TexasCHLforum.com

Let me just say that I still love every Smith & Wesson firearm I've ever purchased and I still trust Smith & Wesson and I'm betting that Smith & Wesson is going to make this right -- but this is still a freakish error that NEVER should have left the plant and someone oughta be whipped out behind the building for it's very existence.

This is not my gun, friend of mine posted this on another forum that I frequent. This is a "more expensive than others" 686 SSR Pro-Series revolver and the MSRP is nearly a thousand bucks on it.

See if you can figure out what is "not quite right" with it. Once you do, it is like "Holy Cow!" Glad this shooter wasn't into big old Keith loads and blew up their gun.

Gee, that's a tough one...

Brand new, and he is the first owner? Wow, just Wow...
while the parts are done by way of CNC machine, I’m thinking the gun was hand assembled, and hopefully QA/QC’ed.
And do they no longer test shoot each gun? That should have made a bit of extra flash and bang.

Is it the wrong cylinder for that model? Each boring for the round is supposed to be centered under the thicker portion of the metal. Looks like a 7 shot cylinder.

Edit: I just searched the model and see now that is it supposed to be a 7 shot. They just bored the wrong number of holes in the correct cylinder. Yikes!

Dan20703 wrote:Is it the wrong cylinder for that model? Each boring for the round is supposed to be centered under the thicker portion of the metal. Looks like a 7 shot cylinder.

Edit: I just searched the model and see now that is it supposed to be a 7 shot. They just bored the wrong number of holes in the correct cylinder. Yikes!

Close, but the other way around. The S&W Model 686 SSR is a 6 shot .357 Magnum. Instead, they pulled a seven shot cylinder for a S&W Model 686 Plus from the parts bin, but then drilled only 6 chambers.

Oddly enough, since the ejector star keys off the cylinder bores, the timing would be on in terms of the star. Thus the cylinder bores would line up correctly with the barrel bore.

The big problem is the thinness of the metal between the chambers at 10:00 & 8:00 versus the corresponding cylinder flute. Glad this didn't result in injury.

Jumping Frog wrote:Oddly enough, since the ejector star keys off the cylinder bores, the timing would be on in terms of the star. Thus the cylinder bores would line up correctly with the barrel bore.

The big problem is the thinness of the metal between the chambers at 10:00 & 8:00 versus the corresponding cylinder flute. Glad this didn't result in injury.

Yeah; I was gonna say that the frame and cylinder show evidence of having been fired, from what I can see in the photo. Offhand, I wouldn't have thought the cylinder would lock-up correctly, but I guess so.

I know S&W will make it right immediately, but your first comment is the one that says it all: "Holy Cow!"

I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, did he drill seven holes or only six? Well to tell you the truth, I forgot myself in all this excitement. Before you fire the gun, you've got to ask yourself a question: do I feel lucky? Well, do you Jump?

Cylinder drilling / alignment = messed up.

Perhaps the CNC robot nudged the cylinder with an errant elbow while drinking coffee just prior to drilling...

You have to wonder how many were made like this. It's clearly a disaster waiting to happen to some unlucky noob who doesn't know as much about proper cylinder configuration as the owner of this example.

It will be interesting to see if S&W puts out a warning or recall notice.

Thank's for posting!

I know all of us would have noticed this... But would it have been before the first range trip? Speaking for myself, maybe not. I'll be making more careful inspections before the first range trip now.

I may be well out of my depth on this comment but here goes...

While it is CLEARLY not correct I don't think that it is dangerous. I would like to hope that the safety tolerances are such that, while not correct, is still OK.

Would I send it back completely red faced PO'd...ABSOULUTELY!!!!!

olafpfj wrote:I may be well out of my depth on this comment but here goes...

While it is CLEARLY not correct I don't think that it is dangerous. I would like to hope that the safety tolerances are such that, while not correct, is still OK.

Would I send it back completely red faced PO'd...ABSOULUTELY!!!!!

Revolvers are designed for adequate strength and minimal weight when produced as designed. When the chambers are drilled where there is less than the designed amount of material around them, there is no way for an end user to know if that is safe and every reason to suspect it is not.

There's only one way to tell for sure, and I'm not anywhere near curious enough to pull the trigger on that setup myself.

S&W should be mortified that this gun got manufactured in the first place, and then through all the QA checks and out of the factory.

With a flaw that obvious, it begs the question of whether or not there are any QA checks in the process.

That's one of the limited edition "Lawyer" models.

olafpfj wrote:I may be well out of my depth on this comment but here goes...

While it is CLEARLY not correct I don't think that it is dangerous. I would like to hope that the safety tolerances are such that, while not correct, is still OK.

No, it is dangerous. Speaking as a Mechanical Engineer, the cylinder wall thickness is clearly too thin for design safety margins.

doc540 wrote:That's one of the limited edition "Lawyer" models.

If it's not sent back to S&W, I have to wonder what it might be worth to a collector some day, rather like misprinted stamps, etc.