Model 69 Crane Gap

[ItchyScab]

Does the crane gap on my new Model 69 appear normal? If I rest my thumb on the side of the crane while working the action, I can feel the crane pushing against my digit.

Here the revolver is uncocked.


The hammer has been cocked in this picture.


The trigger has been pulled and is being held to prevent it from resetting.



Here is a picture of some tool marks.

 

[shocker]

Standard reply

How's it shoot?

 

[HamHands]

The bolt... aka cylinder catch hole, in the frame appears to be much larger diameter than the bolt head itself, the crane gap appears quite excessive almost credit card width/thickness gap sized in picture # 2... and from your pictures the hand slot appears to be milled at an askew slant and not at a true/strait up north and south cut, (but this could just be the angle of the picture and probably is just picture related...) Even so... Lots of ugly going on here. As Shocker asked though... have you shot it yet? These "problems" might just be aesthetically ugly but could have zero effect on functionality.

 

[rockquarry]

I called S&W about this very thing more than ten years ago regarding a new 5-shot J-frame stainless .357 with a 3" barrel and adjustable sights (don't remember model number). They said the condition was normal.

Whether or not this slop had an effect on accuracy or anything else, I can't say. Recoil was very unpleasant with .357 ammo. I kept the gun just long enough to know that I didn't like it anyway.

 

[GeoJelly]

Up front - I don't own one - that gap would bother my anal nature. That said, as mentioned above, how does it shoot? I would put an unprimed case in one chamber, cock it, and check the barrel-cylinder alignment with a flashlight from the muzzle end. If it shoots fine, doesn't spit any metal fragments, and appears to line up well - then I could live with it. There is an argument that the gap - seen on yours - reduces the potential problem of a few grains of powder preventing the yoke from closing completely. Sadly, it's not 1968 any more so there is more and more tolerance stacking showing up in recent S&W's ...

Itchy - I just noticed your screen name. Hopefully, it's something that penicillin will take care of ...

 

[ItchyScab]

I haven’t shot it yet. I will be taking it the range in a couple days.
The cylinder looks aligned with the forcing cone. There is a slight amount of play in the cylinder when cocked and absolutely zero play when it is fully locked. Hopefully it doesn’t spit fragments.

 

[Fishinfool]

My model 69 is the 2.75 inch version with the ball detent in a slightly different location than yours with the 4.2 inch barrel. Mine also has a slight gap between the frame and crane, that can be slightly widened with finger pressure on the opposite side of the cylinder. Maybe slightly more than my other traditional (non-ball detent) models.

That said, my 69 is very accurate, and does not spit. I wonder if the ball detent system used on the 69's contributes to the above issues, and is a characteristic more than an issue?

Larry

 

[HamHands]

My model 69 is the 2.75 inch version with the ball detent in a slightly different location than yours with the 4.2 inch barrel. Mine also has a slight gap between the frame and crane, that can be slightly widened with finger pressure on the opposite side of the cylinder. Maybe slightly more than my other traditional (non-ball detent) models.

That said, my 69 is very accurate, and does not spit. I wonder if the ball detent system used on the 69's contributes to the above issues, and is a characteristic more than an issue?

Larry

I was thinking the same thing... However, that is counterproductive as to what that extra ball detent/lock feature is supposed to do... which is Keeping the yoke/crane locked into it's most closed and tightest position with the crane very snugged and up against the frame... not pulling the two away from each other! And that wallowed out bolt hole is reminicent of something produced in a Chinese rail yard shop... Now that would piss me off the most. I've built 20 or so AR's... and when the receiver hammer and trigger pin holes aren't drilled to spec and are off-sized... coupled with hammer pins that rotate naturally from use, (just like a cylinder and center pin rotate with the action use on a revolver...) it only gets worse and worse over time!

 

[ralph7]

I agree with you that the ball detent should make the gap very tight.
That being said,the gap pictured isn't really excessive compared to a lot of revolvers I've seen. Don't think it will have an effect on accuracy.
Some of the largest gaps I had ever seen were on the models of 1988 and 1989 45 acp model 625's.

 

[Dave Lively]

The tool marks would bother me a little but would not affect how it shoots so I would live with it. But the gap would not bother me unless the gun was spitting lead. Some gap is normal. On my gun it looks like the the cylinder is pushed against the frame in the ejector rod channel to correctly position it so the gap has no effect on the timing. My gun does not have as much as yours but still has some and has never shaved lead. Taking close up pictures makes defects seem worse than they really are. The gap in the pictures below looks perfectly fine without magnification.

Hammer cocked:

Hammer down:

ETA: To directly answer your question, that gap looks a little larger than on my gun but still normal. Aside from the tool mark the only thing I see wrong with your gun is that it is much too clean.

 

[joe44va]

Looks just like mine, which shoots very well. Try it.

 

[junglefighter]

I have the 4.25"bbl. and mine has less gap than yours,but I have seen them with more and they shot well.I would not worry about it and just go shoot it. If there is a problem call S&W and they will take care of it.They are terrific revolvers.

 

[BLUEDOT37]

ItchyScab, your M69 is brand new & has a 4.2" bbl.?

If so, I wonder why S&W hasn't gone to the same style ball-detent that they went to on the new M69, & M66-8, snubbies when they came out?

