I haven't bought one in years and I only own one (that I really like) a stainless 4" 41 Mag, but enjoy...

Saw that guy's video last year. Yeah, lots of quality control issues in recently production S&W revolvers are being reported. Almost never heard of pre-1980s. It's progressively gotten worse since the 1990s. I think they are cutting back on quality control to keep their revolver prices competitive. It seems to be a revolver thing, mainly, and that's likely because, since the 1980s, their large revolver contracts have entirely disappeared, i.e., with police agencies. Likely, they are diverting most quality control efforts to their police contract lines, and their best selling concealed carry lines, i.e., auto pistols.

In defense of S&W, I've sent two revolvers in for warranty repair, and had 100% resolution each time. Once when I bought my mom a scandium J-Frame .38 back in the 1990s and once a couple of years ago when I bought myself an Airweight 442 (also a J-Frame .38, but aluminum instead of scandium). In the first case, the action locked up on my first range trip with my mom, which was supposed to also be a coaching trip, but the action locked up on the first cylinder full. Sent it back, and they returned it quickly, 100% fixed. The 442 was sent back due to a shoddy metal work job on the forcing cone. Looked like it had been hacksawed off without any smoothing effort afterwards. Razor sharp and jagged edged. In that case, they chose to just replace the entire revolver.

I've also sent old revolvers in for repair (long past warranty) and got them back nicely fixed. They charged for those, of course.

Part TWO... it get better...

Fixed, IMO.

S&W has always had some problems, along with all the revolver manufacturers - they are complicated to make. The invention of on-line buying doesn't help because there is no inspection.

It would help if the guy in the video could articulate the problem to S&W (barrel yaw).

Saw his video on YouTube last year, too.

S&W should have taken care of him with a new gun. Period.

S&W's decline started when they were under the ownership of Bangor Punta which was between 1966-1983 .... the worst guns (generally speaking) were produced in the 70's into the early 80's. Since that time they've been plagued with a host of varied issues, none of which had anything to do with law enforcement or contract sales. It's reasonable to assume that the bottom line these days at S&W is resting on sales of their polymer pistols and AR's to a lesser extent.

My wife purchased a new keyhole S&W 638 a few years ago, which locked up maybe 6-8 cylinders into its short life here. I slapped the damn thing around, got the cylinder open and washed out under the ejector star/behind the crane, with some brake cleaner I had in the pickup. When it dried I gave it a shot of RemOil and ran three cylinders of 125 grain Remington SJHP through it as fast as I could shoot it. But neither of us trusted it after that and my old LCP, which replaced it, has never choked in the five years I owned it.

It's not just the absence of LE contracts, TRH. The academy class after mine was the first department issue of S&W 686s I am aware of. 18 new guns, 12 of them sent back because of a gas ring problem that caused them to bind up when run hard enough to get hot.

My first year out of the academy included my being adopted by Lt who was the Dept. armorer and chief firearms instructor. They had just issued new Model 15s and one of them quit firing during a string. We traced it to a loose trigger stop plate screw. They had kept a dozen of their old heavy barrel 10s as a backup, and those guns were tested and reissued so we could get the 15's back in and pull the trigger stop plates.

[quote=JOG

It would help if the guy in the video could articulate the problem to S&W (barrel yaw).
[/quote]
Nope, not Yaw, the FRAME was the issue. Barrel hole drilled off center. The "yaw" angle is S&W's way of confusing the issue...

S&W had the revolver largely perfected, then they screwed the pooch with decreasing quality. They weren't the first to screw the pooch, and sadly won't be the last.

Yep.

Good info. Thanks.

"Canted, crooked, and clocked" are the terms I heard used - never "yaw". Roll (rotation), pitch, and yaw are as familiar terms to you has anyone. Yaw can be cause by cutting the threads at a bias on either the frame or the barrel, although I agree with you the frame is the likely candidate.

I could definitely be wrong, the guy is all over the map trying to explain the problem, but the best I could decipher is the barrel is pointing to the side (left) - yaw.

Yes, ok...

Attending the Ruger armourer's school in the late '80's I met 2 guys from the SBI of a large east coast state.
They were there to learn the GP-100.
The reason: in a recent shipment of 80+ guns from Smith they had a 30% rate of not functioning right out of the box.

