Out-of-spec barrel-cylinder gap on a new S&W

[N3rday]

So, I bought a new Smith & Wesson 442 from a gun show today for $389 plus tax (a pretty good price, I think). I didn't bother to check barrel-cylinder gap with my feeler gauges because it was brand new in box and I assumed it would be in spec. However, when I got home, I measured it out of sheer curiosity and it turns out I can fit the .013 feeler gauge in the gap - .014 was the lowest measurement that I couldn't squeeze in there.

I know it's out of factory spec (I think S&W says .007 and below is in spec), but is this really a big deal in terms of velocity loss?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Old Fuff]

I wouldn't worry the velocity loss, because whatever you shoot that matters won't know the difference.

I would on the other hand return it to S&W and tell them to fix their sloppy workmanship. You do have a warrantee, and they pay shipping both ways.

 

[Shade00]

Indeed, no sense not getting it fixed. S&W guarantees you a certain product, and if it doesn't come as it should, they'll take care of it.

 

[Jim March]

I have to disagree for I believe the first time ever with OF.

Several rounds are available that expand well in snubbies, but it's a bit of a "near thing". Anything that causes velocity loss (and that gap WILL) could move your speed range down below the reliable expansion point.

In 2" barrel 38s, I like a tight gap. Mine is down around .002", which may be extreme but...I like it like that. I wouldn't buy one bigger than .004".

 

[hoptob]

Had same problem with new 442 I bought last year. BC gap was not too bad (0.011") but the barrel was overturned about 3 deg and the gun was grouping to the side of POA.

S&W fixed it under warranty. I asked for smallest allowed gap and they set it to .004". Along the way they also replaced both the barrel and the cylinder (I have no idea why...). Velocity increased some but not much. Speer 135 gr. load went from 880 fps before the repair to 906 fps after the repair.

Unfortunately this is not unusual for new production S&W. Chuck Hawks wrote an article (link) about this and other common defects - an interesting read.

When I go shopping for a revolver I always bring along feeler gauge, barrel light, several calibrated bullets (.355, .356 and .357") and a copy of Jim's excellent "Revolver checkout..." article. Thank you, Jim, for this write up - it helped me to steer clear of several defective guns.



Mike

 

[Old Fuff]

Before you go for an extra tight gap, keep in mind that if you use lead (as opposed to jacketed) bullets you can have problems with the cylinder binding. They also can have issues with Titanium cylinders (which is another reason I won't buy one). On a defensive revolver I prefer a minimum gap of .005" and anything up to .010" is acceptable. If the chamber and bore are concentric you won't get lead spitting, and any velocity loss is meaningless.

 

[woad_yurt]

Anything that's brand new should at least be within the manufacturer's own specs.

 

[unspellable]

gap

Having run actual tests with variable cylinder gap in the same revolver in two calibers and enought rounds across the chrono to be statistically significant, I can say tha the cylinder gap measurement has less effect on velocity than people suppose.

On the other hand, once over 0.010 you start getting into the area where the revolver will spit badly, even back at the shooter. With mild 44 Mag factory loads and a 0.012 gap I was very glad I had shooting glasses on. Even so, getting the face peppered is not conducive to concentration on the aim and trigger squeeze.

 

[.38 Special]

Chuck Hawks wrote an article (link) about this and other common defects - an interesting read.

OT, but I'm still not done being pissed at Chuck Hawks, apparently. Among the many foolish things in that article:

A complaint that the Model 19 doesn't stand up to a lot of full power magnums, and that -- gasp -- lightweight .357 magnum revolvers kick. Either he knows the history and intent behind the 19, in which case he is simply using it as a strawman with which to bash the company, or he doesn't, in which case he's got no business opening is mouth on the topic of firearms.

A complaint that because, like everyone else, the company jumped on the plastic pistol bandwagon, they are incapable of coming up with original ideas.

A complaint that they make a small .38 revolver, like Colt, so again, they must be "stealing ideas".

A complaint that they made a five shot .38 on a J-frame, not because they saw a market for a small five shoot .38, but because they're cheap and stupid and didn't know it wouldn't work. (Even though it does.)

And a complaint that they advertise a lot.

Eventually, he gets around to the Clinton agreement, thereby revealing his true purpose: he's just pissed over something that happened under previous ownership and now sees evil in everything they do.

Which is just one of the reasons why I decided that Chuck Hawks isn't worth the time spent reading.

</rant>

 

[N3rday]

So, I gave Smith & Wesson a call after I got home today, told them that the barrel-cylinder gap on my 442 was out of spec, gave them my name and address, and a shipping label is on its way to my house. So far, so good...I've been told be a few folks that Smith & Wesson has good customer service, so we shall see!

As for that Chuck Hawks article, I wouldn't give it too much credit; I don't really see how making a small revolver would be considered "copying" Colt. In fact, I think going for a thinner 5-shot frame was a big innovation - Smith & Wesson made a revolver that was smaller, lighter and thinner than Colt. And making a 1911 clone is "copying?" Everyone and their dog makes a 1911.

Anyway, I'm going to say in my letter (the one that ships with the handgun) that I'd like the barrel-cylinder gap at .003" or .004" if possible - we'll see what they send back.

 

[Master Blaster]

As for that Chuck Hawks article, I wouldn't give it too much credit; I don't really see how making a small revolver would be considered "copying" Colt.

Colt had a gent working for them in 1858 IIRC who came up with the idea of a through bored cylinder (modern cartridges in stead of black powder cap and ball.) Col. Colt rejected the idea. The Gent went to work for S&W who bought his patented idea.
Ergo all colts are copies because they use a through bored cylinder.

Cough Nonsense Cough.

 

[351 WINCHESTER]

I was told about 20 years ago by s & w that their max b/c gap was .011. For the money a new smith costs all of their revolvers should come with a b/c gap of between .004 and .007. I think .002 is a little tight, but I've read it works for some. Personally I like mine set between .004 and .006.
There has been a trend with s & w lately with their excessive b/c gaps. I don't know why especially with all the "advances" in machinery has brought. Maybe a little more human element would help.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Eleven thousandths (0.011") is the absolute maximum. With your gap exceeding even that, the cylinder blast is probably larger than the muzzle blast. Also, the hot gases and particles ejected from such a large gap can injure you if you have to hold the gun close to your body when firing. Send it back.

 

[Confederate]

It is a major problem. Velocity wise, it's like cutting a couple of inches off your barrel. Who knows the effect of accuracy? You also need to check the space between the cartridge in the back and the recoil shield.

The gun is trash. Send it back and have them do it right. It is way out of spec. I've never had a gun bind on me with an in-spec gun, and some of mine are .004. I won't take a gun that has more than a .009.

If you paid $175 for the gun, you'd expect it to be crapola; but not for the amount you paid. You deserve better.

 

[Virginian]

I have found my opinions to be out of synch with Mr. Hawks' on enough occassions that I tend to dismiss a lot of what he has to offer. Self proclaimed authority on too many things.

 

[Confederate]

Yes. If what he said was true, you'd have nothing but problem guns, completely out of tolerance and blowing up in peoples' faces. But how does he explain the legions of happy S&W owners, many of whom have hunted and competed for years without problems.

As for stealing other peoples' ideas, I find that argument absurd. It's like accusing Verizon of stealing phone plan designs from AT&T. If the Model 60 was the weak, flimsy pistol he says it is, I'd challenge him to go find one for anywhere under about $500, primo. It'd probably cost him more.

As far as copying the Glock, polymers were destined to be used in autoloaders. It's more durable than aluminum, doesn't crack or warp. It's difficult to stop a move to such materials, especially when aluminum frames have been a mixed bag.