One aspect of your style ball-detent locks, that has been argued about here before, is whether the ball should be in the V-notch or outside of it. (I think inside it.)

ItchyScab's pictures show his is outside slightly & Dave Lively's is inside. Seems to me if it's inside it'd likely have less gap & more resistant to movement?

The new style is hidden when the yoke's closed so you can't tell on them.

.

.

 

[Dave Lively]

ItchyScab
One aspect of your style ball-detent locks, that has been argued about here before, is whether the ball should be in the V-notch or outside of it. (I think inside it.)

ItchyScab's pictures show his is outside slightly & Dave Lively's is inside. Seems to me if it's inside it'd likely have less gap & more resistant to movement?

I think it looks that way in the previous pictures because of the camera angle. Mine is a little off the notch and pushes the crane towards the frame.

 

[Bill Lear]

And this is what you GET for buying a Smith and Wesson that rotates COUNTER-clockwise! So THERE!

What is causing the condition is the hand is bearing laterally against the ratchet applying lateral pressure to the cylinder and thus crane! Bear in mind that at full cock or full trigger pull, the hand is fully extended to a point where it is not "under" the drive portion of the ratchet, but is BESIDE the ratchet! This makes "timing" the action reasonable without super-precise fitting where the hand must index each chamber perfectly yet not hold the cylinder under pressure.

The FIX for your situation is EASY and much preferable to the opposite condition where the gun fails to "carry up!" The inside surface of the hand can be carefully (or indiscriminately ground if you're a risk taker!), honed down so it no longer applies so much lateral pressure when cocked. The key to doing such work is to remember there are 4 other locations on the ratchet where the hand finalizes its "carry up," so you must evaluate which shows the LEAST pressure and only hone to eliminate that ONE, accepting that some of the other four will still be under lateral pressure, or, you can proceed to step TWO and VERY carefully, hone - VERY carefully, the lateral contact surface of each ratchet to eliminate most, but not quite all, lateral force on the cylinder. S&W can do the work of course, and so too can any decent revolver smith.

Having material to remove is ALWAYS better than having excess space where the hand slips off the ratchet before full carry-up and is thus unable to consistently do so...much more likely on big, heavy cylinders such as the X-frames.

When an S&W is cocked, the hand is always trying to push the cylinder OUT of the frame an the only thing holding it in is the cylinder latch, and whatever spring-loaded ball detent such as on your (and my) M69! S&W made the center locking stud longer and uses stiffer springs in the cylinder latch and ejector star to prevent unlocking under hard recoil, but that's all that keeps things together when firing!

the tool marks have nothing at all to do with the cylinder issue.

BTW, the cylinder being "torqued" like that is certainly creating misalignment between chamber bore and forcing cone - but that's why we have forcing cones...to help transition the bullet into the barrel, but still, it's worth getting the issue corrected asap.

 

[scruffy]

I think it looks that way in the previous pictures because of the camera angle. Mine is a little off the notch and pushes the crane towards the frame.

That is exactly how my M66-8 (same ball detent set up) looks.I do not have the gap between the crane and frame the OP showed in the photos and the machining of the breech face and hole for the bolt are perfect.

However, it is easy to move the crane away from the frame and create the gap shown in the pics by exerting a little, (too little to me) pressure on the opposite side of the cylinder. I can not do that with my 686+ 3" with full length ejector rod. That said it shoots great and it has never shaved lead from timing being off.

 

[ItchyScab]

Spinning the cylinder and dry firing causes the ejector rod to loosen.
I talked to S&W customer service about this and was told to tighten the ejector rod using a pair of pliers and leather. I won’t be doing this, but I will be taking my Model 69 to a gunsmith.

 

[kaaskop49]

Spinning the cylinder and dry firing causes the ejector rod to loosen.
I talked to S&W customer service about this and was told to tighten the ejector rod using a pair of pliers and leather. I won’t be doing this, but I will be taking my Model 69 to a gunsmith.

I know you're taking the 69 to your 'smith (I would, too), but what poor advice from S&W. NEVER tighten the ejector rod without having empty casings in the chambers! I've never tightened an ejector rod, but I HAVE seen this advice about the casings several times on this forum. Good luck with your 69.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

 

[ItchyScab]

I know you're taking the 69 to your 'smith (I would, too), but what poor advice from S&W. NEVER tighten the ejector rod without having empty casings in the chambers! I've never tightened an ejector rod, but I HAVE seen this advice about the casings several times on this forum. Good luck with your 69.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

Sorry, I forget to mention he did advise I put a few empty casings in the cylinder.

 

[nipperdog]

I had the 4.2" M69 which I Purchased in 2014 when they were first released. I never cared for the way that they did the ball detent, by having it engage into a notch, ground into the ejector shroud. The gun shot fine, and the Crane to Frame gap was good.
When the new 2.75 Version was released I Purchased one of them and am real pleased with the way they re designed the detent. It is similar to my 460V X Frame's detent. Both 69s shot very well, and I finally sold the 4.2" on GB and kept my 2.75. I use my 69 Primarily with Hot 44 Specials, but she handles Magnums very well too. Concerning the OP's 69, I would send it back to S&W for
the Crane to Frame Gap issue...……….Lew