The fundamental issue with QC (from S&W and Ruger) for the last 40 years, is that the revolver design doesn't lend itself to being "assembled" ... it must be "fitted". You can pull components and parts from a CNC machine these days and assemble a fairly decent semi-auto from the get-go, but when you try that with a revolver, you get what we have now.

The lack of skilled labor is what has ruined things for S&W and Colt to a much greater degree. Couple that with a management philosophy that squeezes the bottom line too tight and you get the mediocre junk we have today.

i have quite a few s&w's, thankfully most of them are old guns and never an issue.
having said that, quite a few years ago i got offered for 150bucks a s&w 22 magnum, holster, and 500 rounds of ammo. Sweet deal.
till i went to fire it and found out why the owner sold it, casings were sticking after firing.
i took it to a gun smith who honed, smoothed out the cylinder holes, no more issues. that was a bankor punta gun.
Second i just had to pull out of the safe after watching the video.
it was a smith m29classic four inch. using his example of looking at the top, it does match up.
but, but, there is still a gap between where the ejector rod housing meets the frame, which my older smiths are flush.
i got into an argument with an ex friend a few years ago stating smith quality wasn't as good as it use to be, laying that
new 29 out next to an older gun looking at that gap.
As far as shooting it, it appears to work just fine. but it still isn't as tight as the old ones, when they were hand fitted.
I would have sent it back, but pretty sure they would have told me nothing wrong with it.

given i have disconnected the hillary hole, replaced the sights, they wouldn't talk to me anyhow.

I have some first hand experience with that, as well. Check out this Model 29 Classic (I didn't own it very long) ..... the lower barrel/frame clearance is .013!!

When you know/understand how they "fit" (a loose term) barrels these days, you understand why things are predictably wonky.

It's often the heat treating. Back in the day spot heat treating was standard procedure. Heat treating entire frames and barrels has taken over and is done after the component is milled and can cause the component to warp, which can affect the final assembly. The right alloy heat treated properly will work out just fine, but if something a little off and an unfortunate tolerance stack and gun shoots around corners.

For far too many years that was as common as dirt, I'm afraid.

that picture is a clone of what mine looks like. I got the gun basically free from cabella's, so i havn't kbitched too much. i replaced the grips, disabled the hole, and put a high vis front sight on it. shoots okay and is purty, but it isn't the same gun as the older ones, Since i have it laying on my desk, it's a m29-10.

Some related facts:

I don't know if it is still true, but a few years ago Hamilton Bowen suspended working on S&W revolvers. This is because the factory had started screwing the barrels on so tight that it was risking damage to remove them. When one of the premier revolver smiths in the world won't work on your new guns, you ought to pay attention!
http://www.bowenclassicarms.com/news.html
See note dated March 15, 2016.

Also, a few years ago, S&W had only four factory service centers in the US (maybe the world.) There was the factory, a place in Alaska, a place in Hawaii, and Frank Smith in Comanche, Texas. I've dealt with Frank Smith a time or two and always came away satisfied. He was a S&W warranty station for 37 years, he knows what he is doing, and he tells you the truth. No bs with Frank. Now his website says:
S&W Closed All USA Warranty Stations 12/15/2016
I suspect Frank was costing S&W too much money by doing the right things.

Maybe it is my eyes, but I can see the barrel crooked (yawed to the left) in the first video. (I haven't had the time to watch the second video all the way through.)

If I had to communicate with S&W about a similar issue, I'd be sending them a picture with two straightedges, one each laid along each side of the frame. That will show a yawed (not rolled or "mis-clocked") barrel real quick. Let them try to deny that physical evidence. (I'm not saying I'd get better results. But we'd cut through some bs real quick.)

If it wouldn't hurt my chances of a new gun or proper repair by shooting it (I don't know about that), I'd see how far to the right or left the rear sight had to be adjusted to make a gun shoot to point of aim. That also tells you a lot in a short time.

That is indeed the truth .... and the issue is potentially cracking the frame, as well. Cracking a frame is actually not an uncommon occurrence when removing a barrel and in the old days, S&W would make them right (if done my a professional gunsmith) because they cracked frames all the time in the S&W repair shop.

On the 29 Classic I posted pictures of, I sent that photo to S&W and asked them if they would fix it. The CS guy gave me a song and dance story about how that .013 gap was "within spec" and that there was no point in returning it. Oh well ..... I then asked if I could send it back and get the Performance Center guys to just set the barrel back properly at my expense. Again, the answer was no. I was a Detective once, but I still didn't fully pick up on that "clue" he just unwittingly revealed.

