My new 686 has a "feature"!!


PDA






Japle
December 22, 2011, 01:49 PM
I bought a nice new S&W 686 Pro and just finished an action job today when I noticed something odd.

Whatís wrong with this picture?

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/Japle/Guns/6or7shot686.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about "My new 686 has a "feature"!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
kbbailey
December 22, 2011, 01:55 PM
uh-oh
Thats pretty thin!!

rcmodel
December 22, 2011, 01:55 PM
It was test fired at the factory with some but not all of the chambers?
And they didn't clean it?

rc

56hawk
December 22, 2011, 01:56 PM
Oh wow, that's a little scary. How many flutes are on that cylinder?

Sam1911
December 22, 2011, 02:06 PM
How many flutes are on that cylinder? I counted 7. Must be a 7-shooter, but they forgot to drill the extra hole. Wonder if that could POSSIBLY cause any problems?

rcmodel
December 22, 2011, 02:10 PM
Ah Ha!
I didn't even see that!!

Better give Mr. Smith & Mr. Wesson a call on that right there!

rc

Japle
December 22, 2011, 02:16 PM
Yep! They used a cylinder intended for a 686+ 7-shooter for my SSR 6-shooter!

I emailed S&W customer service and attached a photo.

It'll be fun hearing what they have to say about this one!!

Strykervet
December 22, 2011, 02:19 PM
Wow, just wow. People make mistakes, but just exactly how'd that get by?

LeonCarr
December 22, 2011, 02:22 PM
Wow...never seen one like that before.

Send it back.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

Sam1911
December 22, 2011, 02:27 PM
but just exactly how'd that get by?

How?

I have a feeling this might have something to do with it:

It was test fired at the factory with some but not all of the chambers

If they'd loaded it up, I imagine they might have discovered the mistake. :eek:

Jim Watson
December 22, 2011, 02:33 PM
Chamber walls are no thinner than the webs of the seven shooter.
I'd keep it as a novelty item and not let them talk me into letting them change out the cylinder.

Until Sam counted holes and flutes, I just assumed the flutes were off center like they are on my 640.

S&W has long testfired revolvers by shooting only every other chamber. That used to be the test of a new gun, burn marks on only half the chamber mouths.

Japle
December 22, 2011, 03:05 PM
OK, everyone ignore the discoloration around the chambers.

I've fired it. I wanted to make sure it worked as-is before I spent the time doing the action work.

My main worry (other than the fact that S&W would never machine flutes directly over a revolver's chambers because it's just stupid) is that when it goes back to the factory they'll screw with the action.

StrutStopper
December 22, 2011, 03:23 PM
I wonder if a screwed up cylinder like that could be worth something?

Carl N. Brown
December 22, 2011, 03:36 PM
Wow. A Seven fluted cylinder with Six chambers! Just.... Wow.

BaltimoreBoy
December 22, 2011, 04:18 PM
Sheesh.

Looks like another anecdote for Chuck Hawks.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/smith-wesson_dark.htm

Pyzik
December 22, 2011, 04:29 PM
Wow, that is pretty nuts.
Subscribing for the outcome from S&W.

460Kodiak
December 22, 2011, 06:02 PM
That's down right embarassing for S&W. LOL. Yeah keep us updated on the outcome. It's almost worth keeping as a joke. Maybe if it was done on a Charter or a taurus, but not on a $700 + S&W.

Deaf Smith
December 22, 2011, 06:33 PM
Yes it looks like a 6 shot cylinder with seven flutes.

I bet they did the flutes AFTER the chambers drilled but someone sent the 6 shot cylinders to the seven flute CNC machine by mistake instead of the 6 shot CNC machine!

Now is it a mistake or a collectors item?

Deaf

W.E.G.
December 22, 2011, 06:42 PM
I think its unsafe.

Get rid of that cylinder.
If it grenades and hurts somebody, it will be on your conscience at a minimum, and you may come home to find a civil summons on your front door.

Children: Don't play with blasting caps!

iLikeOldgunsIlikeNewGuns
December 22, 2011, 06:44 PM
WOW



kinda cool though,

Never seen me one of them before! LoL

were you looking for a conversation piece? x-D

really can't wait to hear what S&W has to say about that


Edit: I'm glad the original poster was knowledgeable enough to notice, this could have been someone's first gun, and if they didn't know any better they may have not noticed for some time.

jad0110
December 22, 2011, 07:04 PM
One more inspection point for the revolver checkout sticky:neener: .

I know turds slip out of every manufacturer's door, but that would be like car company X shipping out a car with only 3 of the 4 wheels installed :scrutiny: . Come one S&W, this is embarrassing. Please, do share what they have to say.

I too just figured the flutes had been machined off kilter from the chambers. Good catch Sam.

Japle
December 22, 2011, 07:21 PM
Yeah. Itís 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!!

Hawkman
December 22, 2011, 07:28 PM
Gotta hear the end of this one!

floydster
December 22, 2011, 07:52 PM
:eek:And you dyed in the wool S&W guys think Rossi/Taurus is bad

ApacheCoTodd
December 22, 2011, 08:06 PM
Chamber walls are no thinner than the webs of the seven shooter.
I'd keep it as a novelty item and not let them talk me into letting them change out the cylinder.

Until Sam counted holes and flutes, I just assumed the flutes were off center like they are on my 640.

S&W has long testfired revolvers by shooting only every other chamber. That used to be the test of a new gun, burn marks on only half the chamber mouths.
Dunno about that... those two on the left, like 9 and 10 o'clock are certainly hurtin' for meat. Some QC guys gonna be in a bad way.

armoredman
December 22, 2011, 08:46 PM
I wouldn't use it with anything but mouse fart reloads. But that's just me.

Confederate
December 22, 2011, 08:51 PM
Yep! They used a cylinder intended for a 686+ 7-shooter for my SSR 6-shooter! I emailed S&W customer service and attached a photo. It'll be fun hearing what they have to say about this one!!
If and when you call S&W, if you want a 7-shot, ask them to send you a 7-shot. You'll have to redo the paperwork, but the extra chamber might be worth it. If you stick with the 6-shot, then they'll just fix it and send it back in the mail. Any configuration changes, alas, require new paperwork.

19-3Ben
December 22, 2011, 08:56 PM
You know.... I think you guys have it all wrong.

Perhaps I'm just a glass-half-full kinda guy, but the way I see it, he paid for a 6 shooter, but got an extra flute free of charge! That's pretty good! You just don't see companies going out of their way to give you more for your money like that any more.
:p

Japle
December 22, 2011, 08:56 PM
The chamber that's in the right place is right at 0.10" thick. The thinnest one is 0.04"

I'm pretty sure a chamber that's short 60% of it's wall thickness isn't what I want.

What I do want is another cylinder fit to the gun. Preferably one with the right number of flutes.

I also want them to leave the damn sideplate on and stay out of the action. I like the way I set it up. It's smooth and light, with no "stacking" and a clean let-off.

Jim Watson
December 22, 2011, 09:05 PM
So call 'em up and say so.
We can't help you.

jad0110
December 22, 2011, 09:11 PM
Well, I'd at least ask to have the screwed up cylinder back as a conversation piece. And as Confederate suggests, you could always request that a 7 shot cylinder be fitted. It'd still be unique, but in a good, won't explode in your face kind of way :p .

andrewstorm
December 22, 2011, 09:13 PM
WOW! I would not fire that any more talk about thin cylinder walls......:eek:

JFrame
December 22, 2011, 09:23 PM
All I can add to this thread is the fairly universal impression: "WOW...!" :what:


.

Old Fuff
December 22, 2011, 09:24 PM
Obviously you people are mistaken...

Today S&W cylinders are made using the very latest in CNC controled machinery, so errors are imposible. :scrutiny:

Of course if in the name of cost-cutting you eliminate both floor inspectors and machine operators then I suppose... :uhoh:

I think if you send the gun back it will be the last you'll see of that particular cylinder. I have to wonder if they ran anymore that didn't get caught.

Given that your action work had nothing to do with the cylinder's condition I see no reason they should mess with your lockwork, but if you switched any of the original springs out I'd put them back... :rolleyes:

Ah... Isn't that an extra-cost Performance(?) Center offering??? Oh my.

1911Tuner
December 22, 2011, 09:44 PM
It can happen. Back in the 80s, the little Ma, Pa & Sons gun shop that I was involved with got a new Model 29 in once...and .44 Magnum cartridges wouldn't fit the chambers. Nope. It wasn't cut for .44 Special. .41 Magnum ammo slipped right in. The bore was .410 diameter, but the roll mark said .44 Magnum. It was a Model 29 that somehow got a Model 57 cylinder and a barrel that was marked wrong. A guy bought it and brought it back. The owner handed him another gun and called Smith. They wanted it back in the worst way, but he kept it. As far as I know, he had it until he died, and probably passed it on to his surviving son.

Can you imagine the mischief if it had been fitted with a .44 cylinder and a .41 barrel...and roll-marked .44 Magnum?

