I remember a while back when the ruger redhawk 4.2 came out there was some pictures on here of some very poor quality work on that revolver i have to look it up and see if i can find the pics.I bet if this wasn't brought up half the people wouldn't have even noticed the peening on the cylinder notches.I have bought lots of new guns in my day and it is very seldom that you will find a gun that is perfect you have to realise guns are made by man not god and man is not perfect so you will most likely find some kind of flaw if you look hard enough.
Is this normal? S&W 629 4.2"
- Thread starter G37
- Start date
G37,
I'm coming into the thread rather late, but in November(120 ) I purchased a M29-10 6.5" blued and I immediately noticed exactly that same peening on the cylinder. I asked the salesman and he said some nonsense about how they fire it a 100 times at Smith...yada yada yada.
Anyway, I'll try and take some micro pics and post them for future reference. I'm not going to make a too big an issue of it, but it certainly disappoints me with respect to S&W.
I'm coming into the thread rather late, but in November(120 ) I purchased a M29-10 6.5" blued and I immediately noticed exactly that same peening on the cylinder. I asked the salesman and he said some nonsense about how they fire it a 100 times at Smith...yada yada yada.
Anyway, I'll try and take some micro pics and post them for future reference. I'm not going to make a too big an issue of it, but it certainly disappoints me with respect to S&W.
Dang. Maybe peened cylinders is the new norm? I can accept a certain level of slop and carelessness, but peened steel (on a new gun) is some serious junk.
If S&W wants to sell cheap guns, the price should reflect. I'd feel neutral/accepting had I paid $699.00 for what I saw when I opened the box.
At the end of the day, it is disappointing and that's putting it nice.
I was upset when I thought I was the unlucky one, my mind is blown that it is on the scale it appears to be.
If this damage were normal on new guns and acceptable, why don't the REVOLVERS on S&W homepage show peened cylinders?
Deformed steel on a new item is not normal no matter what that item is.
Best comparison:
Imagine this is a car forum and we all had just bought new 2013 'special-whatever-cars' from a dealer, unseen, and they showed up with several dents all over the exterior. Who'd accept that?
If S&W wants to sell cheap guns, the price should reflect. I'd feel neutral/accepting had I paid $699.00 for what I saw when I opened the box.
At the end of the day, it is disappointing and that's putting it nice.
I was upset when I thought I was the unlucky one, my mind is blown that it is on the scale it appears to be.
If this damage were normal on new guns and acceptable, why don't the REVOLVERS on S&W homepage show peened cylinders?
Deformed steel on a new item is not normal no matter what that item is.
Best comparison:
Imagine this is a car forum and we all had just bought new 2013 'special-whatever-cars' from a dealer, unseen, and they showed up with several dents all over the exterior. Who'd accept that?
Last edited:
You may have been thinking of my redhawk JakeBrake. The crane doesnt sit "exactly" flush, but all 3 locks click in, timing is bang on, and not one issue to comment on other than that. I admit, for a $1000 dollar gun the redhawk should have been perfect, but it's 99%.... All said and done, I would take that Redhawk 7 days of the week over a poorly timed, peening Smith.
Not bashing you guys that ended up with these, I nearly pulled the trigger myself, but that really sucks. Chances are it will never be a problem but it should have never left the factory like that. I was setting money aside for one of these, but I may just cut down one of my 29's instead. I can post pics of the redhawk as well if you want to see another pic
You can even see the crane lock engaged in that picture. Not the best craftsmanship on that part, thats for sure. Many were like this, many were not (seems about 50/50 from the folks I have talked to). I had my Smith check it out and he said it is A-Okay, but not how I would have preferred it. Still one of the best shooting magnums I got
Probably a good idea for now JohNTO. I fyou do decide to buy one, buy it in person and give it a real good once over
Had a closer look at mine, which I received yesterday.
No wobble from what I can see.
Interesting when I compare to my 686 which has approx. 500 rounds through it........ the 686 has a very small amount of peening visible but not anywhere close to what the new 629 has.
As long as there are no deeper issues I am not worried about pursuing further.
Gonna take it out and shoot the crap out of it anyway so will look much worse I am sure before too long......
Still a little disappointing to see this on a new item and I totally understand how some people may want some type of resolution.
I certainly have no complaints towards the dealer I purchased it from, nothing but stellar service with every transaction.
No wobble from what I can see.
Interesting when I compare to my 686 which has approx. 500 rounds through it........ the 686 has a very small amount of peening visible but not anywhere close to what the new 629 has.
As long as there are no deeper issues I am not worried about pursuing further.
Gonna take it out and shoot the crap out of it anyway so will look much worse I am sure before too long......
Still a little disappointing to see this on a new item and I totally understand how some people may want some type of resolution.
I certainly have no complaints towards the dealer I purchased it from, nothing but stellar service with every transaction.
Yes they are in Kelowna. Now what's the deal with the RR vs the 629? This is a serious question and pertains to this topic, as I may opt out and go for the RR instead. My friend has one and it's damn close to as ###y as the 629.
This is a long read but I suggest reading it all the way through. Please forgive spelling errors this was all typed on an iPhone.
So I was on of the first to end up buying one. I got mine from P&D. I was in the store within an hour of them arriving. They put one on as display and it had alot of handling marks at that time. When I say handling marks the only really noticeable one was a drag mark on the cylinder. I asked if they had anymore or was this the only one not spoken for. I was handed a closed box. I looked over the pistol carefully. I always check the timing, how the crane fits to the frame, lock up and believe it or not even the cylinder locking lugs. I found that it was a normal nib revolver. There was no marks or defects any place. So I bought it.
I was able to take it with me as I live over 500 km from the store. Since the point of buying it I fired 100 factory pmc bronze 180gr jhp. I fired about 20 or so of a buddy's factory ammo (hms?? it the orange box stuff) 300gr "bear" loads and some 325gr leverroution ammo. I then fired 100 hand loads. 240 gr plated with 8gr of unique under it. Between firing the factory ammo and reloads it had a very extensive cleaning and one again after the reloads.
It then sat in my safe. After seeing this and other threads I took another very close inspection of my 629. I found the same peaning marks. The marks were not as prominent as the rest but I may have missed them when I first looked over the gun. Now, I mostly used single action but I did use double also. So I checked the timing. I found that it was on. I checked run up. The locking lug engaged only micro seconds before the hammer released but it did each and every time. I then looked at the ejector rod. I did find a wobble that I did not notice before. Again it was small. Over all the found all the same issues as everyone else. Just not to the same extreme as the others. The only other thing i didn't notice that a friend that bought one also pointed out to me was that there was scratched in the groves of the barrel about 1/4" in from the forcing cone. Anyone else have that?
I also have 2 686's. I checked them over with a fine too comb also. Both were bought used. The first is a M686-1. When I got it, there wasn't even a drag mark on the cylinder. Truly a lnib piece. I have since shot only about 200 rounds through it (this seems to be all I shot after buying a new gun lol). Again most was done in single action. Most fired rounds were light reloads (no point in full horsepower loads for just the range). I found again all the same issues. Peaning on cylinder slight wobble in ejector rod. The biggest difference was the the cylinder was locked in place much sooner and the hammer still had some backwards movement to do prior to releasing. I also noticed that the bottom of the chamber seemed to not be lined up properly on any of them as it could be seen, by looking down the barrel of an empty gun, above the forcing cone.
The second is a 686-6. This one had been fired more. Exact round count unknown. The only issue I noticed was the peaning on the cylinder. Altho on this one it was equal on each notch so I can only assume it is normal wear and tear.
I then just for giggles checked for the issue on my high standard double nine in 22lr. This gun was very well used prior to me getting it. I have put likely 10,000 rounds through it. While drag marks are evident and expected there is no peaning on the cylinder or any issues like with the smiths.
I added the review of the two 686's for a reason. This is what I have always found with smith wheel guns. Until this point I thought that was "normal" it appears that any of there new line of revolvers have all the same issues. I find this to be a disturbing trend and I question there ethics. Are they sending Canada all the rejects? There is no way 3 guns made at 3 different times just happen to have all the same quality control issues when they have such a low round count and with light loads.
I think my smith days are over......
So I was on of the first to end up buying one. I got mine from P&D. I was in the store within an hour of them arriving. They put one on as display and it had alot of handling marks at that time. When I say handling marks the only really noticeable one was a drag mark on the cylinder. I asked if they had anymore or was this the only one not spoken for. I was handed a closed box. I looked over the pistol carefully. I always check the timing, how the crane fits to the frame, lock up and believe it or not even the cylinder locking lugs. I found that it was a normal nib revolver. There was no marks or defects any place. So I bought it.
I was able to take it with me as I live over 500 km from the store. Since the point of buying it I fired 100 factory pmc bronze 180gr jhp. I fired about 20 or so of a buddy's factory ammo (hms?? it the orange box stuff) 300gr "bear" loads and some 325gr leverroution ammo. I then fired 100 hand loads. 240 gr plated with 8gr of unique under it. Between firing the factory ammo and reloads it had a very extensive cleaning and one again after the reloads.
It then sat in my safe. After seeing this and other threads I took another very close inspection of my 629. I found the same peaning marks. The marks were not as prominent as the rest but I may have missed them when I first looked over the gun. Now, I mostly used single action but I did use double also. So I checked the timing. I found that it was on. I checked run up. The locking lug engaged only micro seconds before the hammer released but it did each and every time. I then looked at the ejector rod. I did find a wobble that I did not notice before. Again it was small. Over all the found all the same issues as everyone else. Just not to the same extreme as the others. The only other thing i didn't notice that a friend that bought one also pointed out to me was that there was scratched in the groves of the barrel about 1/4" in from the forcing cone. Anyone else have that?
I also have 2 686's. I checked them over with a fine too comb also. Both were bought used. The first is a M686-1. When I got it, there wasn't even a drag mark on the cylinder. Truly a lnib piece. I have since shot only about 200 rounds through it (this seems to be all I shot after buying a new gun lol). Again most was done in single action. Most fired rounds were light reloads (no point in full horsepower loads for just the range). I found again all the same issues. Peaning on cylinder slight wobble in ejector rod. The biggest difference was the the cylinder was locked in place much sooner and the hammer still had some backwards movement to do prior to releasing. I also noticed that the bottom of the chamber seemed to not be lined up properly on any of them as it could be seen, by looking down the barrel of an empty gun, above the forcing cone.
The second is a 686-6. This one had been fired more. Exact round count unknown. The only issue I noticed was the peaning on the cylinder. Altho on this one it was equal on each notch so I can only assume it is normal wear and tear.
I then just for giggles checked for the issue on my high standard double nine in 22lr. This gun was very well used prior to me getting it. I have put likely 10,000 rounds through it. While drag marks are evident and expected there is no peaning on the cylinder or any issues like with the smiths.
I added the review of the two 686's for a reason. This is what I have always found with smith wheel guns. Until this point I thought that was "normal" it appears that any of there new line of revolvers have all the same issues. I find this to be a disturbing trend and I question there ethics. Are they sending Canada all the rejects? There is no way 3 guns made at 3 different times just happen to have all the same quality control issues when they have such a low round count and with light loads.
I think my smith days are over......
Last edited:
**UPDATE**
I have CANCELLED my order from SFRC just now via a PM to Chemist, email through the SFRC website and a phone call/voicemail to SFRC. I will seriously LOL if Ryan ships my gun and tells me that he "missed" my three attempts to contact him. He has always replied within 10 mins so there will be no excuse.
These flaws are unacceptable.
I have CANCELLED my order from SFRC just now via a PM to Chemist, email through the SFRC website and a phone call/voicemail to SFRC. I will seriously LOL if Ryan ships my gun and tells me that he "missed" my three attempts to contact him. He has always replied within 10 mins so there will be no excuse.
These flaws are unacceptable.
Welcome to the dark side. The ohly consistent issue with the Rugers is their very tight cylinder throats. These can be opened up by any 'smith to .358. Once done they are very accurate well made pistols. Don't expect them to be without minor blemishes they are made in the US where it seems just good enough is good enough.
Bob
Al Flaherty's is supposed to get a few in. My buddy ordered one and since we're only a small Starbuck's coffee drive away there is no concern about going over them with a fine tooth comb.
I have another S&W revolver model in the mail...should be here next wk. This one may curb my appetite for one of these 629's
Comparing the two the Ruger is very robust and built like a tank. It is big. The 629/29 is a race horse. Capable and ###y. Both work. The Ruger might work longer.
Take Care
Bob
Okay folks, as promissed I got the camera gear out and have taken a few macros for future reference:
First is closeups of the peening:
•
next is another closeup
*
•
Third is an overall view. Note: thew uneven travel and prominent gouge.
•
This is on a gun as I got it out of the box, that has not been fired or used yet in any way by yours truly. Hope this helps. If S&W is sending seconds up here they need to be called on it.
First is closeups of the peening:
•
next is another closeup
*
•
Third is an overall view. Note: thew uneven travel and prominent gouge.
•
This is on a gun as I got it out of the box, that has not been fired or used yet in any way by yours truly. Hope this helps. If S&W is sending seconds up here they need to be called on it.
Perhaps the hardening on the cylinder is a tad soft. Would explain the gouge and peening on a gun that apparently is in time. In any case, I would call this warranty time on a new gun. - dan
