[KBintheSLC]

A while back (May '09), I purchased a brand new J-frame 637 - 2. Upon taking it to the range, I discovered that the gun shoots about 7" to the right of POA at 25 yards. So I tested it from the bench in single action... same results. I took a closer look at it and realized that the barrel was very skewed... it was not straight coming out of the frame. It appeared to be a barrel problem, not a frame/threading problem. The barrel itself does not look square. Even my local gunsmith said that the barrel would likely need to be replaced.

So, I sent it packing back to Smith & Wesson for repairs. Much to my dismay, all they did was tighten the barrel 2 or 3 degrees and send it back. Now the barrel is about 1-2 degrees past "12 o'clock" and is not aligned vertically with the frame. It can be seen by looking at the bottom of the barrel... the cylinder rod no longer aligns properly with the retaining notch on the bottom of the barrel. And, the same crappy, skewed barrel is still there. Honestly, I felt that it was an insult to my intelligence for them to send it back to me after performing this sub-par "repair".

I can't even feel good about selling the gun at this point. So, the gun is heading back to S&W for another round of "repairs". Hopefully, this time they will do it right. I assume that all of the 2nd day shipping expenses will add up quickly. This is my first S&W revolver (I have always been a Ruger guy), and I have to admit that between the poor initial craftsmanship, loose quality control and the lazy "repair" service, it will likely be my last.

Anyway, sorry for the rant, but it appears that S&W has lost its way in recent years. This is the second defective S&W gun I have bought in the past 2 years... the first was a brand new PPK/S .380 that proved to be the worst auto pistol I have ever owned.

Just wanted to share my experience with you folks. Old, used S&W's might be great, but I would avoid their new guns like the plague. :barf:

Regards, KBintheSLC

UPDATE: I just noticed a new issue that was created by the recent "repair". The cylinder gap is now at 0.010 and is not even... at the bottom of the barrel it opens up even wider to about 0.014. The original gap was at about 0.007 which was already a bit wide, but still acceptable. Now it is way out of spec.

[frankiestoys]

Wow!
Sorry, sounds like you got a lemon.
I hope they get it fixed right this time.
Maybe it was a Monday gun, i own two smiths but i like my Rugers better.
keep us posted on this one.

[jfh]

I remember seeing your first thread on this, KB.

I owned a 442 briefly--bought it used, but barely--just carried a lot, it looked like. At any rate, I bought it in the summer of '08, and it had been manufactured late in '06. The assembly on it was fine, and it worked. I used it for some of my "replica reload" testing, and then decided I really preferred the scandium-framed lightweights for sure.

I had bought an M&P 340 before that, and in comparing the two, it was apparent that the 340 was assembled with noticably better QC than the 442. The product materials--i.e., scandium frame, etc. simply were better, and better manufactured.

This left me wondering why S&W would be doing so poorly with the QC of their Airweight and .38 Special j-frames. I finally concluded they are trying to manufacture to a price point, and that it was one notch too low for customers to be satisfied. What it takes to change those QC issues, I guess, is the persistence of dissatisfied customers.

Good luck with it.

Jim H.

[Thaddeus Jones]

S&W will get it right, the second or third time. That should be the new motto for them.

The current company calling itself Smith & Wesson is simply making money off a famous trademark. Their current production revolvers are an abomination, to me, and IMHO. :)

[SaxonPig]

S&W has been having problems with their barrels for about 20 years. They crack, blow off the frame in firing, are bent or twisted in unacceptably high numbers.

I believe this all started when they dropped the barrel pin and went with the crush fit. I realize that Colt and others have always used this system but for some reason S&W hasn't exactly figured out how to make it work.

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

I sure hope they make it right. I would certainly demand to be fully reimbursed for my shipping costs at a minimum.

Sadly, they are just nowhere near the company they once were. In retrospect, not surprising to me since they were bought by Brits.

[Dark Skies]

They're still having trouble? I remember way back when we could still own modern handguns in the UK that my S&W 586 had to have the barrel tightened a good bit so the sights would line up.

