Revolver Reliability

[Widetrack55]

Stories like this are the reason I keep looking for older guns. If they ever had an issue like this, they've already been fixed.

[Bob K]

Why would S&W change the design of the detent screw........to make it more complicated, and less reliable? I have some serious reservations about buying a new S&W. I'll stick with the older, used models.....like I have been, since I got my first Smith.

I used to buy used, but NIB.....for cost savings. Now, it appears that....older is better....isn't just a phrase. Bob

[MOONDAWG]

Anything man made can fail.

If not we wouldn't have Rolex or Rolls Royce service centers.

[banger]

Docz, a sideplate with the hole countersunk a half-thousandth over, the slot in the crane a half-thousandth too large in dia, the screw shoulder a half-thousandth shorter, all add up to the perfect storm . . .

I like the fix of "dusting off " the end of the screw . . .

If the spring broke in the spring-loaded screw tip, the tip would still engage the slot in the crane shaft -- I do not like the spring-loaded tip, and have changed a couple of them out to a solid screw -- makes for a smoother crane rotation, and IMO, it is just too many parts -- spring-loaded screw tip is totally unnecessary and is NOT an improvement over the solid screw, IMO.

From the looks of the pictures, the screw was not one with a spring-loaded tip -- maybe they've learned not to use them -- it would have been interesting to know if the crane shaft was just a bit too short . . .

[Triplelock]

MOONDAWG echos my thoughts, I have had a few revolver failures, two that I can think of beyond the old ejector rod comming loose; the ones before S&W changed the thread. During the police revolver days auto pistols weren't as reliable; you were more likely to have a stovepipe than a cylinder tying up. But the idea that a revolver wouldn't or couldn't ty up is pointedly false. Todays quality auto pistols are more reliable IMHO, I have yet to have a jam with my Glocks. But getting back to the revolver, as MOONDAWG points out, if it's mechanical it can fail. That does little to soothe the disappointment over a quality S&W failing - My experience with S&W repairing has been good - I hope your's is the same.

Hank

[grasshopper]

I have a 4" 686 (no dash) and over the years have fired about every type of .357 factory and handloads available. I know about the "no-dash" problems with some of the early 686 's but this one has never given me any problems what so ever. Some of the newer S&W's look fine, but I still put my trust in the earlier guns with a proven track record.

[Triplelock]

I have a 4" 686 (no dash) and over the years have fired about every type of .357 factory and handloads available. I know about the "no-dash" problems with some of the early 686 's but this one has never given me any problems what so ever. Some of the newer S&W's look fine, but I still put my trust in the earlier guns with a proven track record.

My two cents: I have a no dash 686 bought new, and I didn't count the rounds that went down the barrel of my no dash, but thousands would not be an over estimate, and it has gone bang every time I pulled the trigger. I didn't know about the recall until lately and I probably wont exercise that opportunity - adhearing to the old saw, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
Besides it's sorta semi-retired and has assumed the role of an occassional plinker.
Hank

[1 old 0311]

Anything CAN break. Even Mercedes has a service department. It, like wheel guns, just aren't visited as much.

I have been shooting for way over 40+ years. I have NEVER had a mechanical failure with a wheelie. The ammo failures you just keep shooting. I can't count the mechanical failures I have had with bottom feeders. 80? 90? 100?