Anyhow, I just took the gun to one of my pistolsmiths (who has been building guns for almost 40 years) and he conditionally agreed to set the barrel back. Well, he couldn't get the barrel off without risk of cracking the frame (he's cracked a few and knows how far to push things) and told me S&W no longer makes any concessions for professional gunsmiths like they used to in the old days.

To make a point; when done correctly, barrel fitment is a precise operation and S&W is using a machine driven method that requires the "clearance" I've made reference to and I personally believe that mechanically forced method is what's leading to all the wonky barrels. They're fitting barrels this way because it's cheap and it can be performed by a monkey - plain and simple.

Makes one pine for the old days.

Well, this is easy. I won't be buying ANY new S&W products...

All my S&W revolvers are old guns with the exception of a no lock 642 Airweight I bought new a couple years ago. This new 642 is every bit as good as my old humpback M38 Bodyguard Airweight so it's all good in my gun safe.

I finally tortured myself through the second video, and I use the word "torture" with intention.
That guy is all over the map: S&W builds crap! Isn't this gun beautiful? S&W builds great guns! S&W are crooks!
(So I guess they are crooks who can build great guns when they choose to? That may actually be close to correct.)
Good grief!!!
Plus he throws words around that are imprecise when what is needed are precise terms. Then he starts guessing about S&W policies that he has no clue about. It is also clear his actual knowledge of revolvers is far less than what he thinks he knows.

That was over thirty minutes of video that could have been taken care of in five minutes with the right text, views of the guns, and a set up with straight edges to show the issues. Maybe seven minutes.

None of this is meant to imply S&W doesn't have issues. There are plenty of rational, knowledgeable people here to prove that they do.

Dammit! When am I going to learn when to turn off such train wrecks?!!!
Don't come at me with "So, who's the real dumbass here?" hell, I concede the point.
Good grief!!!

Here's the real tragedy;

When Tompkins brought S&W into the modern era by spending well over 100 million in upgraded CNC equipment, they were for the first time actually building major components to a tolerance they were NEVER able to produce in the past. But, they dropped the ball by relying on close tolerances (produced my a machine) as a substitute for precision fitting (produced by a skilled worker).

The lock-up, timing and chamber alignment on most of the turds I've handled and shot was OUTSTANDING, and better than anything they have ever produced in the past. If they'd just suck it up and get some skilled workers back in the production cycle, things would straighten themselves out for the most part.

But to do that, they'll have to leave the Union environment of the NE, where labor cost have torpedoed every gunmaker in that part of the country into potential bankruptcy …. most notably Colt.

I have finally given up on them. Two model 63's returned one was so bad they gave me my money back, two recent 44 magnums returned because they over torqued the barrel. All brand new, all P-hucked up from the factory.

I'm a fan of my no lock 442, also, but it did have to go back and be replaced for a new one because of a quality control issue. Now it's one of my favorites.

Just so happens that Hickok45 just put out a video that's kind of on point.

Thirty minutes! Geez, doesn’t he know about brevity! So what’s the bottom line, new or old?

You're supposed to savor his videos.

Did Remington buy them?😂

Those videos make me want to fall on a sword.

I'm afraid we're living in an age where anyone with a smart phone and an internet connection can use 1,500 superfluous words (500 more if it involves "unboxing") to parrot the information garnered from a published spec sheet and call it a review.

I am a big fan of S&W revolvers. I have 2 Hillary hole guns . But, I will never buy another one. Not because I've had so many bad experiences. I just don't want to expose myself to the potential for that.

It's simply too easy to buy the older guns and be a very happy camper with them. And, there's just something about Old Skool.

I took one look at the guy and didn't click. Call me judgmental.

I hear you! Dumb as I am about watching some stuff on UTube, if "unboxing" is in the title . . . Oh, HELL no!!!

I think we've got Hickok 45 confused with the long haired, bearded guy who was sending his 686 Plus back to S&W.
Hickok can get long winded at times, but he looks pretty normal (for a really tall guy), he knows a thing or two, and he shoots pretty damn good.

Never understood why one would choose a new Smith when proper ones can be had for the equivalent or less. I recently gave $450 for this M19.

