Is my new S&W 642 barrel up to snuff?

[ghh3rd]

I just picked up my 642 last weekend, and have fired 50 rounds through it. On my other guns, the rifling grooves cut the crown cleanly, one distinct cut per groove.

With my 642, I see two distinct grooves on the crown, one mushy one, and that's it, although there are six grooves in the barrel. Even the surface of the crown doesn't seem very smooth compared to my other guns.

Can someone, especially 642 owners, please take a look at the end of your barrel and compare it to mine and let me know how they compare?

The two photos were lit slightly differently, and combined they show what I mentioned:





By the way, those are snap caps in the chambers

Thanks,

Randy

 

[rdrancher]

We've discussed this aplenty in the 642 Club. Yours looks normal to me.

rd

 

[HammerBite]

If that was my gun I would be very upset.

 

[MCMXI]

How does it shoot? The muzzle looks horrendous and I'd be very annoyed if it were mine, but if it shoots well i.e. accurate then that would complicate things.

 

[Master Blaster]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=288877&highlight=642+lopsided&page=3

The one pictured is definately screwed up.

Yours looks fine, but send it back to S&W anyway for a check, call them and ask for a prepaid shipping label for a warranty defect.

 

[Old Fuff]

I suppose there just might be a difference between "normal" and "right." These days I often see thing that are considered to be normal, that I wouldn't say were right. The pictured bore looks like a clear case of sloppy workmanship, but it might be because the camera lens wasn't concentric with the barrel when the picture was taken, and because of that some of the grooves are shadowed and don't show. But what does show looks like awful work, coming out of the factory because of an "anything goes," attitude and a lack of inspection. Personally, I would return the gun to the maker, and see what they might propose to do about it.

Also it points out again: Since the factories don't inspect like they used to, gun buyers should carefully look over what they are about to purchase, before they lay their money down and start filling out forms.

 

[HammerBite]

I imagine that an asymmetrically engraved bullet does wonders for accuracy.

 

[ghh3rd]

might be because the camera lens wasn't concentric with the barrel when the picture was taken, and because of that some of the grooves are shadowed and don't show

The pictures show exactly what the muzzle looks like. What happened to pride in American workmanship? Apparently this is very common with 642's. Although this is a carry weapon, which will eventually show more wear than a case kept firearm, it sure doesn't sit well with me -- sort of looks like an abused muzzle, right out of the box.

Randy

 

[Old Fuff]

...it sure doesn't sit well with me -- sort of looks like an abused muzzle, right out of the box.

Yup, it would seem so, but this is why I suggested:

Since the factories don't inspect like they used to, gun buyers should carefully look over what they are about to purchase, before they lay their money down and start filling out forms.

Clearly, some (if not most) manufacturers expect customers to do the final inspection and Beta testing on their products. But they can only get away with this if buyers let them.

You can either accept it, or take my second suggestion:

Personally, I would return the gun to the maker, and see what they might propose to do about it.

And nowhere is it written that you can't give them a piece of your mind.

 

[MCMXI]

If it were mine I'd do exactly what Old Fuff recommended ... send it back to the factory!! If you're planning on keeping the revolver for many, many years to come, why settle for something that might bother you for many, many years to come, not to mention the affect it might have on accuracy? None of my revolvers (new or older) have muzzles like that and I have revolvers from S&W, Colt, Ruger and USFA.

What happened to pride in American workmanship?

It's still alive and well at USFA let me assure you, but sadly, I can't say the same for many other companies ANYWHERE!

Although this is a carry weapon, which will eventually show more wear than a case kept firearm, it sure doesn't sit well with me -- sort of looks like an abused muzzle, right out of the box.

Somehow I doubt that the muzzle of a carry weapon would ever end up looking like that!

 

[sgt127]

Ya know, you will never be shooting that little gun for groups at 50 yards. So, from a purely practical viewpoint, it will likely do whatever you need it to do for the rest of your life.

From the "Dammit, I spent my hard earned money for a quality product" aspect, it would likely drive me insane every time I thought about it.

I say Smith gets it back.

 

[ghh3rd]

Although the crown is butt ugly, this gun still shoots amazingly well for a 1 7/8" barrel! Shooting very slowly and deliberately, I'm able to get 1" groups at 7 yards fairly often.

Randy

 

[gruesomenewsom]

Although the crown is butt ugly, this gun still shoots amazingly well for a 1 7/8" barrel! Shooting very slowly and deliberately, I'm able to get 1" groups at 7 yards fairly often.

x2. the crown on mine looks horrendous but it shoots pretty well for a snub. Smiths are pricey and you get what you pay for. I thought i would get a little better workmanship for $400 but it goes bang every trigger pull so i guess asking anything else out of an econo-snub is somewhat greedy.

 

[Old Fuff]

The Old Fuff is a bit chagrined. Performance at 7 yards (21 feet) won’t tell you much. Back when snubby revolvers were standard fare with police detectives, they usually had to qualify at distances going out to at least 25 yards (75 feet) and sometimes 50 yards (150 feet).

During those years I saw (and sometimes made) 2 and 3 inch groups at 25 yards, and it was not considered a great deal to be able to keep one’s shots inside the K-zone of a B-27 silhouette target at 100 yards.

As for the workmanship in today’s revolvers, back when similar handguns sold for half the current price you still got a correct crown on the muzzle. Today prices have doubled, and the quality is noticeably different in many respects – none of them being good. But I suppose so long as the customer is satisfied there are no grounds for complaint.

 

[20nickels]

Send it back. I had the exact same problem on a M-617 and they replaced the barrel. Shoots much better now.

 

[18DAI]

Yep, looks like current production.

 

[BADUNAME37]

When I look at the end of my muzzle, I can clearly see each of the cut rifling grooves -- they are pretty evenly cut all around.

If you send it back, you can get them to smooth the trigger pull and action (S&W calls it: Trigger & Action Enhancement) while they have it. It will cost you about $75 and is WELL WORTH EVERY CENT!

I know, because when S&W had my new 642 last fall, I had them do it and it made a huge difference in even, smooth trigger pull with no overtravel. As soon as I got it back and pulled the trigger, I IMMEDIATELY knew there was a big difference! It did mean they had it another week and a half, but now it is just the way I want it and will be until I leave this world.

I want to add that I have now put nearly 500 rounds through it without any problems at all. All primers are well-dented and are all evenly dented!