quote:

Originally posted by Jim Watson:
Yet another reason I am wary of buying a new gun these days, just too many duds seen, heard of, read of.

I think it is real nice you had a connection to put you in touch with somebody who is willing to throw a gun away. But it sure seems like a case of "If you don't have time to do it right, how will you find time to do it over?"

I wonder if it is a time issue or an attitude towards quality control issue. I don't know in this case, however, It seems that in manufacturing in general there is an attitude of letting customers be the quality control check rather than having (and paying for) a robust quality control process that is built to catch issues before they leave the door.
If your idea of quality control is providing the bare minimum of what the customer will accept, or hoping they don't catch, or will just tolerate the issues then eventually your reputation will deservedly take a hit.
Again, I don't know what the root cause is of that atrocious double stamp leaving the factory is from, and I am applying this comment to manufacturing in general.
Count me as another consumer who is also growing more hesitant to be on the receiving end of new to market product. I think what I find so annoying about this case is it's not a new product per say, but a supposedly improved one. I just find it unacceptable.

quote:

If I am buying a handgun from a shop, I carefully inspect it for cosmetic issues, feel the trigger, and give it a thorough coonfingering before I commit to purchasing it. If they have multiples of what I want, I inspect each of them, and pick the one that feels best to me.

Clearly I should have done that with this one. I did pull the trigger a couple of times but did not go all the way around because I always feel kinda bad doing that in a shop with somebody else's inventory that I haven't paid for yet, especially new, unblemished stuff (used stuff is different because it typically already has wear, and any reasonable seller would expect a buyer to want ro verify function). I also did see the rollmark before I bought it, but I wanted this gun so bad I figured I could overlook the cosmetic issue if that was the only problem.

quote:

I think it is real nice you had a connection to put you in touch with somebody who is willing to throw a gun away.

I actually didn't have a connection, at least not one that anyone else here wouldn't have had. I don't know GJM AK outside the forum, and his involvement in this thread and willingness to put me in touch with the right people at Lipsey's was entirely of his own initiative. It's part of what makes Sigforum such an awesome resource to it's membership, and it's a resource that we all share. I'm very grateful to GJM AK for his help, and Jason at Lipsey's for how he's handling this. I just got a followup email from him this morning with tracking info, and my gun should be at the dealer tomorrow.

Lipsey's isn't manufacturing these guns, but it's clear that they're really invested in the success of this project and ensuring customer satisfaction. I never expected or intended for this post to go this far...I was just trying to give an honest review of a gun that I bought that I knew others here had some interest in. I've had far worse issues with other guns in the past (enough worse to make the problems with this one seem pretty minor in comparison), which ended in much less satisfactory outcomes. I've shared some of those here. The difference is that when Lipsey's found out about it, they actually cared. I'm not anybody special...no Instagram or YouTube account, no crazy budget to spend that would make addressing my problem a priority...but they did. That's the type of company that makes me want to give them my business.

Just the fact that Lipsey and by extension S&W are acknowledging the issue and correcting it are a good sign for the way the companies are being run.

Any company can make a mistake, what matters is how that company responds to that mistake.

This is a GREAT response.

The development of the "Ultimate Carry"




https://revolverguy.com/the-li...rry-j-frames-part-i/

.

quote:

Originally posted by Greymann:
The development of the "Ultimate Carry"

https://revolverguy.com/the-li...rry-j-frames-part-i/

.

Thanks for that. I've read and listened to everything I could find about this gun in the past few months, but I hadn't seen that article yet. It is by far the most detailed and comprehensive look at the development of the gun I've encountered anywhere. He even has prototype photos! That's as fine a piece of gun journalism that I've ever read.

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
I wanted this gun so bad I figured I could overlook the cosmetic issue if that was the only problem.

I actually think it's cool and wouldn't send it back for replacement. As you said, like a double-die penny or something.

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:

Honestly, if this had been a run-of-the mill 642 that I bought for $400-$500 I'd be satisfied with it. It's a lightweight snubby revolver. It works, and hits to point of aim-ish. But it's not. It was hyped up and heavily endorsed, and I paid $800 for a gun with a mediocre trigger, flawed rollmarks, and sights with a goofy sight picture that don't appear to be properly regulated to .38 ammo as advertised.

