Comments from another board...

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

danbrew

member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
408
Laughably, I'm one of the S&W "experts" on another board (maybe S&W lot'sa recent purchases is a better description...)

Anyway, a guy was going on about the IL. Here's what I had to say...

as an aside, the lock comes right out...

and is super easy to remove. as much as a s&w geek as I am, I have mixed feelings about s&w, the lock, and current production revolvers. you would have never - ever - thought about the reliability of a s&w revolver 10-15 years ago, yet you sure have to *worry* about them today.

I'd never carry one for self defense. i like 'em, and i like blasting with them, but not when my ass is on the line. I've had their "premier backwoods light weight bear gun" (S&W 329PD .44mag) go click more than I've had it go boom. And I was out with a new nightguard today (S&W 310, 10mm) and had a few situations where I could NOT pull the trigger in double action. It's all about the plunger and how it pushes the trigger bolt back to its recessed position so the hammer can fall (if you ask me), but the bottom line is that the ****en' thing doesn't go BOOM when you want it to. That's ****ed. I've had these problems with a few Smith guns that I have purchased over the last two years.

Don't know what's going on with the "new" S&W - but they obviously don't give a **** about what goes out their doors...
 
Last edited:
My 329NG had many weak strikes and FTF's. I had to get a longer firing pin installed. Shouldn't need to do that.
 
I've bought over a dozen new IL-equipped S&Ws in the seven plus years I've been an S&W fan. They have all been 100% reliable right out of the box. Many were 'improved' trigger-wise, and now require Federal-primed homebrews, which is no problem here. My factory stock 642-2 is my pocket protector while my similar 64-8 is at the bedside. They are 100% reliable.

Oddly, revolvers made of Al/Sc alloys are relatively new. Those NGs have had a few reported 'incidents'. I have no interest in them. My lite weight 642-2, with it's heritage dating back over half a century, is 'enough' for me most days - my '01 vintage 296 sees less carry. Simply stated - the lite weight revolvers simply are designed for carry - for emergencies. For plinking - or Zombie protection - I'll go for something made of steel.

I doubt S&W has 'shorter' and 'longer' firing pins. Even the C&S 'extended' fp only has a deeper notch - same length pin.The notch allows more fp return spring compression - and fp extension. It also wears on that spring - even damaging it in subsequent dry firing. Manufacturing trash under the spring is more likely the culprit - or too light a hammer hit. the latter can be caused by a loose or too short strain screw or too light of a hammer leaf spring. Modern S&W strain screws are often filed in situ as a means of a simple 'enhanced trigger'. The hollow back of a Wolff 'Power Rib' hammer leaf spring can be intruded by the filed end - or even the smaller turned end of more recent strain screws. This lessens the hammer strike - just like 'loosening' the strain screw - which is a no-no (It should be tight.). The cure in that case is a different strain screw - or stronger hammer spring.

If it initially worked great and recently developed ftfs, check that strain screw for tightness - and under the ejector star for crud - even a bronze wire from a brush or a cotton thread from a swipe, wrapped around the ejector rod/star juncture, can cause odd ftfs.

I'll agree - new S&Ws aren't like the 'old ones' - they are far better. You can't beat their warranty - they'll even recoat the clearcoat on a 642 when you clean it improperly - or just wear it off. An 800 number connects you, too - they'll pick it up and deliver it back to your home - on them. Yeah, I like modern S&Ws!! I have fewer firearms nowadays - but only S&W revolvers.

Stainz
 
Unknowingly I bought a couple with locks. Dummy me. Traded away my MTN GUN 629 for a p&r 629 6''. I notice of late all the p&r guns seem to be going out of site in price. I suspect lots of auto shooters have ''discovered'' the joys of not having to pick up after themselves at the range. Quantity of shots is not near as important as quality hits
 
Simply stated - the lite weight revolvers simply are designed for carry - for emergencies.
Click to expand...

That's just it, isn't it? I'm honestly not trying to bash S&W (but probably got kicked off the S&W forum for the same thread up above...), yet wouldn't one want a carry gun to go boom instead of click? I'm a huge Nightguard fan and have three of 'em. The 325 is great and I really enjoy it. The 329 is enjoyable as well, although I have had some FTF with it. The 310? I put one box of 10mm through it yesterday (50 rds) and had 4 FTF situations. All related to not being able to pull the hammer back because the trigger bolt (did I get that terminology correct?) blocked the hammer. All required me to open the cylinder and then use my thumb to manipulate the cylinder release forward and backwards several times. Yes, there might be some junk in the gun that a good interior cleaning will resolve - but I'm leaning towards a problem with the center pin. Exactly the same problem I had, btw, on the 329PD. The 310 has about 200 rounds through it - completely unacceptable if you ask me.

So... for me? S&W makes some "purty" guns and I like taking them out and blasting away with them, but I'm not carrying a current production S&W when my life is on the line. Which is a darn shame - as I've got lots of 'em. It's kind of a love/hate thing, I guess. Or maybe I'm an optimist.
 
