[mquaack]

All, I have had my new 642 for about 6 months now. Shot only 5 rounds since I bought it.

I noticed cleaning it today that the end of the barrel is kinda lopsided.

It looks like it was not milled correct.

Please let me know if i should send it back or is it nothing to worry about.

Thanks

Here are some pics.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v671/mquaack/DSC00134.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v671/mquaack/DSC00133.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v671/mquaack/DSC00132.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v671/mquaack/DSC00131.jpg

[Nematocyst]

Mquaaack,

Go over to the 642 Club (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=138658).
Go to the last page.
Post your question.
(No need to read the whole thread;
you can do that later if you wish.)

There are many, many, many 642 owners there
who will help you resolve this issue.

I'll also let them know you've posted here.

Nem

[Nematocyst]

MQ,

Based on those images,
I agree: "lopsided".

(Thanks for adding more images,
and for making sure the 642 was unloaded. ;) )

IMO, either call SW,
or take it to a smith.

At least hold off shooting it again until
more knowledgeable (than me) 642 owners offer some advice.

Please, keep us posted about the outcome.

Nem

[jt1]

mquaack and Nem - Believe it or not what you see is normal. All of my S&W revolvers exhibit a similar appearance. I think it has to do with the lands and grooves ending at the crown of the barrel. Here is a pic of my 642. My 629 and mod. 10 are more or less the same. mquaack, I think your pics look somewhat exaggerated because of the focus. If your's looks similar to my photo, I don't think you have a problem. Hopefully we will get more opinions soon. Interestingly, my Python and Trooper mkIII appear perfectly round as do all of my autoloaders.

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/jt1jt1/P7110022-1.jpg

[mquaack]

JT1,

I compared my 642 to yours and it does look pretty close to the same. Thanks for your pic and post. Interesting that it is rough looking like that on the end. I would like to see if others are like that and some more pics.

[fiVe]

jt1: Excellent catch here.

mquaack: My 642 looks almost identical to yours and jt1's. I will try to post a pic later, and I'm so glad this turned out to be a non-problem.

[Nematocyst]

Well, I'll be darned. You're right.

Mine is the same. The irregularity is on mine seems to be on a slightly different part of the barrel, but it's there.

Funny, I never noticed it. Should have checked it when I looked at Mquaack's images.

Good call, JT.

I'm still working to understand why it looks that way ...

Nem

[Vern Humphrey]

I suspect the fixture used to screw the barrel in with its crush fit threading is the cause. I'd want it corrected if it were my gun.

[Nematocyst]

Vern, I don't have enough knowledge of gun production and smithing to understand that.

So, you think it's not normal, even though several of us seem to have similar shaped barrels?

Could you offer a bit more explanation for us dummies? (speaking only for myself, of course) :o

Thnx.

[Vern Humphrey]

Vern, I don't have enough knowledge of gun production and smithing to understand that.

So, you think it's not normal, even though several of us seem to have similar shaped barrels?

Could you offer a bit more explanation for us dummies? (speaking only for myself, of course)

At one time S&W barrels were pinned (that's the pinned in "pinned and recessed") A hole passed through the gun from side to side , just nicking the threads of the barrel, and a pin driven into the hole locked the barrel in place.

The modern technique is to slightly change the dimensions of the threaded barrel shank to a crush fit. The barrel is screwed in with a special fixture, and it stays in place without the pin. But the force applied can distort the barrel.

One common distortion seen is a slightly reduced bore diameter in the shank. I think these distorted barrels are also a product of that fixture.

And no, they are not normal.

[Wire]

The barrel isn't screwed in by torquing the crown of the muzzle, though.

[Nematocyst]

Sounds like we need to communicate with SW about this.
Maybe we can send them some images to their customer service department?

Vern, what do you see as a potential danger in this?

Any danger to a user shooting one?

I ask because I was planning to use this gun at the range tomorrow.

Now, I wonder about doing it... :uhoh:

[Vern Humphrey]

The barrel isn't screwed in by torquing the crown of the muzzle, though.
Normally, no. but it's possible these barrels were misaligned in the fixture.

Sounds like we need to communicate with SW about this.
Maybe we can send them some images to their customer service department?
Absolutely.

