Todays Smith & Wesson quality control.......

[Mus408]

Yes I went to the dark side looking for a nice .44 Mag/.44 Special 4 inch DA revolver.
I did like the size and feel of the new Model 69 and ordered one.

Major issue I found was the screwed up cylinder/barrel gap being .015 on one side and .010 on the other...the .015 feeler gage would slide half way in.

The SA and DA action felt really good but as you can see the much touted ball lock up at front of crane
isn't doing much like this!

This one went back!

 

[Bear Paw Jack]

If this was the Smith forum, you would get the feeling that QC is totally out of control, and they are having trouble putting any model 69's out that work. Not true. I've talked to several people with them, yours is the first one I've heard of with problems.

On other forums I go on, nobody seem to know how screwed Ruger owners seem to think Ruger is. Nature of the beast. Don't give up on it. I've considered that model myself.

 

[trapperon]

Yes--let Smith fix it--then enjoy the heck out of it! The model 69 Smith is the very first (and only) S&W I have bought since the built in locks! Too much to love on this one that outweighed the ugly lock!
Great choice!

Ron

 

[Mus408]

Yep I read and watched the reviews and read up of S&W forums about how tight the cylinder gap was coming .005-.003. Of course I brought my bore light but forgot my feeler gauge.
Noticed right after first shot the amount of blast and particle shower that something wasn't right.
Mine looked to have been test fired so how would they miss that?
Oh well it goes back to SW this week.
Interesting though...the shop I used for FFL pickup had a young fellow who is the gunsmith,who was standing right there, as I asked if they had a feeler gauge and the answer was NO.
Ever hear of a gunsmith or anyone who works on mechanical things not have one?

 

[Mus408]

Yes--let Smith fix it--then enjoy the heck out of it! The model 69 Smith is the very first (and only) S&W I have bought since the built in locks! Too much to love on this one that outweighed the ugly lock!
Great choice!

Ron

So what was your gap and have you had any issue when pulling the trigger slowly in DA that it will
lock up without letting the hammer fall? That happened a few times too.

 

[Rick Courtright]

Ever hear of a gunsmith or anyone who works on mechanical things not have one?

Hi,

No, but there are a lot of R&R guys out there who call themselves gunsmiths! Perhaps "gun mechanic" would be a better term? IME, a "real" gunsmith will have a lathe, a mill, a drill press, band saw, and a zillion kinds of other grinding, cutting, sanding and drilling tools, and probably close to a half zillion "made to fit" screwdrivers. He'll also have torches, and maybe even a set of bluing tanks. Throw in almost as many sizes and kinds of mics and calipers as your local automotive machine shop has. And he'll know how to use all of that stuff proficiently. It's hard to fit all that stuff onto the kitchen table! Or even learn to use all "the stuff" in a short enough time as to not yet have a gray hair or two!

Rick C

 

[rugerguy]

sorry but machinist have all those tools and I found over the years many "machinists" make lousy gunsmiths, too easy to work on , yes building them from 'scratch' is another thing, why over the years in the old days the trade school for gunsmithing in Colorado ( Trinidad) was THE place to learn ALL there was to building guns....today it is all too often just like auto repair body shops, it's all "R & R" how many pound out a dent anymore...its all remove and replace now days..same for guns easier to replace one that properly fix some of these "new" guns, as well as how many are now "obsolete" no longer supported by the manufacturer......
yes as to the OP same goes for S&W and many others, too may QC issues, wonder how some of this stuff even makes it out the door,,,,,,,,yes we often here the "bad" news like they say the
squeaky hinge gets the oil, and the majority goes out ,more good than bad....gotta be a "smart buyer" look, see, handle and even then the proof of the pudding is at the range or out in the woods (field)
I know when I spent time at some of the various factories learning their guns, doing warranty repair work through our shops, I saw all the guns get build ( fitted) by hand, tested , inspected, then shipped....today????? ....the miracle of modern manufacturing,MIM ,castings and all are made close enough to "drop in", and the CNC has changed all that "gunsmithing"....you build a barrel, carve and fit a stock , and fit and refinish blue the steel parts and final coat the stock, let alone do ANY checkkering....then YOU can call yourself a "gunsmith".... today, now,mostly back yard "gun plumbers"
we used to call them 'bubbas'....... 8) :roll: :wink:

 

[Mus408]

Well after a little more research I found that the S&W engineers intended the ball to groove fit to be this way having the ramp of the slot provide inward pressure to the spring loaded ball. This is to further assist positive locking better than the ball lock on long ejector rod....so they say.
However on the newer 2.75 barrel version they went from the slot to a machined round divot for the ball to lock into and it's hidden from view!
All the 4.25 barreled 69's have the ball off center.

Anyway my gun is on it's way back to correct the cylinder gap issue.

 

[gunzo]

I immediately accepted the ball & detent method when I saw it on my model 69, as finely built PPC revolvers by top name smiths were done something like this years ago, it works.
But, a .015" cylinder gap is unacceptable in my book, even in Rugers. After a few polite conversations with them & connecting with a different service rep, I was told that their max limit was .012". Honestly, I wouldn't have been too happy with that. They put another cylinder in my Match Champion, that corrected a gap of .014". So hoping here that S&W will correct your situation as well.
A follow up will be appreciated. Curios about S&W's turnaround time on something like this & the results.

 

[dougader]

My 69 has a gap of .05 - .06" and tight lock-up, with a decent enough trigger.

Although, the DA trigger on my Ruger GP100 44 Spl was nicer IMO.

I made the switch from the GP100 to the S&W 69 for the 44 mag potential. Same size, same weight.... so I picked the S&W.

