Whose mags are they? Real S&W or some after market mags.

If they are real S&W mags then call them and get them to replace them with good magazines. I would not expect Midway to be of much help as they are just the middleman. They would just give you back you money or supply you with more mags that don't fit. S&W wants to know their mags don't fit!

If they are after market mags then return them and get your money back and never buy after market mags again. In general, no mags are better than those supplied by the gun manufacturer. There are exceptions but rarely in hand guns. Bargain mags are a waste of money as the gun is useless if the magazine is bad.

LDBennett

 

I think that this was discussed on SW forum or here previously? There are no aftermarket mags-the mags are factory.
Recent mags need to be squeezed in a vise,or returned.Kinda glad that I canceled my Midway back order-I don't need another thing to deal with.

 

Thanks. The mags are out of spec.

 

I just received 2 from Midway in the beginning of this week. I used them on Wednesday and they worked fine. compared to my original 1991 mags they did not feel as smooth while loading. The new mags are only marked with the number 5 while my vintage ones are marked 5 and 10.

 

I have a few that I purchased two years ago that are as described above. A little more difficult to load but function fine. Marked 5.

 

I received two yesterday. They are S&W parts. The Fit the same as the original 1970 magazine until they touch the mag catch. The new mags are harder to insert at that point.

I noticed that the radius at the top of the magazine where the mag catch contacts the magazine is a smaller radius which makes the magazine harder to insert.

They still fit in. I haven't tried shooting them yet.

 

A month ago, when Midway had the 41 mags in stock (for a day or so) I ordered four of them. When they arrived, not one of them fit. I called S&W and was told to squeeze them in a vise. What??? So I called Midway and arranged to return them (out of stock at the time of the call).

Then, I thought that it is ridiculous to have to squeeze them, and called S&W back, asking for a supervisor. I really wanted to tell them that their 41 mag QC was shot to all get out.
It it true that there are no after market mags, but Smith does not make them themselves either. So, I told the super that they may want to contact their supplier and get this fit problem straightened out. He then told me that they have been hand fitting mags to the 41 for over 30 years. IDK...

So I figured, why not give it a try. I did, and all four work perfectly now. It took some playing around, and many "squeezes" to get them right though. I also had to reverse the thumb button/tab (follower pull down button) on two of them. I found that the larger diameter on the wrong side also causes a bit of a hang up in the mag well.
After posting last week about CDNN having mags, I ordered two more. Both of them also needed squeezing and reversing of the buttons. They both now work properly too. I think that "DIY" repairs to new products should not have to be done, but apparently, it does to some of these mags.
All of the new mags mentioned are marked 5 & 10

 

Awesome post. I had hoped I was not the only one who had this problem. Did you use vise grips or a wood working vise?

 

Thanks.
I used a 6" bench/woodworking vise.

 

Some folks here have reported having to clean off cosmoline or something like it off of their new mags which also leads me to think that they are outsourced, probably overseas. I purchased one of the twelve rounders used from Gunbroker that has the orange follower. I wish I had bought the other one he had now as it works great but it was already sold by the time I had a chance to try it. I would think a bench vice would work great to squeeze the sides evenly.

 

I also ordered two mags from Midway and received them last week. When I read this thread I went to my range bag and tried them in both of my 41's. One functioned fine, but one would not fully engage. Upon closed inspection, the base was not seated in the magazine case and was "sitting" on the rear of the case. After seating the base plate, the mag works as spec'd.
BTW, several years ago I bought several mags directly from S&W and one jammed about 2/3 the way and was very hard to remove. S&W replaced.

 

I purchased fifteen Model 41 magazines directly from S&W about eight years ago. All fit and worked perfectly fine. The QC really went downhill since then.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

 

I am afraid t oassume but... Do you squeeze them to reduce the tgickness, ie, put them in longituidily (sp) and mas 'em?
How much.?

Till they fit?

 

I first squeeze the bowed/flared sides at the base by putting them in the vise vertically, with just the bottom 1/4"-1/2" inserted into the vise. Squeeze a little at a time until correct (I use a known good working mag as a model).

Then, I lay them horizontally with the rounded front edge of the mag in the vise to the 1/4" depth and "squeeze until done".
Be careful and go in small increments. You can crush them beyond repair.

 

OK....This is stupid.

S&W should be ashamed to sell magazine that don't fit their guns, that require a vise to make fit. It makes no difference if the mags are their direct product or sub-contracted out. They have the S&W name on them.

Has S&W gotten to the point where they no longer care about their image? They still make the gun. They should care enough to sell magazines that fit it without strong arm efforts like squeezing them in a vice until they do fit.

I have lots of S&W guns that I love but this discourages me from buying another. Maybe all their quality control is this bad (??). Does their senior management know about this issue?

LDBennett

 

OK....This is stupid.

Does their senior management know about this issue?

LDBennett

I asked for a service supervisor, and got a voice mail. I left a message and received a call the next day. Bob, was his name, I think. I called him back the next day and that is when he told me that they have been hand fitting mags to the 41 for years. He also told me that S&W themselves, do not make the magazines. At that point, I decided to try it. It worked! Do I believe that this is the way it should be??