Vern, what do you see as a potential danger in this? Any danger to a user shooting one?

It depends on the degree of distortion -- some barrels shown here are barely out of round -- but the original pictures show clear distortion. This could be like shooting with a bore obstruction.

I ask because I was planning to use this gun at the range tomorrow.
I wouldn't do it -- not with serious distortion like in the first pictures.

[Nematocyst]

OK, I'm not taking sides here ... not yet, anyway.

But, I just spoke with a handgun instructor at my range (by phone; he hasn't seen the gun), who claims from my description that JT's assessment is a more likely explanation: "the lands and grooves ending at the crown of the barrel".

Here's a really crummy shot of mine.
(Sorry: this little digicam won't do sharp closeups
even with both gun and camera sitting on a solid surface.)

I'm still taking this seriously until we reach a consensus about it.

[Gewehr98]

My 696 has a ring in the barrel where the crush fit quite literally did crush things. The gun shoots fine, and I doubt anybody at S&W could do a fix that would be much better, so I live with it.

As for the non-uniform crown of that 642, I'd have them take a look at it.

[Vern Humphrey]

I just spoke with a handgun instructor at my range (by phone; he hasn't seen the gun), who claims from my description that JT's assessment is a more likely explanation: "the lands and grooves ending at the crown of the barrel".
Virtually all rifled firearms have "the lands and grooves ending at the crown of the barrel." But that first picture shows a lot more distortion than I can find on any gun in my safe!

[DennisE]

My new 620 looks the same...it shoots fine. Dennis

[owen]

It would be helpful if you could get the muzzle in focus.

My guess is that the barrel crowning operation was off center. Most of the older non-sleeve barrels are made from an extrusion. The barrel is drilled through, the barrel is threaded. Then the barrel is flipped around, and crowned.

A good drill wanders about .002" per inch, if something is off, it can be much much worse. If the barrel hole isn't drilled perfectly straight, the crown, which is applied later can be non-concentric. It doesn't have to be off by much for it to look terrible, because your eye is very good at determining if something is centered.

IMHO this is the most likely cause. If this is the case, you are probably fine. I'd call S&W anyways. You can probably get a new barrel out of it.

[Gewehr98]

There's nothing stopping you from ordering a handheld 11-degree muzzle crown reamer and .357" pilot from Brownell's, and cleaning it up ever so carefully. ;)

[JPP]

I'm glad to see this post..... My new model 60 looks just like that.... but it shoots great....... so I'm not worried about it.... the only one that will get a good look at would be a BG. :what:

JP

[kgriggs8@yahoo.com]

If it doesn't hurt the performance, who cares? If it won't shoot right, then you may have a problem. Otherwise, I think you and S&W have more important things to do with your time than fixing a non-problem.

[jt1]

Well, some really good responses here. I have returned from the local sportsman's warehouse where the gun staff were kind enough to let me examine all the guns I desired and I spent an hour looking at just about everything they had. I can report that the only real issue of concern here is the lack of attention to detail that the manufactures are giving to final fit and finish of the guns they are letting out the door. Without exception, every J-frame I inspected (19 of them) exhibited the same type of deformation at the muzzle. I also looked at most all the other handguns and found that most of the revolvers had some degree of the same thing, but the Rugers seemed better overall than the others. None of the autoloaders I inspected had any deformation at all. While all this was going on a nice little crowd of folks started to assemble at the gun counter as all the gun clerks, the store manager, and I had just about every handgun in the place lined up on the counter and we are all staring down the barrel of these guns. After it was explained what we were doing and why we started to get help and opinions from the 10 or 12 people assembled at the counter. The opinions were very similar to the range of responses we have here. Then one of the older gentlemen (80-90?) in the assembled group offered this: What you are seeing is an optical illusion, in the old days all guns were hand finished before they were shipped and the barrels were "crowned", nowadays they just send out any old thing that that looks like a gun. Stick a bullet in there and you will see, he says. So they break out a .38 FMJ and stick it in the end of the barrel and the distortion disappears. What you see are the little lines of the grooves around the FMJ and the bore is indeed round. Everyone is impressed and the older gentleman says the last good gun they made and the last one I bought was back before the war. I want to ask what war, but he turns and walks away, smiling and shaking his head.

