625-?

[Duster]

Hi, I'm in the market for a used 625 and am confused by the -3, -4, -8 models. What is the difference bewtween them and which are the more desirable ones?

[Cuz]

Hi, I'm in the market for a used 625 and am confused by the -3, -4, -8 models. What is the difference bewtween them and which are the more desirable ones?

Here's a partial listing of differences, but from what I've learned here there is some overlap between the changes where they may have been using up some of their part stock.

-Cuz.

S&W Model 625 History

Model (Changes)

625-2 (models prior to 1989)

625-2 (model of 1989, full lug)

625-3 (1990 - longer stop notch in cylinder)

625-4 (45 Colt instead of 45 acp)

625-5 (1991 - 45 Colt)

625-6 (1993 - drilled and tapped under rear sight)

625-6 (1995 & 1996 - switched from square to round butt)

625-6 (1997 - started including locks in boxes)

625-7 (1998, started using machine injection molded parts, and removed firing pin from hammer)

625-8 (2001 - Started putting key Lock on sideplate)

[Carmoney]

Some of this info, even though it's straight from the book, is not quite correct. For example, there never was a 625 made with a square butt. And although some 625-6s have a "firing pin" on the hammer, my 625-6 most definitely has a frame-mounted firing pin.

Stay away from the 625-2s for competition, unless the cylinder has already been reamed and the floating hand replaced--or you can get the gun so cheap you can afford the gunsmithing to make it right.

Everything from the middle of the 625-3 series and up should be just

fine.

[alellis]

Stay away from the 625-2s for competition, unless the cylinder has already been reamed

Can you elaborate on that.

al

[Carmoney]

The floating hand is one of the problems with the 625-2, although it's a pretty easy fix. The glitchy double action trigger pull that is often caused by the floating hand can be readily fixed by pulling the hand pin from the trigger and simply installing and properly fitting a "regular" hand to the ratchet.

The bigger issue with the 625-2 Model of 1988 is that the chambers have different (significantly tighter) dimensions, and have a tendency to not allow loaded full-moon clips to drop into place smoothly, particularly as the gun starts to get dirty. This was changed for the 625-3 series (although a few of the old cylinders were used up in guns marked 625-3) and they have been fine ever since, in this regard.

The casual range shooter may not find this a problem, but it was a major issue for competition shooters who expected the 625-2 to reload just as quickly and easily as the 25-2.

This issue was well-documented at the time, and there were several articles in the mainstream gun press about it. S&W obviously didn't change the suffix to 625-3 just because of the switch from the ramp to the patridge front sight blade--that has never been their protocol. In fact, it was the change to the standard hand and correcting the chamber problems that caused S&W to change the nomenclature.

Any gunsmith catering to action shooters in the late '80s will be quite familiar with the problem. The fix was to simply re-ream the chambers to 25-2 dimensions. Not that big a deal, but it required finding a gunsmith with the reamer and pay him to do it.

You still see quite a few 625-2s floating around these days. Again, for the collector or casual shooter, they may be just fine as is. The competition shooter, however, is best off avoiding the 625-2 altogether, or finding one that has already had the repair work done.

[Duster]

Some of this info, even though it's straight from the book, is not quite correct. For example, there never was a 625 made with a square butt. And although some 625-6s have a "firing pin" on the hammer, my 625-6 most definitely has a frame-mounted firing pin.

Stay away from the 625-2s for competition, unless the cylinder has already been reamed and the floating hand replaced--or you can get the gun so cheap you can afford the gunsmithing to make it right.

Everything from the middle of the 625-3 series and up should be just

fine.

Thanks for all the info. Any idea the SN# range on the -3's that would be the earlier ones to avoid?

[alellis]

The floating hand is one of the problems with the 625-2, although it's a pretty easy fix. The glitchy double action trigger pull that is often caused by the floating hand can be readily fixed by pulling the hand pin from the trigger and simply installing and properly fitting a "regular" hand to the ratchet.

The bigger issue with the 625-2 Model of 1988 is that the chambers have different (significantly tighter) dimensions, and have a tendency to not allow loaded full-moon clips to drop into place smoothly, particularly as the gun starts to get dirty. This was changed for the 625-3 series (although a few of the old cylinders were used up in guns marked 625-3) and they have been fine ever since, in this regard.

The casual range shooter may not find this a problem, but it was a major issue for competition shooters who expected the 625-2 to reload just as quickly and easily as the 25-2.

This issue was well-documented at the time, and there were several articles in the mainstream gun press about it. S&W obviously didn't change the suffix to 625-3 just because of the switch from the ramp to the patridge front sight blade--that has never been their protocol. In fact, it was the change to the standard hand and correcting the chamber problems that caused S&W to change the nomenclature.

Any gunsmith catering to action shooters in the late '80s will be quite familiar with the problem. The fix was to simply re-ream the chambers to 25-2 dimensions. Not that big a deal, but it required finding a gunsmith with the reamer and pay him to do it.

You still see quite a few 625-2s floating around these days. Again, for the collector or casual shooter, they may be just fine as is. The competition shooter, however, is best off avoiding the 625-2 altogether, or finding one that has already had the repair work done.

My pride and joy is a 625-2.

I was very happy with it till the floating hand messed up.

I have since replaced it with a standard hand and it is working fine.

