Damaged forcing cone on S&W Model 66-2, advice needed

Status
Not open for further replies.
rc_p120

rc_p120

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
34   0   0
Location
Toronto, Canada
Hey guys, I need some advice here.


I bought a S&W Model 66-2 last year after the unnamed seller on the EE said it was in 'like new' condition with a 'brand new barrel installed'. I fired it for the first time recently, six shots of .38 special were fine but after only two rounds of .357 magnum the forcing cone was destroyed and I cannot release the cylinder! The gun is heavily damaged after only one use after a thorough cleaning. I am very upset about this. I thought I was buying a good condition firearm but this was something that could have injured me after only normal freakin use. I know K frames are not the best for lots of constant firing of .357 loads, but this was literally only TWO rounds of factory ammo (Remington UMC 125gr .357).

I have contacted the guy who sold it to me, he is polite but he's suggesting it's not his responsibility now. He says he doesn't know what to do. I am saying that it's BS to buy a gun that is supposedly in 'like new' condition only to have a catastrophic failure after two shots of factory ammo.

Thoughts? Should I ask for a refund? Ask for him to cover the repairs? Suck it up and get it repaired on my own? What are my options for gunsmiths in Ontario, since I am new to the shooting world I don't know many names and places (or prices) for those services.

Would contacting Smith & Wesson customer service be of any use if not a US resident?

Cheers guys, I'd appreciate any advice.
 
Last edited:
dan belisle said:
What condition was the forcing cone in when you got it? Good? Ammo issues? How hot were the 357 rounds? Why was the barrel changed? Who did the work? - dan
Click to expand...

The forcing cone appeared to be in fine shape. No ammo issues with me, I only fired 6 rounds of .38 before the damage happened. The .357's were Remington UMC 125gr JSP. The barrel was changed to convert the gun from prohib to restricted class by previous owner(s), the barrel is has S&W .357 labeled on it.
 
You say you cannot release the cylinder. At all, not after the 'event'? Perhaps you have a squb load that put the bullet just into the forcing cone and remaining partway into the cylinder. If this is not what you mean, then the ejector rod has become unscrewed and locked the release. Turn the ejector back into the cylinder and it will release. It is almost impossible to damage a forcing cone in a Smith without abuse such as a screwdriver or a chisel. Certainly it cannot be done by shooting any sort of reasonable ammo.

Dr Jim
 
There has been a number of articles about 125 gr bullets damaging forcing cones. I don't know what they say, but you may want to do some research before you blame the seller. Just went online and there are all kinds of threads and reports of 125gr magnum loads and forcing cone issues in k frames. There are also threads refuting that. Since your forcing cone got destroyed I would be inclined to believe them. If a bullet is too hot or otherwise incompatable with a gun, it may last thousands of rounds, or blow the gun very first round. I heard about this a couple of years ago when someone from the club brought in an article with pictures. I hate to say it, but I think your seller is probably off the hook
 
Last edited:
Contact one of these guys. They are both S&W Service/Warranty Centers in Canada. I highly doubt it if the seller will refund the money.

WORTNER GUN WORKS LTD.
433 QUEEN STREET
BOX 411
CHATHAM ONTARIO, CANADA N7M 5K5
Phone: 519-352-0924

MURRAY CHARLTON ENTERPRISES LTD
BOX 42
BRENTWOOD BAY
B.C., CANADA V8M 1R3
Phone: 778-426-3884
Fax: 778-426-3886
 
Yup, 125gr .357s are not good in a k-frame, the 6 o'clock position is the weak part due to a small flat.

That said, your pics look REALLY weird to me. This is a typical k-frame forcing cone. Why does yours have an extra outer layer?? Sounds like the gun was bubba'd.

SW_Model_65-3_DSCN1611-1.jpg
 
It does not look like a forcing cone issue. The forcing cone is on the inside of the barrel, not around the outside. As mentioned, it looks like there is some sort of sleeve around the outside of the barrel; this is not normal. Is that sleeve steel, or something else? In any case, it does not look like a proper barrel installation.
 
Could the gun have been previously re barreled ? maybe they couldn't get the old barrel off, and sleeved it ? that would explain that odd extra material around where the forcing cone is..

i have never seen a revolver with that extra material around the barrel like in those pictures.
 
You can see in the first photo I posted the flat part at the 6 o'clock position, this is clearance for the crane. I suspect the sleeve around the barrel end was filed down excessively or left open at that point to allow for the crane clearance, therefore weakening it, like this.

675axi.jpg
 
it looks to me like the installer of the replacement barrel couldnt get the sights properly clocked so they turned the threads off the replacement barrel to make room for a (threaded ???) sleeve that would enable them to get the barrel sights aligned. would be interesting to see what the gap is from the barrel face to cylinder and from the cylinder to the shim. If the shim is proud of the barrel face that would explain why it let go. if the shim is epoxied :)ninja: ) and not threaded it could also allow the barrel to move forward when hot with your 38 loads and let go with anything more powerful. you need to find out who installed the barrel IMHO. good luck ....if it happened to me I would be pissed fwiw.
 
Very interesting info! Especially about that strange 'band' around the forcing cone, it really looks suspect. 41 colt your pic does look very different from mine.

This gun WAS re barrelled, it was changed from a prohibited length to a restricted length and the seller has just told me the name of the gunsmith that did it. To be clear, do you guys think the re barrelling work was flawed?? That's bad news.

Thanks, keep it coming.
 
From your photos, the barrel was definitely "sleeved", probably to extend it. A couple of pictures of the muzzle would confirm that (side, front).

It almost looks like the barrel "liner" moved forward in relation to the surrounding failed metal, perhaps the means of attachment (epoxy?) failed.

If someone was to do a proper "sleeve job", the method I was taught by an 80 year old guy who didn't blow up nice revolvers, was to make a thicker inner barrel ("liner"), and thread that. Bore out the sleeve portion of the barrel to a larger diameter, and don't create a thin threaded / weakened portion as appears to be the case here. The remaining, thinned and weakened outer layer of your barrel "sleeve" clearly failed due to some stress, and it really looks like the inner liner has moved forward. The outer barrel has definitely separated, and this is a very poor job, putting it charitably.

I'm sure you'll hear more similar comments, probably more eloquently put and from people with more experience.

Short version: thicker liner, threaded, and then just affix the outer "sleeve" portion of the barrel in any number of responsible ways. This makes lining up the sights easy, kind of a "Dan Wesson" effort.

You may not feel it right now, rc_p120, but you were lucky! This failure could have been much worse.
 
rc_p120 said:
Very interesting info! Especially about that strange 'band' around the forcing cone, it really looks suspect. 41 colt your pic does look very different from mine.

This gun WAS re barrelled, it was changed from a prohibited length to a restricted length and the seller has just told me the name of the gunsmith that did it. To be clear, do you guys think the re barrelling work was flawed?? That's bad news.

Thanks, keep it coming.
Click to expand...

Id say with the wall thickness the gunsmith left behind he should have tried to remove the old barrel a little harder. With the gas that escapes around the forcing cone when fired its just a matter of time before it separates the old barrel from the new.
 
Thanks for putting up the photos, they confirm Gunzik's analysis. This was an incompetent sleeve job. If the seller was not responsible for it then I'm afraid you are stuck with it. If you just want to shoot, you should be ok with target wadcutters, but if the reason you bought it was for the bigger bang of .357 then you need a competent smith to rebarrel it properly. As a 66 that means stainless barrel stock or a factory barrel.

Dr Jim
 
Does the firearm have an obvious stub protruding from the muzzle. If not it certainly is NOT a barrel liner installed to reach non-prohib status, and otherwise it would still be 12/6

Unfortunately, for any number of reasons (clocking the sights, stainless threads badly galled on either the replacemnt barrel or 12/6 frame.. etc etc) whoever installed the new barrel apparently turned down the threads on the barrel and inserted a sleeve (threaded, glued?? who knows) to take up the tolerance. As another poster identified, the milling at the 6 o'clock position common to K series, may have resulted in weakening the sleeve - in any event, from the photos, the sleeve let go.

IMO the seller should make good based on the details provided so far. If I was told a 12/6 was rebarreled I would expect a factory barrel installed in a manner consistent with factory methods. If the sleeve is an "SOP" for some gunsmiths ... then at the least I would expect it to accomodate factory approved loads. ... if not -- it is faulty. My inclination would be send it back to the seller for refund. The seller can sort it out with the gunsmith. Afterall you dont know how much or little was paid for this effort. The seller could have paid through the nose for this and received an unsatisfactory pistol ... IMHO


(would be nasty standing next to a shooter with this pistol on the line .. and attracting small pieces of shrapnel being ejected from the cylinder gap.)
 
Thanks for the replies fellas, this info is totally invaluable to helping me with this expensive problem. Any more info or observations at all, please post.

AP said:
(would be nasty standing next to a shooter with this pistol on the line .. and attracting small pieces of shrapnel being ejected from the cylinder gap.)
Click to expand...

Hot shrapnel flew from the right side of the revolver, luckily it didn't injure anyone, but the huge spark was hard to miss.. What a disaster, this could have hurt someone.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom