What are these rings in the chambers?

My 686-6 has similar machining marks on some of the cylinders. So what? I couldn't even see them until I shined a bright light through the cylinders and used a magnifying glass. If the quality was "better" in years past, well then I guess those days are gone. As a retired product development engineer who had to specify exactly what was acceptable and what was not on thousands of different components, I'm in agreement with the S&W response.

Pro tip: It's a gun, not a Swiss watch.

If you've already shot "thousands" of rounds. I'm thinking it's a little late to be worried about it now.

I'm with the bunch that says it's ugly but shoots great. I'm saying if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If you can't stand to look at it: get rid of it.

johnjohn said:

I'm with the bunch that says it's ugly but shoots great. I'm saying if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If you can't stand to look at it: get rid of it.

Click to expand...

And the rings are on the side you don't want to be facing anyway.

They are ugly though.

Interesting. Thanks for posting. Good picture. I can not see a solution other than to just keep shooting it.

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.
A 0.356 jacketed bullet drops through the cylinder throats of both guns.
A 0.357 jacketed bullet is slightly tighter in the throats with the rings, but it can be pushed through either cylinder with finger pressure.
A 0.358 powder-coated bullet is tight in both cylinders' chamber throats.

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...

Personally I would have expected S&W to have provided a mirror finish chambers and throats. I have Ruger pistols with chambers that rough, they shoot well, but I am always concerned that I am not getting all the grunge out of the tooling rings.

But, and here is the big but, if your pistol shoots well, don't do anything to "improve" it. Learn to live with the rings, accept the imperfections, don't look at them, don't obsess about them, forget them. Only remember that you have an exceptionally accurate pistol. Don't muck up a good thing!

Nowhere on planet earth should that be acceptable. Those aren't imperfections, they are defects. If S&W refuses to fix it, I would get rid of it and never buy another.

The real bummer about it is that it makes the cylinder harder to clean.

If corners are cut on production and there is no practical difference to the consumer, that's one thing. But now they've made the gun harder to clean; that's unacceptable, to me.

I like Pat Riot's suggestion in Post #16. (LINK)

I am surprised by S &W's response but probably shouldn't be in this day and age. "get it out the door as soon as possible" seems to be the quality standard for a lot of things today. Since it seems to shoot good I would just live with it or trade it off, your choice. Non the less that is substandard work and should never have left the assembly line to be sold and the response is just a cop out to save even more money. Buyer beware is even more important today than it ever was. Seeing that makes me glad I am not in the market for anything S&W.

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.
A 0.356 jacketed bullet drops through the cylinder throats of both guns.
A 0.357 jacketed bullet is slightly tighter in the throats with the rings, but it can be pushed through either cylinder with finger pressure.
A 0.358 powder-coated bullet is tight in both cylinders' chamber throats.

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 it ain't broke, don't fix it!

There was a time they wouldn't have let anything like that go out the door.
Looks like pride in workmanship has been replaced by quick and dirty. It's their way of saying "We don't care".
Makes it kinda hard to be loyal to a brand. . . . . .

irving said:

My 686-6 has similar machining marks on some of the cylinders. So what? I couldn't even see them until I shined a bright light through the cylinders and used a magnifying glass. If the quality was "better" in years past, well then I guess those days are gone. As a retired product development engineer who had to specify exactly what was acceptable and what was not on thousands of different components, I'm in agreement with the S&W response.

Pro tip: It's a gun, not a Swiss watch.

Click to expand...

You may well be a product development engineer but just this sort of shoddy work is precisely why Winchester went bust post '64..................I personally would NOT keep a piece with that low level of execution.......absolutely crummy!

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...

I would wait until after the holidays. Quicker turn around time and less chance of it getting "lost".

usaral63 said:

You may well be a product development engineer but just this sort of shoddy work is precisely why Winchester went bust post '64..................I personally would NOT keep a piece with that low level of execution.......absolutely crummy!

Click to expand...

If your opinion is about shoddy work, etc., then go for it - but there's no need to quote me while you're doing it. But since you did, I feel I should offer an explanation.

Like I said, I cannot see the marks on my gun with my naked eye. So for all practical purposes, they're not really there. Shining a bright light nearly parallel to the chambers, casting the longest shadows possible for maximum contrast, and using a 5x magnifying glass? Yes I can see them under those conditions...but I can also see flaws in the most beautiful diamond if I use a bright light and a 10x jeweler's loupe. For all practical purposes, they're not really there, either.

