Thanks...I thought it best to ask. I own four S & W N frames...every one has had what I consider serious issues. I had to send two back in the past. I know this is the S & W forum, with many members thinking highly of S & W, but I am not at all satisfied with the S & W brand. I take good care of my firearms and don't abuse them...yet the S &W's don't seem all that durable.
Model 29-6 has pushoff
- Thread starter WallyL
- Start date
bigggbbruce
Member
I have sent a few in and all were repaired at no cost to me. Being a safety issue they will jump to return that pistol to them. I have nothing BUT good things to say about Smith & Wesson warranty services.
Thanks. I am just amazed that a model 29 would have such issues...I never shot many heavy loads through it....I wonder how their 500 holds up!
No doubt you're disappointed, but I bought a new Stainless Super Blackhawk that NO-body could hit the broadside of a barn with. A friend who is an experienced hand loader bought it, certain that he could work up a great load? no luck
Send your Smith back to the factory, they will make it right and yes like most company's Smith is not the company they were, but they still make a very fine weapon.
I've shot numerous Redhawks, while rugged built, they look a little rugged, you bought the right gun to start with. Nothing else is a Smith and Wesson, and that's the main reason they are still here in this very difficult, litigious market!
Thank you...I will send it back. Once it is fixed and I am shooting it again, I will be another proud owner.
bigggbbruce
Member
Depending on what the tech finds they will probably drop in a new trigger, hammer and springs and call it good.
That's right, the 29-5 Classic DX that I traded on a 1991 Colt Combat Commander is probably the second most missed Smith I have ever sold. I had a pre-27 that I paid 450 dollars for that was just gorgeous, that's the first.
The 29-5 and 29-6 N Frame 44s are among the nicest, best shooting 44s that Smith ever made. The endurance package helped to make the Smiths far more durable, while maintaining their very classy feel...
I'm positive Smith and Wesson will make it right, since you shot it a bit, ask them for a super close going over and rectifying any possible issues to bring it back up to factory spec. I'd tell them I'm expecting a nice trigger as well as a safe weapon, you won't be disappointed.
I had a similar issue on an ANIB 29-2 from the very early 70's and yes I was disappointed and angry, but their gunsmith at the time did indeed replace the hammer and gave it a nice tune, its still a beauty.
Last edited:
Update..................
S & W gave me a Fed Ex shipping label...later today it'll be on its' way back to S & W.
Thank you everyone for your responses. I had issues with two Ruger Superblackhawks and had to send them back a no. of times. I shoot medium loads & quite a few .44 Specials in my .44 Magnum pistols. I take good care of them, but I get upset when they don't function as they should.
I'll report back what I am told after S & W repairs it.
S & W gave me a Fed Ex shipping label...later today it'll be on its' way back to S & W.
Thank you everyone for your responses. I had issues with two Ruger Superblackhawks and had to send them back a no. of times. I shoot medium loads & quite a few .44 Specials in my .44 Magnum pistols. I take good care of them, but I get upset when they don't function as they should.
I'll report back what I am told after S & W repairs it.
Same here, and I get a little disgusted when folks start making excuses for poor quality?? but Smith does tend to rectify their mistakes as well as they may, but sometimes quite frankly there is NO excuse for some of the stuff they send out.
But frankly Ruger is worse right now, but Smith did have some definite issues with the Shield in .40, and there were several "kabooms" that they really should have replaced weapons and did not, offered a "discount", that would have ticked me off??
The revolver I mentioned above did return from the factory with a broken rear sight, which scratched the top strap?? they offered to reblue it, I told them they weren't gonna get near it again. I had to wait nearly two months for a sight blade, which was a royal pain to change, I asked them to send me a rear sight assembly since they were out of sight blades, of course they refused...
HammeringHank
Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2013
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 2
Push Off
Hey Guys, WHAT is PUSH OFF.
Thanks, Hank
Hey Guys, WHAT is PUSH OFF.
