Traded defective Taurus 85 UL for S&W 637

[KBintheSLC]

Traded defective Taurus 85 UL for defective S&W 637

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=449038

After contemplating the issues in the thread above and the possible outcomes, I decided I didn't have the nerve to deal with a gun that had so many issues right out of the box. My dealer traded it back for me at nearly the price I paid for the new gun.

I used it towards a new model Smith 637. I took the Smith to the range and dumped 120 rounds of 3 varieties through it without any malfunctions.

I only have 2 gripes about the Smith... one, the accuracy is a lot worse than the Taurus. I noticed the barrel of my new Smith is slanted a bit to the right coming out of the frame. It is not a big deal at 3-5 yards, but becomes very noticeable out passed 10 yards. However, I can live with poor accuracy from a snub so long as it is reliable. (EDIT-not gonna live with it, sending it back to S&W)

The other gripe is the controversial S&W internal lock system... I thought the Taurus lock was a smarter design. I am still debating with myself over whether or not I will remove the mechanism.

Anyway, it seems that there are not a lot of "perfect" guns anymore these days... I wish I could just OC my good old blued 6" GP100. That is the most perfect revolver I have ever owned... but it was made in the good old days. Seems like these days, manufacturers are more concerned with quantity over quality.

Oh well... at least my new Smith goes "bang" when I pull the trigger.

..

 

[ArmedBear]

The barrel slanting to the right is NOT normal.

My 642 hits POI at 25 yards, all day, no problem. I've shot models with hammers like yours, and single action I could easily put all five shots in a 2"-3" circle at 10 yards, dead center.

I would return that gun for warranty service. Most are not like that. My J-frame IS "perfect", as are a lot of others I've seen and/or handled.

I have a few Smiths, that span a few decades. While there have been changes over the years, S&W's guns don't have crooked barrels unless the gun is defective. The gripes you hear from S&W collectors are nit-picking things; don't let that color your assumptions so much that you think this obvious problem with your revolver is par for the course. It isn't.

I'd contact S&W and/or your retailer ASAP.

 

[KBintheSLC]

I would return that gun for warranty service. Most are not like that.

Boy that would be depressing... 2 for 2 needing warranty service right out of the box.

 

[ArmedBear]

Maybe God just hates you or something.

Depressing or not, if you return the thing for service, you should have a perfect little revolver soon. I doubt they want to have something like that kicking around and trashing their reputation.

 

[KBintheSLC]

Maybe God just hates you or something.

I could have told you that. Thats what I get for being a polytheist.

Depressing or not, if you return the thing for service, you should have a perfect little revolver soon. I doubt they want to have something like that kicking around and trashing their reputation.

Yeah... I think you are right. I just called Smith and they are sending the shipping label. I'm sure they will do it up right and get it back to me in a jiffy.

 

[ArmedBear]

 

[Old Fuff]

I noticed the barrel of my new Smith is slanted a bit to the right coming out of the frame. It is not a big deal at 3-5 yards, but becomes very noticeable out passed 10 yards. However, I can live with poor accuracy from a snub so long as it is reliable.

You are a lot more "generous" then I am. My 1950's well-used Colt Detective Special has always gone BANG! since I bought it new, and on occasions put six-out-of-six into the K-Zone of a B-27 silhouette a hundred yards away.

Today's buyers are far to willing to accept overpriced junk. The guns are not going to get better until the manufacturers' customers tell them, "no more!" I would send it back on their dime, and tell Smith & Wesson to do it right. :banghead:

 

[Diggers]

That is some bad luck you have had there. S&W will fix it.

I have a 629 that the brass would bind so tight in the charge holes and also become lodged up aganst the back of the frame I couldn't advance the cylinder or open it up to unload it. I just had to put it down and wait for about 15 mins for it to cool off enough to move the brass.

S&W replaced the cylinder with a new one when I sent it in. All is fine now.

They will fix you up.

 

[armoredman]

Get it fixed, or re-trade. Sorry to hear of such bad luck!
BTW, don't intentionally defeat a safety mechanism on a self defense gun - that action may hurt you in court. Do I have proof? No, just my $.02.

