New Model 69 back to S&W*update 3/29/17*

[7tenz]

>>3/29-Got off the phone with S&W and it's repaired, I hope. It's been in the shipping dept for 2 days. Said they repaired the yoke.

Do warranty repairs normally take a month?<<

I was playing with my brand new Model 69 44 mag when I got it home (Friday, Jan 13th) and after a while I noticed the front crane lock no where near engages the indent on the cylinder ejection rod shroud. In fact it misses the protrusion that is supposed to compress the ball bearing just before it is fully closed.

They sent me a shipping label pdf file and I sent it out via FedEx today. I'll keep you posted as to how they handle it.

 

[Ashlander]

Yes, please keep us posted. That photo is a good one. I can't help wonderin what the fix would be. Maybe they can just replace the barrel sleeve.

 

[Jul]

Looks like the barrel Shroud is way out of alignment.

 

[glenwolde]

Did you see this thread..

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/360108-anyone-new-model-69-a.html

 

[StakeOut]

There's no fixing that.That's a crack in the frame.

You should get a new gun with your original serial number.

 

[7tenz]

Yes, please keep us posted. That photo is a good one. I can't help wonderin what the fix would be. Maybe they can just replace the barrel sleeve.

I'm a crappy photographer, just got amazingly lucky with a cell phone.

 

[Bullet Bob]

"That's a crack in the frame."

My eyes must be worse than I thought.

 

[7tenz]

There's no fixing that.That's a crack in the frame.

You should get a new gun with your original serial number.

Where do you see a crack? If it is then yea, they owe me a new gun. It was bought brand new and I never fired it.

 

[7tenz]

Looks like the barrel Shroud is way out of alignment.

The shroud is keylocked in and the barrel tightened against it. The shroud cannot be canted.

Update w/pic-Look at the #1 area.

 

[Jul]

The shroud is keylocked in and the barrel tightened against it. The shroud cannot be canted.

If that's the case then the Ball in the crane is worthless. It looks to me as if the Shroud should be turned counterclockwise a tad. Just saying.

 

[Jul]

This is what it should look like I guess? Not doing much by the looks of it. Damn...And I came this close to buying one today.

 

[Gripgrabber]

Wow that's crazy! I will have to look for that as I am on the hunt for a 69 myself
Good luck
SEMPER PARATUS

 

[Engineer1911]

We have a new standard for "Close Enough" .

 

[stykshooter]

I was just checking my 69. I think what the problem is that the ball bearing isn't protruding enough to engage the slot at the bottom of the ejector rod shroud. Your bearing seems to be recessed somewhat while mine is at least 50% or more proud of the bushing. I imagine it is probably as simple as a spring problem inside the recess below the bearing. Mine has a wicked strong spring pushing it out.

 

[BKDinTexas]

You do understand that the ball bearing is not supposed to set fully into the indentention/groove in the shroud. It is offset on purpose, the purpose being to avoid possible slack or wiggle if the notch was/is not perfectly sized. It is actually designed that way and allows for wear over time as well.

 

[7tenz]

You do understand that the ball bearing is not supposed to set fully into the indentention/groove in the shroud. It is offset on purpose, the purpose being to avoid possible slack or wiggle if the notch was/is not perfectly sized. It is actually designed that way and allows for wear over time as well.

May be, but mine makes no contact anywhere.

 

[7tenz]

I was just checking my 69. I think what the problem is that the ball bearing isn't protruding enough to engage the slot at the bottom of the ejector rod shroud. Your bearing seems to be recessed somewhat while mine is at least 50% or more proud of the bushing. I imagine it is probably as simple as a spring problem inside the recess below the bearing. Mine has a wicked strong spring pushing it out.

Yes, I see that. I went back to the store to look at the display model 69 and it is closer to engagement than mine, but still off a little.

 

[7tenz]

Wow that's crazy! I will have to look for that as I am on the hunt for a 69 myself
Good luck
SEMPER PARATUS

Good idea.

I bought a 1006 back in the 90's that had a gouge in the barrel. They replaced it ok, but still maybe I'm just not lucky having to deal with two warranty jobs.

