S&W Model 69 Repair Notes

[DaveInOroValley]

Just curious if we have anyone that would be able to decipher the repair notes for the specific issue. My brand new never fired Model 69 froze up after the first two rounds were fired. I was able to get the cylinder open and unstick the ejector but stopped obviously firing it at that point.

Sent it in for repair and these were the repair notes included when it was returned:

"Cut Forcing Cone, Repair Frame, Repair Yoke, Repair Bolt".

I understand why the forcing cone may have been an issue, but the other notes left me wondering. Any gunsmiths or others have any insight? Thank you!

[adamkdoiron]

The yoke and bolt could have been affected when the cylinder was opened up after locking up on you. If I recall correctly S&W considers the bolt, the locking bolt that comes into the frame from the bottom of the frame window and locks into the cylinder notches. The yoke (crane) is what your cylinder swings out on and could have been sprung or just ill fitted from the factory. Terminology differs between colt/ ruger/ S&W. As far as the frame who knows what they did. Someone else may chime in with some more information.

[jayhuh]

Timely thread. I bought a new 66-8, back in April. It has the 2-piece barrel. After 18 rounds, the cylinder became too hard to spin and it was difficult to open/close. Smith sent me a shipping label. 12 weeks later I get it back and the repair note says they adjusted/repaired the yoke and adjusted the barrel.

Took it to the range. 12 rounds later it locked up as before and it was difficult to open/close. I called S&W. The tech said he would have a supervisor look at it and they sent me a label.

I just got it back last week. The repair order says Evaluate/Repair, repair yoke.

I have not had a chance to shoot it yet but I am more than upset. Oh, and before anyone here tells me that it is a backed out ejector rod, this particular model locks up with a ball bearing on frame, not the ejector rod.

[DaveInOroValley]

Timely thread. I bought a new 66-8, back in April. It has the 2-piece barrel. After 18 rounds, the cylinder became too hard to spin and it was difficult to open/close. Smith sent me a shipping label. 12 weeks later I get it back and the repair note says they adjusted/repaired the yoke and adjusted the barrel.

Took it to the range. 12 rounds later it locked up as before and it was difficult to open/close. I called S&W. The tech said he would have a supervisor look at it and they sent me a label.

I just got it back last week. The repair order says Evaluate/Repair, repair yoke.

I have not had a chance to shoot it yet but I am more than upset. Oh, and before anyone here tells me that it is a backed out ejector rod, this particular model locks up with a ball bearing on frame, not the ejector rod.

Yeah, I have seen others comment on getting something back from S&W repair and having to repeat the process, so I have to say it doesn't leave me with a lot of confidence on my next range trip. I guess all I can do is keep my fingers crossed.

At least my new 500 has been great. Would have been very disturbing if two out of two brand new revolvers had issues.

[rplaw]

Just curious if we have anyone that would be able to decipher the repair notes for the specific issue. My brand new never fired Model 69 froze up after the first two rounds were fired. I was able to get the cylinder open and unstick the ejector but stopped obviously firing it at that point.

Sent it in for repair and these were the repair notes included when it was returned:

"Cut Forcing Cone, Repair Frame, Repair Yoke, Repair Bolt".

I understand why the forcing cone may have been an issue, but the other notes left me wondering. Any gunsmiths or others have any insight? Thank you!

To me it would seem that when you finally managed to get the cylinder to open, the yoke and frame may have been knocked out of spec somehow where the yoke pivots on the frame.

[DaveInOroValley]

To me it would seem that when you finally managed to get the cylinder to open, the yoke and frame may have been knocked out of spec somehow where the yoke pivots on the frame.

I had wondered on that, but the force required to get the cylinder to open wasn't much more than a slight slap with my hand. If it's that fragile it sure doesn't give me much confidence.

[rplaw]

I had wondered on that, but the force required to get the cylinder to open wasn't much more than a slight slap with my hand. If it's that fragile it sure doesn't give me much confidence.

A light impact with enough leverage can impart a lot of force. The crane isn't all that beefy and it wouldn't take much torque to get things out of precise alignment. Especially if the parts were softer/smaller than they should be and the force came from a direction other than what was designed/engineered for. My point here is the difference between a nail and a hardened roll pin is substantial even if they're the same diameter and while they'll both pivot without binding only 1 will withstand side loading without bending or breaking. Add to that the fact that the crane isn't designed to handle recoil forces since it's in the opposite direction from recoil and you can possibly get all kinds of weird things going on when you hit it even lightly.

S&W doesn't have a reputation for building strong pistols like Ruger either.

The "repair frame" note may have something to do with the machining operation when they cut the forcing cone to keep everything in alignment or something as simple as adding a bit of clearance behind the cylinder to keep it from impacting the frame and jamming. Tolerance stacking can cause all kinds of problems even if every part is within spec too. They might just have been correcting that. Without specific details of what the pistolsmith found wrong during his examination, who knows.

I don't know what part the "bolt" is so can't comment on that other than to say it could be something as simple as a new design for the latch or a different hardness/diameter spec for the crane pivot or even just a replacement of the original part with same/same if it's the type of part that cannot be reused (like a bearing crush sleeve can't be reused).

I will say that the notes are too abbreviated to be helpful and if S&W didn't keep more details in their files, that's a problem which needs corrected. You might call them and ask if there's more info somewhere and if so can they send you a copy.

Of course the risk is that you'll get a massive data dump so complex you won't understand any of it, but at least you'll have the information.

[DaveInOroValley]

A light impact with enough leverage can impart a lot of force. The crane isn't all that beefy and it wouldn't take much torque to get things out of precise alignment. Especially if the parts were softer/smaller than they should be and the force came from a direction other than what was designed/engineered for. My point here is the difference between a nail and a hardened roll pin is substantial even if they're the same diameter and while they'll both pivot without binding only 1 will withstand side loading without bending or breaking. Add to that the fact that the crane isn't designed to handle recoil forces since it's in the opposite direction from recoil and you can possibly get all kinds of weird things going on when you hit it even lightly.

S&W doesn't have a reputation for building strong pistols like Ruger either.

The "repair frame" note may have something to do with the machining operation when they cut the forcing cone to keep everything in alignment or something as simple as adding a bit of clearance behind the cylinder to keep it from impacting the frame and jamming. Tolerance stacking can cause all kinds of problems even if every part is within spec too. They might just have been correcting that. Without specific details of what the pistolsmith found wrong during his examination, who knows.

I don't know what part the "bolt" is so can't comment on that other than to say it could be something as simple as a new design for the latch or a different hardness/diameter spec for the crane pivot or even just a replacement of the original part with same/same if it's the type of part that cannot be reused (like a bearing crush sleeve can't be reused).

I will say that the notes are too abbreviated to be helpful and if S&W didn't keep more details in their files, that's a problem which needs corrected. You might call them and ask if there's more info somewhere and if so can they send you a copy.

Of course the risk is that you'll get a massive data dump so complex you won't understand any of it, but at least you'll have the information.

I might do that just to see more detail. Thank you for the reply. It was helpful.

[rplaw]

I might do that just to see more detail. Thank you for the reply. It was helpful.

Let us know what you find out, if anything.