This may be a silly question, but here it is anyway. I just picked up a new 642, and overall the fit and finish is nice. I did notice one thing though, that caught my attention. It's a little hard to describe, but where the ejecter rod screws into the yoke (crane?, I’m not sure what the part is called, but it is the piece of stainless that the ejector rod is screwed into), I noticed that there is a bit of a “lip” between the stainless and the aluminum frame. Looking at the gun in profile, the stainless yoke/ aluminum frame is completely flush with each other from the base of the yoke, up to the area where it angles and becomes flat (by the ejector rod). The stainless section where it curves up and around the ejector rod is not flush with the aluminum frame. Looking at it from the side, you can see a little aluminum “lip”. Is this just a cosmetic defect? Do any of you who own a 642 see this on your 642's? Maybe I'm being a little too finicky, but I couldn't help but to notice this. Would any of you be bothered by this? The gun functioned fine.
I would like your opinions on my S&W 642 fit and finish?
- Thread starter Doug S
- Start date
- Status
RUT
Member
>>Maybe I'm being a little too finicky<<
Yes, mine's the same way. Don't worry about it.
Yes, mine's the same way. Don't worry about it.
RON in PA
Member
Relax, take a Valium. Beware if you fire the revolver it will get dirty and develop rings in front of the cylinder.
tantrix
Member
RON in PA said:Relax, take a Valium. Beware if you fire the revolver it will get dirty and develop rings in front of the cylinder.
You guys are ruthless....
xrmattaz
member
Ruthless, yes. But I'm glad MY 642 doesn't look like THAT! tantrix said:You guys are ruthless....
Marshall
Member
There's a hair on your ejector rod, is that factory?
I didn't realize I had used up my goofy question quota, but I'm glad you guys are having fun. Although my wife is having great fun reading the comments in this thread (it really does make her day), I was really wondering if this is what one expects from Smith and Wesson these days. I was used to this kind of craftmanship from Taurus, but thought Smith might run a tighter ship. With 12 pages in the 642 Club thread, I really wanted to know if other owners of the 642, notice similar workmanship with their guns. From the few serious responses that I've gotten, I'd say that it is not uncommon. That said, I like the 642, and will put it to good use. I may even fire it and get it dirty.
. Although my wife is having great fun reading the comments in this thread (it really does make her day), I was really wondering if this is what one expects from Smith and Wesson these days. I was used to this kind of craftmanship from Taurus, but thought Smith might run a tighter ship. With 12 pages in the 642 Club thread, I really wanted to know if other owners of the 642, notice similar workmanship with their guns. From the few serious responses that I've gotten, I'd say that it is not uncommon. That said, I like the 642, and will put it to good use. I may even fire it and get it dirty.Marshall
Member
Doug, just joshing you, all in fun.
Seriously, don't worry about it, if the gun functions perfectly and all is well, just enjoy it. It doesn't look like anything to cause future trouble either.
Seriously, don't worry about it, if the gun functions perfectly and all is well, just enjoy it. It doesn't look like anything to cause future trouble either.
I can't tell what you are talking about. I'll go get my wife's 642 and find out if it is the same, but you'll have to circle the area in your picture.
If it is like that, (whatever "that" is) I'm going to call Mssrs. Smith and Wesson and file a complaint!
If it is like that, (whatever "that" is) I'm going to call Mssrs. Smith and Wesson and file a complaint!
Thanks for the feedback guys. I'm pretty thick skinned, & can take a little ribbing. Besides, it made my wife's day to read the thread. She thinks I'm neurotic, and many of your comments seem to have confirmed her suspicions. I like the 642, and plan on putting to good use.
Doug S said:
If it makes you feel any better, I examine all my gun and knife purchases for the slightest imperfection and get bummed if I find anything out of line. Wiht knives its blade alignment or the slightest blade play. Drives me nuts! With guns, it can be anything at all, but usually minor cosmetic stuff.
But, then again, I also wash my hands 18 times before I leave the house. A few times, I've lost count and had to start over.
Pilot,
I'm talking about the area of the frame where it meets the crane/yoke around the ejector rod. If you look closely at my picture, you will see a "lip" where the frame seems to extend out just a bit further than the stainless yoke. I've posted this over on Glock Talk also, and along with a little more "good humor" , I've gotten a number of responses indicating that this is fairly common on the 642.
