Purchased two 686+'s in March. Neither with fire a full cylinder without the cylinder locking in place or the hammer not being able to be fully pulled to the rear. In looking at the guns the extractor "star" does not have the "fingers" that rotate the cylinder are cut the with the same profile, and some of the surfaces have cuttings hanging of the rear of the extractor and probably rubbing the frame. Anybody have any machining issues with the new revolvers? Looks like the cutting bit was dull and did more scraping than cutting. I will be calling Smith this morning about the needed warranty work.
-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
New 686 Quality ??
- Thread starter RMS272829
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Glenn R. McMannly
Member
You should have bought a Rock Island M200. Mine has been flawless for 500 rounds.
Wow. One bad gun might be written off as a fluke, but two of them??
My new 629 mountain gun has chipping on the applied chrome finish on the trigger. It's very noticeable. How does that get by the QC department?
My new 629 mountain gun has chipping on the applied chrome finish on the trigger. It's very noticeable. How does that get by the QC department?
BoulderTroll
Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2010
- Messages
- 243
- Reaction score
- 323
A picture is worth 1000 words. Any chance you have photos of what you're describing on both these revolvers? In our armorer's courses we were taught that the primary cause of weapon malfunctions is the shooter. The second is the ammo being used. Everything else is a VERY distant third through infinity. The odds of you getting two new revolvers which will not function from the factory and having it not be ammo related are about a thousand to one. For reference, none of my Uberti revolvers would cycle with Sellier and Bellot ammo, but you haven't told us anything about what you were shooting. The gun itself is always the least likely cause for errors, but it is the first thing that most people jump to.
Pic's attached. There were two of us shooting the revolvers, both have been shooting over fifty years and have owned many S&W revolvers. The issues were the same for both of us. The ammo was winchester 38 spl+P. The first gun, img2727, stopped turning in two positions and the hammer would not lock to rear in a third position. The second gun, img2728, always stopped turning at the same position as shown in red.
Attachments
BoulderTroll
Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2010
- Messages
- 243
- Reaction score
- 323
I know it's hard to take close up photos, but those are so grainy it's hard to see what you're drawing attention to. I don't see anything odd in the pics. And so, it was all done with the same ammo. Not surprised in the least, and WWB? Again, not surprised.
I can see the poor machining just fine. Looks like there is a raised ring of metal all the way around the extractor, running through the ratchet area. Sad, but it seems that S&W no longer has craftsmen who build revolvers, but have an assembly line through which parts are assembled with little to no attention to quality. That works fairly well with plastic and MIM pistols, not so well with revolvers.
This is the 629 I bought a couple of months ago. I didn’t see it in the store lighting and took it right to their range. I shot it several times before I got it under the lights on my loading bench and seeing what looks like someone going over it with rough sandpaper before sending it out. It shoots good and I have no idea how they would fix that anyway so I guess it’s mine.
Attachments
BoulderTroll
Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2010
- Messages
- 243
- Reaction score
- 323
That's just Smith and Wesson's "brushed finish". Every S&W I've ever seen or owned that wasn't bead blasted looked exactly like that. I have no idea why they think that is a "finish", but apparently folks like it.
SgtDog0311
Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2023
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 12
I bought a 686 SSR late last year. Never fired a shot myself but found a piece of copper wedged between the forcing cone and frame. S&W agreed to take it back for repair but then ended up telling me it couldn't be repaired and sent a new replacement.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 19,335
- Reaction score
- 30,286
S&W's move to TN has afforded them the ability to now produce I/L free revolvers once again - long overdue! That said, they must now get their ducks in a row and stop shipping rubbish, set up a proper QC and a final inspection team run by someone who is a real S&W aficionado and running said department like he was going to buy each gun himself! Like I have stated numerous times, I blame their CEO - as he is the one allowing this to happen and has done little about it.
As someone in my own manufacturing business for most of my adult life there is just no justification for what has happened to S&W over the last 2 decades. Pathetic really! BTW, while S&W can't get out of their own way, Colt is hitting it out of the park!
As someone in my own manufacturing business for most of my adult life there is just no justification for what has happened to S&W over the last 2 decades. Pathetic really! BTW, while S&W can't get out of their own way, Colt is hitting it out of the park!
I really like my "new to me" Model 686-6 Plus 3", but it was manufactured in 2015. Seems like the manufacturing process and QC Inspection has really gone downhill this past decade. If I were you I'd definitely be contacting S&W Customer Service to resolve the problems with your two revolvers. Good luck!
I concur, that is awful machining and should be sent back to the factory. Personally, I avoid anything made by S&W later than 1993.
I’ve owned a number of stainless Smiths over the years and never had one that looked all scratched up like this one.
