Is this acceptable for S&W's fit and finish expectations?

Thanks to the internet, people have become more fond of looking for minor cosmetic issues to worry about than they do considering than actual performance.

There's a difficult to detect cosmetic flaw that in no way impacts the functioning of the revolver and someone is so concerned that they wonder if it must be returned. Amazing. For functioning issues, certainly there is an expectation of perfection but this is absurd.
 
The fact that you have to ask here, which you should, tells me you should send it back. Make them fix it, they will. That barrel should have done in the scrap heap but instead went to the production line. This is the product S&W wants out there representing their name? Embarrassing. Since you have it in your possession, I would take it to the range and fire it to verify point of impact, general function, get it hot to be sure the cylinder doesn't bind on the cone, etc. If it's going back for that issue might as well there aren't any other issues they'll need to address while it's there.
 
That's pretty noticeable to me, even in the thumbnail photo. It wouldn't be acceptable to me on a new gun. That's just me, though, because I often look at guns from an aesthetic standpoint, not just a functional standpoint.

That said, I can understand how a potential buyer could miss it in the initial look-over in an LGS.

Is it grounds for returning the gun? That's strictly a personal decision.
 
Here are a couple of pic's of my new 686-6+ 2.5" with similar deformities. I would have to say that this is the new normal and accept it, I have and do not think returning the gun would be worth the trouble. Not sure if they would do anything or if they did that it might be worse looking then now. Still think they make the best double action revolver out there.

686-6+.jpg


686-6+2.jpg
 
I used to be an insurance adjuster. The company told us to always replace a hood on a car not try to repair it. The reason being that the hood is always what a driver sees the most. I think that would apply here. At least see what S&W will do before making a decision. If nothing I would sell it. Life is too short to carry an ugly gun.
 
Thank you all for the great input!
I'm going to have to think on it a bit.

MarkAlt requested some photos of the whole gun, so here they are.

Thanks again,
Erik
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4076.jpg
    IMG_4076.jpg
    191.4 KB · Views: 46
  • IMG_4077.jpg
    IMG_4077.jpg
    173.3 KB · Views: 39
Here are a couple of pic's of my new 686-6+ 2.5" with similar deformities. I would have to say that this is the new normal and accept it, I have and do not think returning the gun would be worth the trouble.

They're production line guns. You guys would freak out if you saw the serrations on the backstrap of my early 70's vintage M67. The "new normal" has been "normal" for 40+ years, at least.
 
I would try some 5000 grit wet and dry sand paper, and then some Flitz polish.
That should do the trick in about five mins.
Nice pistol by the way, I wish I had bought the three inch barrel, instead of the two inch.:(
 
I bought a brand new Colt Government a few months ago and didn't find anything wrong with it. The fit and finish were very nice. I didn't like the idea of a composite main spring housing so I replaced it with a checked Smith Alexander steel one with the lanyard loop
I have a couple of scratches on it now but it was total slick when I bought it.
I don't much worry about the finish anymore. My guns all get used a lot and will get worn after a while. I can see how that would bother you on the milling. But that's up to you.
Peace,
gordon
 
Back
Top