I'm talking about the area of the frame where it meets the crane/yoke around the ejector rod. If you look closely at my picture, you will see a "lip" where the frame seems to extend out just a bit further than the stainless yoke. I've posted this over on Glock Talk also, and along with a little more "good humor"
, I've gotten a number of responses indicating that this is fairly common on the 642.Attachments
Jkwas
Member
It's called obsessive compulsive disorder. I suffer from it as well. Right now it's snub revolvers
Scrathes and dents
I also tend to find the slightest flaws in anything new that I buy. last time I bought a new car I considered putting a couple of scratches in it, just to get it over with.
I've purchased a few S&Ws that had poor finishes, or areas where the finish were missing. One where the finish looked like it dripped. If it's been something I couldn't live with S&W was pretty decent about fixing it. Hey, it's reasonable to expect when spending a lot of $$$ on a gun for it to look new, at least till you shoot it a few times. As far as your the goes, from what I can see it looks like it's not a flaw.
I also tend to find the slightest flaws in anything new that I buy. last time I bought a new car I considered putting a couple of scratches in it, just to get it over with.
I've purchased a few S&Ws that had poor finishes, or areas where the finish were missing. One where the finish looked like it dripped. If it's been something I couldn't live with S&W was pretty decent about fixing it. Hey, it's reasonable to expect when spending a lot of $$$ on a gun for it to look new, at least till you shoot it a few times. As far as your the goes, from what I can see it looks like it's not a flaw.
While I don't think there is a problem as a result, the overlap is readily apparent in the photo and one can sure tell that the two parts were not buffed out together.
Being of two different materials and the way the manufacturing process works these days I would guess there are more than just yours showing this slight crudeness of fit.
S&W is not ammune to this and other more serious defects. My friend just purchased a Model 432 and the cylinder when open will ride over the cylinder stop and continue to the rear.
Overall I have seen the S&W guns degress in quality and the Taurus guns improve to a level where the difference isn't near what it used to be.
Being of two different materials and the way the manufacturing process works these days I would guess there are more than just yours showing this slight crudeness of fit.
S&W is not ammune to this and other more serious defects. My friend just purchased a Model 432 and the cylinder when open will ride over the cylinder stop and continue to the rear.
Overall I have seen the S&W guns degress in quality and the Taurus guns improve to a level where the difference isn't near what it used to be.
Jacob Staff
Member
My 642 looks like yours but not as bad. Near the barrel it is flush. Below the ejector rod there is a bit more aluminum frame showing but not much.
I have only put about 100 rounds through it.
I have only put about 100 rounds through it.
Thanks for the feedback. I just wanted to know if this was common, and it sounds like it is fairly common. In regard to the photo, other than to resize the photo, I made no adjustments. The camera is a Sony P200. It takes pretty nice photos for a point and shoot digital.
tantrix
Member
Marshall said:There's a hair on your ejector rod, is that factory?
R-Tex12 said:Don't let 'em get to you, Doug S! You're miles ahead of me as I haven't yet acquired my first 642. (But I can make you a great offer on your beat-up, hairy ol' 642!
ROFL....man you guys are gonna drive him insane.
fiVe
Member
Thanks alot, Doug S.!!
I would've never noticed mine if you had not said anything. And I got a hairless ejector, too!!
Of course, things like this don't bother all that much, and mine is a little less than yours.
I would've never noticed mine if you had not said anything. And I got a hairless ejector, too!!
Of course, things like this don't bother all that much, and mine is a little less than yours.
warwagon
Member
Doug,
I have a vintage mod 49 that I had to examine after reading your post. No such problem with this one.
Too bad S&W doesn't take this kind of workmanship seriously enough to satisfy the customer.
Still it might be worth a call, email to be sure they won't rectify the problem.
I wish you luck, but the above posts were right,it wont affect the performance of the weapon.
Blair
I have a vintage mod 49 that I had to examine after reading your post. No such problem with this one.
Too bad S&W doesn't take this kind of workmanship seriously enough to satisfy the customer.
Still it might be worth a call, email to be sure they won't rectify the problem.
I wish you luck, but the above posts were right,it wont affect the performance of the weapon.
Blair
- Status
