Normal or problem? (S&W 686 ??)

spurgemastur

I was just cleaning my Smith & Wesson model 686 (.357, 6-inch barrel)



when I noticed a gap at the spot marked 1 on the image (I had the action open when I noticed this so you won't see it on this image).

The gap looked like this (gap in this picture is exaggerated because it was brightly backlit....it's wide enough to get one but not two cheap pieces of printer paper into it):



At this point I thought I should investigate further. The next image (#2 on the first image I posted) shows that the barrel is not perfectly vertical with respect to the frame; it is rotated a little to the left:



This gun has about 6000 rounds through it. I don't know which way the barrel threads onto the frame, but the twist down the barrel spins the bullet clockwise (as I'm watching it after it's fired....my eyes are that good). This suggests that the torque of the bullets is twisting the barrel to the left.

Is this something I need to be worried about? If not, why not?

Thanks in advance for your advice.

Edit: c'mon dudes...thirty one views and nobody has an opinion? I'm begging. Seriously, on my knees, begging!

Laredo Lefty

It may have been set that way from the factory to align the front & rear sights. I have seen that gap under the barrel on several Smiths before.

If the barrel is twisting over time to the left then the rear sight would have to be continually adjusted to compensate for it. If you have not needed to make sight corrections then its probably not moving, IMHO.

merrbarb

Spurgemastur: Why don't you write a letter to S & W accompanied with photos. S & W seems to be very agreeable to consumers these days, and any reply from them would be informative. They might even suggest that you send the revolver to them for inspection?

1911a1-fan

the barrel has to be fitted more with the forcing cone on the inside of the frame being the point of measurement {80/1000}between the barrel, and cylinder, the part where your gap is, is one point where material can be removed, so it looks like someone got lazy, and did not want to remove the barrel to remove the material closest to the cylinder so they could full seat your barrel

gunnut505

Shoulda got a GP100[:D]
Seriously though, you can use a feeler gauge to see what the "gap" is between the cylinder and forcing cone, and keep an eye on it that way. I forget what the gap was on my Dan Wesson, but it was adjustable whenever I switched barrels; too large, and I got flyers and shaved lead.

1911a1-fan

quote:Originally posted by gunnut505
Shoulda got a GP100[:D]
Seriously though, you can use a feeler gauge to see what the "gap" is between the cylinder and forcing cone, and keep an eye on it that way. I forget what the gap was on my Dan Wesson, but it was adjustable whenever I switched barrels; too large, and I got flyers and shaved lead.


80/1000th max

tapwater

...Not to hi-jack, but is the .080" max gap all you'd want to see on most any brand of centerfire/rimfire?

...Wouldn't the bullet torque tend to twist the barrel in the SAME direction as the twist?

jar

Hello spgmter, I have three of the 686s and they all have the same gap so I called a friend that has two 686s and his had the same gap. if you will look closely that gap is in theshroud around the ejecter rod and is built in the counter balance of the barrel not the barrel its self . the friend I called is a smith and he said its an allowance made during machining to allow for the proper spacing between the end of the barell and the face of the cylinder.

Old Fool

.080 is the largest gap that would be acceptable for any revolver, regardless of caliber. And the torque on the barrel would be the opposite of the rifleing.

spurgemastur

quote:Originally posted by jar
Hello spgmter, I have three of the 686s and they all have the same gap so I called a friend that has two 686s and his had the same gap. if you will look closely that gap is in theshroud around the ejecter rod and is built in the counter balance of the barrel not the barrel its self . the friend I called is a smith and he said its an allowance made during machining to allow for the proper spacing between the end of the barell and the face of the cylinder.


Thanks to you and everybody else who provided feedback.

jimbowby

[8D]I don't see any real loss of mating surface-ie: the BBL is still "flush" with the receiver--

--However the slight visual twist in the mating surface could be a potential problem--

--I think that merrbarbs suggestion should be followed--

--My S&W 686-6 is still perfect in those areas, no gap (and elsewhere)--

--[:D][:D]--JIMBO