8 or 10 years ago I paid more for an M&P 340 CT that hit 10-12 inches to the right of POA at 15 yards, as the rear sight groove/topstrap was milled crooked. I ended up sending it back to S&W on their dime and they supposedly clocked the barrel, replaced the broken tritium sight, and pronounced it "within specifications". It still shoots 4-6" to the right. I gave up and use it as a range gun to remind people why you don't want to shoot a 14-ounce .357 magnum with magnum loads LOL.

video of the improperly milled sight/issues below for any interested.

https://youtu.be/UoC12uEmtwM?si=WYFU64MdgiaYJPfs

Would anyone believe me if I said I could have predicted the performance of this revolver?

I've got a Model 638 Bodyguard made in 1999 and I'll put it up against any of the overpriced shit S&W is turning out these days.

quote:

Originally posted by 1KPerDay:
8 or 10 years ago I paid more for an M&P 340 CT that hit 10-12 inches to the right of POA at 15 yards, as the rear sight groove/topstrap was milled crooked. I ended up sending it back to S&W on their dime and they supposedly clocked the barrel, replaced the broken tritium sight, and pronounced it "within specifications". It still shoots 4-6" to the right. I gave up and use it as a range gun to remind people why you don't want to shoot a 14-ounce .357 magnum with magnum loads LOL.

video of the improperly milled sight/issues below for any interested.

https://youtu.be/UoC12uEmtwM?si=WYFU64MdgiaYJPfs

Yeah, that sight is indeed visibly crooked. That's no good...especially having come back from warranty like that.

Regarding the barrel lettering, given the choice I'd pick one that was properly lettered, but by itself it's not a deal-breaker in my mind. The quality of the action is a big deal to me, though. Maybe I'm spoiled because I've got a few really excellent J-Frames already, but my expectations were set pretty high from the beginning. It sounds like GJM AK got a couple of good ones, so hopefully mine was just the proverbial "Friday" gun. Either way, it's going back as the replacement is already in the mail.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Would anyone believe me if I said I could have predicted the performance of this revolver?

I've got a Model 638 Bodyguard made in 1999 and I'll put it up against any of the overpriced shit S&W is turning out these days.

I've got a few older Smiths and really like them, but I've also been pretty happy with my newer ones. If I could only keep one it would be my Model 69 because it's stupid accurate and has the best action...sleeved barrel, lock, MIM and all.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Would anyone believe me if I said I could have predicted the performance of this revolver?

I've got a Model 638 Bodyguard made in 1999 and I'll put it up against any of the overpriced shit S&W is turning out these days.

I think if you compared your 638 to my new 432, you might be surprised. I have a number of pre lock, classic Smith J frames.

You're correct. I would be surprised.

The replacement gun came in today, and I went and picked it up. The transaction was seamless with the local shop, and I’m very impressed with how quickly Lipsey’s turned this around!

I stopped at the range immediately afterwards, but I only had an hour before I had to drop my son off for a youth event so I was a little rushed. That said, this new gun is everything that the first one was not!

First off, it was only engraved once, so we’re already starting out on the right foot!



The trigger pull is very smooth and perfectly consistent across all five chambers. I’d put it right up there with my 640 Pro for smoothness, and it doesn’t stack at all. Absolutely zero binding or dragging between the hand and the ratchet. I haven’t put it on a scale yet, but I’d call it pretty typical J-frame for weight.

It may just be me, but I think the cylinder chamfering on this new one is more pronounced than on the first gun, too. It was definitely noticeable when loading those flat-faced wadcutters, and I think it’s visually apparent as well. I like it!



I’m a fan of the barrel crown, too. I’m not sure I noticed this on the other one, but it’s a much deeper cut than the almost flush cut on my 640.



The grips are growing on me. The ones on this gun have fit and finish every bit as nice the ones on the first one. I put a couple of hundred rounds through the first 642 a couple of days ago wearing the S&W boot grips, and I have to admit that the web of my hand was pretty sore afterwards. Admittedly, the load I shot today was a bit lighter, but there’s none of that soreness today after 100 rounds, and a big part of that has to be thanks to the grip design. It’s VERY comfortable to shoot. I think I got my trigger finger placement figured out today as well. I’m going to leave them on there for a bit and see how they work out in real life carry and use. Here’s a side profile shot to show the size comparison between the two grip designs:



Per my conversation with Jason at Lipsey’s, I had loaded up some lighter wadcutter loads to try to get closer to the 750 fps that the sights on this gun are supposed to be regulated for. I missed the mark a bit…they chronograph at 797fps, but the results were still pretty encouraging.
By putting the dot right at the bottom of the U-Notch, I was able to get point of aim/point of impact hits at 7 and 15 yards. The shooter kind of fell apart at 25…I felt myself throw that high one, and I can’t speak to the one in the 8-ring, but based on the other three I’m pretty confident that if I’d done my part consistently the gun would have hit where I was aiming, using the same hold that I was using at the closer distances. I was also able to clean the plate rack with it at 15 yards no problem. She’ll shoot!




