Bren ten for sale, one local other not.

[jama555]

I have to admit I thought of the 610 myself when considering the alternatives to the bren ten and the smith semi autos but I just dont like the look of the thing as it just to me look doesnt good and even when its cut to look like a proper vintage K or N frame it still looks wrongand given the fact that my dad had one of the first L frames back in 83 and it needed the M modfication' date=' which was a headspacing issue with the clyinder gap where it was too tight around that area and thus it locked the gun up with the first savo of magnum ammoI plainly just dont trust the 686 or its L frame breatherin which includes the 610, but from what everyones said the L frame guns are pretty solid after that recall with the first ones back then, so its more a personal issue with me but I would avoid the key lock models as a revolver is not a car and thus it does not need a keylock on it.plus there have been reports of those locks breaking on misc smith and wessons with it and the less that can go wrong the better so I'd go for an earlier one.also that incident is what put my father off of smith and wesson period and he's never gone back, brand new gun and on the first range session it locks up, what a joke and I guess there was a good reason why I never liked the look of the thing to begin with when I found it was that one that failed him and not the model 66 K frame that came out at about the same time.[/quote']Thanks for the solid feedback. I will definitely take it into account.

[Kavinsky]

Thanks for the solid feedback. I will definitely take it into account.

I forgot to mention there was one exception to my rule there, this particular modified 586 with a black T finish I saw on the smith and wesson forums.basically its a refinished in black teflon standard steel version of the 686, now this I would like to own and you could probably get a 610 coated in exactly the same finish or something close to it as its basically a glock teflon finish applied to a SW.just my 2 cents.

[jama555]

Nice. I do have a S&W 686. I wonder how much it would cost for me to do that teflon coating.....

[Kavinsky]

Nice. I do have a S&W 686. I wonder how much it would cost for me to do that teflon coating.....

Not sure but I believe it should be about the usual amount for a refinishing job but the really interesting thing is that someone has done this to a 645 on the smith and wesson forums and well its quite a beaute:http://smith-wessonforum.com/smith-wesson-semi-auto-pistols/235810-very-early-model-645-45-auto.html#post136376712its had some extra custom work on it, probably by novak and I gotta say it blows the standard 645 out of the water looks wisejust a pitty it would require custom work to get it like that, they should have made them like that from the factory as the 545 or something, now THAT would have sold like hotcakes!

[jama555]

Not sure but I believe it should be about the usual amount for a refinishing job but the really interesting thing is that someone has done this to a 645 on the smith and wesson forums and well its quite a beaute:http://smith-wessonforum.com/smith-wesson-semi-auto-pistols/235810-very-early-model-645-45-auto.html#post136376712its had some extra custom work on it' date=' probably by novak and I gotta say it blows the standard 645 out of the water looks wisejust a pitty it would require custom work to get it like that, they should have made them like that from the factory as the 545 or something, now THAT would have sold like hotcakes![/quote']I know. And then they are complaining that gun sales are down. Go figure. Nice pics.

[Kavinsky]

I know. And then they are complaining that gun sales are down. Go figure. Nice pics.

well theres a more basic reason for that' date=' QC issues across the board. as I just came across a thread posting on the smith and wesson about two modern performance center guns that go for about 1100 - 1400K each that need that M modification despite being sent back to the factory twice for the cylinder inconsistently locking up with magnum ammo and thats with a model 627 and a model 629. both models that have more or less been around basically since the 30's and 50's respectively that shouldnt need any work to work right to begin withand yet they need a modification that the L frame needed 30 bloody years ago when it first came out and the factory has failed to diagnose this problem as of yet while I knew what it was midway through the post.plus this

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9McFq_GwXo

the guy is abit of a dick and he crossed the line with a few of his videos and thus I also stopped watching him like pompusfancy but he is absolutely right about that.plus there was a reason why guns had pinned barrels back in the day:

