Is this a good ball detent?

OK

Someone explain to me the logic of spending money to design and manufacture that V/notch if all you need is an inclined plane to compress the ball...

The 'V' in my mind is a 'seat'...Why waste the time and money otherwise?

^^

Shape of tool needed to machine it, and the lack of a sharp corner where a stress riser would occur. The "working surface" is the inclined plane. The shape of the end of the machining cut is shaped for ease of manufacture, stress relief, and smooth transition to the next contour.

It's good production engineering.


Willie

.

That doesn't look right. However it does look like current production work from the current company calling itself S&W.

$800 for that revolver? Outrageous. I'd have bought a ni ce pre lock revolver and ammo instead.

I find the customer service letter to be a bit arrogant as well.

Arrogance, poor quality and high price for what you get. Yep, that sums up todays "S&W".

Sorry, but there is something odd about this whole thread, and my ** detector is showing a high reading. I have had contact with S&W and never had anyone talk about "registering a complaint" or "assigning a representative." They usually issue a label to return the gun. Nor does the letter sound like anything any company would write to a customer. It sounds more like something someone who does not like the company thinks they would write. I do hope I am wrong, that the problem is genuine, and that the company will make it right.

Jim

^^^ This. I'm suspicious of the "reply" as well.

Willie

.

Saw my first M69 today. It looks about the same.
I was more concerned with the VERY heavy DA pull.

'm suspicious of the "reply" as well.

Click to expand...

I actually don't see it as that unlikely. It looks exactly like what tech support people sometimes say when confronted by a pushy but wrong customer who is threatening retaliation ("I'm going to tell all my online friends how S&W can't even machine a ball detent unless you refund me my money including the fees I paid an FFL!"), often right before their employer sends them off to find a new job. Having worked closely with telephone tech support people for many years, I've seen a few of them snap and say things to customers in infelicitous ways. Far worse ways than the alleged S&W response in this thread.

The easiest way to make an angled cut is a spinning cone shaped bit. That will leave a V shape where the opposing, angled surface isn't really needed.

As for Old Fuff's response, I zoomed in on the image as well and I think it's the reflection on the ball that is making it look like it is not engaging, but I believe it is.

Part of the problem is that I can't tell from the picture whether the barrel shroud is not fully turned in or whether the crane is being held open by something else. But there is no doubt that the detent ball is intended to fit into the notch in the shroud; S&W knows that and it is very unlikely they would say otherwise.

Unlike the traditional S&W front lock, that gun has a barrel shroud, somewhat like the Dan Wesson, though it is not intended to be removable. The front of the cylinder is kept in alignment with a spring loaded detent ball that fits into that notch in the shroud. (The ball is to align the crane and cylinder, and keep the crane closed, not to keep the shroud aligned - a crush fit does that.)

There are several better pictures of the correct setup; I can't reproduce them here because of copyright restrictions, but Googling "S&W Model 69" should find them.

Jim

"I hope you do post this letter on the gun forums to help clear up the perceived issue that does not exist."

This is what strikes me as odd. Funny... but odd.

I was more concerned with the VERY heavy DA pull.

Mine was the same way. I just bent the mainspring until the trigger pull was like my other S&W revolvers.

Jim K said:

There are several better pictures of the correct setup; I can't reproduce them here because of copyright restrictions, but Googling "S&W Model 69" should find them.

Click to expand...

There is absolutely no copyright issue if you link to the pictures...

Your search parameters bring up lots of pics, but nothing with a clear pic of the detent...

ADDING:

Never mind...Found one:

http://s47.photobucket.com/user/Thunderball315/media/IMG_2460_zpsec2c086d.jpg.html

http://s47.photobucket.com/user/Thunderball315/media/IMG_2461_zpsba5518a1.jpg.html

And the (sort of) discussion surrounding those pics:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/353606-new-s-w-model-69-44-mag.html

Salmoneye said:

There is absolutely no copyright issue if you link to the pictures...

Your search parameters bring up lots of pics, but nothing with a clear pic of the detent...

ADDING:

Never mind...Found one:

http://s47.photobucket.com/user/Thunderball315/media/IMG_2460_zpsec2c086d.jpg.html

http://s47.photobucket.com/user/Thunderball315/media/IMG_2461_zpsba5518a1.jpg.html

And the (sort of) discussion surrounding those pics:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/353606-new-s-w-model-69-44-mag.html

Click to expand...

