Report on J-frame quality control

[American1776]

Yesterday I went to a large LGS that always has a big stock of items. I knew I was going to buy a stainless J-frame 640, so I figured I'd check out all their inventory to pick the 'best' one.

I inspected 10 revolvers total. All new in box. Seven 640's, and three 649's. Every single one of these revolvers had various 'problems'.

1) Poorly indexed barrel. Nearly all of the 10 had, to varying degrees, a barrel that was not clocked to 12. A few were VERY bad, and so crooked that one corner of the squared barrel was about touching the square corner of the frame.

2) Forcing cone problems: four of the revolvers had a forcing cone that had sharp metal shavings on the inside of the cone. four of them had forcing cones of inconsistent thickness.

3) Only two of the ten guns had cylinders that locked up tightly with the trigger back. The other eight had noticeable slop in the cylinder in full lockup.

4) Crane to frame slop: 4 of the revolvers had a crane that would slightly open up when lateral pressure was applied to the cylinder.

The gun I bought was a model 640. Good forcing cone, straight barrel, extremely tight lock up with trigger back. The only issue was a crane to frame slop when outward pressure applied to cylinder. I would call it 'wiggle' between frame and crane. However, when I hold the trigger back, the wiggle is very minimal, because the hand engagement and the locking bolt are so tight, it holds the crane in line pretty darn well.

So there's an update on stainless J-frame inspection. I'm NOT whining or complaining---just reporting the facts as I observed.

I'd say that 8 out of the 10 guns I inspected would shoot just fine, and would work for 90 percent of gun owners who shoot it once or twice a year, and put it in a drawer or safe. The only ones I think would have problems are the forcing cone metal shavings (which could screw up the bullet), and the badly indexed barrels that could lead to frame crack or really poor accuracy.

 

[UNCLE PAULY]

Bought a S&W 649 online from Bud's last year.
Must be lucky as the function and finish were fine.
Put XS big dot front sight on it and am very happy shooter.

 

[tcon]

I'm very new to the revolver world - getting in late last year with a M&P340 and a 642NIL. Those things you listed - I don't believe I know for sure how to check any of those. Exception is looking inside the forcing cone for sharp edges.

 

[slabside2]

Yesterday I went to a large LGS that always has a big stock of items. I knew I was going to buy a stainless J-frame 640, so I figured I'd check out all their inventory to pick the 'best' one.

I inspected 10 revolvers total. All new in box. Seven 640's, and three 649's. Every single one of these revolvers had various 'problems'.

1) Poorly indexed barrel. Nearly all of the 10 had, to varying degrees, a barrel that was not clocked to 12. A few were VERY bad, and so crooked that one corner of the squared barrel was about touching the square corner of the frame.

2) Forcing cone problems: four of the revolvers had a forcing cone that had sharp metal shavings on the inside of the cone. four of them had forcing cones of inconsistent thickness.

3) Only two of the ten guns had cylinders that locked up tightly with the trigger back. The other eight had noticeable slop in the cylinder in full lockup.

4) Crane to frame slop: 4 of the revolvers had a crane that would slightly open up when lateral pressure was applied to the cylinder.

The gun I bought was a model 640. Good forcing cone, straight barrel, extremely tight lock up with trigger back. The only issue was a crane to frame slop when outward pressure applied to cylinder. I would call it 'wiggle' between frame and crane. However, when I hold the trigger back, the wiggle is very minimal, because the hand engagement and the locking bolt are so tight, it holds the crane in line pretty darn well.

So there's an update on stainless J-frame inspection. I'm NOT whining or complaining---just reporting the facts as I observed.

I'd say that 8 out of the 10 guns I inspected would shoot just fine, and would work for 90 percent of gun owners who shoot it once or twice a year, and put it in a drawer or safe. The only ones I think would have problems are the forcing cone metal shavings (which could screw up the bullet), and the badly indexed barrels that could lead to frame crack or really poor accuracy.

Welcome to the new smith & Wesson. Sad very sad.

 

[chief38]

Yes, todays Smith & Wesson's are the "new and improved versions - NOT!

 

[bowzette]

And why I'm attracted to the LCR

 

[armorer951]

Makes you wonder if they are doing a detailed final inspection on each of the guns that are being produced. If they are, then the standards by which the guns are judged as "passing" have definitely been changed.

My recent 442-1 purchased at the end of 2015 suffers from a canted barrel. Shortly after purchase, I sent it back to be corrected. It was returned unchanged two weeks later. Apparently there is a degree of error that is "acceptable".

 

[American1776]

Makes you wonder if they are doing a detailed final inspection on each of the guns that are being produced. If they are, then the standards by which the guns are judged as "passing" have definitely been changed.

My 'guess' would be that the range of acceptable factory specs have gradually loosened up quite a bit over the years.

Things that would have been 'out of spec' are now included in the range of 'in spec'. The range of in-spec endshake has seemed to broaden. A gunsmith once told me it used to be 0-.002. Now, I commonly see new S&W revolvers with at least .002 endshake.

The frame-crane gaps are big, whereas they were always a very tight seam. While I have seen some old pinned barrel S&W's with slightly canted barrels, it's now much more prevalent.

They seem to pay a lot of attention to the finish still--tool marks are rare, side plates are usually good. It's just that the lock work and fit is much looser.

