SW 69 = failure

[Kris Whiteleather]

I generally love a good 69, but SW has seriously muddled my experience.

Got a NEW M69. Here is their first line of propaganda: "Smith & Wesson L-Frame revolvers are built to suit the demands of the most serious firearms enthusiast. "

Well maybe back in the 1980s, but not so much in 2017. The new ball detent crane/cylinder lock up is a fine addition to the design...but only if it is actually working.

Mine showed up with a ball NOT in the detent. Looking at the top of the barrel showed that then entire barrel was screwed in too far. This put the ball "out of battery".

Sent it back to SW. Waited 4 weeks. Got the same gun back in the same condition with a form letter essentially disregarding my concerns.

Granted, I can simply tweak the barrel back 1/8", but why should I have to do QC for a $900 gun?

 

[diggler1833]

I can't think of a single S&W revolver that I've purchased new in the last five years that hasn't had a canted barrel.

After the last one (the fourth in a row) it was the official last new S&W product I'll ever own.

Fortunately for me I just happen to have a fondness for P&R Smiths.

 

[jimbo728]

Send it back again. I would in a heartbeat.
That is really bad.
Good luck, dont give up.
Jim

 

[Clarke Hammer]

The ball is not supposed to rest entirely in the notch. If it did, it would not be doing its job of holding pressure to keep the cylinder closed. The ball maintains necessary pressure by being jammed against the side of the notch.

 

[Dieseltech56]

I know I'm new here but this topic has been brought up and discussed thoroughly in the past. My 69 is the same way and the cylinder has not ever swung open when it wasn't supposed to.

My only smith from the 80s has the worst bluing, worst wood grips, canted barrel and counter rotation problem of any of my guns.

 

[Dave@A5]

I too have a model 69 with the ball detent off center! What a bunch of marketing Bulls---t they're trying to shove down our throat. The ball is NOT in the center of the notch, so what's the purpose? It's totally useless. They make it sound like it's the answer to all their problems that they've had in the past with a 44 mag in a lighter frame than the N frame.

I should have bought a Ruger and dealt with the heavier gun. Should have known better. But I tired ...shame on them or,....shame on me!

 

[S&W ucla]

The ball is not supposed to rest entirely in the notch. If it did, it would not be doing its job of holding pressure to keep the cylinder closed. The ball maintains necessary pressure by being jammed against the side of the notch.

Please read Clarke Hammer again, he is correct. Ball detent is as it's designed to operate. They did change the design for the 2.75" M69. If barrel liner sets back from front of barrel shroud, that's fine, as long as barrel cylinder gap is correct. DO NOT "Tweak" the barrel 1/8"!! Have you fired it? How does it shoot?

 

[HeavyDuty Ken]

I generally love a good 69, but SW has seriously muddled my experience.

Got a NEW M69. Here is their first line of propaganda: "Smith & Wesson L-Frame revolvers are built to suit the demands of the most serious firearms enthusiast. "

Well maybe back in the 1980s, but not so much in 2017. The new ball detent crane/cylinder lock up is a fine addition to the design...but only if it is actually working.

Mine showed up with a ball NOT in the detent. Looking at the top of the barrel showed that then entire barrel was screwed in too far. This put the ball "out of battery".

Sent it back to SW. Waited 4 weeks. Got the same gun back in the same condition with a form letter essentially saying "blow me".

Granted, I can simply tweak the barrel back 1/8", but why should I have to do QC for a $900 gun?

Can you please show a pic of the top showing the barrel to frame fit and alignment? I agree with the others, the detent is not supposed to be centered in the notch, but if you have an over- or under-clocked shroud that's a separate issue that should be addressed.

 

[HeavyDuty Ken]

And $900? I hope he kissed you afterwards.

 

[jaymoore]

It's a two piece barrel design with the outer shroud keyed in place so it can't rotate!

Just in case y'all missed the comments regarding the ball detent above, if it was centered, then no closing tension would be applied. Not that much is needed and the actual locking is done at the rear....

 

[steelslaver]

The ball not being totally centered.causes it to exert a inward pressure on the yoke. If it was bottomed out in center of V notch it would exert less inward pressure. Think of it as a ramp that happens.to end with a V. As other have said it was designed that way. If it contacted other side of the V it would start to press ball in and out on yoke.

It works and works well. Better than a lug in a small hole over an inch out on the end of.a skinny ejector rod that rotates and can't have any pressure on it or it will effect effort needed to turn cylinder.

 

[markeb]

I had to pull out my 627 PC to check ball position, sure looks centered to me when closed.

After taking a closer look, it is a tad bit off center. I appreciate the engineering explanations.

 

[jake1945]

My Ruger Redhawk 44 mag locks up like a bank vault. It has a 7 inch barrel, blued finish and, yes, it is heavy but is a great revolver.
P.S. S&W revolvers have too many screws, the Redhawk not so.

 

[daddio202]

I don't get it?? All the talk about detent ball but no picture of it. Yet to me it looks as if the real problem is a chunk out of the bottom of the shroud. Is that vertical line under the barrel on the frame a crack??? The ball detent is the least of your problems if you have a cracked frame , please excuse my ignorance but no mention of the "line" or chunk that seems to be missing.

 

[HeavyDuty Ken]

I don't get it?? All the talk about detent ball but no picture of it. Yet to me it looks as if the real problem is a chunk out of the bottom of the shroud. Is that vertical line under the barrel on the frame a crack??? The ball detent is the least of your problems if you have a cracked frame , please excuse my ignorance but no mention of the "line" or chunk that seems to be missing.

You're seeing the notch for the detent ball, and the line between the frame and crane.

 

[Protocall_Design]

The line under the barrel is where the crane meets the frame. Every gun has that. The chunk out of the bottom of the shroud is the cutout for the ball detent.

 

[RoyM52]

This sort of misunderstanding is probably one of the issues that lead to the change of the detent onto the yoke in the 2 3/4 inch model 69. {using a full length ejector too....nice engineering}

 

[iPac]

The ball not being totally centered.causes it to exert a inward pressure on the yoke. If it was bottomed out in center of V notch it would exert less inward pressure. Think of it as a ramp that happens.to end with a V. As other have said it was designed that way. If it contacted other side of the V it would start to press ball in and out on yoke.

This makes sense IF they want inward pressure. If you don't need directional pressure, then perfectly centered in the notch is how a normal detent functions. In this case I can see why they want inward pressure.

S&W could have avoided all of this double/triple cylinder locking requirements if they didn't have a counter-clockwise rotating wheelgun. Not saying this to stir pot, but Colt has used one single cylinder retention pin for over 100yrs without issue.

 

[LazarusLong]

It's pretty pathetic it's now 2017 and we put a man on the moon 48 years ago and Smith and Wesson can't even install a properly indexed barrel on a regular basis.

What. The. Hell. Smith.

To be fair I had to send a brand new Bisley back to Ruger for the same thing.

 

[shocker]

This sort of misunderstanding is probably one of the issues that lead to the change of the detent onto the yoke in the 2 3/4 inch model 69. {using a full length ejector too....nice engineering}

They also eliminated milling on the top of the frame. Can't complain anymore because the shroud/frame lines might be 1/2 a line width off.