless S&W being added. Once again I want to thank S&W customer service in providing service to restore my beautiful 57. Thanks everyone for listening and providing great input. GJS
 
My 57 less than a day old. Went to range and fired a few rounds and was greatly impressed. Very pleasant to shoot and accurate and beautiful.

I been a 44mag redhawk & super Blackhawk guy all my life since the mid 70's. I purchased a new S&W M58 in 41mag w/4" barrel.
The first time I shot it, it took me just six rounds to fall in love with it. What a pleasure to shoot I guess because of the balance of the power to weight ratio. What an excellent revolver the S& W really is. For sure we need more N frames.

I'm glad your problem worked out ok.

I'll still buy s&w blued guns.
 
Last edited:
If S&W had to change their bluing process due to EPA regulations, what about the other manufacturers and refinishers?
 
Back
Top