My new 686 has a "feature"!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
45_Auto

job one of a gun company is to make money

of course...I was speaking of the manner in which they construct the gun.
Besides, making an unsafe product in this litigious world is not any way to make money

If you want a perfect product, be prepared to pay a perfect price for it

How much is enough, in your estimation, is enough money to spend on a revolver so as to expect that it is safe to shoot?
 
I would guess the mechanical complexity of machining a revolver to be about the equivelent of a spaceship hatch latch, or a pump for a kidney machine.

I haven't ever spec'd a gun, but assuming equivelent manned space or medical inspection and traceability requirements, I would estimate that you would probably be in the neighborhood of $50,000.
 
Like I say, this would be an easy thing for quality to miss. That said, a good quality system will require the company to go back and put controls into place so that it never happens again. People put a lot of faith in human inspection of product but fail to realize that good inspectors are usually only about 80% effective, and that performance drops rapidly with complexity. I have found some inspectors in the past that score into the mid-90's with fairly simple inspection requirements, but those are few and far between. Human inspection just doesn't work so well. This is why there are a lot of functional gages and poke-yoke systems out there.

Remember that shooting a firearm is a fairly dangerous event. Just like sky-diving or rock-climbing. You should thoroughly inspect your equipment for flaws and damage at the time of purchase and before and after every usage. You cannot trust someone else with your own safety.
 
How much is enough, in your estimation, is enough money to spend on a revolver so as to expect that it is safe to shoot?
I would estimate that you would probably be in the neighborhood of $50,000.

Wow,
So you have no expectation that anything that S&W produces be safe.

I now totally understand your position.

Some of us expect that any unaltered revolver would be safe to shoot the ammunition that it was designed to shoot.
 
But it did contain the blast. And no one was hurt. Thank goodness.

To reference Guillermo's example, I always look over a car after a mechanic has serviced it. I look over the "killer" items. And that would be the wheels. And I re-torque the lug nuts if anyone has touched them. Even tire stores. (BTW, they're usually over-torqued.).

If this story is genuine, I would not excuse S&W in this. They produced a flawed product.

But we, as shooters, also bear a responsibility to understand our firearms well enough to know if they are reasonably safe to operate.

And, if someone considers themselves competent enough to perform an "action job" on a brand-new revolver, then shouldn't that person be able to recognize a potentially dangerous flaw in the revolver?

Does that mean that we Magna-Flux each cylinder or barrel at home? I don't think so.;)

But how many here check the barrel for obstructions before firing their guns? That is actually one of the "Ten Commandments" of gun safety (if anyone remembers them).

It is easy to beat up the manufacturer of a faulty product. And, if they indeed produced this revolver, then they certainly deserve it.

But if the owner had sent this to a competent, professional gunsmith, (as opposed to performing the work himself), would the professional have noticed this flaw?

Just some thoughts for the aspiring litigants out there.

Best to all -

gd

P.S. I learned a while back to "index" my revolvers. By that, I mean that I align the chamber with the barrel when closing the cylinder (DA) or closing the loading gate (SA). I do this to minimize the turn line on the cylinder, but I have become accustomed to feeling where the flutes are in relation to the barrel. Just my personal practice.
 
Last edited:
But it did contain the blast.

So far, and not the blast it was designed to contain (He shot 38s)


we, as shooters, also bear a responsibility to understand our firearms well enough to know if they are reasonably safe to operate

True
and we have the right to be indignant when the manufacturer screws the pooch by producing an unsafe product.4



It is hard to believe that so many seem to shrug their shoulders about this.
This is NOT a canted barrel
 
"True and we have the right to be indignant when the manufacturer screws the pooch by producing an unsafe product.4"


You may be as indignant as you see fit.

I have better things to do with my life.

gd
 
guillermo said:
Wow,
So you have no expectation that anything that S&W produces be safe.

You have a quote where I said that by any chance, or are you just blowing it out your a$$ like the rest of your post?

I have every expectation that any product S&W makes will give me better odds of being safe than I have of winning the lottery, say 1 in 50,000,000 or so.

If I wanted better odds than that, I would fully expect to pay for S&W to do the engineering required to assure them, unlike you.

and we have the right to be indignant when the manufacturer screws the pooch by producing an unsafe product.

Yep, and you can bet the manufacturer is going to do something about it. It's just kind of funny to watch the internet hoopla about it.
 
"Yeah. It’s going to be embarrassing, at least, for Brian C. who signed the final QC paperwork on 12-02-2011. That was a Friday.

Who wants to bet this was the last gun good old Brian inspected that week? Maybe he was thinking about the hot date he had lined up instead of how many flutes there should be on a 686 SSR cylinder!!"
Bottomline here. Send him a picture!
 
Just figured a few people might find my own personnel experience with gun quality interesting.

First pistol I ever bought was a Colt .38 Super in 1970. Turns out that many 1911 barrels (all calibers) were originally made in two pieces then brazed together. It was cheaper that way at the time, without CNC machining.

I was out shooting one day with some friends, wearing my safety glasses of course, when the gun recoil felt funny and it felt like someone threw a handful of sand in my face. I had a few little nicks and cuts on my face.

I still have the gun,and keep the barrel and blown cartridge case in my shooting bag to show to people who are willing to take the risk of shooting without glasses.

The braze job on the barrel was obviously not to spec, and the barrel slipped forward when the braze let go. The cartridge was still held against the breech face by the extractor, but was unsupported in the area where the barrel had slipped forward. When I pulled the trigger, the brass blew apart and threw pieces of brass and burning powder into my face.

First pic is the 1969 Colt .38 Super with the original barrel below.

DSC01289.jpg

Next pic is the barrel with the cartridge case in the barrel in the position it fired in.

