642 Problem

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh I agree with everyone else about getting checked. Nothing is more exciting than wondering when your revolver will grenade. A decent gunsmith should have the tools to make sure it's safe, but he's gonna charge you for it.

Definitely call S&W. Even if it is safe, it's still an eyesore, and I'd expect them to do right by you.
 
None of my S&W look like that!!! I have, well, several. Does the gun keyhole the projectiles on the target. Mr. March, correct me but a messed up crown will cause keyholing??
 
Mine looks similar. I've had no problems in the 2 years i've owned it. i'm inclined to side with the grooves make it look distorted.
 
I took my 642 out and it looked distorted and then I turned so the light hit it a different way and it distorted again! How will I ever get consistent groups with this thing? :) I'd go with jt1's old timer's explanation. You have a thin, stainless barrel so minute variations in the crown stand out. Throw in variations on the outside diameter of the barrel and even the fact that it's five groove and shazam, a "distorted" barrel. If I read this right, nobody found the "problem" due to problems with the way the gun shot?
 
>>Mr. March, correct me but a messed up crown will cause keyholing??<<

If it's bad enough, yeah.

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

(For those not mechanically inclined: to see if a pushrod is screwed up, you roll it across something known to be dead flat. Any warp will be obvious.)
 
No one else has mentioned it yet, so I will.

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

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

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

Lots of people claim the Glock shoots fine. (I wouldn't know :p)
 
The S&W revolvers are definetly not rifled polygonaly, but all that I own do have five lands and grooves. None of mine look as bad as in the pics (newest one is from 1981), but the heavier barreled stainless guns do show a somewhat similar appearance to those pictured. Perhaps the odd number of lands & grooves combined with a rougher crown than the older guns had contributes to this off center appearance.
 
Haven't fully digested all of the responses since I last checked in.

Will do that tomorrow.

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

Worth it, but long.

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

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

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

And, it didn't even blow up.

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

He's a smart guy, Its an optical illusion caused by the stainless bead blasted finish, and you brains desire to see something that isnt so.
 
Hmmm - this thread sent me scurrying to check my 642 and it IS a tad out of round. Next, I checked my 1970s vintage Model 10 and it too is a bit out of round. Odd, I must say.
 
Has anyone checked the land - outside ratio with a micrometer? I just spent a few unpleasant moments staring down the muzzle of my only S&W (verified empty) revolver from different angles, with different light sources, cylinder open and closed, and there were two "shoulders" in the bore similar to the instigating pic.
 
Thanks for all that has replied to this thread. I never noticed the end of the barrel like that which concerned me (I dont have a habit of staring at the end of a barrel face on). I might call S&W today and talk to them. It is reassurring to know that others have the same look. I would like to stop in a gun store and check out what they have their too. Maybe the process that S&W has for the end of the barrel manufacturing causes it to look that way. Interesting.
 
I will post mine as soon as I return. I can tell you when I purchased mine I made the gun shope owner mad I think. Reason being he went back to the back to pull out 6 other 642's and they all were the same. Mine looks exactly like yours even in the same spot. I have about 500 rounds through mine in practice and in my CCW class I actually got an award sharp shooter as I did out shoot all of the glocks and XD's that were there that day. Only two of us had snubbies me with a 642 and the other was a taurus 85UL.
 
I just checked my 642 and it looks perfectly round. I cn see the grooves, but aside from that, perfectly round.

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

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

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

:uhoh:
 
do you have old ones? None of my k's are like that, but they are all older--my 642 looks just like that.
 
My K and N frames aren't like that, but they're older pinned & recessed guns. My 90s vintage Model 60 isn't like that. My Taurii and Rugers are not like this.

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

-- Sam
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
What does the -2 stand for on the S&W 642-2?
Replies
8
Views
875
Mikul
M
M
  • Locked
Just purchased a 642 - want some info
Replies
14
Views
689
Eightball
E
MonRiver
  • Locked
Not all 642's shoot +P
Replies
10
Views
3K
cfullgraf
cfullgraf
B
  • Locked
642 questions
Replies
2
Views
575
sixgunner455
S
G
  • Locked
Is my new S&W 642 barrel up to snuff?
Replies
16
Views
2K
BADUNAME37
B
Back
Top