SW 69 = failure

[jhnttrpp]

The cylinder chamber to barrel line up is.done like all S&W revolvers. The locking bolt pressing up through a slot in frame and engaging a notch in cylinder holds cylinder in time to barrel. With yoke pressed in tight against the frame holding the cylinder in side to side alignment, center pin engaging it's hole in center of r recoil shield provides most of this and the yoke lock assists instead of lug on bottom of barrel engaging the front of the ejector rod. Once again the spring loaded ball in shroud was never meant to bottom out in notch on yoke. Yes, there is a V in the bottom of it, but the ramp had to end in some manner. Could have used a flat spot at the bottom and been just as effective.

So the center pin engaging its hole in the shield is the primary alignment for the cylinder and the yoke bottoming out in the frame is the secondary alignment. Is there any adjustment at this location. At the factory or otherwise. And thanks for the explanation.

 

[jhnttrpp]

I agree with the other posters that it is supposed to be this way. My 69 shoots great, locks up solid and the ball detent looks like this:

That my friend is an excellent photo demonstrating exactly what we are talking about. I wish we could all do as well. BTW you might want to clean.... Oh never mind

 

[RoyM52]

The Smith and Wesson web page should have all this information on their web site. It would do away with a lot of unnecessary shipping and misunderstandings. Bad press for no particular reason. And weeks without the newly purchased gun and fear that something needs fixing. A little bit on a web page would help turn around time for things that actually need attention.

 

[uncleted327]

What would really help is if people stopped thinking they know more about how something should have been built, or why something was built the way it was, than the company building them. If there are legitimate issues with your gun, mechanically or with the finish, send it back. But shoot the gun before you determine something isn't how you think it should be. Chances are there's nothing wrong with it. More and more people bitching about how there's a misalignment of milling lines by a 32nd of an inch or some other meaningless garbage.

 

[jaymoore]

Yep

.

69 Combat Magnum - ball detent lock

(-014a)

.

The weird thing is that it's not a 69-1.... But consistency has never been all that big a deal with S&W and it's model designations!

 

[Paul105]

I was also curious as to why the new ball/detent arrangement wasn't designated a -1.

Disassembled the 2 3/4" gun's cyl/yoke to clean it after over a thousand rounds. Here's a picture of the new detent on the inside/back of the yoke.

Paul

 

[tdan]

I picked up a model 69 in the first year they came out, and mine is put together exactly like the OP's gun. The locking ball is not centered in the shroud notch, and the top of the barrel serrations do not line up perfectly with the serrations on the top strap of the frame. This appears to be a combination of the barrel shroud being slightly clocked, as well as being a little off laterally to the left. EVERY SINGLE 69 that I have inspected since has this barrel shroud issue to some degree...........most have been much worse than mine. Furthermore, the crown of the barrel liner of my gun was burred up. If I had jammed my fingertip in the bore and twisted, I have no doubt that my finger would be left bleeding. It was that ragged. Has anyone seen this tool that torques the barrel liner to the shroud? I'm speculating that when they torque everything together, these shrouds are forced off-center because of the tolerances in that frame tab/shroud notch indexing solution. I sent my 69 back to Smith complaining about the rough crown and the barrel/frame serrations not lining up. They cleaned up the crown, but I saw no change in barrel/frame alignment. I had the gun back from Smith very quickly. All of this said, this 44 Mag is a great shooter. My gun came with a .003 barrel cylinder gap which was one of the reasons I did not reject it. I knew Smith would fix any major issues. I have not regretted buying this gun. If only I could talk Smith to giving up one of those barrel tools, but they will not budge on that subject. I was told that "each gunsmith" makes his own tool.

 

[shocker]

Just noticed that the explosion adjusted the slightly offset milling on my 69 into perfect alignment!

 

[steelslaver]

If I really wanted to remove a shrouded barrel like used by the model 69 I would not use a tool that engaged the rifling. First it would be difficult to make and second it would be hard on the rifling. I think there is a better way to do this.