DSC01290.jpg

The blown cartridge case.

DSC01292.jpg

Blown cartridge case in hood in position it fired in.

DSC01293.jpg

My personnal approach was to buy a new barrel (made sure it was one piece!) and keep on trucking.

Point of all this is that no person or no company is perfect. Things are going to happen. Machines will malfunction and people will be distracted. The more perfection you want, the more it'll cost you.
 
Not sure why all the hostility 45

the conversation went like this

My question-
How much is enough, in your estimation, is enough money to spend on a revolver so as to expect that it is safe to shoot?

Your answer-
I would estimate that you would probably be in the neighborhood of $50,000.

Perhaps Smith & Wesson makes a $50K revolver but I am unaware of it.

Please enlighten us
 
guillermo said:
Wow,
So you have no expectation that anything that S&W produces be safe.

Sorry, just trying to figure out where you think I said I had no expectation of anything from S&W being safe.

guillermo said:
Perhaps Smith & Wesson makes a $50K revolver but I am unaware of it.

That was my estimate of how much a revolver would cost if you had it built to the same performance expectations as a kidney pump or spaceship hatch latch. I'm pretty sure I never said S&W charged $50K for their revolvers.

I have the same expectation of S&W products being perfect as I do of anything else man made being perfect. Do a little research on the British Comet, the Tacoma Narrows bridge, DC-10 engine mounts, space shuttle o-rings, space shuttle foam, Ford Explorers and Firestone tires, etc.
 
Last edited:
I asked how much one would have to pay to get a revolver that could be expected to be safe.
You answered 50K.

S&W doesn't make 50K revolvers so obviously they can't expected to be safe.


Where we went off the tracks was the "50K thing".

What were you trying to say in post 127
 
Guillermo -

For someone who has no intention of purchasing a new S&W revolver, you seem awfully worked up about this.

Why would that be so?

gd
 
What were you trying to say in post 127

I was trying to say that given the same expectation of safety (works as designed) as a kidney pump or spaceship hatch latch, I would expect to pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $50K for something with the complexity of a pistol.

Given that a typical pistol is a couple of orders of magnitude or so less in cost than that, I would expect a couple of orders of magnitude less safety.

Say 1 in 1,000,000 for the pistol at $500 or so versus 1 in 100,000,000 for the pump or latch at $50K.
 
For someone who has no intention of purchasing a new S&W revolver, you seem awfully worked up about this

you are quite correct that I have no intention of purchasing any S&W products (with the exception of handcuffs. They are the most common and my keys work)

you misunderstand by thinking I am "worked up" about it. Actually this is exactly what I expect from S&W. They used to be a great company and now they make overpriced, crappy wheel guns with bad materials and no QC.

What I don't understand is how someone can look at a "semi custom" gun that is unsafe to use and make excuses or shrug it off. The same folks that put down on Taurus for the same kind of crap at a much cheaper price.
 
This thread has been fascinating for a whole host of reasons. I can't wait to hear what S&W tells the OP about how they plan to address this problem.
 
"you misunderstand by thinking I am "worked up" about it."


For someone who isn't "worked up" about this, you do seem to spend a great deal of time informing these readers about your opinion.

I guess everyone needs a hobby. ;)

Anyway, the gun is flawed, and I'm pretty sure that S&W will correct it.

And no one was injured.

I think that the outcome might be less dramatic than some are expecting.


Best to all (that includes you, Guillermo) -

gd
 
I predict that:

1. They will arrange for a pre-paid shipping lable, PDQ.

2. Replace the cylinder at least, and perhaps the whole revolver (hopefully they will return the modified lockwork).

3. Never explain what happened.
 
Posted by Guillermo
Actually this is exactly what I expect from S&W. They used to be a great company and now they make overpriced, crappy wheel guns with bad
............

Yes Guillermo we know!

From every single thread involving Smith & Wesson.

WE know, we know.....................
 
Speaking as the OP, I have several S&W wheelguns and have a high opinion of them. For the price, they're usually excellent quality and, if you know what you're doing, you can tune them to have much better DA pulls than you can get with a Ruger.

I can understand why they don't polish the internals better and why the action is designed to "stack" the way it does. Most of their customers don't have the skills to appreciate a fine action and will do almost all their shooting SA anyway.

I didn't start this thread to bash S&W's quality. I like their quality. Things like this happen, but when they do, I expect the company to make it right and change their procedures to keep it from happening again.

I'm slightly suprised at the way this has been picked up by other forums, but I should have expected it.

I've been amused by the cries of "fake" and "photoshop" and the like. I've been accused of being an agent of Ruger and/or Taurus. That's funny. I'm a retired military officer and former computer geek. I am an agent of Satan, but the post is largely ceremonial.
 
I predict that:

1. They will arrange for a pre-paid shipping lable, PDQ.

2. Replace the cylinder at least, and perhaps the whole revolver (hopefully they will return the modified lockwork).

3. Never explain what happened.


I predict that there will also be personal calls from the head of customer service; they're going to bend over backwards to accommodate Japle, as well they should.

I recently had an issue with a defective revolver brand new from the other big name in sturdy American guns, and I had calls coming in instantly after receipt of my original letter explaining the problem. I also had my revolver back inside of a week from fed ex picking it up from me. I doubt that S&W will be any different; as stated, they really screwed the pooch on this, and I'd bet that there is a phone conversation by 1/2, and a fed ex driver picking up a plain box by 1/3, as well as apologies for the holiday delay. We shall see.

(OP, stick to your guns (heh) on the action job, IMHO.)
 
I think Old Fuff has it right, they will fix it but they will not make any statements that would admit fault.

I define "good customer service" in this connection as a willingness to sell you a defective product and a smooth line to make you think they are doing you a favor by fixing it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top