Old Smith Woes

Status
Not open for further replies.

sean1129

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
65
Location
Middle West
Just wanted to share some 'old' or should I say very pre-lock woes I've experienced with a couple of Smith revolvers lately. I know the thinking is that perhaps Smith (and other companies, really) cheapen production costs, and often their products, as time goes on. However, a few recent concerns on an 80's vintage model 29 and a mid 60's version model 36 I currently own have reminded me that these guns, although nice, are still subject to manufacturing woes...

I acquired an 80's vintage model 29 in literally 99% condition from its original owner late last summer. It had exactly 60 rounds of 44 magnum though it, ever, as I also acquired the original box of ammo. I hand load, and no matter what I tried, the gun would lead in the first two inches of the barrel (8 3/8 barrel, btw). The gun is accurate as hell, the lead scrubs out with some Chore Boy no problems, but this really started to bother me, as it simply should not do this. I went through all of the bullet fit scenarios, etc, (more experimentation than I care to list here, really) and checked timing. Two of the cylinders would not click into place during a very slow cock, but barely. Under normal use, the cylinder was locking into place just fine. I finally took it to a reputable local gunsmith, and later find out the gun had a cracked hand. Although this was a future problem, it was not the actual problem of my leading, which a later range visit confirmed. So, back to my investigation. I ended up taking a wood dowel, and with the pistol at full lockup, sliding the dowel down the barrel revealed the true problem--at the transition from barrel to cylinder, there was a hang up when the revolver was turned to one side. In effect, the bullet is slamming against one side of the barrel (by a couple thousandths, but you get the idea) as it enters the barrel, causing the leading. The kicker, though, is that the hang up does not occur on all of the cylinders at full lockup, but rather only two of them...

This would require a bit of tinkering and shimming from a smith to fix, but I've decided to let it ride, as the guns shoots well and about 5 rounds of JHP ammo down the barrel after the lead rounds pulls the lead right out, but I just wanted to point out that although oldies are often goodies in the Smith and Wesson world, they are not completely without manufacturing defects.

My Model 36, btw, has the same issue concerning cylinder/barrel line-up. My comparison for these, humorously, is my trusty lock-bearing 686, which has zero perceivable flaws after several thousand rounds...

Just some food for thought.
 
I have had excellent customer service whenever I have had to send one of my S&W handguns back to Springfield for repair. Don't forget any and all mass produced items will have a lemon or two in their production run.
 
The usual cause of that misalignment is that one or more chambers are not bored straight. That was and is not uncommon and generally the inside taper of the forcing cone handles any problems quite well (that is what it is there for). But the user should be aware that while a very tight cylinder lockup would appear to be good, it sometimes means that the hand is actually forcing the cylinder out of alignment, a common situation in the old Colt double actions once they had a little wear.

Also, lead bullets cannot be loaded too hot or they will lead a barrel badly, so only jacketed (partial jacket) or gas check bullets should be used for hot loads.

FWIW, firing jacketed bullets through a leaded barrel does not remove the leading; it only irons the lead flatter. I recommend a Lewis Lead Remover to actually remove the lead.

Jim
 
Well, my mileage varies from yours, Jim. I have always shot a cylinder full of jacketed rounds after a day shooting lead bullets and my lead clean-up after same has been zip. All my revolvers must be perma-pressed (no ironing required).
 
Not all pre-lock Smith's were perfect - especially during the Viet-Nam war era. The company has been extra generous when confronted with sub-par workmanship that they were not responsible for. You may have a slightly sprung yoke, or as Jim noted, a mis-machined cylinder. I suggest you return both revolvers to S&W and see what they might do for you on their dime.
 
Well, my mileage varies from yours, Jim. I have always shot a cylinder full of jacketed rounds after a day shooting lead bullets and my lead clean-up after same has been zip. All my revolvers must be perma-pressed (no ironing required).

I'd like to hear some discussion on this solution to leaded barrels. I did some experimenting when I was shooting a lot of .45 ACP lead bullets in IPSC/USPSA Limited Division. A friend claimed that the jacketed bulleta removed the leading. I didn't then and don't now understand how a FMJ with rounded ogive can remove lead from the barrel when serious scrubbing is otherwise required.

So we shot a magazine of FMJs through a leaded .45 barrel, then cleaned the same barrel with an Outers Foul Out II Electro-chemcal Bore Cleaner. Significant amounts of lead were removed by the Foul Out.

I think the FMJ solution is an urban myth, but would like to hear from others on this issue. I am often wrong and/or hold incorrect opinions.
 
I have had excellent customer service whenever I have had to send one of my S&W handguns back to Springfield for repair.
Not so much, in my experience. They fixed it, but it took months and a a hefty charge, replete with poor feedback throughout the process. :(
The only thing positive that I can say is that it appears to have been fixed right the first time.
 
I have done the jacked (or gas checked lead bullets) as a procedure several times with no ill effects. I have bore scoped them as well, so if there is a problem I've sure not noticed it. I, too am curiois as to others' experience on this.
 
I've had both execrable and excellent customer service from S&W in the same transaction.

I've got a 4" 29-2 that when I bought it (I didn't know at the time), had a subtle vertical channel running up the back of the barrel.

Imagine that you took a revolver barrel and a vertically oriented rotary file of about the same width in some sort of machine tool. If you gently introduced the rear of the barrel to the spinning burr, you would create the shallow vertical channel that the back of my barrel had.

This caused powder gasses, lead and jacket material to be funneled upward at the top strap, causing them to be deflected to the sides. This happened with enough force to make holes in a paper target held next to the gun.

I sent the gun into S&W for repair. They milled off the deformed section of the barrel and set it back to maintain the barrel-cylinder gap.