First get or machine a piece of brass square stock that would fit down the barrel. I would also get some low temp solder that melted below 200f. They make this type solder for various uses usually using some type of tin, lead, bismuth, indium alloy. Plug the forcing cone, mount the in a padded vise by the grip frame with the cylinder removed so the barrel is pointed up. Use a frame wrench made to fit around the yoke cut like a normal frame wrench. Then heat the solder, barrel and the brass square stock to about 250-300f. Pour the barrel 1/2 way full of solder and stick in the bar. Let it cool and unscrew the barrel using a wrench on the end of the brass bar and holding onto the frame wrench. Do whatever, then reinstall.

Remove solder by warming up the gun and scrubbing the bore. With no flux it isn't going to bond to the stainless well in the first place. Only function is to make a perfect mate of the barrel to the brass bar.

Machinist sometimes use this type of solder to mount small odd shaped pieces to something they can chuck up or put in a machinist vise. Do a net search for it, lots available.

Someday I am going to get some that melts around 135f and cast a spoon out of it and then give it to someone to stir sugar in their coffee. LOL

 

[S&W ucla]

Diagram I found online showing 2pc bbl, key in top of frame for shroud, barrel tool.

Shocker, there has to be a better way, lol. Have you heard from S&W if they will help out?

Steelslaver, Wouldn't cerrosafe work? Brownells carries it for making chamber casts.

 

[tdan]

I'm kind of liking steelslaver's barrel tool solution. The only reason the crown of my 69 was so buggered up is that S&W probably uses a hardened steel tool to torque these barrel assemblies together. Really makes me cringe! That said, I noticed no flaws in the rifling. I don't think that they lap the barrel liners after they are installed or the crown wouldn't be so rough. I like the newest ball/crane lock=up on the new 2.75" version. Also seems that Smith wised up and left the serrations off of the top strap of the frame, eliminating the mismatched serrations. Now would I get rid of my 696 no dash for one of these new 69 snubbies?..............I'd have to really think hard on that one!

 

[BLUEDOT37]

The only reason the crown of my 69 was so buggered up is that S&W probably uses a hardened steel tool to torque these barrel assemblies together.
.
That said, I noticed no flaws in the rifling. I don't think that they lap the barrel liners after they are installed or the crown wouldn't be so rough.
.
Now would I get rid of my 696 no dash for one of these new 69 snubbies?..............I'd have to really think hard on that one!

I've never noticed the rifling gouged up either but the muzzle/crown often has a burr at the edge of the rifling/crown. And even when they don't have any burrs the rifling often doesn't have a clean presentation at the muzzle.

I usually chamfer mine to shape them up.

My new revolvers get a couple hundred rounds of jacketed bullets thru them, initially, to break them in & smooth them out.

.

69 Combat Magnum (chamfered muzzle, crown)

(-012a)

.
.

Every gun has it's place & I have no intentions of getting rid of my .44 Spcl. 396NG either, no matter how much I like the M69.

.

S&W 44 snubbies: M396NG-M69-M329NG

(-01c)

.

 

[digiroc]

Model 69 with FastFire 3 ...

I love my Model 69 and it shoots well. I'm considering a Short barrel version for carry.

digiroc

 

[iPac]

The lines on mine didn't line up and the front sight was vertical. I doubt that it was even a production spec to have the lines indexed exactly.
On the 2.75 the offending lines were eliminated.

I always try to explain this to folks when they raise concerns of a canted barrel.

Mass produced items will not be manufactured perfectly. If you get a near perfect one, consider yourself VERY lucky. It has been this way for decades. S&W isn't the only offender of canted barrels, I've had plenty of Colts with them too, including Pythons. These "modern" faults can be found clear back to the '60s, so it's not a new phenomenon as many like to claim. I would only put pre-war2 production as in a class of its own. Anything post is subject to modern manufacturing techniques (cheapening).

So when a canted barrel is suspected, you need to examine EVERY aspect of the barrel/frame area and look for errors in milling while paying attention to symmetry. Using the top strap serration alignment to judge barrel straightness is not wise. It's way too easy for variances to cause misalignment, whether the serrations align or not. I think it looks bad when they don't align, but does it affect anything?

