Questions about picking up a new to me 617-3

[Kenneth07ex]

My FFL received my 617-3 in today's mail, so I went to pick it up. Unfortunately they sent the gun, but not the necessary paper work. So I got to look at it, but not to take it home.

The gun looks in excellent used condition. But I noticed the rear sight was all the way to the right. My first thought was a canted barrel. If it's canted, then its very slight. Because I couldn't see anything amiss. Will S&W still warranty this older model? Are the newer barrels the same? Is their anything else I should know, or check concerning this development before I take delivery tomorrow?

Hopefully the previous owner just had the sight to the side for some other reason. I know they say its for windage, but once set I've never touched any of my adjustable sights ever again.

 

[joe44va]

I bought a used 629 once with the rear sight all the way to the left. Guy said it was just plain inaccurate. Came with 44 rounds of 44 mag.
Turned out that the rear sight was loose. It is now one of the most accurate revolvers that I have. If the previous owner used too much trigger finger it may have caused this. Ask if you can try it out.

 

[Kenneth07ex]

Thank you for your response. That kind of scenario is what I'm hoping for. But trying it out isn't really an option, since this is a tiny establishment, with no range. One thing is certain. The sights are fully right. And the barrel looks straight. Seems that a cant that required that much compensation, would at least be noticeable. So I'm hoping for the best. Just mostly curious if the factory still services a 617 this old?

 

[Peak53]

I would be skeptical of accepting the gun. Might be all right, might be correctable, but consider why was the gun for sale? Could be a poor forcing cone, a poor crown, loose sight, or poor eyesight or poor trigger control on behalf of the previous owner. A careful check should ensue. And then a range report

 

[Kenneth07ex]

I would be skeptical of accepting the gun. Might be all right, might be correctable, but consider why was the gun for sale? Could be a poor forcing cone, a poor crown, loose sight, or poor eyesight or poor trigger control on behalf of the previous owner. A careful check should ensue. And then a range report

The reason the gun was for sale is unknowable at this point. It was a gunbroker auction. Since everything looks otherwise okay on this gun. And given that a canted barrel is certainly fixable. I'm pretty sure I'll bring it home tomorrow. Really the only concern I have in regards to the condition of the gun. Is the sights. So I'm probably over thinking this. Its just that once burned, twice shy. As far as the range report. That'll be fun, since I can't shoot a handgun very well. Practicing with this 22 is a large part of the reason for the purchase.

 

[mh51]

I suspect the previous owner had poor trigger control or a flinch. Moved the sight to the right because all shots were hitting left of center. Move the sight back to center, and see how it works for you before you condemn it.

 

[Kenneth07ex]

I suspect the previous owner had poor trigger control or a flinch. Moved the sight to the right because all shots were hitting left of center. Move the sight back to center, and see how it works for you before you condemn it.

Your probably right. I fully understand the poor trigger control. That's a big problem for me too. I've moved sights before, when I first started shooting handguns, thinking it must be the gun. Now I know its just me being a poor marksman. Whatever the problem, if any. I'll just have to sort it out. I put in too much time looking for this, and it was at the price I wanted. As I've said, the gun is in excellent, well cared for condition. And if I can't find any obvious defect, after giving it another look. I'm doing this. I sure appreciate the replies guys.

 

[series guy]

I would center the rear sight before shooting it. I've seen this more than once on used guns that I've purchased. Never had to return the rear blade back to where it was yet.

 

[Fackler Rebel]

About the warranty. Just picked up a 638-3 lately. S&W told me, sorry only the original owner is warrantied. Little disappointing.

 

[Kenneth07ex]

About the warranty. Just picked up a 638-3 lately. S&W told me, sorry only the original owner is warrantied. Little disappointing.

I've heard the same. But I've sent in a 5906 last year. And I'm not the original owner. It was don't ask don't tell. So if I were you, I'd keep trying. I believe that its all who you talk to at S&W.

 

[Kenneth07ex]

Picked it up this morning. Took it home and cleaned the powder residue out of the barrel. Apparently someone couldn't resist the temptation of a couple of rounds. Because it was very lightly powdered. Not like the way it was blackened after I got finished shooting it.

Anyway, I cleaned it up, and eyeballed the centering of the sights. Then took it out to the back pasture.

The range report is looking good! Though like I said, I'm no marksman. I can see now why everyone who has one loves it. No problems with the sights, although the still probably need to be properly centered. The only issue that I had at all, was tight cylinders. Harder that would be expected to load. And definitely harder than necessary to eject. But not anything that would need to be addressed yet. All things considered, it's a keeper. And likely my new favorite. Thanks for the support, and the feedback guys!

 

[gfors]

Tight chambers are a well known issue with these guns (and other SW .22's). Some guys will ream them, something I've never tried, but it seems pretty simple. I take a .25 caliber brush to the chambers only. That seems to get all the gunk out, making the charging holes less "sticky". I also take a cleaning rod to the range, for touch-up cleaning and to push stuck shells out. I worry about bending the star or the ejector rod, by trying to force the shells out, with the rod. One of these days, I'll prolly buy a reamer.