 

[Mus408]

My 69 has a gap of .05 - .06" and tight lock-up, with a decent enough trigger.

Although, the DA trigger on my Ruger GP100 44 Spl was nicer IMO.

I made the switch from the GP100 to the S&W 69 for the 44 mag potential. Same size, same weight.... so I picked the S&W.

Well in my description note of the gun issues I suggested a .005 gap and to smooth the action out as the trigger would sometimes hang up when using a slow DA pull.

Just shipped it out so we will see if the "reconditioning" is as good as Rugers!

 

[DeletedMember275]

Hopefully they do a better job on yours than they did on this one: http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-smithing/561730-repaired-gun-returned-completely-unusable.html

 

[Mike J]

Please let us know how it is when it comes back. Not a revolver but I had been considering a S&W. It would be nice to know how they do with customer service.

 

[Bear Paw Jack]

Mike J, just out of curiosity what are you considering? They have some terrific Semi-autos, on the market as well that are tough to beat.

 

[Mike J]

Mike J, just out of curiosity what are you considering? They have some terrific Semi-autos, on the market as well that are tough to beat.

I have been looking at the M&P 2.0 compact. Yep, it's a plastic pistol. Supposed to be upgraded from the original M&P. The 2.0 compact is roughly the same size as a Glock 23. I want a .40. Ruger doesn't offer .40 in their newer semi-auto offerings as it is out of favor now. If one digs around online it can be found for around $400 new. That is a lot less expensive than a new Glock.

 

[Bear Paw Jack]

I haven't handled the 2.0 compact but it get's good reports. I've got a couple of the M&P's in 9mm and 2 M&P 45 ACP. I like them.

Summit Gun Brokers has the standard M&P 40 for $269 and for $299. I'm pretty tempted but I don't have any 40's myself. As nice as the M&P's are it's very tempting for me.

 

[Mus408]

Mike J, just out of curiosity what are you considering? They have some terrific Semi-autos, on the market as well that are tough to beat.

I have been looking at the M&P 2.0 compact. Yep, it's a plastic pistol. Supposed to be upgraded from the original M&P. The 2.0 compact is roughly the same size as a Glock 23. I want a .40. Ruger doesn't offer .40 in their newer semi-auto offerings as it is out of favor now. If one digs around online it can be found for around $400 new. That is a lot less expensive than a new Glock.

Do you prefer the Glock 23 over the M&P if both were the same price?

 

[Mike J]

Do you prefer the Glock 23 over the M&P if both were the same price?

Not sure if you are asking me or Bear Paw Jack. I honestly don't know. I have shot a third generation G-23 but not the M&P. I do like that size range as it is big enough to handle like a full sized pistol but small enough to be easier to conceal. Where I'm at now $160 could make a big difference & I suspect they will probably both perform well enough. I do need to put my hands on the latest version of both before going any further though.

Funny thing about the G-23. My neighbor & I were walking out of the woods from hunting one day & decided to shoot each others pistols. I grouped better with the G-23 the first time I shot it than I did with my XD-40.

 

[DeletedMember275]

Mike J, just out of curiosity what are you considering? They have some terrific Semi-autos, on the market as well that are tough to beat.

I have been looking at the M&P 2.0 compact. Yep, it's a plastic pistol. Supposed to be upgraded from the original M&P. The 2.0 compact is roughly the same size as a Glock 23. I want a .40. Ruger doesn't offer .40 in their newer semi-auto offerings as it is out of favor now. If one digs around online it can be found for around $400 new. That is a lot less expensive than a new Glock.

I briefly owned both a G36 (.45 ACP) and an S&W M&P 45C (Gen 1). The two guns were almost identical in size, yet the Glock (single stack) would accept the (double stack) S&W mags in it's mag well. The G36 just didn't do it for me, and it went down the road. In all honesty, I did spend the additional ~$40 for an Apex sear for the M&P, to remedy the incredibly poor trigger pull. The Gen 2s have supposedly corrected that issue, but I haven't handled one.

 

[Mus408]

I have had my Gen4 G23 since they first came out and it is a good shooter and carried it ISW holster for several years.
Recently I picked up the new Springfield XDE .45 ACP and carry that now. The slide is narrower than the G23 which makes it carry better and since it has a hammer I carry it chamber loaded and hammer down in DA mode. Another reason for the XDE in .45 is that I load for that and not the .40

That XDE is a really nice shooter!

 

[Bear Paw Jack]

Mike J, just out of curiosity what are you considering? They have some terrific Semi-autos, on the market as well that are tough to beat.

I have been looking at the M&P 2.0 compact. Yep, it's a plastic pistol. Supposed to be upgraded from the original M&P. The 2.0 compact is roughly the same size as a Glock 23. I want a .40. Ruger doesn't offer .40 in their newer semi-auto offerings as it is out of favor now. If one digs around online it can be found for around $400 new. That is a lot less expensive than a new Glock.

Do you prefer the Glock 23 over the M&P if both were the same price?

Not sure who that is to, but NO. I vastly prefer the ergo's on the M&P. Every bit as reliable in my experience as well. They really point well, not that I couldn't get used to a Glock given enough time, but since it doesn't point for me, or feel right for me I see no reason to change.

 

[gunzo]

This thread took an odd drift from a D/A 44 mag revolver to semi-autos, but selfishly bumping it here , cause I'm interested in the outcome.
I haven't used S&W's service dept. in a long time.

 

[mistermills357]

It seems like all of the companies are having QC issues, so I am not surprised that S&W messed up that revolver. I am not being unduly cranky, I have simply seen other guns on other forums, with bad QC. And, I don't think that it would have happened, to a M29 series, back in the late 1970's.