 

[3446]

Personaly, I wouldn't buy a new Taurus or S&W they are all junk(just kidding, don't flame me) Sounds like you're under a black cloud right now. Don't worry it will pass. Every manufacturer has a bad day. Good luck. I hope things work out well for you.

 

[Phydeaux642]

Sounds like you're under a black cloud right now.

Wow, I thought those only followed me around.

 

[CuzinMike]

My father bought a new 625JM a few months ago with the same "off-center" barrel problem. He's already sent it in once, and Smith "repaired" it supposedly, but it's still off-center, so it's back to the factory again. This kind of QC from a "performance center" gun hasn't left me feeling too tingly about S&W as of late.

 

[MCgunner]

Dude, don't bother wasting your money on lotto tickets. LOL Sorry to hear about the bad luck. I'd send that thing to Smith and get it right. I'm an accuracy freak, though, even with snubbies. I have an 85UL that's a 3" at 25 yards shooter. Snubs should be accurate, too.

 

[KBintheSLC]

Yeah... I hope they fix it right the first time. Seems like a lot of manufacturers have just gone down hill recently.

Its sad that I cant have the accuracy of the Taurus with the reliability of the Smith. That defective Taurus was a tac-driver... on the occasion that it actually fired.

 

[ArmedBear]

The Smiths I've shot are tack drivers, also. You can have that accuracy with reliability.

It's a bummer you have to go through this. I hope they do make it right, and the first time.

 

[popeye]

Funny ting..I bought a 85 UL bobbed hammer new last month. Haven't shot it yet. I thought I'd use it as a summer pocket gun. Paid $329 for it. Today I run across a late 50's Smith for $339. I ax my buddy at the gun store if he can do any better. He looks up what they paid for it and says to me says he $275. So now I to decide whether to bob the 37 hammer (gun's about 90%) or not. And how much to try to get out of the Taurus.

 

[MCgunner]

The Smiths I've shot are tack drivers, also. You can have that accuracy with reliability.

Yeah, well, I have a tack driver M85 that's 100 percent reliable, too, but that don't do HIM any good. LOL

 

[Jim K]

Hi, Fuff,

Sorry, but I have seen plenty of Colt revolvers out of the box with barrels that didn't line up, because that is how Colt adjusted the "windage" on fixed sight revolvers if they shot to the left or right.

Maybe S&W is now doing the same since they no longer have pinned barrels.

Jim

 

[jad0110]

Yeah... I hope they fix it right the first time. Seems like a lot of manufacturers have just gone down hill recently.

Most gun manufacturers are (or were recently) having trouble keeping up with demand, so it wouldn't surprise me too much if a few manufacturers tooks some shortcuts on QC. Not cool, but not surprising.

I only have 2 gripes about the Smith... one, the accuracy is a lot worse than the Taurus. I noticed the barrel of my new Smith is slanted a bit to the right coming out of the frame. It is not a big deal at 3-5 yards, but becomes very noticeable out passed 10 yards. However, I can live with poor accuracy from a snub so long as it is reliable.

No need to live with poor accuracy, that 637 should be as accurate as a longer barreled revolver. Heck, I'm no crack shot, but can still manage 5 shots into a 5" circle at 5 yds in 5 seconds with my DAO 642.

The other gripe is the controversial S&W internal lock system... I thought the Taurus lock was a smarter design. I am still debating with myself over whether or not I will remove the mechanism.

I've got two S&Ws with locks ... I'd prefer they not have them, but they do. They do work fine, however I agree that the Taurus lock design is less intrusive. I don't buy S&Ws with locks anymore, mainly because I hold out for used guns. Used Smiths, though getting pricier by the day, are usually still cheaper than new ones and have more character, IMO.

Anyway, it seems that there are not a lot of "perfect" guns anymore these days.

Yep, again, that's why I prefer used. I recently purchased a 2" S&W Model 15-2 made in '65 (blued, 38 Special, adjustable sights) for $375. Not a great deal, but reasonable IMO. Especially in consideration of the fact that is near impossible to find a new gun as nice for $375.