Rail Driver
December 22, 2011, 09:53 PM
I'd keep it and buy a replacement cylinder. No telling what it could be worth in the future (or even now).

tikka-guy
December 22, 2011, 10:08 PM
I'm not a revolver guy, so my terminology is likely off, but...

When do the indexes get machined that stop the cylinder in the correct position when the hammer is cocked? There should be 6 of those. That should have been the biggest clue that there was something not quite right about this 686.

flightsimmer
December 22, 2011, 10:18 PM
I'm sure that there are many examples of such mistakes on just about any brand of firearm (or any other product) and it shouldn't happen, but it does. That's why I always take my feeler gauges, calipers, micrometers and chamber gauges with me when I find a weapon that I'm interested in buying. I also take my time and look it over and over untill the dealer probably gets irretated with me, but it's my money and buyer beware. But if you do end up with a (new) weapon that you find is a lemon then as irretating as it is, that's what warranty is for.
With a used weapon you had best take your time and never let yourself get rushed into buying untill your as sure as you can be before you lay down your money. The previous owner my have had problems with it and sold it.
I'm proud to say that I own many fine examples of S&W handguns, but I'm not just lucky, Im careful.
It's a shame that S&W has had problems with product, maybe unions and management, but so have other companys, that's life I guess.

10mm, when you care enough to send the very best.

David Wile
December 22, 2011, 10:18 PM
Hey folks,

Assuming the photo is an accurate depiction of the pistol as made by S&W, the company has made a mistake that has the potential for significant liability problems for them and significant safety problems for someone using the pistol. If the owner sends the gun back to S&W to correct the problem cylinder, S&W would be crazy to return the incorrectly made cylinder back to the owner for any reason. As long as the defective cylinder is in the hands of any customer, it will always be a severe risk for S&W. If S&W did in fact make the pistol as depicted in the picture, and if that pistol was actually sold to a customer, I would think S&W would go to great lengths to get the customer to return the pistol to them for replacement - not simply to replace the cylinder, but to replace the pistol in its entirety.

I find it hard to believe S&W could make such a mistake, and my first thought is to wonder if Japle is playing a joke on us. I have no reason to think Japle's picture and information is not true, so I have to accept S&W made a big mistake as hard as that may be to accept. If that is the case, one does not need to be a lawyer to recognize the potential liability problem, and one does not need to be a marketing genius to recognize the potential deleterious effects this will have on customer trust in the company and its products.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

Japle
December 22, 2011, 10:31 PM
It's no fake, David. You can't make this stuff up.

And Jim,
So call 'em up and say so.
We can't help you.

I didn't ask for any help, certainly not from you.

Just thought people might be interested.

Walking Dead
December 22, 2011, 10:44 PM
But I was told Taurus had the poor QC department.

atlanticfire
December 22, 2011, 10:55 PM
I find it kind of interesting that the thread above this one is titled "S&W's worst years".
But I was told Taurus had the poor QC department.
I'd take a deformed S&W over a Taurus any day....

PowerG
December 22, 2011, 11:05 PM
Oooh my. I work in QA for a large company-emails (with photos) are gonna fly over that, non-conformance reports, corrective action plans, meetings, meetings about meetings. If S&W ever gets their hands on that cylinder you'll never see it again, it will be a paper-weight on somebody's desk.

NG VI
December 23, 2011, 01:01 AM
How's it shoot?

BBQLS1
December 23, 2011, 01:10 AM
Performance center model?


I noticed the flat sides on the barrel? You'd think they'd have a little more QC on these guns too.

mnrivrat
December 23, 2011, 02:00 AM
But I was told Taurus had the poor QC department.

That's got to be the answer ! Someone put a Taurus cylinder on a always perfect S&W gun ! :evil:

ArchAngelCD
December 23, 2011, 02:07 AM
That's down right embarassing for S&W. LOL. Yeah keep us updated on the outcome. It's almost worth keeping as a joke. Maybe if it was done on a Charter or a Taurus, but not on a $700 + S&W.
Actually I think it's more like an $800 revolver. In any case you would think this can't happen in today's lawyer filled world but mistakes can and will happen.

BTW, what does the price of a revolver have to do with human mistakes. There are many more problems with the other companies mentioned than S&W or Ruger. I'm sure S&W will take care of this quickly, with other companies you would probably wait 6 months or more for the fix.

Coal Dragger
December 23, 2011, 05:24 AM
Maybe some full house loads should be procured and fired from a Ransom rest if available from a safe distance behind a barrier. Take pictures of the results, I'm sure the folks at S&W will just love those photos.

Friendly, Don't Fire!
December 23, 2011, 06:29 AM
If S&W wants it back, remove cylinder, call S&W and ask if they can just create a new cylinder for your gun.

If they can, and if they will, be prepared to have to pay for the new cylinder as they would have no proof of this MISTAKE without the complete gun in their hands.

So, the question then becomes: is this cylinder worth keeping and worth paying for (the total cost of the new - proper cylinder plus all shipping and handling)?:confused:

Japle
December 23, 2011, 07:35 AM
Posted by Coal Dragger:
Maybe some full house loads should be procured and fired from a Ransom rest if available from a safe distance behind a barrier.

Come to think of it, I do have some full-house .357 ammo from 1960 when they were loading to somewhat higher pressures than the current stuff.

Hey, Dragger. I used to live in the High Place area in Chapel Valley. My wife and I loved it out there.

ApacheCoTodd
December 23, 2011, 11:56 AM
That's got to be the answer ! Someone put a Taurus cylinder on a always perfect S&W gun ! :evil:
:evil:Taurus?... What's wrong with Taurus? :evil:Sorry, I guess there's already 211 postings and 9 pages regarding THAT issue.

460Kodiak
December 23, 2011, 12:29 PM
ArchAngelCD, I think you misunderstood me. Sooo....

Quote:
Originally Posted by 460Kodiak
That's down right embarassing for S&W. LOL. Yeah keep us updated on the outcome. It's almost worth keeping as a joke. Maybe if it was done on a Charter or a Taurus, but not on a $700 + S&W.

Actually I think it's more like an $800 revolver.

That's why there is a + at the end of the $700 in my post. Sorry I didn't research the price before posting. :scrutiny:

but mistakes can and will happen.
Unless all guns are made by God now..... duh.

BTW, what does the price of a revolver have to do with human mistakes.

Absolutely nothing. You took my coment totally the wrong way. I'm saying that keeping a screwed up revolver as a novelty or joke would be more palatable if it was a less expensive revolver, because you haven't wasted as much money then. That's all. The cost of an item doesn't mean mistakes won't happen, and that isn't what I was implying. You could buy a $400,000 Lamborgini, and there could still be a problem from the factory. Price in my mind reflects overall quality, and that companies service in general. It has no bearing on the fact that a factory or QC person may be tired or distracted, and make a mistake.

There are many more problems with the other companies mentioned than S&W or Ruger.

Agreed. That's why the two revolvers I do own are a S&W and a Ruger. I believe, based on first hand experience with S&W, the reputation of both companies, and the research I do, that I'm better off buying their products.

I'm sure S&W will take care of this quickly, with other companies you would probably wait 6 months or more for the fix.

Agreed. Based on the stories I've read, and first hand experience seeing the problems with other manufacturer's products and CS stories I've heard, my future revolver purchases will be S&W, Ruger, and Freedom Arms. They are good companies that remedy problems quickly when they come up. That's why I buy their products.

fireside44
December 23, 2011, 12:33 PM
Good ol' S&W "quality".

What a joke.

Drail
December 23, 2011, 01:21 PM
I would LOVE to see what the guys over at Ruger have to say about this since it's all over the web now. Priceless. Tuner, that had to be the infamous "Dirty Harry gun" that was stamped .44 Magnum (for the camera) but really only fired .41 Magnum "light special" cartridges so Clint wouldn't flinch. I'm kidding here. I actually think I remember someone else finding one of those back about that time. They could put it on Gunbroker for a gazillion dollars. And someone would probably buy it.

Thaddeus Jones
December 23, 2011, 01:34 PM
Well........at least the barrel is on strait......on that one anyway. :)

Owen Sparks
December 23, 2011, 02:03 PM
Just my guess but it looks like what happened is that after the cylinder was bored it got sent to the wrong CNC machine for the fluting operation.

redpitbull44
December 23, 2011, 02:06 PM
I would just have them send me a new cylinder. If they want that one back, tell them "No way".

98Redline
December 23, 2011, 02:20 PM
This is a QC problem no doubt and shouldn't have ever gotten out of the doors but fact of the matter it did. Most likely several got out the door like that because these things are machined in lots. The entire lot probably had the wrong number of cyls and flutes.

To all of the guys that say "you should just have S&W send you a new cylinder" or "you should keep the cylinder", I would be willing to bet dollars to dough-nuts that S&W will do nothing unless they get the entire gun back.

So if the OP wants to keep the bad cylinder, he will end up with an $800 paperweight. As the gun will not be safe to shoot in it's current form and Smith is not going to send a new cylinder out without getting the entire gun (cylinder and all) back.

As for changing to a 7 shot configuration, that would require completely retiming the gun and installing new components for advancing the cylinder. That and the fact that no manufacturer I know of will change the configuration of a shipped firearm to another configuration. That would require them to resubmit paperwork and have a change log to document those changes.

Send the gun in, get it fixed, get it back and shoot it.

ApacheCoTodd
December 23, 2011, 02:41 PM
This is just the kind of thing we should have expected living in these the days of denying Pluto's planetary status, the notion that the Mayans were right/wrong and the misguided notion that revolvers should have more than 6 chambers.

stratman26
December 23, 2011, 02:59 PM
I just had to check mine out, its a 6 shot with 6 flutes. somehow yours slipped through and i would contact S&W.

Sam1911
December 23, 2011, 03:53 PM
As for changing to a 7 shot configuration, that would require completely retiming the gun and installing new components for advancing the cylinder.I'm pretty sure that's a new cylinder and star, and a new hand of the right length to carry up 1/7 rotation insted of 1/6. Not that big a deal.


... That would require them to resubmit paperwork and have a change log to document those changes.

Resubmit what paperwork?

FIVETWOSEVEN
December 23, 2011, 03:54 PM
Well, I'd at least ask to have the screwed up cylinder back as a conversation piece.

Like they would willingly give you back a piece of their stupidity?

Quoheleth
December 23, 2011, 04:04 PM
Return evidence of a mistake?

An aftermarket service company, yes. Manufacturer - heck, no.

Q

Japle
December 23, 2011, 04:08 PM
Well, they're closed for the holidays.

I've got this fiasco posted on several firearms forums, so they'll be getting the publicity they deserve until sometime next year. :cuss:

Drail
December 23, 2011, 05:28 PM
PLEASE tell me that you sent that photo to the S&W forum.

TonyT
December 23, 2011, 06:56 PM
It apperas they placed seven flutes on a six shot cylinder. I would call S&W and have them replace it under warranty. They will email you a shipping label.

Japle
December 23, 2011, 07:15 PM
Posted by Drail:
PLEASE tell me that you sent that photo to the S&W forum.

Yep. Sure did.

ms6852
December 23, 2011, 07:16 PM
Too bad it is not a minted coin printed with a huge mistake like this; it could have been worth lots of $$$$.

Old Fuff
December 23, 2011, 07:34 PM
It apperas they placed seven flutes on a six shot cylinder.

Yes, it would seem so. But the question is, "How could this happen on a revolver that was supposedly assembled in their esteemed Performance Center not have been noticed? Have they become so dependent on computer-controlled machinery that nobody pays attention?

Of course anyone (I emphasize “one”) can make a mistake, but isn’t this the reason several “someone’s” should be involved in looking and inspecting at various stages of production?

In the opening post the writer mentions that he discovered the flaw after doing some tuning of the lock work. I for one, wonder why this should be necessary on a substantially more expensive Performance Center revolver?

He was paying out hard earned money for something, but what? :confused:

Japle
December 23, 2011, 07:48 PM
Posted by Old Fuff:
In the opening post the writer mentions that he discovered the flaw after doing some tuning of the lock work. I for one, wonder why this should be necessary on a substantially more expensive Performance Center revolver?

He was paying out hard earned money for something, but what?

The gun had a good action out of the box. It was pretty smooth and "stacked" just before letoff the way Smiths usually do. For the average guy who's not into competition or doesn't know what a really good DA trigger feels like, it would be fine.

That's not me. I almost never shoot revolvers SA. I've been doing revolver action jobs for over 30 years. I like doing my own work.

What I was paying for was a new, clean, stainless L frame that I could set up the way I wanted it. Now it has a much lighter pull, very smooth, no "stacking", clean letoff and a positive trigger return. It'll require some experimenting to find that "sweet spot" that gives me the trigger feel I want with 100% ignition.

I won't be doing that experimenting until the cylinder is made right.

WNC Seabee
December 24, 2011, 08:01 AM
I used to work for a Chevy dealer; every so often we'd get a truck in that was badged Chevy on the port side and GMC on starboard. Stuff happens. In the grand scheme of life it's really not that big of a deal. It's correctable and nobody got hurt.

Japle
December 24, 2011, 08:44 AM
In the grand scheme of life it's really not that big of a deal. It's correctable and nobody got hurt.


Pure luck. If I'd fired a cylinder full of full-bore factory .357 Mag ammo, it might very well have been a much bigger deal and I'd have been talking to lawyers.

Drail
December 24, 2011, 09:43 AM
WNC Seabee, a .357 chamber wall that's only .100 thick kind of IS "a big deal". If you were standing next to this gun on a range when it fired with someone's handload in that chamber I am quite sure you would think it was "a big deal". Amazingly over at the S&W forum the reactions seem for the most part to be "it happens" or "yeah, I've seen those before or simply that it is funny. I am worried about our race when people look at a firearm made that poorly and don't see any problem or just shrug it off as "no big deal."

Old Fuff
December 24, 2011, 09:50 AM
I am worried about our race when people look at a firearm made that poorly and just shrug it off.

Naw... The fanboys will never see anything wrong...

Unless it happens to them. :banghead:

bluetopper
December 24, 2011, 10:22 AM
I can't blame you for wanting to keep this cylinder as a souvenir and I believe S&W will want a proper cylinder in this gun regardless and in the worst way because of liability risks. I really wouldn't doubt if S&W sends a couple of reps to your door after they see this pic all over the forums.......:o

Jim Watson
December 24, 2011, 10:46 AM
As for changing to a 7 shot configuration, that would require completely retiming the gun and installing new components for advancing the cylinder.

I'm pretty sure that's a new cylinder and star, and a new hand of the right length to carry up 1/7 rotation insted of 1/6. Not that big a deal.

No, but not an inexpensive deal.
I got all enthused and bought an early 7 shot. Just my luck, USPSA revised the revolver rules to strictly sixshooters. Nobody was dumb enough to buy or trade for it, so I sent it in for a six shot cylinder. They fitted a new cylinder, extractor, and hand; and didn't even steal my action job hammer and trigger. Cost $300 though. I had the barrel sawn off and it is now my IDPA SSR.

Sam1911
December 24, 2011, 11:03 AM
Ah, I remember that story -- in fact, that's what I was remembering when I posted.

SlamFire1
December 24, 2011, 12:44 PM
That stinks!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Misc/ThatStinks0001.jpg

Grey54956
December 24, 2011, 01:02 PM
Stuff like that happens sometimes. Might be that the flutes are machined at a different stage, probably a subsequent to the rest of the cylinder. Your's probably isn't the only one out there, as it is probably a batch operation. S&W might need to look at a recall notice.

I know everyone is going to go off on the quality here, but stuff like this happens all the time in machining plants, especially where operations are batched, and where there are many products of similar appearance. It's big mistakes like these that slip through inspection because everyone is geared towards looking for small flaws.

I used to be the quality engineer for a piston manufacturer. Once, I had a piston come back with a 3/8" hole right through the middle of it. Plain as day, but it got through. People will see a 1/8" inch long scratch from 3 feet away, but the biggest defects get through.

bluetopper
December 24, 2011, 01:06 PM
True, the quality of the fluting job and the quality of the chamber boring job looks flawless;)............just done on the wrong cylinder.

tubeshooter
December 24, 2011, 01:20 PM
I suspect that the machining of the chambers and flutes are done separately, and almost certainly by computer software.

It's probably a case where the wrong software was loaded, I'm guessing. And yes, we all make mistakes. Still a black eye for Smith QC.


The error could have caused great harm, perhaps even death. Glad it was caught. I hope there isn't a whole batch of these floating around out there.

Krogen
December 24, 2011, 01:27 PM
Folks have been berating the inspection processes that let this happen. S&W clearly needs to fix a >manufacturing< process. A current trend in manufacturing quality is "poka-yoke" or goof-proofing the process. It's well known that inspectors miss things. The idea of poka-yoke" is to set up the process so the errors don't happen in the first place, not to catch them in inspection.

Master Blaster
December 24, 2011, 01:39 PM
Homer Simpson was working that day on Loan from the Springfield nuclear plant. They had him running the CNC machine that makes the Flutes. Homer had just knocked the trays of cylinders on the floor and got them all mixed up.

1. Its not my Job
2. I didn't do it
3. Where are the Donuts?

DOOH DOOH

click clack
December 24, 2011, 01:49 PM
Ok, i didnt want to have to ask, but.. What IS wrong with this picture?? Did they just put the wrong cylinder on the 686+ model? (6 shot cylinder instead of 7?)

Japle
December 24, 2011, 01:57 PM
Folks, I spent 11 years doing final QC on medical equipment that was used in cardiac cath labs, where you go to have an angioplasty done to open a clogged artery.
The QC on this gun is the equivalent of me letting a device go out the door with test software loaded that would show the patientís vital signs as being normal no matter what.

If I did that, even if no one was hurt, do you think Iíd keep my job?