It pretty much comes down to what the front sight is like, nothing else. Is the front sight perpendicular? Or you could go a step further and verify the sight slot is positioned perfectly horizontal, allowing the sight to be perfectly perpendicular. Cause sometimes you will get a crooked sight post, but the actual slot is correct and horizontal. This "effect" can be found on my 629-2E which has an overly tall ramped front sight, this gun also had the barrel corrected by Frank Glenn, and the topstrap serrations still don't align, but the sight is straight, well at least the slot is.

So everyone make sure they are accurately judging for a canted barrel. I'm glad to hear S&W eliminated the serrations. That will eliminate confusion, as the serrations are not the deciding factory for straightness.

FYI, a friend of mine who I help with Python advice reached out to me after purchasing a new to him 1964 nickel Python last week. He didn't use my buying guide, and ended up with a Python that is slightly out of time and has a canted barrel. Repair costs will be added to the $2900 original cost. Just an example of a canted barrel clear back in the mid '60s. Still not sure why folks like to pay that money for worn shooters.

 

[Gunsnwater]

If I really wanted to remove a shrouded barrel like used by the model 69 I would not use a tool that engaged the rifling. First it would be difficult to make and second it would be hard on the rifling. I think there is a better way to do this.

First get or machine a piece of brass square stock that would fit down the barrel. I would also get some low temp solder that melted below 200f. They make this type solder for various uses usually using some type of tin, lead, bismuth, indium alloy. Plug the forcing cone, mount the in a padded vise by the grip frame with the cylinder removed so the barrel is pointed up. Use a frame wrench made to fit around the yoke cut like a normal frame wrench. Then heat the solder, barrel and the brass square stock to about 250-300f. Pour the barrel 1/2 way full of solder and stick in the bar. Let it cool and unscrew the barrel using a wrench on the end of the brass bar and holding onto the frame wrench. Do whatever, then reinstall.

Remove solder by warming up the gun and scrubbing the bore. With no flux it isn't going to bond to the stainless well in the first place. Only function is to make a perfect mate of the barrel to the brass bar.

Machinist sometimes use this type of solder to mount small odd shaped pieces to something they can chuck up or put in a machinist vise. Do a net search for it, lots available.

Someday I am going to get some that melts around 135f and cast a spoon out of it and then give it to someone to stir sugar in their coffee. LOL

First you say you wouldn't use a tool that engages the rifling, then you describe how to make a tool that engages the rifling. What am I missing?

 

[Carrier]

Diagram I found online showing 2pc bbl, key in top of frame for shroud, barrel tool.

Shocker, there has to be a better way, lol. Have you heard from S&W if they will help out?

Steelslaver, Wouldn't cerrosafe work? Brownells carries it for making chamber casts.

I always wondered how they did that.

 

[Kris Whiteleather]

Sorry to disappoint some of you folks, but:

Just got back from 4 days in Florida. Visited 6 gun/pawn shops.

Two of the shops had NEW SW M69s in the case. I was allowed to handle them.

All those model 69s had the ball fully....dropped....into....the....notch.

So either my revolver is the correct design, and SW is sending shoddy work to Florida, or I was correct at the outset: SW done messed up.

Side note: Got to shoot the SW 460VXR while in FL. Not my cup of tea, but man, what a handful. Very fine trigger on it in both double and single action. Ran 6 cylinders through it, belching fire on each shot, before I switched to a suite of 1911s.

 

[shocker]

All those model 69s had the ball fully....dropped....into....the....notch.

So either my revolver is the correct design, and SW is sending shoddy work to Florida, or I was correct at the outset: SW done messed up.

Or the engineers got a learning experience, a good design can still look wrong to a customer. So a revision to center the ball in the notch "just like it should be". Or hide it like the 2.75 did.

 

[dogdoc]

I would like to a picture of a 69 with the ball all the way in. All the 69s I have seen(5 or so) are not all the way in including a new one I just purchased. I think the ones you saw were flukes. A Smith engineer posted on this a few years ago with the 69 was new I think? Reference page 32 of handloader magazine issue number 293 for a good picture in an article by Brian Pearce.