It is scary accurate and 100% reliable, with a pretty smooth DA trigger pull. The first time I fired it, I put 5 of 6 shots into a 2" group at 7 yds, DA unsupported (I totally flubbed one shot). It is now my most frequently carried CCW gun.

Plus, with a nice amount of honest holster wear (not evident in the pic below), it just looks way cooler and has a lot more class than a new, usually stainless steel revolver like my 642 (which I still love anyway, BTW).

 

[camsdaddy]

The good news it Smith has some of the best customer service I have ever dealt with. I have only called them about things that were my fault (filed site too low)and they have taken care of it anyway. Actuall when I had them on the phone that I thought my 22a slide was wearing they sent one with the site. Their service is top notch in my book. Try that with Rossi.

 

[KBintheSLC]

I recently purchased a 2" S&W Model 15-2 made in '65 (blued, 38 Special, adjustable sights) for $375.

That is one good lookin' Smith.

 

[MCgunner]

Nice M15. I'd like a round butt 2" M10, but when you find one, they want a small fortune for it. Now, it might be worth it to some, but I mean, not if you ain't got the ante. I could have my 4" heavy barrel rebarreled to 2", but first it's an heirloom, not going there, and second, it's a square butt. I would want a round butt. Actually, the heirloom thing don't bother me that much since it had a pencil barrel on it originally that cracked a forcing cone. I found the heavy barrel cheap and had a smith put it on. It shoots great and balances better with the HB, so I like it that way.

But, I've got a 100 percent great shooting Taurus, so I really have my carry piece covered. Most of the time, I'm carrying a sub-compact 9mm anyway. I know, BLASPHEMY!

 

[Old Fuff]

Sorry, but I have seen plenty of Colt revolvers out of the box with barrels that didn't line up, because that is how Colt adjusted the "windage" on fixed sight revolvers if they shot to the left or right.

I have too, on both Colt's and Smith & Wesson's. But the important thing is that they shot point-of-aim/point-of-impact. Apparently the revolver that was the cause of this thread wouldn't do this, nor would it shoot a decent group. The gun's new owner said:

I noticed the barrel of my new Smith is slanted a bit to the right coming out of the frame. It is not a big deal at 3-5 yards, but becomes very noticeable out passed 10 yards. However, I can live with poor accuracy from a snub so long as it is reliable.

That's a prime example of sloppy workmanship, and a complete lack of competent inspection/quality control procedures. He might be willing to "live with it," I wouldn't. D.B. Wesson must be spinning in his grave.

 

[KBintheSLC]

Fuff,

I won't be willing to live with it come to think of it. Called Smith the other day... waiting on a return shipping label. I think that in this price range, the gun needs to work. I mean, we are talking about S&W here... not Lorcin.

 

[Old Fuff]

It isn't that all of the guns were always perfect in the past, because they weren't. This was especially true during the 1970's Viet-Nam War period.

But "back when" guns were at least test fired, which would reveal the kind of defects you encountered. Today they put their faith in so-called "modern CNC tooling" to produce perfect parts that are so good that close inspection isn't necessary. Obviously on this point they aren't always right.

Another thing we seem to have lost was that the major handgun companies had management that understood that when the products were weapons, intended for use by law enforcement or private citizens' self-protection; the maker had a special responsibility to be sure that what went out, went out right the first time because someone might stake their life on it. That got lost when the number-crunchers took over.

I have little doubt that when your revolver comes back it will be entirely different, and I wouldn't be surprised if that includes a new frame because it sounds like they might not of drilled the barrel hole straight. But the fact remains that if you have to return a gun with serious defects it can mean that to some degree they might have put your life at risk. This may or may not matter to them, but I'm sure it does to you.

Consequently I am picky, and I choose very carefully. What I carry has a proven record for both reliability and accuracy. That doesn't mean that they can't fail, but that they are much less likely too. Also for the record, I have never bought a firearm that had to be returned to the maker for corrective work from git-go. But that said, I haven't bought anything brand new lately either.