Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

686 Recall

Discussion in 'Handguns: Revolvers' started by Maj Dad, Jun 20, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Maj Dad

    Maj Dad Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,573
    Location:
    Carolina Low Country
    Some years back there was a recall by S&W that involved 686s (maybe others, don't recall). I believe it entailed a modification of the hammer or frame at the firing pin hole, but the specifics have fuzzed over. Do any of you gentlemen have any better recollection? I have a 686 no-dash that shoots like a million bucks and am not inclined to have it modified, though Smith sent me a pre-paid shipping label. It ain't broke, I don't shoot hundreds of full-house loads a week and I am coming into the age of conservative paranoia... :cool:
    Cheers,
    Maj Dad
     
  2. DennyF

    DennyF Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    88
    Location:
    PA
    Bought a new 686 4 incher in the mid-1980s when they were introduced. Still have it and it's an excellent pistol.

    The recall was for the replacement of the "hammer nose and hammer nose bushing", IIRC? Never sent mine back because the turn around time was too long to suit me. The problems mostly involved cylinder bind-up from a partially backed out primer.

    Had that problem with a few of my ultra-hot handloads with 158gr SWC w/gas checks. Backed the load off a tad, no more problems. Only shoot WW 125gr SJHP loads in it now, no further glitches and a can of 2400 lasts a bit longer with reduced loads. I was younger and friskier (dumber) back then. ;O)

    Went and looked: Mine is Ser. # ACL 15xx, 686/no dash, as I expected it would be.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2009
  3. oron

    oron Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    33
    Location:
    Central US
    remember a little of it.
    However mine has never failed yet.
    ser aczxxx oct-83 in fac.grip.
    If it aint broke......
    And alot of Everthing, since bought in -90-:cool:
     
  4. Oro

    Oro Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    3,496
    Location:
    WA state
    The recall was issued for a huge number of guns to catch a very few that were out of spec. If your gun runs fine, then just let it be. Also, I doubt nowadays they will replace it with the same forged and flash-chromed hammer as was on the original "no dash." I would not do it unless you have a problem shooting factory ammo in the gun.

    I have a 686 no dash and I have not sent it in for the recall. Recalled guns that have had the modification will have an "M" overstamp in the yoke cut.
     
  5. Maj Dad

    Maj Dad Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,573
    Location:
    Carolina Low Country
    Good Advice

    I will go with my gut instinct and your advice and keep shooting without the return hassle. It's like new, and I see no reason to fix it... BTW, SN is ACL 37xx, 4" with a dept. or internal SN very lightly stamped on the left frame - CA SO 744201, which I assumed was a CA sheriff's ofc. I bought it out west about 10 years ago for $265 + $30 shipping/tax and thought it was a great buy. Sure is a nice shooter.
    Thanks, gents.
     
  6. hexidismal

    hexidismal Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,853
    Location:
    Ulster County, New York
    Quoting myself from post #330 of the definitive "The 686" thread

    http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=257401

    If there is a recall on a piece of equipment that handles the kinds of pressures generated by .357 magnum loads, there's probably a good reason. Just because yours work (for now), does not mean that it's wise to ignore a recall. In my opinion it should not be considered optional when talking about a gun that is going to be shot. The only exception is collector's guns which don't get fired, which in some cases the "flaw" is valued. This is not the case in any 686.

    EDIT: Oh also , it had nothing to do with "to catch a very few that were out of spec" , but rather had more to do with the softer flowing primers of the day.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2009
  7. ktd

    ktd Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2003
    Messages:
    352
    Location:
    out north and west
    And if I recall, it was mostly a problem only with certain brands of ammo.
     
  8. Maj Dad

    Maj Dad Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,573
    Location:
    Carolina Low Country
    Post Scriptum

    I have never been able to afford more than one or two boxes of factory hotloads in magnum pistols. I reload about 99.9% of the time and have never had any issue with those loads. I agree that recalls are not made on a whim and should be seriously considered. I also believe that we should use our logical and intelligent analytical noodles to sort the lawyer fluff from reality. Reality - what a concept... ;)

    This forum is a pre-eminent interface with reality - and the contributors are our connecton with it.
    Regards to all!
    Maj Dad
     
  9. DennyF

    DennyF Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    88
    Location:
    PA
    Had the "problem" with my 686 very early on. Once I backed off a tad on the loads, no further problems with those 158gr SWC loads in the pistol.

    In the past 25 years and many, many hundreds of rounds, never another problem either. It'll eat all the 125gr JHP loads ahead of 17grs of 2400, that you want to feed it, with no hiccups. Nothing but CCI 550 primers, FWIW.

    Had it ever "bound up" again, it would've went back to the S&W authorized repair center for the updated parts.
     
  10. ArchAngelCD

    ArchAngelCD Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    21,661
    Location:
    Northeast PA, USA
    Above the "M" marking for modified revolvers was mentioned but you didn't tell us if your revolver was modified or not. I'm guessing you wouldn't be worrying about the modification if your revolver was already done but I was just wondering if you verified there was no "M" stamped on your revolver. I guess I got lucky because the "problem" was fixed in the M686-2 which is what I own. I really enjoy shooting those older S&W revolvers...
     
  11. Oro

    Oro Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    3,496
    Location:
    WA state
    Uh, it WAS a small batch of fp bushings that were out of spec. It was NOT a general problem of the whole line. If you aren't familiar with this recall, you can call S&W and ask about it. You WILL need to find someone who has specific knowledge of it, like Kate F., to get the whole story. Since it was impossible to know which guns had the out-of-spec part, a general recall was issued for the whole engineering series. This is how recalls work when the individually affected units, no matter how few, can't be identified.

    If the bushing is out of spec, it will become apparent when there is an indexing issue with magnum loads. I believe they said it was less than 1% of the recalled guns that were actually affected.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page