Here is the response to Clean Harry's thread about his gun @ S&W forums.....

CleanHarry's letter and response

So if they had used a cutter going in at an angle so that the cut would have an inclined ramp on the outer side only, and not appear symmetrical, it would look just like it is supposed to work, form would follow function and the eye would instantly understand it.

So if they had used a cutter going in at an angle so that the cut would have an inclined ramp on the outer side only, and not appear symmetrical, it would look just like it is supposed to work, form would follow function and the eye would instantly understand it.

Click to expand...

Or a simple arc all way around the corner...

It would still have bearing surface in the same spot, and would remove the 'scallop' that they insist is not a 'seat'...

Or they could just go back to the locking ejector rod that has worked successfully for a hundred years and forget about trying to mass produce a ball detent locking system.

Drail said:

Or they could just go back to the locking ejector rod that has worked successfully for a hundred years and forget about trying to mass produce a ball detent locking system.

Click to expand...

The ball detent is not a new thing at S&W. I have a coupla P.C. guns with shrouded barrels that have them. One is an almost ten year old X-Frame with a frame mounted ball and a crane detent. The other is a 6 year old Lew Horton 629 Magnum Hunter that has a system similar to the OPs, with a crane mounted ball that wedges into a frame angled detent. Difference is, is that one cannot see the ball from the outside when the cylinder is closed. Probably due to the shroud being deeper on the 629. Both were touted at the time to create a stronger lock up than the ball at the end of the ejector rod because of the closer proximity of the locking point to the front of the cylinder. As with most modern firearms, I assume the real test is how the system works, not how it looks to folks that don't know how the design is supposed to work. The sytem works well on the two guns I have that have it, and if you read the OPs thread in the link from the S&W forums, you'll see he too is happy with the way the gun shoots. I've always enjoyed the view from behind the sights much more than starin' at the bottom of the gun.....but to each their own. Funny......Folks doing the biggest whinin' here in this thread are folks that wouldn't buy a new S&W anyway, even if the ball detent was exactly how they imagined it should be or if the guns still used the ejector rod for lock-up. Also funny is how folks with engineering background all say it's proper, while those that are the regular Smith bashers are the ones claimin' it's just wrong. I'm thinkin' just another case of same ol' crap, just a different day.

These are two I found; they sure seem to show the detent ball fully seated, and the crane closed. A system that leaves a big gap and a detent sitting on the edge of the notch doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

http://i956.photobucket.com/albums/ae42/axelwik/fa8c5414a8567f0fa1aee0cb3c40e54e_zps91b7a553.jpg

http://i956.photobucket.com/albums/ae42/axelwik/c35eeab82de02d8420b0bdc5bd84925a_zpsd2d55960.jpg

Jim

Howdy

Good grief, is that what Smith is doing these days? Whatever was wrong with the traditional spring plunger at the end of the extractor rod? Worked fine. Yes, I do realize that plopping a ball plunger into the frame, or where ever they are plopping it, is much cheaper than the old spring plunger at the end of the rod. The old system had far more parts, and the springs were designed to work against each other.

If they want to lock up the cylinder at the frame, this is the way to do it. But of course this would be hideously expensive today.





Just one more reason that I never even look at what Smith is building today. What a shame.

These are two I found; they sure seem to show the detent ball fully seated,

Click to expand...

If you can see the exact position of the ball in those pictures, all I can say is that I can't.

I have access to a new production S&W revolver that has a visible ball latch. The notch is offset/the ball is on the inclined plane exerting continuous closing force. The crane also looks like it is closed far more tightly and it looks like the fit in general is much better than the revolver in the original post.

Poor photo:



Note that the crane is on the bottom in this photo, so the ball only contacts the bottom (image relative) side of the notch. As you can see, the ball is only contacting one side, meaning that it is trying to roll further closed due to spring tension. The crane is tightly closed. It works well.

Ya' sort of miss the point... but just maybe.

The revolver is working fine and you love it. That's fine. But it doesn't answer the question about the ball lock. It may be O.K., or it may also be that it isn't, but for at least the time being the gun is working to your satisfaction. I hope things stay that way.

Didn't you have the chance to inspect the firearm before accepting it?

Maybe S&W was a bit impolite with their response but you were horrendous with your terrorist letter to start. That's the type of customer I send to the competition with a grin on my face. I hope you don't shop with me any time soon.