To tell you the truth, when I first noticed the screw-up, I laughed. I thought it was funny. I donít think itís funny anymore. The more I think about it, the madder I get. I doubt Iíll be in a better mood when someone from S&W contacts me after the first of the year.

Husker_Fan
December 24, 2011, 02:26 PM
How many chamber stops (if that's what they're called) are machined into the cylinder? I'm guessing six if the gun previously shot fine.

My other thought is that these parts are probably done in batches. I wonder how many others were done this way and made it out of the factory.

Japle
December 24, 2011, 03:18 PM
How many chamber stops (if that's what they're called) are machined into the cylinder? I'm guessing six if the gun previously shot fine.


Yep. Six chambers and six notches.

Sam1911
December 24, 2011, 05:41 PM
Ok, i didnt want to have to ask, but.. What IS wrong with this picture?? Did they just put the wrong cylinder on the 686+ model? (6 shot cylinder instead of 7?)
No. They milled seven cylinder flutes into the exterior of a cylinder with only six chambers. That means that there's an extra flute, which throws off the spacing relative to the cylinders. On one side of the cylinder (on the right in the pic) everything is spaces about normally. On the other side (left in the picture) one of the flutes is machined just about right on top of the chamber, leaving only about 0.1" of wall thickness to contain the chamber pressure!

Drail
December 24, 2011, 06:33 PM
I KNEW there was a good reason that I always preferred unfluted cylinders.

jojo200517
December 24, 2011, 07:18 PM
It's pretty hard to believe this slipped out. All you guys can knock taurus all you want but both of their revolvers that I own have the correct number of flutes and chambers in the cylinder.

Krogen
December 24, 2011, 09:52 PM
It's interesting to note where S&W loaded the proof rounds. I thought they typically loaded every other charge hole, not two adjacent ones plus a third. I wonder if by loading all six they'd have found the problem. It would also be interesting to know what precautions they use during proofing in case a gun "lets go."

ArchAngelCD
December 25, 2011, 01:31 AM
It's pretty hard to believe this slipped out. All you guys can knock taurus all you want but both of their revolvers that I own have the correct number of flutes and chambers in the cylinder.
And how many times have you seen 7 flutes on a cylinder chambered with 6 charge holes? C'mon, I have never seen or heard of this before.

Japle
December 25, 2011, 08:21 AM
It's interesting to note where S&W loaded the proof rounds.

OK, one more time: I test-fired this revolver to check for accuracy and to sight it in.

45_auto
December 25, 2011, 09:16 AM
Folks, I spent 11 years doing final QC on medical equipment that was used in cardiac cath labs, where you go to have an angioplasty done to open a clogged artery.
The QC on this gun is the equivalent of me letting a device go out the door with test software loaded that would show the patient’s vital signs as being normal no matter what.

Just how many pieces of that medical equipment were you selling for $800 each or so?

And everyone knows EVERY PIECE of medical equipment is always perfect! :)

(My daughter is an RN and my son is an IT tech at a couple of major hospitals, I could tell you all kinds of stories about faulty medical equipment and big lawsuits!)

I work in the manned space flight industry (million dollar screwdrivers, etc). The reason things cost so much is because of the documentation and traceability required at each step in the manufacturing process, which involves multiple inspections. We couldn't build a piece of machinery equivelent to a S&W revolver for less than $100,000 and even then human or machine error would STILL be a factor.

It's a mechanical device built by man. Spaceships blow up, airplanes crash, ships sink, cars wreck, people die in hospitals, guns blow up because of manufacturing errors. I haven't heard of any recalls or a big rash of mis-machined S&W cylinders, possibly yours is only the first to come out but hopefully it's an anomaly. It'll definitely inspire some changes at S&W, even if only an additional line on an inspector's checklist that says "Equal number of chambers and flutes in cylinder". Just be glad you caught it.

Japle
December 25, 2011, 10:40 AM
45 auto, Iím not real sure what the points of your post were, but Ö.

Just how many pieces of that medical equipment were you selling for $800 each or so?

I wasnít selling the medical equipment, I was doing QC. The equipment was pretty darn expensive, though. Anything thatís connected to the medical industry is expensive.

My daughter is an RN and my son is an IT tech at a couple of major hospitals, I could tell you all kinds of stories about faulty medical equipment and big lawsuits!

And I could tell you about the time a nurse hooked a patientís IV line to the high-pressure blood pressure pump. The equipment worked fine. The patient didnít die because the pump didnít come on right away and his blood clotted and blocked the line. Otherwise, heíd have had a vein full of air and we know thatís not good.

The reason things cost so much is because of the documentation and traceability required at each step in the manufacturing process, which involves multiple inspections.

Thatís right. And you can bet S&W has detailed QC procedures, some of which were not followed in this case.

I haven't heard of any recalls or a big rash of mis-machined S&W cylinders, possibly yours is only the first to come out but hopefully it's an anomaly.

Me too. It does make you wonder whether this was an isolated incident or if there was a batch of these cylinders produced and installed on guns that went out the door.

cfullgraf
December 25, 2011, 12:40 PM
Folks have been berating the inspection processes that let this happen. S&W clearly needs to fix a >manufacturing< process. A current trend in manufacturing quality is "poka-yoke" or goof-proofing the process. It's well known that inspectors miss things. The idea of poka-yoke" is to set up the process so the errors don't happen in the first place, not to catch them in inspection.

Right.

Also, the trend in quality inspection is to qualify the process so that 100% inspection is not required. Just some level of spot inspection based on the ability of the process. You cannot inspect in quality so the objective is to make the process not make mistakes.

Another trend, once a part of the process is deemed "passed", it may not be specifically inspected again.

I do not know what S&W uses for their inspection, 100% or something else. One would think 100% but in today's environment of labor costs and CNC machines, maybe not.

So, I would guess that the cylinder got in the wrong place at some point, was not specifically inspected after it was machined in error, and then no one after that point was responsible for looking at the cylinder to make sure it was still correct.

I am sure there will be some upset managers at S&W after the holidays.

Again, this is only a guess on my part.

Guillermo
December 25, 2011, 01:02 PM
Unless it happens to them
sometimes fanboys just fall to their knees and pray harder


It's pretty hard to believe this slipped out
It's pretty hard to believe this slipped out of the "PERFORMANCE" CENTER!!!!

This is supposed to be a custom or semi-custom gun.

If this were a gunsmith the fanboys would be saying how it was idiotic to ever do business with the guy. But this is Smith & Wesson. They could produce a cat turd truffle and some folks would proclaim that those that hate it just don't have refined taste

45_auto
December 25, 2011, 01:49 PM
45 auto, I’m not real sure what the points of your post were

I was trying to make the point that you bought an $800 consumer product made up of numerous mass-produced machined parts, and the inspection process, documentation, and traceability was appropriate to that price point.

Want to make it less likely that cylinders with mis-matched flutes/chambers get released? Serial number each cylinder, have inspections and buy-offs with traceability at each step in the manufacturing and assembly process. You'll catch a LOT more errors (but still not all of them), but your $800 S&W just turned into a $2000 S&W and nobody will buy them.

I wasn’t selling the medical equipment, I was doing QC. The equipment was pretty darn expensive, though. Anything that’s connected to the medical industry is expensive

Part of the point I was trying to make. The technology, materials or manufacturing processes for medical equipment aren't particularly expensive. The legal liability for any defective item that gets out is what's driving the costs.

That’s right. And you can bet S&W has detailed QC procedures, some of which were not followed in this case

I don't know their QC procedures, so I can't comment on that. You seem to be much more familiar with their QC procedures than I am. I don't know if they have a specific procedure to verify flutes vs chambers (if they don't, they probably will shortly). I don't know if your cylinder is the only one ever mis-machined like that (1 out of how many millions) or if that is a common problem at S&W.

Lots of companies attempt to achieve Six Sigma quality programs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma), I don't know if S&W does or not.

Even at a six sigma level (99.99966% products manufactured without defects), that still means you're looking at one defect every couple of hundred thousand products.

Your cylinder is definitely a manufacturing anomaly, but it's no where close to being as unusual or unexpected as lots of people seem to think.

One of the most popular threads on many of the machining and manufacturing forums are the "Biggest Mistakes" threads ....

floydster
December 25, 2011, 04:50 PM
:rolleyes:I wish people would quit making excuses for S&W, this is beyond ridiculous, period!!!!

Walkalong
December 25, 2011, 05:09 PM
Even a cursory inspection of the firearm before it went out of the factory would should catch this.

CSA 357
December 25, 2011, 05:11 PM
I would call them this should never have left the factory, this causes thin places in the cylinder walls, might be fine but it might not? better safe than sorry i say.

David Wile
December 25, 2011, 07:35 PM
Hey Walk,

Yes sir, a cursory inspection should have caught it before it left the factory, and a cursory inspection by the owner should have caught it before he loaded it and fired it. I clean loaded ammo in vibratory cleaners without any fear of danger, but I sure would not have fired any ammo from that cylinder.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

Sam1911
December 25, 2011, 08:23 PM
I wish people would quit making excuses for S&W, this is beyond ridiculous, period!!!!
No one is excusing it. Several people have tried to explain why it happens, even in the modern world of near-Glocklike levels of "perfection."