 

[Bill In Texas]

I just received a Model 60-15 Pro about a week ago. I looked it over at my FFL, so I brought it home. Being a new revolver shooter as of last April or May, I inspected it further, using some of the posts in this forum for reference. As a result, I'm pleased to say that everything was great with my new gun.

A 640 Pro is also on my list, mostly for my wife to carry in her purse, if she gets her license, so I'm sorry to hear about problems with the QC on those.

 

[American1776]

I do think everyone will have their own subjective standards of what is a 'great' or 'perfect' in spec revolver.

Here's my context: Pick up a new in box (if you can find one) pre-war M&P hand ejector, OR a nib model 27 or Registered Magnum pre 1975. The earlier the better. Check out the cylinder lock-up with the trigger held to the rear. take a look at the crane-frame gap. Then compare it to the modern S&W's that we would generally count as 'works great'.

There will be a world of difference. My standards align more with the old model 27's type fit. This is not to say that the new guns will not work. they will generally work just fine. What I consider 'problems' is probably pretty nit-picky.

 

[just for fun]

friend's sister worked for one of the Big Three auto plants. Her job was to check brake rotors for "run out" For years she alone had final say if a part was good or bad. Over the years allowable became more and more. when she would cull a part out, it no longer went to the recycle bin but to another inspector who would check it again to make sure it wouldn't work! Both positions were replaced by a robot. She took the early buyout program.

 

[slabside2]

There used to be a time where you can say a revolver was more reliable than a semi auto and days are gone.

 

[kaaskop49]

One of my 2 M&P 340s of last fall had that forcing cone problem the OP mentioned. I detected it when cleaning: the flat cleaning rod tip would bump up against a projection at the rear edge of the forcing cone. A forum buddy with this gun referred to it as a "wire edge," an irregularity from the machining process that should have been removed before assembly. My gunsmith removed it with a chamfering tool.

Thing is, I think I know how to inspect a revolver, but this is a new one to me. Now, I'll have to check for a similar burr in the future. It's all so sad.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

 

[twodog max]

I was at a LGS a few weeks ago looking at his J frames. Of the maybe 10 he had only one had a very slightly canted barrel.

From watching the other forums I think QC may be an industry wide problem. Over at Ruger to read the forum one would think UPS is wearing out trucks taking guns back for warranty work.

I have seen older guns with the same problems as complained about these days. Only difference is the internet gripe line is always open. They happy people are outside shooting.

 

[gman51]

When I picked up my new 627-5 pro I checked it for these kinds of defects. I got a good one.
If S&W doesn't watch their quality control better then they might lose a lot of business. I have to agree it isn't just S&W having problems. Could be their putting out so many guns now they are letting some bad ducks get out.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Thanks for the update.

I remember the Model 38 I bought in the mid-sixties, that wore a hole in my thumb cocking it. Took far less than a year to disappear (both the gun and the scar).

I remember the Model 63 I bought in the early seventies. It was OK, but I had to go to several gun stores and check out half a dozen (?) guns before I found one that was acceptable.

Those weren't the "good old days" I was trying to remember.

 

[raylan007]

I recently read Smith and Wessons sales were up 40% last quarter. Of that percentage 70% were of the CC variety, you don't have to look to far to see where the problem lies, over production with less quality control. Just my opinion of course.

 

[sw282]

l just went thru the checks mentioned by 1776 on a recent Colt Police Positive addition from 1930...Gun looks NEW except for some ''electro pencil'' graffiti...Little COLT checked out perfect...

Net my well worn Outside. My very FIRST handgun. Purchased New from G E X in Charleston 1970. $72. Maybe 300 factory wadcutters fired thru it.. Like NEW inside 1970 Chiefs Special.. lt was perfect TOO.

Last and least a 642-2 PC Power Port IL from 2010...purchased used.. NOT so good.. Cyl wiggles after trigger pulled on ALL 5 holes. End shake too.

All 3 still go BANG

 

[Kifaru]

There used to be a time where you can say a revolver was more reliable than a semi auto and days are gone.

I think the problem with revolvers is that even with MIM parts, they still need a fair amount of hand fitting compared to the plastic autoloaders now so popular. To keep up with very high production demands AND quality control, this requires actual people who are trained and even (gasp!) talented. Companies these days simply don't want to pay to hire those people in enough quantities to keep the good ones from burning out. It's not just S&W, it's every industry out there. Complete automation in manufacturing is rarely possible, and lemons will sneak through even in the tightest run ships. Quality control problems will remain until the folks in upper management care more about their products than their bonuses. Maybe competition from Kimber will light a fire under them, but, from what I've seen of Kimber's current guns, Kimber has its own QC issues.

 

[slabside2]

I bought a new Ruger 38spl. LCR and I really liked it so much a month later I bought a new 357 LCR. The 357 had to go back right out of the box. Now mind you this is a weapon you bought to defend you and your loved ones life not to shoot tin cans. it's all about getting them out the door as fast as they can. Go to any forum for any make gun and you'll read the same thing. Then someone will post (you hear about problems more because of the internet it always been this way) Bull ****! The gun industry is going to hell just like our country. Will either one ever bounce back I sure don't see it in the near future. Hope I'm wrong. What can we do about it....stop buying there products.... Yea like that's going to happen.