[floydster]

This is why I buy Ruger.
Floydster

[351 WINCHESTER]

S & W used to have the best customer service. Sadly customer service is a dying breed. Did you try different ammo? It's been my observation that different loads will shoot to different poi, sometimes by a huge margin. I doubt you're going to be shooting 25 yds. anyway in a sd situation. I would have left it alone. Different shooters will have a different poi as will different grips and holding techniques, etc...

[.38 Special]

The shame of it is that the "classics" are a really good idea. Bringing back all the great old revolvers in classic finishes... who could resist? But the reality is quite a letdown.

I hope they get back on track. Until then, Ruger is still turning out piles of great revolvers at reasonable prices.

[snooperman]

S&W has been living off their name for quite some time and the quality that was once their trademark is gone. That is why I look for the older guns that are in excellent condition, including Colt, S&W, Dan Wesson, and of course Ruger .

[KBintheSLC]

Did you try different ammo? It's been my observation that different loads will shoot to different poi, sometimes by a huge margin. I doubt you're going to be shooting 25 yds. anyway in a sd situation. I would have left it alone. Different shooters will have a different poi as will different grips and holding techniques, etc...

Yes... 4 different kinds of factory ammo from 4 different factories. Jacketed, cast lead, SWC, WC, SJ-FP... Same results. It is not the ammo, or the shooting technique. Its the skewed barrel. I am shooting 3"-4" well centered groups at 25 yards with a 3" barreled GP101 off hand. So assume I should at least be able to hit the paper from the bench with this thing in single action. Actually my groups are pretty tight with the 637... just 6-7" to the right of where they should be. I see no reason why I should have "left it alone". Afterall, I expect something other than crap for $450~ OTD.

I would certainly demand to be fully reimbursed for my shipping costs at a minimum.

Didn't mean to confuse anyone... SW pays for shipping on warranty stuff. I was trying to say that maybe they will do it right after having to pay for 2 day shipping a few times.

[MCgunner]

It happens. I was reading about the new LCR in my latest "American Rifleman" this morning. I like what they do with the barrel, shroud is cast with the frame and they use a threaded barrel insert. The barrel installation is a lot simpler and you won't find the regulation thing a problem on that design. I really liked what I read about the LCR. If I didn't already have a nice shooting Taurus 85 SSUL I really like, I think I'd be hot after an LCR. It is a very good design from what I read about it, fresh thinking for a DAO revolver.

[Phydeaux642]

I bought a Walther P22 (Smith import) and had to have the barrel changed after the first time out. I have a 642-2 that shoots better than I do but I have a no-lock 642-1 that shoots high. I'll still keep it as it is a "get off of me" gun and will work fine for that.

I have a 442-2 that I have never fired and am on my way to see about trading it for a Glock 26 and I don't even like Glocks. I'm trying to get rid of my Smiths with the ILS. They haven't given me any problems, but I just can't get comfortable with them. No, S&W isn't the company they were many decades ago.

I hope you get yours fixed so you can trade it for something you're happy with.

[earlthegoat2]

Is 6" off at 25yds that unacceptable of accuracy??

It is a snub and all.

This is going to be my only dip into this quagmire.

[MCgunner]

With me, yes, that's very unacceptable. YMMV. I want my guns to shoot POA and accurately at that. My snubs have generally shot 3" 25 yard groups from the bench and if they didn't shoot to POA with my load of choice, usually a file will fix it. Windage should be on. Why should I accept less, just because it has an S&W logo on it?

My 2.3" Ruger SP101 shot less than 3" from the bench and shot to POA right out of the box. That's how it should be, but I'm usually happy if I can just adjust the gun with a file. I won't accept wild windage problems.

[rhtwist]

Sorry to hear that S&W is getting as bad as Colt. Was thinking of going to them, might just jump to Ruger.
rhtwist

[Old Fuff]

Is 6" off at 25yds that unacceptable of accuracy??

It depends. Older Colt's and Smith & Wesson's could interlock shots into a centered group @ 25 yards, and deliver hits to the center-of-mass of a B-27 silhouette target at 100. Some of today's guns will still do so. Of course if you want to shoot .357 Magnum cartridges out of a super-light aluminum & titanium model your standards may be more realistic.

It is a snub and all.

See above.

This is going to be my only dip into this quagmire.