The OP isn't going to sigh and accept it. And S&W won't either! Hopefully the OP will be kind enough to share what steps they take to recitfy the matter.

Honestly, I'd rather see a process error like this (so long as I didn't get hurt) than a quality problem where things are just generally shoddy. This is a clear mistake which S&W will make right.

Walkalong
December 25, 2011, 10:10 PM
And I am sure they will, with a profound apology. It's just wild that it made it out of the Performance Center.

Guillermo
December 25, 2011, 10:45 PM
It's just wild that it made it out of the Performance Center.

on what do you base this?

Union idiots that are over paid and can't be fired are capable of anything

blackrussian
December 26, 2011, 02:52 AM
You could probably sell it to Ruger or another competitor. So they could use it in a marketing campaign. Not the high road, I know.

DeepSouth
December 26, 2011, 05:18 AM
Union idiots that are over paid and can't be fired are capable of anything


I just wanted to point out that the good folks at Smith and Wesson are not union workers. I think they were back in the day when they had folks that could match cylinder holes to flutes, I guess all those guys got fired. ;)

Guillermo
December 26, 2011, 10:19 AM
good folks at Smith and Wesson are not union workers

I stand corrected

They used to be but are no longer

FIVETWOSEVEN
December 26, 2011, 11:01 AM
The Performance Center is where their best work is supposed to come from and they do pride themselves on it from what I've seen. This is something that should not have come from the performance center.

nater762
December 26, 2011, 04:06 PM
Lol 6 shot 7 shooter lol

edwin41
December 26, 2011, 05:26 PM
"performance centre " now has a new meaning to me i guess...
but , lets not forget , any factory makes mistakes , they sepparate themselves
by how they solve them .
i for one would like to hear how this is gonna be corrected.
greetings from holland mi amigos !

Drail
December 26, 2011, 06:20 PM
"Performance Center" used to mean something. Now it's just marketing. And there is absolutely no acceptable excuse for something like that cylinder. None. Somebody was asleep on the job.

skidder
December 26, 2011, 06:49 PM
Japle-- Thanks for the post.... Understandable why you didn't notice it right away. I saw the pic and it took me a little while, and I knew I was looking for something.

Kinda like the kids books Where's Waldo and I Spy. Never thought we'd be playing that game on a picture of an expensive revolver.

Some light humor, but in reality you could have been seriously injured. You have some leverage by having the gun in your possession. Don't settle for less, the ball is in your court. Give this some serious thought and make them beg for the worm.

Japle
December 26, 2011, 07:19 PM
Just to set the record straight, this is not a Performance Center gun. Itís part of the ďPro SeriesĒ. S&Wís description says, ďCompleting the line between main production and the Performance Center, the Smith & Wesson Pro Series represents the next step from standard modelsĒ.

Also, I only used standard pressure .38 Special loads to check function and sight it in. I would not try factory-pressure .357 loads in this gun. The thinnest chamber wall is only 40% of what it should be.

FIVETWOSEVEN
December 26, 2011, 10:39 PM
Even so, this still shouldn't have happened to something that is marketed as a step up from the standard model.

gdesloge
December 26, 2011, 10:49 PM
This is an absolutely fascinating thread.

First, it's great news that no one was hurt.

Second, if no one was hurt, why all the indignant outrage? Because someone could have been hurt? What are we all - attorneys looking for some business?

Third, The OP himself performed an action job (if I read that correctly) on the revolver, and then proceeded to fire multiple rounds from the thing, and even he didn't notice the flaw. No offense to the OP intended, but that is the self-admitted truth. Be truthful here - how lovingly do you all fondle your newest acquisitions?

Fourth, shouldn't this flaw actually commend S&W products to us for their durability?:rolleyes: I mean, the darn thing didn't blow up, and everyone here seems to think that the OP escaped certain death by the skin of his teeth.

Fifth, could this be a well-played marketing prank committed by a competitor to undermine the reputation of S&W? I don't necessarily believe that (again, this is not an intentional slur against the OP), but this is the internet, after all, and there are lots of "facts" thrown against the wall here which we discerning readers should judge with the foresight of that context.

Best to all -

gd

Japle
December 26, 2011, 11:19 PM
I mean, the darn thing didn't blow up, and everyone here seems to think that the OP escaped certain death by the skin of his teeth.


That's because - for the 4th time - I used .38 Spl loads, not the .357 loads the gun was designed to deal with.

Do you want to shoot this gun with .357 factory loads? I'll be happy to watch. From a distance.

788Ham
December 26, 2011, 11:25 PM
What have you heard so far? Are they on holiday until after the first of the year? Good luck.

gdesloge
December 26, 2011, 11:31 PM
Repeated for emphasis:

"First, it's great news that no one was hurt."

"Second, if no one was hurt, why all the indignant outrage? Because someone could have been hurt? What are we all - attorneys looking for some business?"

Best -

gd

Beagle-zebub
December 27, 2011, 12:30 AM
If we need another reason for indignant outrage, I'd be willing to settle for the OP's having gotten a defective product in exchange for his $800.

Fishslayer
December 27, 2011, 01:50 AM
Even a cursory inspection of the firearm before it went out of the factory would should catch this.


I dunno. OP did an action job on it before noticing. It's just such a wild & unexpected thing... who would think to look for that?

Looking at the photo I had been TOLD something was "off" but still had to look at it a bit. And the usual POV is from behind when the cylinder's open open.

I'm kind of wondering if a machinist loaded the wrong software, or perhaps forgot to change the software from a batch of + cylinders and set that one aside after reallizing it was wrong. Then somebody else came along, picked it up and put it into a gun.

Japle
December 27, 2011, 07:25 AM
What have you heard so far? Are they on holiday until after the first of the year?

They're closed until 1/2/2012.

Guillermo
December 27, 2011, 08:41 AM
"Second, if no one was hurt, why all the indignant outrage? Because someone could have been hurt? What are we all - attorneys looking for some business?"

Let's try this with something else.

if you had found the tire store had put only one lug nut on your car and you caught it before your daughter went on a cross country trip you would not have "indignant outrage"?

No one was hurt.

Job one of a gun company is to see that the items they produce contains the blast.

Japle
December 27, 2011, 09:17 AM
Job one of a gun company is to see that the items they produce contains the blast.

And this one might not do that!
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/Japle/SW%20686%20SSR/Cylinder1.jpg

45_auto
December 27, 2011, 09:23 AM
Job one of a gun company is to see that the items they produce contains the blast.

Actually, job one of a gun company is to make money. Many on this thread don't seem to realize that.

If you want a perfect product, be prepared to pay a perfect price for it. You're not going to get it at mass market consumer prices.

There are companies that make bomb calorimeters and blast containment chambers whose job one IS to contain the blast, but you won't touch one for the price of a S&W revolver. :)

And this one might not do that!

Nope, but the other 20,000,000 or so that they've made before your's seem to be working OK so far. Maybe you should have bought a lottery ticket instead of a gun!

Guillermo
December 27, 2011, 09:28 AM
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?

45_auto
December 27, 2011, 09:35 AM
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.

Grey54956
December 27, 2011, 09:37 AM
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.

Guillermo
December 27, 2011, 09:42 AM
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.

gdesloge
December 27, 2011, 09:44 AM
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.

Guillermo
December 27, 2011, 09:48 AM
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

gdesloge
December 27, 2011, 09:55 AM
"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

45_auto
December 27, 2011, 09:57 AM
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.

Gordon
December 27, 2011, 10:02 AM
"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!

Japle
December 27, 2011, 10:02 AM
It's just kind of funny to watch the internet hoopla about it.

As they say, it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/Japle/SW%20686%20SSR/Cylinder5.jpg

45_auto
December 27, 2011, 10:17 AM
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.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v682/46auto/DSC01289.jpg

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

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v682/46auto/DSC01290.jpg

The blown cartridge case.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v682/46auto/DSC01292.jpg

Blown cartridge case in hood in position it fired in.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v682/46auto/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.

Guillermo
December 27, 2011, 10:22 AM
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

45_auto
December 27, 2011, 10:29 AM
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.

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.

Guillermo
December 27, 2011, 10:56 AM
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
December 27, 2011, 10:57 AM
You may be as indignant as you see fit.

and you may join Jeff Quinn as a shill for S&W.

He seems to have a good time.

gdesloge
December 27, 2011, 11:01 AM
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

45_auto
December 27, 2011, 11:06 AM
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.

Guillermo
December 27, 2011, 11:08 AM
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.

Elkins45
December 27, 2011, 11:13 AM
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.

gdesloge
December 27, 2011, 11:23 AM
"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

Old Fuff
December 27, 2011, 11:25 AM
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.

357 Terms
December 27, 2011, 11:26 AM
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.....................

Japle
December 27, 2011, 11:54 AM
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.

sidheshooter
December 27, 2011, 12:21 PM
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.)

Jim Watson
December 27, 2011, 12:30 PM
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.

gdesloge
December 27, 2011, 12:43 PM
It would seem to me that at this point, at least some liability would actually rest with the OP. As well as with the manufacturer.

The gun has obviously been identified as "unsafe" and "non-standard," and the OP has recognized that it needs to be repaired prior to use.



From the S&W Product Safety Information page:


NEVER DISASSEMBLE YOUR FIREARM BEYOND THE FIELD STRIPPING PROCEDURE OUTLINED IN THE MANUAL THAT ACCOMPANIED YOUR FIREARM.
Improper disassembly or reassembly of your firearm may be dangerous and can lead to serious injury or death.

NEVER MANIPULATE, ADJUST OR CHANGE ANY OF THE INTERNAL COMPONENTS OF YOUR FIREARM UNLESS SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCTED TO DO SO IN THE MANUAL THAT ACCOMPANIED YOUR FIREARM.
Improper manipulation of any other internal component may affect the safety and reliability of your firearm and may cause serious injury or death.

NEVER ALLOW ANY ALTERATION OR REPLACEMENT OF PARTS IN YOUR FIREARM UNLESS PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED GUNSMITH USING AUTHORIZED PARTS.
If you do otherwise, improper functioning of your firearm may occur and serious injury or death and damage to property may result.


gd

Bob M.
December 27, 2011, 12:47 PM
Japle, Thanks for posting this. I don't have any 686's, but I'm sure that owners are re-examining theirs. This may save someone else some grief or worse. :eek:

Guillermo
December 27, 2011, 01:05 PM
WE know, we know

LOL

and so one would expect that a thread proving such would elicit comment

5-SHOTS
December 27, 2011, 01:21 PM
Freakest thing I've ever seen on a revolver. Bad spot for S&W. Hope they learn the lesson.

Japle
December 27, 2011, 01:25 PM
NEVER DISASSEMBLE YOUR FIREARM BEYOND THE FIELD STRIPPING PROCEDURE OUTLINED IN THE MANUAL THAT ACCOMPANIED YOUR FIREARM.
Improper disassembly or reassembly of your firearm may be dangerous and can lead to serious injury or death.

NEVER MANIPULATE, ADJUST OR CHANGE ANY OF THE INTERNAL COMPONENTS OF YOUR FIREARM UNLESS SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCTED TO DO SO IN THE MANUAL THAT ACCOMPANIED YOUR FIREARM.
Improper manipulation of any other internal component may affect the safety and reliability of your firearm and may cause serious injury or death.

NEVER ALLOW ANY ALTERATION OR REPLACEMENT OF PARTS IN YOUR FIREARM UNLESS PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED GUNSMITH USING AUTHORIZED PARTS.
If you do otherwise, improper functioning of your firearm may occur and serious injury or death and damage to property may result.


Right. Doing any of those things can result in excess flutes growing on the outside of your gun's cylinder!!

357 Terms
December 27, 2011, 01:25 PM
and so one would expect that a thread proving such would elicit comment
__________________


I will concede that much....on this thread.

Right. Doing any of those things can result in excess flutes growing on the outside of your gun's cylinder!!
__________________

Thats funny!

gdesloge
December 27, 2011, 01:28 PM
"Right. Doing any of those things can result in excess flutes growing on the outside of your gun's cylinder!!"


Well, I'm sure that there is no shortage of attorneys willing to be paid to make that argument! ;)

Best -

gd

Friendly, Don't Fire!
December 27, 2011, 01:32 PM
I purchased a brand new 642 several years ago. First shot and the cylinder rod got jammed as it was apparently unscrewing. When I finally got the cylinder open, the rod flew off (in the woods, with lots of undergrowth). I found one or two parts and saw that the spring-loaded rod was actually stripped where it was supposed to screw in. Then I realized that there was at least one, if not two springs missing.

Long story short, I called S&W, I paid to ship it to Customer Service and they had it six weeks before I finally got it back on the slow boat to and from China.

And, here I have been touting how great S&W is. I wasn't very happy with all that BS I had to go through for a gun that I purchased brand-spanking new! :banghead:

aHFo3
December 27, 2011, 01:44 PM
There is much that we can take away from this experience. The most important is to, as revolver owners, starting now, make December "Excessive Flute Awareness" month. :neener:

When December rolls around each year, make sure your cylinders still have the proper 1:1 ratio of flutes to chambers. Rhino, Ruger Single-10 and other unfluted cylinders do not apply, also owners of the USFA 12/22 should look for a 1:2 ratio

Japle
December 27, 2011, 01:52 PM
If they made all their revolvers like this, it would save us a lot of bandwidth.

And the guns would look cooler!

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/Japle/Guns/327PCwithammo.jpg

45_auto
December 27, 2011, 02:36 PM
If you want to send me the cylinder off that, I'll chuck it up in the rotary table on the mill and cut 7 or 8 flutes in it for you. Who knows, you might get lucky and I'll cut the right amount!

FIVETWOSEVEN
December 27, 2011, 06:02 PM
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.

:rolleyes:

This is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard! Have you even seen the insides of a revolver? It's not that complex and they've been doing it for over a century!

Guillermo
December 27, 2011, 07:10 PM
357 terms

Yes Guillermo we know!

From every single thread involving Smith & Wesson

You know but I might miss somebody!!!! :uhoh:

Perhaps I did go a little too far when I started ragging on S&W revolvers on the shotgun forums.

:what:

your point is well taken.

I can't go cold turkey though.

I will stop ragging on new Smith revolvers for 2 days :cuss:

HEY...IT'S A START!!!:eek:

(giggling like a drunken spider monkey because one must be able to laugh at oneself)

skidder
December 27, 2011, 07:12 PM
Pretty easy to tell who the Taurus and Smith fan boys are ;). I think Rugers are the best, but that would not stop me from grabbing my torch and pitchfork in honor of an equal mistake.

If it happened in a Taurus factory it would have been 8 flutes per 5 holes. :neener:
But....you would have been able to tell sooner because the cylinder would have fallen off for closer examination.:neener:

Ghost Tracker
December 27, 2011, 07:37 PM
Dang, it's HARD to hold-back from the S&W vs. Colt vs. Ruger vs. Charter Arms vs. Taurus vs. Rossi vs. Llama vs. who-the-heck-built-this vs. etc. revolver debate. But I've already felt the need to apologize once this week & several of the usual suspects have contributed their learned opinions on this thread as well. But I'll bet you dollars against navy beans that S&W will get this right, do it quickly, and make the OP completely satisfied that S&W is still a wise purchase. Some manufacturers swiftly deflect the egg from their face and s-l-o-w-l-y blame the customer, the ammo, the moon phase and/or the tidal force. Others quickly wipe the egg from the customer's face, apologize for tossing the egg, accept the responsibility, work hard to avoid any lawyers & buy breakfast. S&W owes you some ham & biscuits. Let us know how it tastes.

357 Terms
December 27, 2011, 07:45 PM
HEY...IT'S A START!!!



Small steps are always the best!

Old Fuff
December 27, 2011, 07:49 PM
Perhaps I did go a little too far when I started ragging on S&W revolvers on the shotgun forums.

What you doing on the :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: shotgun forums?

On the other hand I never Fitz'ed a shotty before... :uhoh: :evil: :D

skidder
December 27, 2011, 07:56 PM
Guillermo-- If you can make it 2 days without "enlightening" people on new Smith and Wesson revolvers. I will try try to refrain from casting my wisdom to all those thirsting for truth about Taurus revolvers.

45_auto
December 27, 2011, 08:06 PM
Have you even seen the insides of a revolver? It's not that complex and they've been doing it for over a century!

Have you ever seen the latch on the Orion hatch or the pump out of a dialysis machine? I've done engineering design work on both, and mechanically they are both MUCH less complex and have a lower part count than a S&W double-action revolver mechanism.

FIVETWOSEVEN
December 27, 2011, 08:12 PM
Have you ever seen the latch on the Orion hatch or the pump out of a dialysis machine? I've done engineering design work on both, and mechanically they are both MUCH less complex and have a lower part count than a S&W double-action revolver mechanism.

Have you ever stopped to consider that they may be overpriced or the level of precision and liability if they are made wrong is much much higher?

45_auto
December 27, 2011, 08:16 PM
Have you ever stopped to consider that they may be overpriced or the level of precision and liability if they are made wrong is much much higher?

Very good! Maybe you're finally gaining an understanding of why you don't get the same level of QC on an $800 S&W as you do on an even simpler $50,000 mechanism!

Sam1911
December 27, 2011, 08:35 PM
We're drifting in circles. Valid points made all 'round.

Japle, send me a PM when S&W gets back to you and we'll open this up to continue discussing this gun and what they're doing about it.

[EDIT: Thread opened for Japle's update.]

Japle
January 3, 2012, 11:35 AM
UPDATE 1/3/2012

This morning, I talked to Jon Young at S&W Customer Service. Heís talked to the other CS and production guys and no one has seen a gun like this that made it out of the plant. Theyíve seen cylinders like this in the scrap bins, but not on guns that were shipped.