Do you have specs for the different chamber sizes.

I probably won't be happy now till I get it reamed.

al

[Carmoney]

Nope, afraid I don't know the serial number range....if you want to play it safe, stick with 625-4 on up.

[Carmoney]

Do you have specs for the different chamber sizes. I probably won't be happy now till I get it reamed.

I don't know the specs, but let me put it this way.....if there was a problem, you'd know it when you try to do a speed reload if you've ever done any speed reloads with any other S&W .45 revolver. With a 25-2 or a newer 625, the moonclips just drop right in easily, even when the gun is dirty. With a 625-2 and its tighter chambers, the reloads get sticky right away and you wind up pushing them down with your thumb just to get the cylinder closed.

Back in the day, the gunsmiths included the cylinder ream as part of the package on the 625-2. I assume they just used a standard Clymer .45 ACP chamber reamer and went to it. Awhile after the 625-2 came out, Tommy Campbell quietly admitted that S&W didn't have a single full-moon-clip at the factory when they set up the tooling on the cylinder. I'll give them credit, though, they fixed the problem instead of shitcanning the whole project.

Al, if your gun reloads fine, don't worry about it. Many of these have already been fixed, maybe yours is one of those.

[alellis]

Do you have specs for the different chamber sizes. I probably won't be happy now till I get it reamed.

Al, if your gun reloads fine, don't worry about it. Many of these have already been fixed, maybe yours is one of those.

I can do a reload quite snappy but would quite happily ream the cylinder to gain another tenth.

On the other hand if its not broke don't fix it has always served me well for a motto.

al

[Carmoney]

I can do a reload quite snappy but would quite happily ream the cylinder to gain another tenth.

On the other hand if its not broke don't fix it has always served me well for a motto.

Sounds like your gun is probably just fine!

[Duster]

Well, I just was offered a deal on a 625-3 "Model of 1989", but in 5 inch barrel. The price at $475.00 is right and the gun is in excellent shape but it will leave me out of IDPA for this gun.

[Carmoney]

On the other hand, a 5" 625 is a great gun for USPSA/IPSC competition, and that's where the big wheels roll!

[Duster]

On the other hand, a 5" 625 is a great gun for USPSA/IPSC competition, and that's where the big wheels roll!

Then that's where I'll be rollin....

[10mmdave]

Jeez Mike, you don't like those 625-2's do ya

I have both the 625-2 and a 25-2, neither like's my lead reloads after a cylinder full or 2,

clogs the works right up. Now jacketed or plated have run fine, with Bullseye loads so far.

My 625-2 with it's floating hand has been the best stock trigger I ever had, and I don't know

if it was all of them but I know my 2 first run 610's had floating hands and were fine.

Course they've since been replaced due to trigger jobs (every revo owner has to do a trigger job,

no matter how good the trigger is ) so I can't say much about the durability since that was the first part to go !

I'll have to break out the pin gauges and get some chamber dimensions, I do agree the 625-2

chambers might be a little smaller.

[Carmoney]

Sometimes you get lucky and the floating hands are fine.

But most of the time, they play hell with getting a nice smooth action.

The problems with the 625-2 are vivid in my memory. I lived in NH at the time, and shot with Ayoob all the time. Reviving the .45 ACP wheelgun was a pet project of his, but we were sorely disappointed when it finally came to fruition. Fortunately, everything worked out OK in the end.

[Peakbagr]

I have a lead on a good 625. FFL says it says 'model of 1989' on the gun, but that its a 625-6.

Should this model be OK for revolver competition?

Will this model let me shoot without needing moonclips?

Just getting into revolver competion. Anything I should be looking out for with this gun?

Thanks.

[Carmoney]

I have a lead on a good 625. FFL says it says 'model of 1989' on the gun, but that its a 625-6.

Should this model be OK for revolver competition?

Will this model let me shoot without needing moonclips?

Just getting into revolver competion. Anything I should be looking out for with this gun?

Thanks.

If it's a 5" .45 ACP 625-6, that's a great gun for competition. (Some guns marked 625-6 are chambered in .45 Colt, so watch out for that.) Both of my USPSA revolvers happen to be 625-6s!

Most (but not necessarily all) 625-6 .45 ACP revolvers will have the frame-mounted firing pin. That's a good thing, in my opinion, and will allow the action to be tuned a bit lighter and still give 100% ignition reliability. But the guns with the hammer nose are just fine, too.

You can probably shoot it without moonclips, if you want to pick the brass out individually, but why would you? Moonclips are the whole point of the 625. If the action is significantly lightened, you may have ignition trouble shooting the gun without moonclips. Again, there's no reason in the world not to use the clips.

Bottom line--buy the gun if you can get it at a decent price! You'll enjoy it.

[Peakbagr]

Well this turned out to be a bummer. A friend spotted the gun in a local shop. Said it had a great trigger and was like new.

Store said they'd hold the gun for me thru this afternoon.

Another guy shows up yesterday, saw it in the display case and put a deposit on it. They asked him yesterday if he was the guy who called twice about it(they didn't bother to write down my name or put it aside), he said 'yes', and they now have it on layaway for him.

If anyone has a 625-4 or 625-5 or newer, I'm still looking.

Thanks for the good info here, too.

Peakbagr