Upon return of the gun, I discovered that there were several deep cuts in the surface of the barrel which were not there when the gun was sent to S&W (I had before shipment pictures of the gun.). These were not finish scratches, but actual CUTS, as though somebody had used an unprotected vise or tool to remove or install the barrel.

Needless to say, I was unhappy about this.

I had one or two people in forums try to pass this off as "honest wear" which is about as asinine as calling getting a set of dress blues back from the dry cleaners with a cigarette burn in the sleeve "honest wear". These same geniuses also suggested that I just sell it and buy a "nicer" one. Where I was going to get the money to make up the difference in an insane sellers' market was never specified.

I contacted S&W to demand an explanation and a new barrel. They wanted to refinish the gun, which would of course have destroyed its value. I insisted upon them replacing the barrel. They said that they had none. They kept insisting upon rebluing the gun, and at one point were going to reblue it contrary to my expressed wishes.

I finally got them to agree to replace the barrel with one I procured, and for which I would be reimbursed. I then went trolling for a barrel, and (luckily) bought TWO just to be safe. Both of the barrels were finish worn. One of the barrels had been set back too many times and could not be used. Fortunately, I sent them two.

Of course now, the finish no longer matched, and the whole gun HAD to be reblued, which they then balked at. A lawyer friend contacted their corporate counsel and explained what had happened. He explained that I wasn't looking to sue them, but that I just wanted my gun returned to SOME semblance of its previous appearance.

At that point a VP at S&W got involved. My 29-2 was then expertly reblued (I know not by whom), and I got a letter attesting that it had been reblued at the behest of S&W.

The gun is of course now WORTHLESS as a collector's item. I don't imagine it's worth more than a NIB Glock 22 now, but it sure is pretty. Any home invader should be downright PROUD to get ventilated with it, since all that it's good for anymore is as a home defense gun.

So, I went from a VILE customer service experience to a good one, or at least one reflecting an effort to make me as whole as could be expected. I was basically screwed no matter what, but at least they tried.
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Dean, with a story like that I'll make sure never to send my revolver to S&W.
 
Dean, with a story like that I'll make sure never to send my revolver to S&W.
Stories about their customer service are all over the map.

One person has an excellent experience.
Another has an horrific experience.
I had BOTH in the same transaction.

It'd be like going to the same restaurant and getting the best prime rib you've ever had one day, and a dead racoon with a tire print across it on a paper plate the next.

I've seen other people comment on the random nature of their service.

My advice is to take lots of pictures beforehand.
 
A new barrel will lead until the rough finish gets polished down by bullets. Rugers are notorious for this. Leading problems are generally caused by bullets that are undersized because they allow some of the hot gases to "blow by" the base of the bullet and melt the lead. Another cause is bullets that are too hard and do not "obturate" (swell slightly) when they are suddenly accelerated by the expanding gas. The obturation helps seal the fit between the bullet and the bore. Many hard cast bullets can actually be too hard for the purpose. Another cause can be cylinder throats that are smaller than bore dia. - the bullet gets squeezed down by the throat and then hits the bore too small in dia. to fill the rifling - leading is the result. I would have a smith measure the throats and slug the bore to determine what's going on. Firing jacketed bullets after lead will only iron the lead down thin and "plate" it to the bore. It is not really a "fix". While you may not see as much leading after shooting jacketed bullets - it's still there. The best way to remove leading is with the Lewis lead removal tool. If you shoot a lot of lead - you need one.
 
Last edited:
A new barrel will lead until the rough finish gets polished down by bullets.
You don't HAVE to wait for this to happen.

Many serious rifle shooters condition the bores of their rifles before they use them the first time, using a "fire lapping" procedure. This involves a set pattern of firing and cleaning. I did this with my two Savage 1,000 yard guns, and I certainly can't complain about the results. They DEFINITELY clean more easily than otherwise.

I'm not aware of anybody doing this with handguns, although if I had a brand new Hammerli, Walther or IZh bullseye pistol, I might seriously consider it.
 
That is true but is beyond what the majority of consumers will be willing to do.
 
although if I had a brand new Hammerli, Walther or IZh bullseye pistol, I might seriously consider it.

If you had either you wouldn't have to do anything but look at the test target group that came with the gun. That, and possibly experiment with some different brands of ammunition. :)
 
I don't know if it would or wouldn't hurt, but I doubt any increase in accuracy would be enough to be noticeable.

In center-fire rifles shot at far greater ranges, maybe. But experimenting with different bullets, powder charges, etc. might duplicate the same accuracy in a before/after test.
 
In center-fire rifles shot at far greater ranges, maybe. But experimenting with different bullets, powder charges, etc. might duplicate the same accuracy in a before/after test.
You can be sure they do both. I did.

The only 1,000 yard shooter who uses factory ammunition is one getting it free from some government, or who's someplace that forbids handloading.
 
Yup.

But if you benched two identical rifles at 50 yards/meters (rather then 1000) would you find a meaningful difference in group size?
 
Truth be told, I can't imagine anyone firing a 1,000 yard gun at fifty yards.

I can't either. But in my experience group sizes, fired from any rifle or handgun, increase as the distance gets longer.

If you fire two rifles of equal quality, one fire-lapped and one not, at a distance of 1000 yards you will probably find a measureable difference in group size - although other factors may cause the results to be different then expected.

At 50 yards (or meters) any difference is likely to be so small that it's not distinguishable.

The longest distance conventional handgun target shooting is conducted is 50 yards/meters. ;)

My contention is that the two target grade .22 pistols previously cited will not be improved enough by fire lapping to make any practical difference in group size or accuracy, and other factors may (and probably will) overshadow any minute improvement caused by the lapping.

What works for rifles doesn't always do so in handguns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top