What I really learned from all of this is that the old guy was right. I knew it was true to some degree to begin with but as I inspected all those guns I saw a lot of fit and finish problems. One had the front of the cylinder so tight it was scarred all the way around from rubbing on the forcing cone. A few others guns had the lettering at an angle and one was locked up and we could not move the cylinder latch at all. None of these should have left the factory.

I do think the photos of the OP being out of focus really exaggerated the appearance of his bore and he states that his looks more or less like the photo I posted in my first response. Based on that I don't think his is any different than the rest and is probably ok. I am not an expert however and would recommended to you mquaack that you physical look at a few other 642's and compare for yourself (it can be quite interesting). Good luck and you are invited to join us over at the 642 club!

...the only one that will get a good look at would be a BG.
LOL! - This line alone makes this whole thread worth the effort.

[Jim March]

If that were my gun, I'd slug the barrel with a soft lead .357 bullet shoved in from the rear. You'll have to use several sections of wood dowel rod about .34" or so wide. I'd then look carefully at the bullet and see how much of this ugly is being transferred to the finished product.

If the bullet is seriously deformed, in my mind the gun needs fixing. Some of these pics show crowns that are so seriously FUBAR that hardcast or brass jacketed full-power 357s might be either dangerous, or working at enough of an elevated pressure to accellerate gun wear. Again: that's what it LOOKS like. I could be wrong, but...if the bullets are coming out funky, I guarantee there's an accuracy issue at play.

---

I also find myself wondering whether or not "the checkout" could catch this. Not specifically, but...if you use the barrel/cylinder alignment check I recommend (strong light at the back of the UNLOADED cylinder, look down the barrel), then...well, I know *I* would have noticed some of these.

My Ruger and Charter Arms 357/38 guns respectively show NO signs of anything like this. And since I never shopped for an S&W J-Frame (esp. late vintage) I've not seen this up close.

[Dave Markowitz]

I can't ascertain from the pictures the amount of distortion. However, the most important factor is how the gun functions. If it shoots ok, distortion isn't pretty but it's something I could live with.

IMO, YMMV.

[Gewehr98]

None of my J, K, or L-frame Smith & Wesson wheelguns ever had a muzzle crown that looked like that. :(

[owen]

Oh I agree with everyone else about getting checked. Nothing is more exciting than wondering when your revolver will grenade. A decent gunsmith should have the tools to make sure it's safe, but he's gonna charge you for it.

Definitely call S&W. Even if it is safe, it's still an eyesore, and I'd expect them to do right by you.

[Pistol Toter]

None of my S&W look like that!!! I have, well, several. Does the gun keyhole the projectiles on the target. Mr. March, correct me but a messed up crown will cause keyholing??

[dang]

Mine looks similar. I've had no problems in the 2 years i've owned it. i'm inclined to side with the grooves make it look distorted.

[Titus]

I took my 642 out and it looked distorted and then I turned so the light hit it a different way and it distorted again! How will I ever get consistent groups with this thing? :) I'd go with jt1's old timer's explanation. You have a thin, stainless barrel so minute variations in the crown stand out. Throw in variations on the outside diameter of the barrel and even the fact that it's five groove and shazam, a "distorted" barrel. If I read this right, nobody found the "problem" due to problems with the way the gun shot?

[Jim March]

>>Mr. March, correct me but a messed up crown will cause keyholing??<<

If it's bad enough, yeah.

Again: see what the bullets look like. Maybe start with something like a double-ended wadcutter, you can roll that across a flat surface and look for distortion the same way you do pushrods.

(For those not mechanically inclined: to see if a pushrod is screwed up, you roll it across something known to be dead flat. Any warp will be obvious.)

[dav]

No one else has mentioned it yet, so I will.

Don't just look at the distortions, look at the whole bore. It looks like a pentagon.

Now, why would a bore be pentagonal? Oh yeah, some guns are actually made that way, no grooves and lands, just a pentagonal bore.

Here you have 5 grooves/lands. I think it makes it look like the bore is pentagonal. I don't think it matters whether it really is, or not.

Lots of people claim the Glock shoots fine. (I wouldn't know :p)

[glassman]

Mine looks the same as well but maybe not as exagerated. First time I really noticed it. It shoots fine and I have confidence in it so for me, it's a non problem.

[ugaarguy]

The S&W revolvers are definetly not rifled polygonaly, but all that I own do have five lands and grooves. None of mine look as bad as in the pics (newest one is from 1981), but the heavier barreled stainless guns do show a somewhat similar appearance to those pictured. Perhaps the odd number of lands & grooves combined with a rougher crown than the older guns had contributes to this off center appearance.

[Nematocyst]

Haven't fully digested all of the responses since I last checked in.

Will do that tomorrow.

Right now, I'm recovering from a 10 hr. handgun class that ate sunday.

Worth it, but long.

Point is this: during said 10 hr class,
I shot 100 rnds (WC and FMJ) through my 642
at an 18 X 18 target @ 7 yds.

Singles aiming, singles pointing from low ready.
Rapid singles.
Double tap, rest, double tap.
Rapid double taps.

Warped, pentagonal, polygonal or otherwise,
at least on average, it did as well as the 10 semi's there,
all with longer barrels.

And, it didn't even blow up.

;)

[Master Blaster]

Then one of the older gentlemen (80-90?) in the assembled group offered this: What you are seeing is an optical illusion, in the old days all guns were hand finished before they were shipped and the barrels were "crowned", nowadays they just send out any old thing that that looks like a gun. Stick a bullet in there and you will see, he says. So they break out a .38 FMJ and stick it in the end of the barrel and the distortion disappears. What you see are the little lines of the grooves around the FMJ and the bore is indeed round. Everyone is impressed and the older gentleman says the last good gun they made and the last one I bought was back before the war. I want to ask what war, but he turns and walks away, smiling and shaking his head.


He's a smart guy, Its an optical illusion caused by the stainless bead blasted finish, and you brains desire to see something that isnt so.

[oweno]

Hmmm - this thread sent me scurrying to check my 642 and it IS a tad out of round. Next, I checked my 1970s vintage Model 10 and it too is a bit out of round. Odd, I must say.

[Wire]

Has anyone checked the land - outside ratio with a micrometer? I just spent a few unpleasant moments staring down the muzzle of my only S&W (verified empty) revolver from different angles, with different light sources, cylinder open and closed, and there were two "shoulders" in the bore similar to the instigating pic.

[mquaack]

Thanks for all that has replied to this thread. I never noticed the end of the barrel like that which concerned me (I dont have a habit of staring at the end of a barrel face on). I might call S&W today and talk to them. It is reassurring to know that others have the same look. I would like to stop in a gun store and check out what they have their too. Maybe the process that S&W has for the end of the barrel manufacturing causes it to look that way. Interesting.

[Master Blaster]

Boy S&W is lucky that you gents will be pointing out to them how they can improve their revolver design for people who like to point a gun at their face and study the muzzle.:neener:

[mquaack]

Can anyone else post some more pics of the crown of their 642 so we all can compare? Thanks.

[Mr.Revolverguy]

I will post mine as soon as I return. I can tell you when I purchased mine I made the gun shope owner mad I think. Reason being he went back to the back to pull out 6 other 642's and they all were the same. Mine looks exactly like yours even in the same spot. I have about 500 rounds through mine in practice and in my CCW class I actually got an award sharp shooter as I did out shoot all of the glocks and XD's that were there that day. Only two of us had snubbies me with a 642 and the other was a taurus 85UL.

[Bulldog]

642-1

http://www.jdlawhon.com/wheelguns/sw642bbl.jpg

[orionengnr]

None of my J, K, or L-frame Smith & Wesson wheelguns ever had a muzzle crown that looked like that.

Me too...and let me add one N-frame to that statement...

[Vern Humphrey]

I don't have any Smiths, but none of my Colts are hunch-backed and gotch-eyed like that.:barf:

[35Rem]

Nice Gold Dots, Bulldog.

[BoneDigger]

I just checked my 642 and it looks perfectly round. I cn see the grooves, but aside from that, perfectly round.

