What are these rings in the chambers?

westernrover said:

The gun is a current-model SW 686.
You can see some rings on the cylinder face in the upper right hand corner of the image. They are about the center of the cylinder, not the chambers. This is consistent with another L frame I have.
The rings in the chambers are deeper. I do not see those rings in another 686.

I'm concerned that just honing the rings out will open the throats too far.
I have fired the gun, thousands of rounds. It's flattering how it hits. Clay pigeons at 80 yards. Paper plates at 150 yards. It never misses what I aim at.

Click to expand...

After thousands of rounds, why are you just now worrying about it? Should have been obvious within minutes of looking at the gun before you bought it, and if you have others of the same model without them and another one with them, and notice the adjacent cylinders aren't the same, I'd have been asking that question thousands of rounds ago.

Improperly finished cylinder.

westernrover said:

"Current model" means it's a 686-6. The -7 was only for 38 Super. It probably should have been called something other than 686, like the 986 was. I would have called it a 938 but whatever.

No kitchen table bubba. The cylinder was only worked on by the S&W Performance Center.

I know S&W will fix it if I send it in, but I hate to lose it for however long it takes them.

Click to expand...

If it shoots well and you are happy with it LEAVE IT ALONE. If you get it (fixed) and it's no good you are stuck with it Be happy with what you have.

westernrover said:

I'm concerned that just honing the rings out will open the throats too far.
I have fired the gun, thousands of rounds. It's flattering how it hits. Clay pigeons at 80 yards. Paper plates at 150 yards. It never misses what I aim at.

Click to expand...

If the revolver is that accurate I would suggest quit looking in the cylinder and just shoot it. It’s a tool made to do a job and it sounds like it is doing it very well.

Well there ya go! Performance Center shooting enhancements!

Reamer marks!
Faulty cylinder.
I had a M14 HB circa 1996 production. that had ONE “charge hole” (S&W’s archaic term for chamber) that would throw flyers due to similar reamer marks.
I shat a 595-41x at the 1997 NPSC with it to take 3rd in the Distinguished revolver match. John Pride scored my target and noted the key-hole “7” I had high and left. I told him about the chamber. He said take it to the S&W table and show it to them. I did!

In the off season I sent it back to the Performance Center. They replaced the cylinder. In 1998, I won the 1998 NPSC distinguished match with a 598-47X. John P. Scored my target again. I reminded him of the previous year, and thanked him for his excellent advice. He replied “your welcome “!
First class competitor!!!

Send it back to S&W. They’ll fix it!

I think alot of production lines these days are cutting costs where they can. Chamber throats don't *have* to be smooth, from a practical standpoint, so leaving the toolmarks in there without honing them out saves S&W time and $$. Further, honing them will open them up, probably another couple thousandths to remove those marks, which may adversely impact your accuracy. If it were my revolver and it was shooting for me as well you say it is, I wouldn't mess with it - largely a cosmetic issue.

greenmtnguy said:

I think alot of production lines these days are cutting costs where they can. Chamber throats don't *have* to be smooth, from a practical standpoint, so leaving the toolmarks in there without honing them out saves S&W time and $$. Further, honing them will open them up, probably another couple thousandths to remove those marks, which may adversely impact your accuracy.

Click to expand...

I have a Webley MKVI, made in the dark days of 1916, and its cylinder throats are honed smooth. It's called attention to detail.

.455_Hunter said:

I have a Webley MKVI, made in the dark days of 1916, and its cylinder throats are honed smooth. It's called attention to detail.

Click to expand...

Good 'nuff 'Murica!!!

westernrover said:

The cylinder was only worked on by the S&W Performance Center.

Click to expand...

Well there's yer problem. My experience over the last 4 or 5 years, after seeing many Performance Center guns go through the shop I worked for, is that they are far more likely to be sub-standard than the production line guns. We sent back many PC guns for various defects.

JCooperfan1911 said:

Smith & Wesson’s current guns are “better than they ever have been before”.

That’s what people keep saying. Sorry, just not seeing it.

Click to expand...

I agree. They have had their ups and downs through history and this time frame is not one of the peaks. I think today's guns are better than the Bangor Punta or Lear Siegler era guns, (1965-1987) but the pre Bangor Punta and the 1988-early 90's guns were better than today's.

I had a Ruger single six hunter with chatter marks like that in just one chamber. It piled shots up on top of each other though so I didn’t worry about it.

I agree with the "leave it alone" crowd! If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Most of my Smiths from the respective mfg. years 1916 (pre 10 hand ejector), 1935 (M-10) 1968 (M27)
1972 (M-28) do not have very noticeable milling marks in the cylinders.

Looking at a M-586-1 from 1986 it is a little more apparent, and a 1988 (M-13) even more so......but nowhere near like yours...... what I do know for a fact is that carbon steel machines much better than stainless steel....any machinist will know what im talking about.... Mass production in later years definitely has something to do with this, but also the material it's made of as well may be a factor.

Smith may have skipped a step that they once performed back in the day in lieu of costs, the old step possibly being machining to within .0075 or so , then honing the rest smooth to exact spec..... they very well may mill to exact spec now and call it good.....

I wouldn't worry about it, the only thing I've ever noticed in wheelguns with more machining grooves in the cylinders is a little stickier extractions..... the M13 and 586 being the 2....

I just noticed rough machining lines in my new 686 cylinder, but not on the throats or cartridge end. It is only there in the ~3/8 inch transition between the two ends of the cylinder. I think the rough surface makes it slightly more prone to building up debris and more frequent cleaning might be needed.

trackskippy said:

If it shoots well, I wouldnt mess with it.

Click to expand...

Pretty much it ^ ^ ^

( although 40 years ago, a gun finished in
such a fashion wouldn't have been allowed
through QC at any of the American gun
factories working at the time. Alas, QC of
the order that used to be is a thing of the
past , just like hand fitting by skilled craftsmen)

trackskippy said:

If it shoots well, I wouldnt mess with it.

If it really bothers you, call S&W, maybe send them that pic, and ask what they think. Im sure they will take care of it if they think its not right. But..... you did say it shoots well.

Click to expand...

correct answer

War emergency Webley revolvers from WWI (MKVI) and WWII (MKIV) have far better quality than frequently departs S&W these days.

[Edit to add that I guess I had already commented on this thread].

Note the difference from cylinder to cylinder.

BUT "If you're happy and you know it clap your hands..."

westernrover said:

I returned the revolver in the OP to S&W for them to address the machine marks shown in the chamber throats here. It was returned to me with a checkbox indicating that it met their standards for fit and finish. Again, this was a cylinder I purchased with services from the Performance Center. I did not buy the revolver with these defects, but it was returned to me from S&W with them.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, you sent it back and they said that met their standards?

I feel for ya. That sucks man. I would be very unhappy. I would want to send it back and have it fixed. I would try again and see if they will remedy it. Don’t give up and sell it in disgust.

westernrover said:

Yes. I sent them the gun with the photograph of the problem so there would be no doubt about what the issue was. I received the gun back with a check sheet marked next to the text "Function/finish meets factory standards" and also a check next to the line "The enclosed handgun was test fired and passed our factory specification. No repairs are necessary."

Click to expand...

I am glad the gun seems to function fine but what a disappointing load of BS on S&W’s part.