 

[Kenneth07ex]

Tight chambers are a well known issue with these guns (and other SW .22's). Some guys will ream them, something I've never tried, but it seems pretty simple. I take a .25 caliber brush to the chambers only. That seems to get all the gunk out, making the charging holes less "sticky". I also take a cleaning rod to the range, for touch-up cleaning and to push stuck shells out. I worry about bending the star or the ejector rod, by trying to force the shells out, with the rod. One of these days, I'll prolly buy a reamer.

I've owned another revolver with tight chambers. Its definitely a pia, but there's a funny thing with this one. Sometimes it's easier to eject than others. Sometimes I was afraid that it'd take too much pressure to eject. Then for whatever reason, I gave the cylinder a turn or two. Seemed to help. Sometimes it released pretty easy. Don't know what that means, but it certainly worked. Now as far as cleaning, that 22 brush is certainly tight. Maybe I'll use a more worn brush, see if that helps.

 

[ken158]

I've owned another revolver with tight chambers. Its definitely a pia, but there's a funny thing with this one. Sometimes it's easier to eject than others. Sometimes I was afraid that it'd take too much pressure to eject. Then for whatever reason, I gave the cylinder a turn or two. Seemed to help. Sometimes it released pretty easy. Don't know what that means, but it certainly worked. Now as far as cleaning, that 22 brush is certainly tight. Maybe I'll use a more worn brush, see if that helps.

Likely an ammo issue. Don't expect bulk ammo to perform like quality ammo. Got a buddy that throws all loose .22 in a box and loads such a mixture that good groups elude him...

 

[Kenneth07ex]

**Update** cleaned it up after the first outing. Found a lot of crud in the recessed area at the ejector. Brushed the cylinders real good. And the brushing got easier. Same with the bore. Maybe the previous owner was one of those "never clean your gun" types. Dunno, but it certainly looked fairly clean.

Fast forward to today. Took this thing out again. Put a hundred mini mags through it. It ejected perfectly, and easily, every shell. Doesn't seem to like mini mags for accuracy though. Had about a 2in. group at 50ft. I know that this gun is capable of much better groups than that. But at least the one problem is solved. I'm loving this gun!

 

[captainwayne]

I've had the same sticky ejecting issue with my 617-5, brand new. Sent it to the factory but got it back the same way it was, only they changed out some springs.
Using a dremel and rubbing compound helped out somewhat. The first time doing it I didn't want to overdo it, but I'm confident that a little more compounding with do the trick.
I have a 617-2 that has no sticky issues at all.

 

[Kenneth07ex]

I've had the same sticky ejecting issue with my 617-5, brand new. Sent it to the factory but got it back the same way it was, only they changed out some springs.
Using a dremel and rubbing compound helped out somewhat. The first time doing it I didn't want to overdo it, but I'm confident that a little more compounding with do the trick.
I have a 617-2 that has no sticky issues at all.

You could certainly do it that way. Polishing paper works also. But it really depends on wether its an actual tight cylinder problem. Or if its just residue in the chambers. In your case, it being a new gun, I'd say its tight cylinders. That could stand to be reamed, for best performance. Read my explanation below. I'd have it done by a gunsmith. But you can buy reamers from brownells.

But here's a warning. If you over polish those chambers, there could be similar issues with ejection. They're still sticky, but for a similar, yet different reason. That's why a reamer is best for this. Because polishing leaves too much mirror smooth surface area for the shell that's now expanded after firing, to cling to. A reamer scuffs it ever so slightly, breaking that surface, at an almost microscopic level. So there's less surface area touching. Still looks shiny though. Also, because of the uneven nature of the hand polishing. The bore is no longer perfectly straight. It's now swollen slightly, and unevenly because polish is abrasive. It's only a thousandth or three. You can't see it, but its enough to cause sticking. So it creates a cylinder that will sometimes cause cracked, and or sticking cases. And the only fix then, is probably a new cylinder. The reamer avoids all that by keeping it straight.

I made the over polishing mistake to an sp101, in .327 magnum with hard ejection issues. I had it looking great, but it never really completely solved the problem. Then it got worse, the more I polished. Luckily Ruger replaced the gun for free. But the older model was more rare, and probably more valuable. So I won't do that again. Next time I'll leave that to the pros. I learned about all this as a result of that fiasco. YMMV.

But this one is ejecting great now that I've cleaned it. I just put a hundred cheap golden sabres through it today. Some had to be pushed in. Because they're just fatter. But they all ejected easily. So I'm going to call this problem solved. Good luck with your 617, they're greatguns.

 

[bigggbbruce]

About the warranty. Just picked up a 638-3 lately. S&W told me, sorry only the original owner is warrantied. Little disappointing.

Well the warranty states this fact.

But as others have mentioned if S&W doesn't know..

I've bought 1 new S&W and countless used.. I have sent in about 8-10 for warranty work..never had one refused.