Thanks, Hank
Actually, although the hammer block is one of the important passive safety devices built into the gun, the hammer block is not at work in this particular scenario (push off). The primary passive "safety" in the S&W revolver is the relationship between the rebound seat on the bottom of the hammer, and the hammer seat on top of the rebound slide.
If the hammer pushes off, or the gun is dropped while cocked and comes off the bevel of the trigger, both the hammer and the trigger return to their "at rest" positions. Due to the impetus from the rebound spring, the trigger and rebound slide assembly arrive ahead of the hammer, which places the hammer seat (on top of the rebound slide) in position to prevent the hammer from moving past it's "at rest" position, and the hammer nose (or the frame mounted firing pin) from entering and passing through the breechface.
Although the flag on the hammer block has been carried upward by the forward movement of the rebound slide, it is not touched by the hammer face in this particular scenario. (push off)
This mechanism, designed into the hammer and rebound works to prevent discharge of the gun, even if the hammer block has been removed.
The flag on the hammer block serves to block the hammer's forward movement if the gun is dropped on the hammer spur while at rest, and the hammer stud were to fail. This is why the "hammerless" models like the 640, for instance, don't have hammer blocks installed. Also, this is another reason why the rebound spring should not be altered on service guns, as it plays a critical role in the successful operation of the safety devices built into each revolver.
The photos, of a de-milled 686, serve to illustrate this important design......
action at rest:
trigger back, hammer down position-firing:
hammer seat - rebound seat:
Well done Sir !
I've never broken a Smith, can't say the same about My Redhawk however...
I have a Redhawk from many years ago. When it was new I was inspecting it one day and noticed that it felt like the hammer caught on something during a slow/controlled fall, with the trigger fully pressed. Odd. Made me wonder if continuing to shoot it might damage something on the hammer and trigger.
I sent it back to Ruger, asking them to check it. I got it back with a new cylinder, hammer and the entire trigger guard plate & mechanism. Left me the original frame and barrel. Guess whoever looked at it figured something was a bit out of kilter.
Last edited:
The link between the hammer and mainspring. I think there was a recall for this.
So what do you think of the Redhawk vs. an equivalent S & W model...how do they compare?
I own that Redhawk 5 1/2" and a 629-4 Classic 6 1/2". The revision of the 629 was supposed to be among the earliest to receive the "endurance" revision.
Even so, after the former revolver armorer at my agency had to address some carry-up issues a couple of times, after using some stout loads, I've mostly stopped using really heavy bullet weight Magnum loads on a consistent basis in that 629. I use my Redhawk for those.
I like both, but I suspect the Redhawk will better endure heavy loads for a longer period.
If I were getting another one nowadays, I'd probably opt for either the short-barrel Redhawk built on the Super Redhawk frame, and/or the 2.75" stubby Redhawk (with the better shaped grip). I had to have my grip frame modified to a Bird's Head many years ago, so it better fit my hand and was more controllable under recoil.
Even so, after the former revolver armorer at my agency had to address some carry-up issues a couple of times, after using some stout loads, I've mostly stopped using really heavy bullet weight Magnum loads on a consistent basis in that 629. I use my Redhawk for those.
I like both, but I suspect the Redhawk will better endure heavy loads for a longer period.
If I were getting another one nowadays, I'd probably opt for either the short-barrel Redhawk built on the Super Redhawk frame, and/or the 2.75" stubby Redhawk (with the better shaped grip). I had to have my grip frame modified to a Bird's Head many years ago, so it better fit my hand and was more controllable under recoil.
Papaw
Member
Wallyl earlier this year I realized my 29-2, which I bought new in the 80s, had developed push off. I called S&W and sent it off to them. They put in a new trigger, new cylinder stop, new hand assembly, put in a firing pin bushing and turned the barrel in and recut the forcing cone. My gun is pre-lifetime warranty so I had to pay 287 bucks. But my gun is safe to use and feels like new. And it shoots much better. I consider it money well spent and if you can get it done for free all the better.
Last edited:
Similar threads