Todd

[YosemiteSam357]

This is an older thread, but since I just picked up a new 642, I wanted to add something: I believe this "ugly muzzle crown" issue is due to S&W's use of the two-piece barrel. I could very well be wrong, but it looks to me like they used that construction on this revolver. The "tube" that makes up the actual barrel is a different material than the visible "barrel" of the gun. So I think what we're seeing here (mine is "uneven", too) is not exactly a traditional "rough muzzle crown", but more likely a bad fit between the two barrel pieces. The outer piece is sort of formed around the end of the tube, and it has depressions in it where they mate.

That was my initial impression upon examining the gun. I bought it anyway. It's as accurate as you can expect for a 1-7/8" barrel, small gripped weapon. I also have a "full size" model 60 (2-1/8", longer grip) and I actually shoot the 642 better. So I don't see the ugly muzzle crown as a serious issue, just yet another cheapening of the guns S&W makes.

-- Sam

[mquaack]

Went to a gun store today and looked at probably 10 S&W J-frames (640s). All looked the same as mine except one which I would seriouly doubt a bullet could be fired out of it.

:uhoh:

[scubie02]

do you have old ones? None of my k's are like that, but they are all older--my 642 looks just like that.

[YosemiteSam357]

My K and N frames aren't like that, but they're older pinned & recessed guns. My 90s vintage Model 60 isn't like that. My Taurii and Rugers are not like this.

Only the 642, which I suspect has the two piece barrel that S&W said they were going to switch to a couple of years ago.

-- Sam

[flieger]

I am told elsewhere and on this forum that what you see here is normal, or isn't "broke". I think otherwise. Three of the five lands are so shallow as to be considered smooth.

Retrieving a fired 148 Gr. HBWC confirmed this. Two grooves on one side of the bullet, and smooth the rest of the way around.

And the "crown" is the worst I have ever seen. Of course I have only been shooting for 40+ years so there may be worse ones out there. I just haven't seen them yet.

The piece will be going back to S&W for "evaluation". I sure hope they make it right. If I hadn't purchased it online, I would have rejected it out of hand.

Thanks for listening. Rant off.

[YosemiteSam357]

Mr. Flieger,

I didn't mean to imply this was "normal", just (possibly) an artifact of the two-piece barrel. I agree that the crown is certainly ugly, and I'll take your word for it on the depth of groove issue.

There are a lot of techniques S&W are using today that I feel take away from the quality that the name once stood for. In fact, I hadn't planned on buying an S&W with a lock, MIM parts, or two-piece barrel; Eventually my desire for a lightweight pocket revolver overrode my traditionalist side. I may still look around for an original 642 (sans lock); we'll see.

FWIW, it appears I'm wrong: I asked about the two-piece barrel over on the S&W forum and got a response that indicates S&W would have changed model numbers (from -2 to -3) had they changed from one piece to two.

So apparently they've just taken to making such ugly barrels we'll want them to go to two-piece...

I for one am very interested in what you hear (or get) back from S&W on this.

-- Sam

[sm]

I was not going to say anything about them newfangled guns, with some newfangled ideas about muzzles, quality control or nothing.
But I got elbowed by a lady, and if I don't post, she liable to elbow me again.

Old boy come out with some kinfolk, with one of them guns.
Now this old boy, can shoot. His idea of fun is to shoot one wing off a bumblebee just to watch it fly in circles...then crash land.

I heard 'em shooting, mosey-ed out, took note of the target.
He had a funny look on his face, "disgusted" if you will.

I look at the target and suggested he try a different brand of shotgun slugs...
"Now that target you <expletive> this one! <he points>
"That is the target I am talking about" I reply
"You <expletive> I am shooting a handgun, not a shotgun testing slugs!"

Kinfolk sent the gun it , got it sold when it comes back.
They run across a fellow needing a MasterBlaster 2000 , had a OLDer Model 36 he was needing to get rid of to get the money so they tossed $150 down and then eased out in a real darn hurry!

That 36 one puts all the same loads in the same spot every time.

Handguns are not supposed to "pattern" like that...

[Iggy]

Has S&W started using MIM barrels???:eek::what::rolleyes: