S&W Quality Control?

[PumpGunGuy]

I have several S&W revolvers, mostly older guns I bought used, but I have bought 2 new S&W's in the last couple of years, and I am not impressed. My first was a 625JM. When I got it from the transfer agent, I took it out of the case, dry fired it, and noticed that 2 of the chambers were out of time. S&W promptly sent me a label to return it, but what a hassle, not to mention the frustration of not being able to shoot my new gun. Now, after waiting 6 months for a Performance Center 325 TR, I took it out to shoot and noticed the barrel shroud was loose and flopping all over the place (I have 250-300 rounds through it). That could explain the difficulty I have been having regulating the sights. I again called S&W, and they are sending another shipping label and assure me they will take care of it. Since I'm venting, I will also mention that the double action pull is HEAVY, but reasonably smooth. Am I just unlucky, or do they have QC problems?

Well, off to shoot old revolvers that have blue steel and work.

Rick

[skorittnig]

My cylinders are out of spec on my new 625 JM-- they will be reamed soon.

[CSEMARTIN]

I recently got the itch to shoot a revolver again and bought a brand new JM 4" 625. I'm not impressed either. I was warned to stay clear of the JM model and didn't listen.

Edit: negative comments about S&W toned down a bit.

Edited October 21, 2010 by CSEMARTIN

[No.343]

I haven't had any issues as bad as those listed above, but I've always felt as though there is something slightly wrong. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about revolvers to properly explain some of the quirks I've found.

[lugnut]

I got a 686 a year or so ago and have been happy with it. I have another one on it's way. I have heard that "aggressive" reloads with Comp IIIs will cause the cylinder to pop out... I hope it doesn't happen to mine but it has with several people I know. Funny thing is S&W actually makes a 686 SSR for IDPA... you don't feed the chambers one round at a time on them but S&W doesn't realize that I guess. I love the triggers though.

Edited October 21, 2010 by lugnut

[Carmoney]

I see some guns that are pretty well fit up from the factory...and some stuff that is really shoddy.

The little old hens who collect the 5-screw P&Rs can say what they want, but the best QC era at the S&W factory was right around 1999-2001, right after the new CNC stuff was installed (and before the tooling was allowed to become dull and out-of-spec). As a general rule, the guns from that era are the smoothest and best revolvers S&W has ever made.

[kct45acp]

have a friend locally with a 686 SSR that has 4 out of 6 chambers larger than SAAMI maximum allowed spec

[38stupid]

I sorted thru (3) S&W 617s at a local dealer. I found that the crowns on the muzzles where so far off (not concentric) that you couldn't miss it. It looked like someone took a chamfer tool in a hand drill and didn't care a bit. I also saw other minor defects. I passed on the guns - they are not cheap!!!!

The thing to remember is that you cannot inspect quality into a part. QC verifies that the parts meet print dimensions and tolerances. The fault often is production trying to meet the takt time. (Lean manufacturing is a good tool but can be taken to extremes) QC is the gate keeper but often gets pressured into passing parts.

38stupid

[DWFAN]

have a friend locally with a 686 SSR that has 4 out of 6 chambers larger than SAAMI maximum allowed spec

How do you find that out ? My SSR kind of bulges some brass, and I havent seen that in a revolver before.

[Toolguy]

You measure the holes with gage pins. Stop by and we'll check it out.

[oldtrooper]

I see some guns that are pretty well fit up from the factory...and some stuff that is really shoddy.

The little old hens who collect the 5-screw P&Rs can say what they want, but the best QC era at the S&W factory was right around 1999-2001, right after the new CNC stuff was installed (and before the tooling was allowed to become dull and out-of-spec). As a general rule, the guns from that era are the smoothest and best revolvers S&W has ever made.

Mike,

What is the best way to identify S&W's in that range, 1999-2001, by serial number?

Thanks,

oldtrooper

[BigBore56]

I have a 686 Stainless 6" that was built in October 1983...that I have kept all these years. It was built when they took pride in their handguns, and is flawless! Trigger pull is very light and breaks like glass, and lockup and timing still perfect. I have only shot that gun about 200 rounds total in 27 years.

I have been considering the purchase of a new 627 to begin shooting revolvers again...but now...with all the QC complaints...wonder if I should just start shooting the 686 again. I want to install a mount and a Burris Fastfire or Leupold DeltaPoint to shoot steel plates.

Edited October 22, 2010 by BigBore56

[Carmoney]

I see some guns that are pretty well fit up from the factory...and some stuff that is really shoddy.

The little old hens who collect the 5-screw P&Rs can say what they want, but the best QC era at the S&W factory was right around 1999-2001, right after the new CNC stuff was installed (and before the tooling was allowed to become dull and out-of-spec). As a general rule, the guns from that era are the smoothest and best revolvers S&W has ever made.

Mike,

What is the best way to identify S&W's in that range, 1999-2001, by serial number?

Thanks,

oldtrooper

I don't know about serial numbers, they all seem to have different prefixes, etc.

As a general rule, the guns made after the switch to the frame-mounted firing pin and MIM internals but before the internal lock system was implemented are very well made.

I look for 625-6, 686-5, 629-5. The pre-IL 627s are also good.

To keep this in perspective--there's not going to be a huge difference in the QC range of these guns versus the others--certainly not enough to justify any huge difference in value. Even the "good" generations are going to need work in order to make them competition-ready. And once the chambers are reamed and the action is done on a 625-8 (for example), it's going to be just as good as any 625-6.