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHT1AvbpR8w

probably more a result of the former owner using higher than 250 grain loads in it or extremly high velocity rounds in it, plus its 20 years old and it was possibily made during 1980 - 1984 when smith QC went out the window for the most part so I dont really blame the gun for that as it can probably be easily fixed but this is the reason why I stick to pre 1980 gunshell my own 29 - 2 is the last of the pinned barrel breed that was made in 79 - 80 with the pinned barrel but had the 6 inch barrel that they used for the rest of the normal 29 and 629's run till the 1990's and not the typical 6 1/2 inch one Harry and the earlier ones usually have.so its kind of the equavalent of Crockett's 4506 there, the odd, really unique transitional model and honestly I got the best of both worlds as the 6 inch barrel is just the right length for me and I dont have to worry about that kind of crap with it, plus it was owned by a collector who never fired it, I basically got a NIB old school model 29 made just for me and I'm proud as hell to have it.although with the 686 he mentions it was probably using the K frame killer loads in it, the 125 grain 1500+ fps loads that were being toted as the ultimate stopping power loads back in the 80's that cracked the forcing cone of those guns up along with a colt python and even a ruger GP 101and the fact that the latest issue of guntests has a smith and wesson M and P compact both in 9mm ranked C and D on a grade school ranking system. C for one for accuracy problems and a broken front sight and the D for the one with jamming problems.this is what happens when your guns arent built by hand by experenced craftsmen anymore and are instead being designed by computer and immedately put into production without any sort of testing or forethough.hell if it wasnt for Crockett switching to the 645 and the 4506 transitional model I would have vehemently stuck to the pre 1980 rule for these reasons and I'm still kinda iffy about it despite all reassurances to the contrary.

[jama555]

Wow....Unfortunately, I had the problem with the 686 cylinder jamming but it was not with magnum loads. A local gunsmith, a real jerk, but knew gunsmithing very well, fixed the problem.I just thought it was an isolated problem. I found a new gunsmith here in Dallas, Texas, who is very good. The best part is, if he cannot fix it, he refers the gun to the right source.Thanks. John

[Kavinsky]

Wow....Unfortunately' date=' I had the problem with the 686 cylinder jamming but it was not with magnum loads. A local gunsmith, a real jerk, but knew gunsmithing very well, fixed the problem.I just thought it was an isolated problem. I found a new gunsmith here in Dallas, Texas, who is very good. The best part is, if he cannot fix it, he refers the gun to the right source.Thanks. John[/quote']sadly nope, hence why I've done so much research on this matter as I wanted to get one of the good ones when I started out but I didnt know what was the one to go with and why these models had these certain issues while others didnt.and you know I like smith and wesson but jesus christ they are all over the place QC wise, hell atleast before 1980 you could buy one and have the feeling that it wasnt going to fail you and if the gun was crap or even just had a crap trigger they'd take it back and fix it for no chargeand then that all changed in 1980 when basically most of the old guard and the people who knew what they were doing left and retired, hell I bet you if it wasnt for the success of the second gen 39's and the 645 series and what they lead to all of smith and wessons products would have been where they are now back then during the 85 - 94' period which was kind of the last hurah for smith and wesson as a great company.actually I'd go as far to say if it wasnt for Crockett and Zitto along with everyone else packing smith and wessons occasionally in the show well things kind of would have gone down hill from 1985 onwardsI mean hell the daytona kickstarted the replica buisness with a vengence so what's to say that Crockett didnt do the same with Smith and Wesson?besides Eastwood I cant really think of anyone else besides Johnson who could have started that kind of a demand for the pistol and like I said I noticed a massive quality improvement on the latter 645's and the early third gens that lasted untill 93.

[jama555]

I did some research on why the cylinders would jam on the 686. Here were the findings. 1. Faulty ammo. 2. Using 38 special and switching to 357 magnum. Apparently, the 38s would cause build up underneath the ejector, causing the cylinder to jam.3. Burrs would develop and cause cylinder jams.On my 686, I found some minor burrs which I took care of myself.Nowhere in the S&W manual did it say to avoid using 38s. They should have known this and fixed the problem or advised us to buy a 38 gun to shoot 38s and a 357 to shoot 357 ammo.Lastly, they recommended to point the nozzle up when ejecting the ammo to prevent powder from going back into the gun. However, not many ranges would be happy with you doing that.My 2 cents. Great feedback.