Wise judgment on you're part. :D

[Guillermo]

Smith will make it right.

That said, the last (and I hope very last) new Smith revolvers that I touched had defects.

[fried]

I have been reading off the forum for a long time here but never posted before and decided I had to speak up on this one. I have had two brand new Smith performance center revolvers, 627 pro and a 629. They were both junk. The 627 had to be sent back for light striking (I tried multiple types and brands of ammo). Only 50% of rounds would fire. They had to replace the firing pin. The 629 L comp was the real turd. Out of the box it shot 7 inches left at 25 yards regardless of ammo or who was shooting. It went back to Smith the first time and they immediately returned it with NO repairs. It went back the second time and they "adjusted" the barrel. It still shot 7 inches left. It went back the third time and they replaced the barrel. I am still not happy with how it shoots. And these were both "performance center" guns. Apparently, you do not always get what you pay for.....

[MCgunner]

I really don't know about modern Smith products, they're expensive, but I would think they'd make it right and once made right, it'd be a good gun. I know, for what you give for the things, you'd think they'd have better QC than that. I just don't usually consider them with the possible exception of the 642 for reasons of price. I don't much like the frame mounted lock design, either, though. Mine would get a drop of superglue or something if I had one. The only Smith I have at the moment is a 60s era M10. I've had a couple of others, an old M1917 I should have kept just because, even though it was a pretty worn old warhorse and didn't like lead bullets, and I had a M19 I stupidly sold. It was an OK gun, thought I was making good money on the sale and needed the money......whadda moron. LOL I had a Security Six at the time and it was stainless. Yeah, I've always been more of a Ruger guy.

[trex1310]

Ruger hasn't had the best QC lately either. :banghead:

[RatDrall]

I've owned S&W revolvers, numerous K and J frames, over the years. The production dates on the guns have been anywhere from 1960 through 2003. All of the guns have been fantastic, including the 2003 Model 65 (last K frame generation in .357). The only thing I didn't like is the lock, but it honestly never caused me any trouble. Pinned barrels and recessed cylinders and hammer mounted firing pins are great, but not absolutely necessary.

It's too bad that a few people have problems with their guns, but for every problem gun there are thousands in pockets, waistbands, sock drawers, glove boxes, and safes around the country that work fine for decades without a problem.

[Guillermo]

for every problem gun there are thousands in pockets, waistbands, sock drawers, glove boxes, and safes around the country that work fine for decades without a problem

that is not true of the new production revolvers

[Old Fuff]

The real issue is not how many lemons-per-thousand a manufacturer turns out, but rather that some firearms (snubby revolvers being an example) are sold with an outright or implied understanding that they are defensive weapons. Of course not all of them are used for this purpose, but still the thought is still there.

Any weapon, above all other attributes, must be reliable, for the obvious reason that someone may stake their life, or the lives of others, on the performance of that weapon. It is literally a life & death matter.

Therefore in my opinion, the manufacturer is obligated to do anything and everything possible, within reason, to insure what they make meets this intentionally high standard.

At one time every Smith & Wesson and Colt handgun was test fired and targeted, to insure that (1) it worked, and (2) the bullet went where the sight were aligned. Not all passed the test, but those that didn’t were tagged and returned to the production end of the company for correction. In both companies the management understood this responsibility and took it seriously. Consequently relatively few guns, respective to the total numbers, failed in the field.

We don’t see this today, because things such as 100% inspection, test shooting, and targeting has gone by the wayside, shot down by bean-counters who are only focused on the bottom line. Maybe that’s the way it has to be.

Around the time of the Korean War a retired Marine Col. Named VanOrden (my spelling may be off – the 1950’s are a long way back) and his wife ran a sales organization that specialized in sales to military personal and law enforcement officers. Their specialty was certain models of Smith & Wesson revolvers, and even though they had been tested and inspected at the factory Col. Van Orden ran each one through his own VERY rigorous once-over, because he knew beyond question that some of his customers would indeed stake their lives on whatever he was selling them.

But as I said, those times were a long, long time ago. I can only suggest that you carefully look at what you’re buying before, not after you buy it.