I don't know how many Smiths I've owned over the years. I'm guessing 50 or more. I've never had a problem with one, including a bunch from Bangor-Punta. I take that back. I've got an American that dates back to probably 1872 and had a broken hammer when I got it. My newest is the Governor. I can't recall the exact year I got it, but I bought the second one I saw.

I wish I had kept some of the old guns, I have not bought a single new revolver with the lock on it that was good to go from the factory. You think your dreaming when you get call from SW and they tell you they are going to send you your money back on a damn 22 caliber stainless steel revolver. Then when a Glock shoots better than a $800 revolver you know something is wrong. I may try a ruger 357 they are heavier and bulkier but never another new SW revolver.

I’m kinda in EdM’s camp on this one. S&W hasn’t came out with anything new I really want since the lock came about and used ones can usually be had at pretty comparable prices to new ones of the models still being made.

Guess i’ll be the contrary speaker - bought a new/current production N frame in 2016. A 629 Classic. Unaware at time of purchase about the barrel alignment issues and other QC failures. I looked it over good when I bought it, but I wasn’t “in the know” so-to-speak about specific issues to be looking closely for. Obviously, i’ve since examined it very closely for any of these problems and have shot the hell out of it....

Nope. Not a damn thing wrong with it. Dare say it’s a perfect gun.

I would buy another new production gun in a heartbeat. But, i’d Go into the pre-purchase examination of it with an educated eye, and a long hard look. I also wouldn’t buy one from an on-line vendor.

Maybe I got lucky?....

The model 69 is the most packable revolver I’ve messed with. After lots of shooting it still runs perfectly. My load is a 260 Keith at 1200.

Exactly. I agree completely.

I guess my problem is that I can actually shoot a pistol, not that I am a star shooter but I can tell the difference between a softball size group at 15 yards and an 8 inch off center group with the rear sight run all the way over to the right side. Their guns are not worth the money anymore. I may see if I can find me an older pre lock blue steel model 19 with a 4 inch barrel as my keepsake revolver, no more of the new ones though.

Every N and K frame Smith I own is pinned and recessed. Never a problem.
If it was made after 1981, I've never been interested.

Do own one newer keyless J frame, so far so good with it.

The one recent Smith that tempts me severely is the 4" Model 22-4. I'd probably chop my old 37 Brazilian before I'd do that.

Essentially a Model M1917 S&W revolver. I once knew a guy who carried a short barreled M1917 S&W with no finish on it. I don't even think it had a front sight on it. This was back in the 1980s. Old fellow. He talked me out of my Charter Arms Bulldog .44, and started carrying it instead. Same concept, but much lighter and more compact. Not as cool, though.

PS I had the S&W Model 22-4 once. Bought it when it first came out. Got back what I paid for it a few years later. Cool guns, though.

I like those 22-4s too, TRH. If you could see the pile of 45LC/ACP guns, bullets and brass around here, you'd understand.

And, as you may recall, I also have one of those Brazilians. That's the Model 22-4 partially shown next to it.

Pardon my naivete, but when you are referring to the Hillary hole, I am assuming you are referring to the attempt to make a "safe" revolver with the addition of a key lock. I have a 625-5 in 45 Colt that I absolutely adore, and I will regret to my dying day getting rid of an 18 for some stupid reason. Both are and were from the 70"s to 80's. No problem with either.

dk, Your assumption is correct.

I just purchase Performance Center revolvers. Haven't had any problems.

Just picked up a gorgeous nickel 19 4". It'll be here mid week. I'll post pics...

Pinned and recessed?

you betcha,,

Redheaded girls and nickel-plated pistols have been weaknesses of mine for as long as I can remember.

I picked up an unfired 19-3 from a member here a few months ago...

prior to 3 S&W's I got off a collector who was thinning his herd.

Very nice indeed!

Bought one of the first run S&W 460’s. The trigger pull was like that of the 60’s era guns, just exquisite. Bought the most recent Performance Center 460. Trigger pull was horrendous & nothing like it should be for such an advertised “upgrade?”

Sent them an e-mail. They issued a call tag & turned it around in 6 days. The service surprised me. The trigger was somewhat improved. But, nothing like it should be.

I believe Jorge mentioned it the other day. They just don't have the workforce expertise of old.

I was quite disappointed. But, the structure is there so it can be remedied.