I'll agree - new S&Ws aren't like the 'old ones' - they are far better. You can't beat their warranty - they'll even recoat the clearcoat on a 642 when you clean it improperly - or just wear it off. An 800 number connects you, too - they'll pick it up and deliver it back to your home - on them. Yeah, I like modern S&Ws!! I have fewer firearms nowadays - but only S&W revolvers.

Stainz
Click to expand...

I agree with you on all but the "they are far better" part. Most of my Smiths, over a dozen, are the older P&R'ed models. The fit and finish and general craftsmanship is superior to today's revolvers. I don't have a big problem with NIM parts or the 'lock' but for what they want for a new one you should not have gritty triggers and poor surface finish. I know not all are like that but I see to many that are when compared to the older revolvers.

I remember back in the early seventies when i first started buying S&W revolvers from this little hole in the wall gun shop, the old timers that hung out complained that the 'new' guns sure weren't as nice as the old ones. After handling a real 100% "Registered" Combat Magnum from the late 1930's I see their point. You can 'feel' the difference in quality.
 
In my experience, the IL lock issue is overplayed.

I understand the negative arguments against it, and I agree with them. But, in real-world experience, in nominally 25,000 rounds fired in IL S&Ws, I've had no lock issues--none. They've never failed.

Granted, some 90% of these rounds are nominally 38+P / 38+P+ or 357-lite rounds--I don't have any of the larger calibers. But, the 640 shooting 357 maximum-recipe reloads running over 1100 fps from that 2" barrel did not have any ignition or lock problems.

So, generally, I come down where Stainz does. I do fully appreciate the "older-S&W-better craftsmanship" discussion, too. I have a 95% pre-27 / 3.5" barrel, and from the lockwork through to the finish, it's a better-made revolver--but with an older approach to technology.

Recently I had a new cylinder fit to my M&P 340; one day, while cleaning it, I found indications of a stretched cylinder. I shot mostly reloads in it--but no overpressure rounds--and I told S&W this. No charge all the way, from FedEx pickup forward, and a return in about two weeks (over the Labor Day weekend, no less.) The fit and endshake is like new.

Jim H.
 
And I was out with a new nightguard today (S&W 310, 10mm) and had a few situations where I could NOT pull the trigger in double action. It's all about the plunger and how it pushes the trigger bolt back to its recessed position so the hammer can fall (if you ask me), but the bottom line is that the ****en' thing doesn't go BOOM when you want it to.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by this. Is the hammer not falling or is the trigger not advancing the cylinder? It's always been possible to "short stroke" a revolver in double action.
 
That's the hammer stop on the other side of the cylinder release. You are correct that if not all the way to rear it is designed to block the hammer. I've got a bunch of S&W revolvers (all pre-lock) and have never had a problem with this part. Could be a problem with the lock, as it engages the hammer stop, I believe.
 
The cylinder bolt (the part the thumbpiece is attached to) is pushed backwards by the cylinder's center pin, which is pushed backwards by the locking bolt and locking bolt spring (located in the barrel's underlug) when the cylinder is latched.

If the locking bolt spring is too weak, or either the locking bolt or center pin bind, the center pin will not push the cylinder bolt back far enough so that the lug on the back of the cylinder bolt is pushed rearward far enough to clear the hammer.

Additional possibilities are the thumbpiece being pressed against the side of the frame, or the lug on the cylinder bolt rubbing on the bottom of the hammer.

In times past it was common to see a file cut, made by the assembler, across the top of the lug to be sure that the lug was clear of the hammer, and occasionally you see where the bottom of the hammer was releived.

But that was the way things were done, "back when," and this is now.

Could the internal lock cause the problem? I don't know, but it is a remote possibility.
 
Not that this contradicts anything that Old Fuff said, but the hammer stop is the little lug on the end of the cylinder bolt being pointed to in the picture.
 
Sad you got booted from the S&W forum. Lots of fanboys and cheerleaders over there though, and it seems dissenting opinions are no longer tolerated by the new owner there. The very old crew who knew S&W sixguns seems to have left.

Extreme brand loyalty is something I cannot comprehend and why I never bothered to join that board. I noticed alot of advertising on that board too. Maybe S&W helps pay the bills there????

I agree with you. If the current company calling itself S&W made a revolver that appealed to me....and they do not, the IL would eliminate it from consideration for anything other than range use.

Back when my shooting partner worked for NC Probation and Parole, I got to see many of the "new" S&W revolvers locked up tight by their internal locks. When those revolvers started blowing their barrels off (in front of a few S&W suits who came down to observe the problems) S&W quitely replaced all of them with M&P 40's.

Overpriced junk IMO. I'll stick to hunting down nice examples of the fine revolvers S&W made in the past. TJ
 
From the posted photo it's clear the cylinder bolt is not being moved to the rear sufficiently. have you be able to determine why this is happening?
Have you detail cleaned the cylinder bolt slot?
 
I used to spend a fair amount of time on the S&W forum but just got sick of it. The only thing 80% of their members have shot is a camera. I listened to the "Mimwits" and "Lockjaws" carry on about how they would never own a new S&W revolver. I watched new members join and leave after asking a question about a new revolver they bought and get chastised for buying something that has a lock or mim parts.

For 5 years I begged the moderators to split the newer guns out of the section they were in. Finally they've done something. But I was sick of it and spend very little time there anymore.

I do own a few of the new revolvers with locks and mim parts. So far I've had no issues with any of the new guns I own. And to be honest the only gun I ever had fail to fire was a 19-4. For some reason the cylinder quit turning.
 
One of the previous moderators there banned me for a month for suggesting he add a word to his vocabulary... 'bran'!

I wonder if the problem might be the elasticity of the actual frame material - Al alloyed with Sc? Seriously, even a familiar gunshow host had his 329PD lock up on him. One other 'lockee' who identified his new problem child was a 329PD, too. A .44 Magnum and 10mm have the old 'brisk' recoil working for that flexure thought. I don't think a similar .357 Magnum, like the <12 oz 340/360 series, gets much shooting anyway. A friend, unkowing to me, used me as his ginnypig to shoot his no-grip monstrosity with hot Corbons. I had a .454 Casull SRH for years, shooting hundreds of my favorite 240gr Hornadys at 2,000 fps (2,130 ft-lb) with no problems. That 340 was misery. A 329PD with real Magnums - and the .500 Magnum Hogues - is fun by comparison. Still, it's a healthy bounce.

I've shot tens of thousands of rounds through IL-equipped SS S&W revolvers with no problems. The round count on my 642-2 - with IL - is over 2,000 - mostly 158gr LHPSWC +Ps. The 296 is over 2,600 rounds - all but ~150 being 200gr .44 Special Gold Dots. Both bought new - and are still in LNIB shape. The only wear is a shiney area on the cast-in-place cylinder stop (Al) in the 296, showing a teeny bit of wear from the Ti cylinder edge bearing on it when the empties are ejected. Some have expressed fear that a couple of good 'Hollywood wraps' on the ejector rod could pare away said stop, putting the cylinder in your hand or on the ground. I treat my firearms with respect.

I'm sure the Airweight and AirLite Ti revolvers in .38 Special and the 296/396 families in .44 Special are capable of long lifes in their designed use. For the 296/396, that means the regular SAAMI specs for .44 Special - but not the +Ps of Elmer Keith. That extension of Specials to the 329PD would likely insure it's longevity, too. Maybe moonclipped .40s for the 310NG. I have no doubt of my 642 & 296 lasting 25k-50k rounds before any wear items might be needing attention. I can't imagine my carpal tunnel problems enduring that misery, either. I have elected to quit shooting the Steel Plate Challenge plates for fun with them. Okay, they changed to 5 plates per stage except for the shoot-off - where a sixth tie-breaker plate is employed. That sixth shot from a five-shooter is a problem. I like my 8-shot .357 Magnum 627 Pro for SPC use, anyway.

Still, I wonder about the Al/Sc alloy 'flexing' under heavy recoil - a la the 310 & 329 NGs?

Stainz
 
Not that this contradicts anything that Old Fuff said, but the hammer stop is the little lug on the end of the cylinder bolt being pointed to in the picture.
Click to expand...

I know, but I drafted my post before I noticed the picture, and sometimes I try to explain things using less-then-technical language that I hope most readers will understand.

Like they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, and I’m a slow typist at best… :)
 
Still, I wonder about the Al/Sc alloy 'flexing' under heavy recoil - a la the 310 & 329 NGs?
Click to expand...

Amen - for every space age material gun that I have from S&W, I also have the steel version (325=625, 329, 329PD=629, 310=610, etc.). Never had a problem with the steel versions.

God, I wish the space age stuff offered zero problems. I really kind of like shooting revolvers. And, as a postscript, have gotten really good at double-action shooting after a few thousand rounds of .22 in the 627.

Haven't decided whether I'll send the 310 back yet - probably... will post here and let folks know of the outcome.
 
Hi, Old Fuff, no curses from here, but what you said is not correct. The center pin is not pushed back by the locking bolt under the barrel, it is pushed back by its own spring. Otherwise it wouldn't be under tension when the cylinder is open. The locking bolt serves to support the extractor rod by entering the hole that is already there, left when the center pin moves back.

Jim
 
Oh Darn!!!!!!!

I must get more sleep, or something.... :uhoh:

Jim is right.....! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

But generally, if the cylinder bolt blocks the hammer when it shouldn't, the reason will be a problem with the cylinder's center pin not pushing it back far enough. Or the bolt itself isn't moving freely for some reason.

Also, at the back end of the bolt there is a small spring & plunger that fits in a hole. If that hole gets filled up with something it shouldn't that can keep the bolt from moving far enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top