 

[7tenz]

I was just checking my 69. I think what the problem is that the ball bearing isn't protruding enough to engage the slot at the bottom of the ejector rod shroud. Your bearing seems to be recessed somewhat while mine is at least 50% or more proud of the bushing. I imagine it is probably as simple as a spring problem inside the recess below the bearing. Mine has a wicked strong spring pushing it out.

That may be possible too. Over in calgun forum one other 69 owner showed a pic and his detent ball, or is it a plunger, seemed to protrude s little more also. I did try oil and working it in but to no avail.

 

[PatriotX]

Mine is clocked the same as yours, but the bearing protrudes much more. It only engages one side of the groove, assisting in lock-up when closed.


I bet S&W will make this right quickly.

 

[Jul]

The design intent of the ball detent is such that it is off-center by .010" nominally to account for manufacturing variances
and always push the yoke closed into the frame.

this is what it looks like.

 

[FWP]

The design intent of the ball detent is such that it is off-center by .010" nominally to account for manufacturing variances and always push the yoke closed into the frame.

this is what it looks like.

Jul

Thanks for posting the thumbnail. I was concerned that mine was not locking up but after looking at your photo I can see that mine looks just like the thumbnail you posted.

 

[7tenz]

The design intent of the ball detent is such that it is off-center by .010" nominally to account for manufacturing variances
and always push the yoke closed into the frame.

this is what it looks like.

I see, that is what it's SUPPOSED to look like. Mine even clears the downward protrusion that compresses the ball/plunger just before closing as I stated earlier.

 

[ladder13]

There's no fixing that.That's a crack in the frame.

You should get a new gun with your original serial number.

This is a crack in the frame, a 642

You won't get the original serial number if S&W replaces the gun, they issue a new serial number.
I had that done with the 642. S&W will not ship the gun directly to you, it must go to an FFL, their policy. The good thing is they pay for any FFL fee's, if you ask.

I had a Colt SAA replaced, they sent it directly to me with a new serial number. Go figure.

 

[7tenz]

This is a crack in the frame, a 642

You won't get the original serial number if S&W replaces the gun, they issue a new serial number.
I had that done with the 642. S&W will not ship the gun directly to you, it must go to an FFL, their policy. The good thing is they pay for any FFL fee's, if you ask.

I had a Colt SAA replaced, they sent it directly to me with a new serial number. Go figure.

Mine isn't cracked. Unless S&W cracked it during the factory test fire, if they still do that. My gun is new and unfired by me.

 

[ladder13]

Mine isn't cracked. Unless S&W cracked it during the factory test fire, if they still do that. My gun is new and unfired by me.

Correct, I was illustrating what a real cracked frame looks like.

 

[twodog max]

The frame does not look cracked to me either.
On my 69 the detent ball is not fully seated in the notch. However mine is the best shooting 44 I own or have ever owned. And that includes several Model 29's and 629's. So as far as I am concerned it is no big deal. To me performance is what matters. Unless there was a major structural defect that made the revolver unsafe I would shoot it first before sending it back. With the current warranty shooting it will have no outcome on the warranty.

 

[Jul]

The ball detent is something they added for whatever reason. The thing is I never had a revolver fly open or come apart that didn't have it. I say shoot the heck out of it. What's the worse that can happen? I doubt you'll want to be shooting full power 44mag loads all the time anyway. I also have heard many others say how accurate they are.

 

[7tenz]

Too late. It's almost to S&W as I write, via FedEx Express.

 

[steelslaver]

The ball is not supposed to go to the center of the notch and wasn't designed too. By only contacting the one side it is pressing the yoke towards the closed position. Your cylinder would not fly open if the ball was missing, just like one that has the lug on the barrel would not fall open if the plunger wwas missing. BUT, as a S$W rotates the cylinder towards the yoke it would allow the force of rotating cylinder to open the yoke slightly on cycling causing the chamber throat and barrel to become very slightly out of alignment causing spitting and poor accuracy. That is why from lock needs to be on a S&W and why the triple locks were so great. Third lock right at yoke. A colt needs no from lock up as its cylinder rotates the other way moving the yoke closed as it cycles.

The model 69 of ops in question looks like the yoke is not fully closing and the ball is not working correctly. The top of the yoke should meet the frame tighter. This is what often occurs when some cowboy slams the cylinder open and closed and slightly bends the yoke and or frame.