[Kavinsky]

also I forgot to mention one other factor they didnt maintain the machines that made the guns either. hell that alone was the reason why they stopped making the model 52 in .38 special wadcutters only in the 1990's, one of there most accurate guns ever as the the machine just plain broke and they deemed it not worthy of fixing so they just got rid of it and that model of gun but kept the the 952 in 9mm however.and this very issue is what lead to the barrel cracking issue of the 19 - 5 which was made in the 1980's where the machine crapped out and made a bad load of barrels which they kept in circulation instead of pulling which lead to the escalation of the forcing cone cracking problem hence why so many people are so afraid of going with a model 19 for a .357 gun even though before that it was only the super hot loads going over 1500 fps that were causing the problem with ALL .357 guns, not just the K frames and the only ones that didnt crack up but still suffered problems from it were the L and N frames.which kind of played in there favor with the introduction of the L frame at that time, which they no doubt played up to sell more guns I would imagine hence why they didnt pull that load of guns with the barrel problem.and that probably explains why I really dislike the 686, I love the feel and the look of the magnum K frame but I've kept away from it till I understood what the issue was and the route of it which I only just put together in the past 2 months or so.that along with everything else is why their revolvers are like a fine wine in the smith case, the earlier you go back the better they get unless they were new models with new machinery like in the case of the stainless guns of the 1980's hence the last hurah as I said.hell this is why Kel tec and Glock have picked up so much ground over the past couple of years as there QC and PR programs have kept the glock shortcommings under wraps and thus everyone says go with a glock rather than a smith because they just cant keep the QC consistant, not even with there new 1911's either from the reports I've read despite the early glock model 19's ejection problems and the early unsupported case problem with the .40's and the fact that the kel tec's just arent that well designed, there reliable as hell for the most part but they just lack alot of basic refinement thats needed for regular range use hence why I dont have one despite the price point as there too focused on being small and concealible than shootabile in my case with my big hands. I mean hell when I held the .32 model of the kel tec It felt like a cigarette lighter in my hand and I honestly couldnt really maninpulate the controls at all, atleast not well enough to have any faith in it vs a PPK where despite that guns size I had no trouble handling it at all.and hell I'd rather go for a .40 PPS than a kel tec on pricipal just because it would atleast fit my hand plus I have far more faith in that cartridge than 9mm, .380 or .32but anyways thats what the route of the problem is with smith and wesson and I believe some of these problems also apply to colt as well but not this many.and with the .38 thing that's something I picked up on early on as some of the old guard police guys I shot with once or twice told me about that and thus I only shoot magnums in my magnum guns and vice versa with the .38 special guns, plus the 686 doesnt have recessed chambers either which might have actually helped rectify that issue back in the 30's and 50's with the .357's, .41's and .44 magnums.I mean there was a damn good reason why Smiths had those features back then, Pinned barrels to keep them from overtightening down the road, recessed chambers probably for that very reason although its kind of a trade off as with them if you point the gun up and the rounds can go back they can make pulling the trigger a little heavier than usual as it puts more tension on the clyinder and without those recessed ones there constantly staying in one place so its kind of 50/50 from what I figurebut I was only trying that with snap caps once I heard about it so I dont really know if that would ever apply to the normal rounds as I've never aimed a loaded gun up for obivious reasons plus a snap cap doesnt exactly weigh as much as a normal round to begin with so it might not slide back at all but it is still thus a possibility I figurebut if you get a gun with backed primers its probably far easier to get the clyinder out to clear the round out with the reccessed one too, so its kind of 50/50and with the external hammer its far easier to check if your firing pins good on one with an external one than an internal and I had an internal that never did work right but that was an 80's K 22 gun that was just a hunk of junk and my 1950's K22 that has ALWAYS worked right and it had the same system so its probably more a screw up on smiths part than anything else in that case.and hell even my father commented on the difference in feel between the two guns saying it felt like the 50's gun was built in a different and better era as it felt heavier, more sturdy, better looking and better feeling despite being beat to hell and being of roughly the same size as the junk K22.and you wonder why I've been holding off on getting a 645 for so long, I dont want a repeat of the 83' 686, the 80's K22 or any of this crap, I just want a 100% gun that a 100% works all time unconditionally with whatever ammo I choose that doesnt feel scratchy like the Interams PPK I had which Jeff Cooper reported when he tested the 645 back in 85'that it was very scratcy feeling just like the PPK so I basically have to wait for just the right one to pop up, the very reason why I instituted the pre 1980 rule in the first place was to avoid this.So I keep thinking it would be easier to go for a 4506 honestly and just have the front sight redone and polish the frame to match the look of the 645's frame which I could potentally do myself with some mothers mag polish.either that or have novak redo the brushed stainless finish If I come across an early 645, plus the sight thing and having the slide beadblasted.both would need work, no doubt about it which is a serious pain in the ass.