Go back and look at the picture on post #1 of this thread. Besides doing the long shadow thing, It exaggerates the size of the marks tenfold! (On my screen, the largest chamber shown measures 3.874" across. The actual gun chamber measures .357" across, so if viewed from the same distance, the picture is 10.6 times larger.) Now look at the thumbnail photo on response #47. How do the marks look at 2.2 times magnification? Much harder to see, right? I can see one faint ring in both chambers. Doesn't appear to be a problem. OK, now move your head twice as far away from the screen to simulate actual size. Can you still see defects? I can see a very faint ring on the leftmost chamber, nothing on the other one. They look acceptable to me, and that's my reasoning.

You can disagree with my reasoning, and that's alright, but I really don't want to argue about it. You may still maintain the marks are totally unacceptable, and stating that opinion is fine with me, but please leave me out of it. My opinion is that the finish inside the chambers is perfectly acceptable. Not beautiful. Acceptable.

My opinion is that if this is what S&W now considers to be acceptable when it is brought to their attention like westernrover did, then why not save yourself the extra coin and go with a cheaper manufacturer like Taurus for example. I tell you this, if I am going to buy a new revolver sight unseen, it sure isn’t going to be a S&W product.

irving said:

My 686-6 has similar machining marks on some of the cylinders. So what? I couldn't even see them until I shined a bright light through the cylinders and used a magnifying glass. If the quality was "better" in years past, well then I guess those days are gone. As a retired product development engineer who had to specify exactly what was acceptable and what was not on thousands of different components, I'm in agreement with the S&W response.

Pro tip: It's a gun, not a Swiss watch.

Click to expand...

Now we know who to blame for the crappy products we buy today, product development engineers.

irving said:

If your opinion is about shoddy work, etc., then go for it - but there's no need to quote me while you're doing it. But since you did, I feel I should offer an explanation.

Like I said, I cannot see the marks on my gun with my naked eye. So for all practical purposes, they're not really there. Shining a bright light nearly parallel to the chambers, casting the longest shadows possible for maximum contrast, and using a 5x magnifying glass? Yes I can see them under those conditions...but I can also see flaws in the most beautiful diamond if I use a bright light and a 10x jeweler's loupe. For all practical purposes, they're not really there, either.

Go back and look at the picture on post #1 of this thread. Besides doing the long shadow thing, It exaggerates the size of the marks tenfold! (On my screen, the largest chamber shown measures 3.874" across. The actual gun chamber measures .357" across, so if viewed from the same distance, the picture is 10.6 times larger.) Now look at the thumbnail photo on response #47. How do the marks look at 2.2 times magnification? Much harder to see, right? I can see one faint ring in both chambers. Doesn't appear to be a problem. OK, now move your head twice as far away from the screen to simulate actual size. Can you still see defects? I can see a very faint ring on the leftmost chamber, nothing on the other one. They look acceptable to me, and that's my reasoning.

You can disagree with my reasoning, and that's alright, but I really don't want to argue about it. You may still maintain the marks are totally unacceptable, and stating that opinion is fine with me, but please leave me out of it. My opinion is that the finish inside the chambers is perfectly acceptable. Not beautiful. Acceptable.

Click to expand...

Sorry but no. I understand your point but it is still unacceptable. I can't believe it doesn't lead up to the point it doesn't function. I'd send it down the road and get one that doesn't suck.

doubleh said:

Now we know who to blame for the crappy products we buy today, product development engineers.

Click to expand...

Actually the people to blame are the consumers -- by buying crappy products, they encourage the companies to make more of them.

I won't buy a Smith and Wesson these days -- although if Colt offers the Anaconda in .45 Colt, I'll buy that.

Vern Humphrey said:

Actually the people to blame are the consumers -- by buying crappy products, they encourage the companies to make more of them.

I won't buy a Smith and Wesson these days -- although if Colt offers the Anaconda in .45 Colt, I'll buy that.

Click to expand...

If I decided to buy one I would carry a magnifing glass along to inspect it very closely before laying any money on the counter. Of course it wasn't needed for the one on the OP.

doubleh said:

If I decided to buy one I would carry a magnifing glass along to inspect it very closely before laying any money on the counter. Of course it wasn't needed for the one on the OP.

Click to expand...

I figure that if the things I CAN see are screwed up, the things I CAN'T see are probably just as bad.

westernrover said:

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

Click to expand...

What service did you get and how much did they charge?

Looking at their site I see services from $165 to $325. They say they chamfer the charge holes. Nothing about spec'ing out the cylinder.