[Airburst]

I picked up a nice 4516. I went to the range and test fired the weapon with my practice ammo and my carry ammo. With either selected ammo in every magazine, the gun would not fully go into battery. I sent it back to them, (they sent me a UPS label) and in three weeks, I got it back. They said they determined the extractor was the problem. I told them it was the recoil spring. Repeated my range trip and the problem was still there. Wouldn't go into battery. I then bought a replacement Wolff gun spring and installed it. Went back to the range and big suprise, it works perfectly.

[megatronrules]

I have a S&W 340 M&P and the first one I bought developed a split underneath where the barrel meets the frame. I send it back to S&W and 3 weeks later had a new gun send to my FFL. In my experience S&W customer service was excellent,it was very frustrating to have to return a $700 gun to the manufacture but it happens. In the end it worked out and I couldn't be happier with this gun. I'm sorry to hear of you experience I hope it turns out good for you.

[stonecoldy]

I was sorta considering a S&W Model 22 Classic for purchase this past week, everything looked OK until I looked at the front sight, it appeared to be canted left at the rear of the sight to the front. I immediately turned right to see if it would straighten out at due North, but no luck. I wasn't that interested in its purchase, but in retrospect, it certainly pays to take your time to "kick the tires" and then some. Not that it helps until you shoot it, but initial appearance counts for something.
I have purchased a Model 60 earlier this year (so far so good with 500 rounds of mostly .38 Special mild loads through it), and a 625 (not shot yet, will do so tomorrow), so I don't have much to offer.
In my own opinion, I'm thinking the overwhelming desire of the past year for purchasing by the general populace has resulted in some corner-cutting on pushing production out the door. The tried and true shooters notice the difference.

[gmh1013]

I like my SP101 .357 and cant find any new Smith that I would fork over my hard earned dollars over......way way over priced now

[Bishop.357]

I own 3 S&W revolvers, the 640-3 .357 magnum, the 686 .357 magnum and the 629 .44 magnum. I've never experienced any problems with any of them or with any S&W in general. When I turned 14yrs old I received my first handgun,an S&W model 13 .357,and I've been a S&W man ever since. I have heard that as of late S&W is lacking the quality it used to be known far and wide for;but until I start havin' problems I will remain a loyal customer.

[sw282]

The troubles being expressed is the reason I buy only used guns. That doesnt mean they are or were better when they left the factory. I just hope the first guy fixed them. Five of the last guns I have purchased new required work out of six. Two Rugers, Two Remingtons. A Winchester. The Winchester and Rugers had sorry triggers. Had local guy fix those. Had to send the two Remingtons back because the scope mounting Holes were off. I dont even bother Remington with triggers. I just get my guy to put Shilen triggers in them. The only troublefree gun bought new recently was a Cooper. It came with a target. I remember the days of going and seeing new Smiths come into gunshops filthy from factory firing. Dirty yes. But at least you knew they worked.

[PsychoGlory]

I was in the market for a new revolver, what I wanted was a 629. I went to my local gun store and being a Smith & Wesson distributor he had several Smith & Wesson's in stock. I inspected all the models that caught my eye and everyone was perfect. Not a single thing wrong with any of them. Unfortunately the model I wanted was not in stock, so I ended up ordering 629 model 163698 from Bud's Gun Shop. When I received it, it was as exactly as I expected, perfect like my other Smith & Wesson I bought. Both my Smith & Wesson's were bought off the internet a 1911 108284 and my most recent the 629 163698. The 629 was bought a month ago and my 1911 a year ago. Finish, function are excellent for both

[KBintheSLC]

Is 6" off at 25yds that unacceptable of accuracy??

It is a snub and all.

I guess it depends on your standards. My $250 Kel Tec P32 shoots much better than this $425 S&W 637 does. So, I guess it is unacceptable... IMO

Smith will make it right.

Thats what I keep hearing, but they had the chance to and didn't. Now I am waiting for a shipping label to send it back again.

But as I said, those times were a long, long time ago. I can only suggest that you carefully look at what you’re buying before, not after you buy it.

I agree. I did a thorough run through of the revolver inspection steps (its a sticky here). However, I never really imagined that there would be a crooked barrel problem on a revolver as I have never seen such a condition before. It is pretty subtle initially, but once you are made aware of it it is painfully obvious.