broke 2 revolvers!! NOT A HAPPY CAMPER!

[SpikeEVO]

I was at the range last weekend and managed to break two of my revolvers... Not a good day at the range!!

I was shooting some stout loads out of my 7.5" .44mag Ruger Vaquero and as I was sighting for the next shot I realized my front site was gone!! I've owned the gun for 10 or 12 years, and fired it many thousands of times with near max loads, so I am not really upset at all about this. I am going to ship the gun back and have them fix it, but I think I will also have Ruger either shorten the current barrel to 4.75 inch or just mount a new barrel for me while it's away. I already also have a 7.5 inch SuperBlackhawk, and would prefer a short tube on the Vaquero anyway... Any idea on how long such a trip to Ruger might take, and how much a barrel swap might run me?

The other breakage was MUCH more disturbing to me.

I was firing my primary carry gun, a Smith & Wesson Model 337 in .38 Special, with it's carry ammo (Winchester Silvertips) and after firing off a few rounds it suddenly would no longer fire the remaining rounds in the cylinder. You could pull the trigger but got no bang with each hammer strike. The hammer block safety had broken, I found a piece of it on the shooting bench, and cocking the gun and looking inside it was clear that the firing pin was being blocked since the safety no longer moved correctly. This is kind of scary for me, because I've been carrying this gun daily over the past month and my life was riding on it, and if I had needed it it would have failed me after that 2nd shot - and then been useless. I've owned the gun since about 1999 when I hoped CCW would pass in Missouri, but it failed so it mostly sat on a shelf till this year...I've put maybe 300 or 400 rounds through it, most of them recently, without problems. I think after I get this one fixed it will get traded... I'm not sure I see myself trusting my life to it anymore - I'd have to pump hundreds of trouble free rounds through it when I get it back before I'll trust it, probably easier to just trade it for a snubbie .357mag.

Has anyone else seen a broken hammer block safety on any of these ultralight S&W guns? I just bought a 329PD and was considering trading up the 337 for a 340PD recently as well..
:banghead:
This is not inspiring my confidence in S&W !!

It's upsetting that the 2 S&Ws I owned over the last 15 years (the other was a 629 Mountain Gun I bought new in like 1990 that had serious issues) were huge dissappointments. The 329PD I just picked up last week had better not do this to me, otherwise I will have to vow to never buy a S&W again...

Any guesses as to how long S&W will take to repair this one?? It looks like my two ancient, yet utterly reliable Colt Detective Specials (both built in the 1930s!) will get primary duty till I get this new-fangled clunker back.

 

[SpikeEVO]

Spike's primary CCW weapon for the rest of the summer:

although I might start carrying my Colt Magnum Carry as well, even though I am not a big fan of it's trigger action...

 

[4v50 Gary]

That Ruger sight is probably silver soldered on. Your local gunsmith can probably fix it (or Ruger - betcha anything they'll swap out barrels first).

Regarding the S&W, betcha anything that part is MIM and no longer stamped.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Mostly Inferior Metal????

 

[pauli]

I'm not sure I see myself trusting my life to it anymore - I'd have to pump hundreds of trouble free rounds through it when I get it back before I'll trust it, probably easier to just trade it for a snubbie .357mag.

...which you'd have to put hundreds of trouble free rounds through before trusting either, right?

 

[albanian]

I know what you mean about not being able to trust a gun that breaks like that. I had a Kel-Tec P-32 that broke on me and it is such wake up call to what might have been that it scares you. There are plenty of other guns out there to carry, why carry something you don't trust?

I have a S&W 642 that I carry, would it have the same MIM parts as the 337? I know that the 642 and 637 have pretty good reps and have been around the block enough to have a solid feedback on them. What known problems do these guns have?

 

[Old Fuff]

Spike:

If (and only if) you know how too do it, remove the sideplate and see exactly where the hammer block broke. This is not a stressed part, and at least in older guns it has an excellent reputation. In fact I've never seen a broken one. I would expect that it's still a stamped part, because of small cross-sectional areas it would not be good as an MIM part.

If you're determined to get a .357 snubby - which I don't think is a good idea - I'd strongly advise an all-steel gun, such as a Ruger SP-101. I don't think the ultra-light guns chambered for magnum cartridges (excluding the .32 H&R Magnum) are going to stand up in the long run.

 

[Marshall]

Or a Model 60 Smith.

 

[Walosi]

Gotta go with Fuff (as usual). The purpose of MIM is to allow cheaper manufacture of close-tolerence parts, with less machining and fitting. The stamped safety bar can't be improved on, in either area, and is still a stamped part. I'll bet. That said, the top bend in the safety may have cracked when bent, and broken. There would almost have to be something else involved (a piece of ? for it to bear against) because there is no stress on it, in operation.

 

[Jim March]

Spike, two questions on the Vaq:

1) Is it stainless?

2) Does it shoot good now?

See...on the stainless guns, barrel swaps are tricky as the barrel threads can spall against the old barrel and become questionable for the new.

Also, on a stainless you wouldn't have to refinish. So having a gunsmith chop it flush with the ejector and re-crown will be fairly cheap, and if it shoots good NOW you know you'll be running the same good barrel as present.

As to the front sight: is this to be a CAS/SASS gun, or a woods knockabout? If you're not competing with it, re-think running the original-type traditional sight...dovetail something else in, perhaps something radical like a Tritium front dot?