He says thereís no problem if I keep the cylinder. Also no problem with anyone messing with the action. I just have to include a note stating the problem (Iíll include a few photos) and ask that they just replace the cylinder.

He says I can ask for a non-fluted cylinder, but he canít guarantee Iíll get one. There might be an extra charge. I pointed out that it wouldnít be any more expensive to install a non-fluted cylinder on purpose than to install a 7-fluted cylinder by mistake. The non-fluted cylinders come from the Performance Center, though, so he doesnít know how thatíll work.

S&W is very aware of the fact that my gun is the subject of threads on at least 12 different firearms forums. They know Iím going to report on what happens.

Jon said heíll have a shipping label emailed to me. Iíll remove the cylinder and sent the gun in.

Wish me luck!

sixgunner455
January 3, 2012, 12:42 PM
Very interesting.

Coal Dragger
January 3, 2012, 01:34 PM
Now at S&W the meetings about meetings, and general hand wringing begin. Glad I don't have to sit in on one of those, since I am sure some pointed not so pleasant questions are going to be asked of some people there.

5-SHOTS
January 3, 2012, 01:43 PM
Very surprising they allow you to keep the 7-fluted cylinder.

Jim Watson
January 3, 2012, 01:43 PM
"Theyíve seen cylinders like this in the scrap bins,"

So the final inspector was asleep at the switch.
But, as the old machinist said, a program error in a CNC will turn out scrap faster than ever before possible.

Nice of them to let you keep the dud cylinder and agree not to mess with your action job.
When I had my 7 converted to 6 because nobody would buy or trade for it, they left my action job intact, too.

aHFo3
January 3, 2012, 01:46 PM
Good for you! And good for S&W for doing the right thing. That'll look sweet with an unfluted cylinder. My only gun selling regret is offloading a 629 classic hunter 8 3/8 with the unfluted cylinder.

What're you going to do with the 6/7 cylinder?

jojo200517
January 3, 2012, 01:49 PM
I too wanna know what you'll do with the messed up cylinder, conversation piece? paper weight?

I say get the unfluted one even if it costs ya a few bucks more, it'll look good and ya know it won't have too many flutes.

Japle
January 3, 2012, 02:24 PM
What're you going to do with the 6/7 cylinder?

It'll be fun showing it around at the range for laughs.

I'll be seeing Jerry Miculek at the Steel Challenge Nationals in late March. He'll get a kick out of it, I'm sure!

I'll be sending this pic and a couple of others with the gun.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/Japle/Guns/IMG_7918.jpg

Japle
January 4, 2012, 07:30 PM
I got a FedEx label from S&W, packed the gun along with a letter and some photos (since I'm keeping the screwed up cylinder) and called FedEx for a pickup. They collected it this afternoon.

In my letter, I requested that they leave the action alone and install a non-fluted cylinder.

Now we wait.

tikka-guy
January 4, 2012, 10:33 PM
S&W is very aware of the fact that my gun is the subject of threads on at least 12 different firearms forums. They know I’m going to report on what happens.

I'm curious, did you explicitly tell them this, or did they already know?

Glad to hear they're fixing it up for you and letting you keep the original cylinder.

Japle
January 5, 2012, 08:18 AM
On the phone with CS, I mentioned that this gun is the subject of threads on at least a dozen forums. They definitely knew all about it. I could tell from the response I got.

Posted on S&Wís Facebook page:
Thank you giving us the chance to make this right for you.

My response:
Despite some of the comments I read on firearms forums, I never had any doubts about the quality of your guns or your service. All my wheelguns are by S&W and I expect that won't change. Thanks!!

Drail
January 5, 2012, 09:47 AM
Every time I look at your photo of that cylinder I can not hardly believe what has happened to this great old company. I just hope that they don't transfer Brian to the heat treat shop. It's also incredible to me how many people on the various forums seem to be of the opinion that this is really no big deal and that mistakes like this simply "happen" and we should all just accept products like this. Someone else was discussing a case where new cars were being shipped to dealers with the brake pads missing. Where do companies find these people who are in charge of critical stuff?

Japle
January 5, 2012, 11:51 AM
From my many years experience in QC, Iíd say this was an example of people getting too familiar with their procedures and forgetting about checking for things theyíve never seen.

You can be sure S&W has detailed, written procedures for their QC. You can also bet those procedures are not open on the benches of their inspectors. Once an inspector gets proficient in his job, he really doesnít have to physically go down a checklist and mark each step as done. That is, as long as he actually does know his procedures and doesnít skip anything.

Itís easy to assume the guys who did the machining and assembly did their jobs right. Thatís almost always the case. The problem is, you canít assume anything when youíre doing the final QC. You have to look at everything and forget nothing.
For whatever reason, that didnít happen on 12/02/2011 at Brianís workstation.

gdesloge
January 5, 2012, 12:10 PM
No one was injured.

The revolver is being repaired.

And John has an interesting paperweight for his desk.

Is this really news? ;)

gd

Sam1911
January 5, 2012, 02:26 PM
One has to use hyperbole.


Apparently so. In fact, it seems to be preferred around here. :rolleyes:

Closed until further report comes back from Japle.

Can't wait to see his fine new 686!

Japle
January 25, 2012, 04:32 PM
UPDATE: 1/25/12

I got a call from Jon Young at S&W Customer Service. He says getting an unfluted cylinder installed wonít be a problem, BUT:

1. When he told me on 1/3 that I could keep the screwed-up cylinder, that wasnít true. They want it back. Heís sending me a return shipping label.

2. When he told me on 1/3 that nobody would change anything inside the gun, that all I had to do was specify in my letter that I wanted the action job left alone, that this was routine and wouldnít be any problem, that wasnít true. Theyíre going to replace the Bang, Inc springs and the C&S extended firing pin. The parts will be returned to me and Iíll have to install them again.

Jon claimed he thought what he told me was true, but when I questioned him, he admitted he didnít know and was just guessing. He actually had no damn idea if what he was telling me was the truth. I strongly suspect he was just making it all up as he went along, telling me what he thought I wanted to hear. To say Iím displease at having smoke blown up my rear end on two separate issues by a guy whoís representing S&W is a titanic understatement.

Heís walking the gun back to the repair section. He says they expect to ship my gun tomorrow.

Right now Iím seriously POed. Up until now, this was a case of carelessness and failure of Quality Control in the manufacturing process. Now Iíve been lied to. Flat-out lied to.

I am not happy.

Thaddeus Jones
January 25, 2012, 04:43 PM
I'm sorry to read of your experience with the current company calling itself S&W.

Sad. :(

ugaarguy
January 25, 2012, 05:01 PM
If they're shipping the gun back anyway, can they legally force you to return the screwed up cylinder? I also believe I'd call S&W customer service, and have a nice chat with Jon Young's supervisor. I hate to hear of the difficulties you're having.

ultramag44
January 25, 2012, 05:34 PM
John,

I openly admit I'm just guessing and don't really know, but it may be a case of the 'suits' & company lawyers heard about this. After loading up their BVD's, they told poor Jon:

" You told him what!!?? You do your best to get that flakey cylinder back here! Tell him he gets the gun back in 'factory-standard' condition."

Then they wrote a script for all CS Reps should this or anything like it ever happen again.

BTW, I love my S&W guns, and will buy more.

Hotshot10
January 25, 2012, 05:38 PM
Jon claimed he thought what he told me was true, but when I questioned him, he admitted he didn’t know and was just guessing. He actually had no damn idea if what he was telling me was the truth. I strongly suspect he was just making it all up as he went along, telling me what he thought I wanted to hear. To say I’m displease at having smoke blown up my rear end on two separate issues by a guy who’s representing S&W is a titanic understatement.

I'd second ugaarguy's advice about asking for the rep's boss. I worked eight years in customer service, and my boss would have been furious if I lied to a customer. I really doubt the management at Smith condones that.

mooner
January 25, 2012, 05:52 PM
They probably figured they should get it back after it got out you were blabbing all over the internet :)

I am a bit astounded that people who obviously haven't worked in manufacturing are surprised and condemning S&W for this. We work for perfection, but it sometimes is a little amazing that no matter what you do, mistakes you never thought could happen do.

Mr.Revolverguy
January 25, 2012, 08:47 PM
I don't agree it is right to condemn Jon I am not sure he actually flat out lied as it was quoted. He probably thought everything he was telling you was true and had all good intentions. A better answer would have been Mr. I have never seen anything like this and until I clear it with my supervisor I am not sure what to expect at this point.

How many of you have said something you thought were in alignment with your companies policies only to find out your boss does not agree with your decision.

bbuddtec
January 25, 2012, 09:41 PM
not as many as flat out lied just to hang the phone upp sooner...

ps...What you doing on the shotgun forums?

On the other hand I never Fitz'ed a shotty before...

you kill me., FUFF!