H3LL NO! But, it did work...for me at least.

 

Agree that their fabrication sub messed up. When I called S&W about it they sounded like they are getting a lot of these calls. BUT they agreed to take the mags back and replace them. The problem is at the base of the mags and if jammed into the pistol, will require you to remove your grips to get it out. Ask me how I know this. Bottom line, S&W will make it right, but there's no denying it's a headache...

 

"they have been hand fitting mags to the 41 for years."

That has to be a line of bull. I have a couple Model 41 mags bought separately with S&W stamped on them from more than 10 years back and they fit perfectly with no fitting.

Of course "years" is plural and is at a minimum of 2 years. That I could believe but at one time they sold magazines that fit out of the packaging without custom fitting with a vice.

I can believe that the company that makes their magazines has some old tired tooling that no longer makes the mags to spec and neither S&W or the company wants to pay for new tooling for what is now a Custom Shop gun. So they put the effort on us to finish the job we paid them for.....NICE.

This makes me even more inclined to NOT buy another S&W product!

LDBennett

 

Of course "years" is plural and is at a minimum of 2 years.

LDBennett

Actually, in my last post, I was saving words/cutting corners. If you look at my first reply to this thread (post #8), I mentioned the exact wording of the supervisor, "for over 30 years".

What can I say? That is what he said. And, for me, the ridiculous home remedy worked. I now have 8 (working) mags, I can't see getting or needing any more.

 

OK, if that's the case....then it is BS to get you to go away. In 30 years of following guns I have never heard of anyone having to squeeze Model 41 mags to make them fit in the guns. Or have I heard of any gun that required magazine "fitting". Now, tweaking mag lips is a different matter.

If a manufacturer gets a complaint from a consumer and they wish to do nothing about it then they often say "they all do it" or it is "an un-documented feature".

LDBennett

 

None of the various model 41 magazines I've accumulated over the years have ever required "fitting" to the gun. All are more than 10 years old.

New high standard magazines recently acquired from brownells, well that's another story... Both the magazine body and the feed lips required adjustment.

 

My point exactly...They use to make them right and they don't anymore. AND they are giving out BS to justify badly made magazines. It certainly impacts my thoughts on anymore S&W guns. I don't mind mistakes as long as they are taken care of but lying...not good. I got a belly of lying when I order a Houston Texas High Standard some years ago.

LDBennett

 

Could it be your grips need some sanding along the mag channel side of things? Take your grips off and see if the mags move freely.

 

In my case having the grips off made no difference. The mags went off to S&W last week. In my opinion, this is just a manufacturing process error. It doesn't sour me on the brand or anything. It is just one of those things that happens sometimes. This falls into the don't-sweat-the-small-stuff category, as long as the company makes it right.

 

Yeah, in my case, taking off the grips didn't make a difference either. I did that just to see where they were hanging up, after I "fixed" the bulging bases.
I considered sending my mags in to S&W. But I needed them for a steel plate shoot in the coming week. I knew that I wouldn't have them back in time.
However, I have always found S&W's warranty service to be very quick.
Out of warranty service, well that's another story.

 

@LD Bennett

I don't think it is *old* tooling at all, but rather new tooling that is the problem.

For my 1990 M41, I have always bought (blister packs, S&W marked), either those marked just M-41, or the ones marked M-41, 422.

The problem seems to be the ones marked, 41, 422, 622, 2206. I'm sure the tolerances are much looser at least on the 622 and 2206 and the mags are made accordingly.

This is just a guess on my part since I had extra mags when I got the pistol new in 1990, and then reading about similar problems in this forum years ago, made sure any others I bought came from the same time frame, or earlier.

Wet

 

My gun and mags are form the early 1990's, just after the change over to laser marking of S/N's.

LDBennett

 

Hmmmmmm

Doing a little reading, when did the 622 come out? That aluminum frame sorta perked my ears up. The 'problem' mags seem to start popping up more in the mid/late 90's on, rather than anything earlier, or so it seems.

Do your early 90's mags have the take down hole in the floorplate? Mine do, from 1990. Curious again.

Wet

 

The magazines came back from S&W today. Pretty quick turnaround, even considering that MA is right next door. Will do a quick check tomorrow on the fit.

 

Midway magazines

I too purchased three magazines from Midway last week. Not one would seat and latch. After carefully measuring nearly every dimension with a caliper it turned out the left cartridge base feed lip, the straight one was about .005" taller than the two that came with the gun. After careful filing with a straight file all fit and function now. And yes the right base feed lip is normally shorter than the left. So before you start squeezing them you may want measure first.

 

I too purchased three magazines from Midway last week. Not one would seat and latch. After carefully measuring nearly every dimension with a caliper it turned out the left cartridge base feed lip, the straight one was about .005" taller than the two that came with the gun. After careful filing with a straight file all fit and function now. And yes the right base feed lip is normally shorter than the left. So before you start squeezing them you may want measure first.

Yeah, I took my calipers to the new mags first. All dimensions seemed to be the same as the two original mags. Squeezing (as recommended by S&W themselves) ended up working.