If it's a blue gun, barrel swapping makes more sense, but there's still the issue of "you MIGHT end up trading a good barrel for a bad" of it shoots good now.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

Ahhhhhhh I love when people say how much more reliable revolvers are over autos.

 

[gvass]

"Ahhhhhhh I love when people say how much more reliable revolvers are over autos. "

BECAUSE they ARE.

Even theoretically there is much less chance of unreliability. Independent system from the cartridge power, bullet shape, much less moving part etc.

 

[Walosi]

The Light of a New Day

....and two cups of coffee later, I just thunk of something that blew right past me last night - You broke the hammer block safety on your 337? A J Frame? I'm still stumbling around a bit, but isn't this somethimg new? I was not aware that theJ Frames had a hammerblock safety.

 

[Whole Hog]

Spike,

I had something similar happen to my 337 a couple years ago, but mine locked up solidly - neither the trigger nor hammer would move. I don't remember what part broke, but S&W was pretty good about the repair. I had a pre-paid shipping label two days after I called them, and got the gun back about two weeks after I shipped it to them.

I've decided that I still trust mine. When it broke, I'd shot a lot of +P rounds through it, over 1000, completely trouble free, and since getting it back it's continued that way. I've since acquired a Model 36 and and a Model 60 to use for most of my shooting though, and only shoot the 337 enough to stay familiar with it.

Scott

 

[Old Fuff]

Walosi:

All of the S&W J-frame revolvers that have exposed hammers have the hammer block, starting with the introduction of the Chief Special (pre-model 36) in 1950. Those with inclosed hammers do not, as it isn't considered necessary when the hammer is otherwise protected from external blows.

 

[Walosi]

Even at my age, I can still learn something (if both brain cells cooperate ). My Js are a 640 and a 649. I knew the hammer block was absent in them, and applie that to all Js - my bad

 

[ruger357]

Had a hammer block safety break on my 649 a few years back. Don't remember the number after the dash but it was new enough to have the firing pin mounted on the frame but had no lock. Sent it back to S&W and had it back in less than two weeks.

 

[JNewell]

To answer the question on turnaround time, call S&W's 800 number and get them to send you a prepaid mailer. Based on personal experience and a lot of reports here and on the S&W forum, turnaround time should be in the range of 7-10 days from when you ship it to when you receive the return.

 

[Majic]

I would also call Ruger about the barrel work you want done. They used to not do custom work and would only return the firearm to it's original factory configuration.

 

[Mastrogiacomo]

I can't speak on the Ruger but from the picture, it looks like you have one of those titanium numbers for the S&W. I hate those guns myself -- too much like toys. I certainly wouldn't trust my life to one and from all I've read, people have experienced a lot of problems that resulted in numerous returns to the S&W for repair. Not a good track record in my book. I second the recommendation for a Model 60....

 

[SpikeEVO]

Thanks for all the replies and comments guys.

I still haven't called either company, if they are 1-800 numbers I will do so tomorrow at work and await the shipping labels.

Yes, the Vaquero is a stainless 7.5 inch model. It shoots quite well, and surprisingly accurately too in view of the sights that come on them... however, I do have a blued 7.5 inch Super Blackhawk already for accuracy work, so I would very much prefer the Vaquero have the shorter 4.75 or 5.5 inch barrel for easier belt carry when hunting or trail walking. I certainly hope Ruger will do this for me, if not I guess I will find a reputable gunsmith that you guys rave on that I can mail it off too, since I don't want it back with the original tube...

I will hold off on any new snubbie purchases till I get the 337 back... I'll just carry my Detective Specials or Magnum Carry till I get it back.

I already have an SP101 like someone mentioned, and it fits the Detective Special holsters just fine, but it's a .38 and weighs alot more than a DS and holds one less round, too, so I never carry it... it's my "house" gun. A .357mag SP101 sounds like a great CCW idea though now that you mention it, I may have to check around for prices and availability on those.

Thanks!

 

[JNewell]

Not a good track record

You need to distinguish between the various calibers. The 342 series has been out since 1998 or 1999 and has an almost nonexistent record of problems. The bad reports started coming in when S&W introduced the .357 Magnum Sc/Ti guns and have continued with the 329 series.

In any case, the reported failure occurred with a stamped steel part that is common to almost every J-frame out there, including the Model 60.

 

[Radagast]

I've also had a hammer block break in a S&W model 60 .357.

Ken

 

[Warhawk]

I once had Ruger rebarrel a Stainless Super Blackhawk with a 4 5/8" barrel. They did a fantastic job, so nice I sent a thank you letter to their gunsmith who did the work. It was dirt cheap too.

 

[bountyhunter]

The hammer block safety had broken, I found a piece of it on the shooting bench

Are you referring to the small piece made of flat metal (which is twisted) that the rebound slide lifts out of the way with trigger movement?

Two comments:

1) That "safety" is primarily intended to prevent and AD if the gun is dropped onto it's hammer.

2) That safety is secondary to the rebound slide itself which has a blocking surface that prevents the hammer from moving forward under external force in the down position.

3) That second safety piece will look just fine sitting on the shelf in your closet and that should remove your worries about it breaking again and jamming your gun.

Of course, there is still that old problem of coil spring "stacking" of the J-frame mainspring leading to light strike misfires.....