Guillermo
January 25, 2012, 09:55 PM
I'm sorry to read of your experience with the current company calling itself S&W.

I concur,

It is a very sad situation.

jeggers
January 25, 2012, 10:17 PM
Man O man!!! That would piss me off to no end.

Is there anything else you can do?? I would be VERY VERY upset.

I understand that crap happens, In QA the only thing any reasonable person can ask is that A) there is a fix (CAPA) and B) people are straight with you.

I'd tell S&W to suck a fat one... They shouldn't inconvenience you more than they already have.

Japle
January 25, 2012, 10:32 PM
I wouldn't be upset if they'd told me right at the beginning that they wanted the cylinder back and they wouldn't send the gun back with aftermarket parts in it.

But they didn't do that. Their CS guy told me it was OK if I kept the cylinder. He said they'd leave the parts alone. That was a lie.

In the CS business, if a customer asks you a question and you don't know the answer for sure, the proper response is, "I don't know, but I'll find out and call you back". That's not what happened. Instead, he "shined me on". That unacceptable.

NOLAEMT
January 25, 2012, 11:23 PM
I agree. That is unacceptable. I'm not sure I would return the cylinder if it were me. You were told you could keep it when you sent the gun in.

ultramag44
January 25, 2012, 11:30 PM
I suppose the question now is: Will they ship your gun back to you before they get the cylinder in return?

If they require the cylinder first, then you're kind of stuck. If you get the gun back first, then it's up to you, keep or return the cylinder as your conscience dictates.

Guillermo
January 26, 2012, 12:35 AM
If they require the cylinder first, then you're kind of stuck

or you sue them and end up owning the company. Finally S&W can be owned by someone who cares about guns instead of the pathetic brain-damaged maggots that presently deface the once great name.

Let's go for that.

maskedman504
January 26, 2012, 02:08 AM
I would ship the cylinder back.

Then, I would write a business letter and direct it to:

Barry M. Monheit Independent Chairman of the Board

P. James Debney President, Chief Executive Officer, Director

Michael F. Golden Co-Vice Chairman of the Board

Robert L. Scott Independent Vice Chairman of the Board

Jeffrey D. Buchanan Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary

Ann B. Makkiya Vice President, Corporate Counsel

At this address:

Smith & Wesson
2100 Roosevelt Avenue
Springfield, MA 01104


I would also send one to Jon and send them all certified mail. Don't be aggressive- state the facts; hell, they probably record the conversation anytway.
S&W prides themselves on Customer Servicer; I am sure the above mention people appreciate any type of feedback. It might cost you an hour of time and $10, but I get you get a different response.

FWIW, I have worked in various types of customer service for 10 years; the bottom line is you should never say something you cannot make happen. This means, alot of times, you will have to get a manager (if you are beyond your realm of what you can do). Unless you are sure you can go directly to the manager and make it happen, send the manager to the customer. I used to serve George Steinbrenner often- if he had an issue, it was "No problem, right away, sir." Other times, a customer tells me a $185 bottle of wine is bad and they want another- time to get the manager.

Guillermo
January 26, 2012, 09:28 AM
Other times, a customer tells me a $185 bottle of wine is bad and they want another- time to get the manager.

The wholesaler will surely exchange no matter what the price.

Besides, in a restaurant the $185 cost is about 50 bucks.

Were I the OP I would ask for my gun to be shipped back.

If they refused I would hire a lawyer and contact the ATF. They have a right to not replace the cylinder without the old one. They don't have a right to keep your gun.

45_auto
January 26, 2012, 09:50 AM
Lawyer: "Mr. Japles, I'll be glad to handle that for you for my discount rate of $250 per hour."

Mr. Japles: "Please do so immediately and get my gun back!"

Lawyer thinks about his approach to S&W for 8 hours then calls S&W.

Lawyer: "S&W, my client Mr.Japles wants his gun back."

S&W: "No problem."

Lawyer: "Mr. Japles, here's my bill for 8 hours at $250 per hour. I'm sure it was worth it to you!"

Guillermo
January 26, 2012, 09:57 AM
45,

I was suggesting an attorney and the ATF if they refuse to send the gun back as is.

It is not as though Japles is dealing with an ethical company.

gdesloge
January 26, 2012, 10:10 AM
This has become a silly thread - S&W will repair the revolver, but they won't leave possibly unpredictable (meaning, not designed by them) modifications untouched, and they'd like the mis-manufactured part returned to them. All of that seems reasonable, and it won't cost John a penny.

Here's what I would do: Get my repaired revolver back and go shooting.

Unless you like complaining more than shooting.;)

gd

Sam1911
January 26, 2012, 10:11 AM
Sound adivce.

Japle, let me know if you want to post how it all works out.

Japle
February 3, 2012, 04:47 PM
UPDATE 2/3/2012:

The FedEx guy showed up today with my 686. As they promised they would, S&W installed an unfluted cylinder and didnít mess with my action work.

It looks pretty good, donít you think?

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/Japle/Guns/Newcylinderopensmall.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/Japle/Guns/Newcylinderlsidesmall.jpg

oldfool
February 3, 2012, 06:48 PM
"Thank you giving us the chance to make this right for you."
"The FedEx guy showed up today with my 686. As they promised they would, S&W installed an unfluted cylinder and didn’t mess with my action work."


hmmm.. for all the wailing & gnashing of teeth hyperbole by casual cyber-non-participants on a dozen gun forums, it wasn't all that horrible, after all
(yes, it was their fault, and no one, specifically including them, ever said different)

"It looks pretty good, don’t you think?"
yep, I do
do let us know how she shoots

"Thank you giving us the chance to make this right for you."
a simple "You are welcome" (on a dozen gun boards) might also be in order... if she shoots good, you know

Guillermo
February 3, 2012, 07:41 PM
I am very happy that they did what they promised.

buck460XVR
February 3, 2012, 08:09 PM
"Thank you giving us the chance to make this right for you."
"The FedEx guy showed up today with my 686. As they promised they would, S&W installed an unfluted cylinder and didnít mess with my action work."


hmmm.. for all the wailing & gnashing of teeth hyperbole by casual cyber-non-participants on a dozen gun forums, it wasn't all that horrible, after all
(yes, it was their fault, and no one, specifically including them, ever said different)

"It looks pretty good, donít you think?"
yep, I do
do let us know how she shoots

"Thank you giving us the chance to make this right for you."
a simple "You are welcome" (on a dozen gun boards) might also be in order... if she shoots good, you know



..............well said oldfool.

Sam1911
February 3, 2012, 08:28 PM
Yup! They headed off into the weeds a bit, but made good in the end. (About like my own company tends to do when trying to figure out what the "right" thing is to do to correct a problem... :o)

Good on 'em, and thanks for letting us all know.

skidder
February 3, 2012, 09:01 PM
Japle-- I'm glad you got what you asked for. The squeaky wheel is sometimes necessary. I believe your requested results were a product of you using the megaphone.

Tomcat47
February 3, 2012, 09:42 PM
That is nice! I Actually like the Unfluted Cylinder.....A very nice Canvas for some Scroll Work or Personalized Engraving.

And check this out...

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category4_750001_750051_757961_-1_757780_757751_image

They may be real nice to you! :)

Guillermo
February 3, 2012, 10:22 PM
I think you have to give them extra credit for letting you keep their mega-embarrassing cylinder.

Were I the manufacturer, I would insist in its return for liability reasons as well as to destroy the evidence.

Allowing you to keep it was going above and beyond to keep you happy.

sidheshooter
February 3, 2012, 11:49 PM
What a saga. All's well that ends well.

788Ham
February 4, 2012, 12:19 AM
Japle,

That is one serious looking revolver dude! Seriously, I'm glad to hear they didn't jack you around anymore than one thought they might. Let us know how that piece shoots will you? Hows that paperweight working out for you? LOL

jad0110
February 4, 2012, 08:23 AM
That is one serious looking revolver dude!

I agree. I mostly prefer blued finishes, but that 686 looks great too. Glad everything worked out, in spite of the hassles involved.

Moral of the story: inspect the chamber/flute arrangement in the cylinder, in addition to the other points on the revolver checklist. Something I would never previously thought to do.

Sam1911
February 4, 2012, 08:25 AM
Moral of the story: inspect the chamber/flute arrangement in the cylinder, in addition to the other points on the revolver checklist. Something I would never previously thought to do. Well, sure. But most likely you'll go the rest of your life and never see another one like that.

jad0110
February 4, 2012, 09:06 AM
But most likely you'll go the rest of your life and never see another one like that.

True ... well, we hope that's true :uhoh: ;).

wickedsprint
February 4, 2012, 09:42 AM
Mistakes happen. Was talking with one of the firearms instructors for the local police academy who mentioned one of their new post lock 686s tossed a barrel off during a session. It sheared right at the frame leaving the threaded portion still in the frame. He said S&W came down to see it and were "very" interested. He said the barrel was probably over tightened but I'm not sure if that was his or their speculation. Nobody was injured thankfully.

If you enjoyed reading about "My new 686 has a "feature"!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!