Something I missed shooting in the broad daylight is just how bright the tritium in that front sight dot is. The green still makes it very easy to pick up in the daylight, but when I opened up my range bag in the garage after I got home I got to see how bright it is in the dark. You could just about use this thing as a flashlight!



I’m pretty thrilled with this gun. It’s everything I’d hoped the first one would be, and then some. It’s definitely a keeper. I’m really grateful to GJM AK and Jason at Lipsey’s for helping me out with the replacement process, and it’s nice to know with confidence that Lipsey’s is deeply invested in their product and customer satisfaction. I’m looking forward to seeing what this project means for the future of the J-Frame, and maybe future updates to the K/L/N-Frame lines as well.



And yes, I did eventually get around to cleaning it!

I sure am glad your replacement revolver arrived and you are pleased. Lipsey's involvement in this project definitely adds value, as how they addressed your concerns only underscores. That this was not only handled, but personally by Jason, their lead person on this project, is extraordinary.

I am thrilled with the two 432 revolvers I purchased. Leaving aside .32 J frames being so rare and expensive, the feature set is what S&W should have been offering decades ago. I can't wait for future revolvers from Lipsey's.

Glad it worked out the way it should have been to start with.

Maybe Lipsey should buy the S&W revolver business. I say that sincerely and impractically because they seem to understand what we want.

WE DON’T WANT THE HILARY HOLE.

*Teehee*



"No seals or other marine life were harmed in the making of this gun.

There was a military test phase I didn’t talk about in the article, involving all the services.

The Air Force representatives showed late, then didn’t come back after lunch, because they were all getting drunk in the bar and telling lies about their flying abilities. They later told S&W that the gun needed a cool paint job and a better callsign.

The Navy representatives from DEVGRU never got to shoot the gun, because their Hollywood agents called and said they were needed back on set to finish filming the latest movie about killing Osama. An argument ensued when all of them claimed to be the guy who did it.

The Army representatives worked hard all day long, but were unable to shoot the guns because the Marines switched the labels on the test ammo. The .32s kept falling out, and the .38s didn’t fit. One soldier actually did manage to get a .38 round into the .32 gun with an entrenching tool. It had to be sent to the Warranty Department for repair.

By lunchtime, the Marines had broken one gun, lost two of them, and were trying to eat another. They were sent home early.

The Coast Guard later complained about not being invited."
__________________________________________

That was a great article.

This new series seems to be very similar to the already made Scandium 340PD's.

Sure seemed to be a lot of interest in the .32 caliber versions.

But .32 S&W Long, .32 H&R Mag and 327 Federal Mag ammo is scarce and expensive.

That's some funny stuff, lol!

quote:

This new series seems to be very similar to the already made Scandium 340PD's.

Yeah, they definitely are, but aluminum without the scandium, and there's no steel blast shield built into the frame above the barrel. So they saved some money on materials, a small part, and the associated assembly process by engineering it down to .38+p instead of trying to go for a magnum-capable gun.

quote:

By putting the dot right at the bottom of the U-Notch, I was able to get point of aim/point of impact hits at 7 and 15 yards.

Something I have noticed with the current crop of deep U notches is the variation in elevation. You are taking a "fine bead" just like Daniel Boone did to shoot that bear. But as John Taylor said, the point of the bead sight is to take the bead, the whole bead, and nothing but the bead.

I wonder who, Lipsey or Smith, made the call to sight it for midrange wadcutters? Given their choice of wadcutters in the first place, they did not have much choice, there being no mass produced service wadcutter or +P wadcutter to standardize for.

I thing Daryl Bolke and a Ryan Eastridge were influential in the choice of load, and I know I've heard at least one of them talk about the Georgia Arms 750fps defensive wadcutter load in the past, so I imagine that played into it.

Supposedly these guns also favor the 135gr Gold Dot Short Barrel load. The .357 version of that is what I've been carrying in my 640 for years. I've had occasion to test it a few times on critters and it's an excellent performer, even in the dark out of a short barrel. Unfortunately, Speer kinda sucks at keeping up with demand and I haven't been able to find new stock on the shelves in what seems like forever.