[jama555]

Wow. You should be a gunsmith and work for S&W. Now, I realize why people are fighting to find S&W 645, 4506, and 1006.

[Kavinsky]

Wow. You should be a gunsmith and work for S&W. Now' date=' I realize why people are fighting to find S&W 645, 4506, and 1006.[/quote']Thanks and yeah there pretty much the end of an era, the last of the GOOD smith and wesson pistols thanks to them requiring new machine work to make them and them being redone by Wayne Novak of Novak sights for smith and wesson for the third gens who knows what you need to do to make a good gun although I just found out I might have been a little off about the M modification. apparently its some sort of headspacing issue with the primers and and the firing pin block and smith claimed it was with a certain ammo that had a primer that apparently backed out when it fired which is probably hot air as my dad just bought some regular factory ammo off the shelf when he tried it so they probably rigged it up too tightand if it didnt lock up other guns and was purely an ammo problem why havent I heard of it before? so they probably said that to cover there ass.and it does PERFECTLY co inside with the removal of the recessed chambers from all of there guns that they started doing to their guns in 1980.although I was dead on though about the headspacing issue with those two guns, they did make them too tight as they were apparently treated as match guns which kind of explains that.as I have handed a custom match .45 that was so tightly put together it needed a cleaning every 100 rounds otherwise it would gum up like that but still you'd think smith would find a good middle ground between the two extreams I mean thats what smith and wesson was known for back in the day. service guns that performed as well as match guns without any of the negatives of that like you had with custom match 1911's and Pythons like colt came out with.

[jama555]

Well, about my S&W 686. I bought it for $450.00 new, in Texas, in 2000. Trigger was absolutely horrible. So needed a trigger job. After reading the forum on S&W guns, elsewhere, I read about the problems of cylinder jamming, especially with switching between 38s and 357 ammo. That is basically what happened to me at the range. I opened the cylinder, and felt the back of the revolver, where the firing pin, and ejector sits in. There were burrs all over the place. Carefully, I removed the burrs and the cylinder now rotates a lot easier.Now, the 686 retails over $800.00 dollars. As many problems as mine has, it is probably better than the new ones coming out now.My two cents. Great advise here.

[Kavinsky]

Well' date=' about my S&W 686. I bought it for $450.00 new, in Texas, in 2000. Trigger was absolutely horrible. So needed a trigger job. After reading the forum on S&W guns, elsewhere, I read about the problems of cylinder jamming, especially with switching between 38s and 357 ammo. That is basically what happened to me at the range. I opened the cylinder, and felt the back of the revolver, where the firing pin, and ejector sits in. There were burrs all over the place. Carefully, I removed the burrs and the cylinder now rotates a lot easier. Now, the 686 retails over $800.00 dollars. As many problems as mine has, it is probably better than the new ones coming out now. My two cents. Great advise here.[/quote'] well right now everyone is running scared because of the election, that's why the prices are up but it will die down if Romney wins, if he doesnt then this trend will continue.

[jama555]

It seems that history always repeats itself, when presidential candidates come around. They could not keep the AR 15s and AKs on the shelf, during Obamas election.I have a gut feeling the same will happen again.

[Kavinsky]

It seems that history always repeats itself' date=' when presidential candidates come around. They could not keep the AR 15s and AKs on the shelf, during Obamas election. I have a gut feeling the same will happen again.[/quote'] indeed, there always trying to get rid of anything that looks evil in there mind, be funny if you could get around it by painting the thing bright pink and putting hello kitty stickers on it which I think I've actually seen at one point.

[Gary1911A1]

I agree. As we get closer to the election people will be buying ammo, high capacity magazines and any firearm capable of taking high capacity mags.

[timm525]

Gun Broker has a nice Bren Ten for sale for $5,900.00 buy it now price.

Click —-> here

[Mr. Vigilante]

On 1/21/2020 at 5:53 PM, timm525 said:

Gun Broker has a nice Bren Ten for sale for $5,900.00 buy it now price.

Click —-> here

Very nice!!  Although I could find many other uses for nearly 6k.

[timm525]

Agreed and precisely why I haven’t bought it. Too many other needs then another safe queeen.

[Mr. Vigilante]

I think 10mm is kind of an obsolete round.  Not that I'd ever shoot this beauty.

[Robbie C.]

Actually it's coming back into vogue with a number of shooters. 10mm, that is. I'll still stick with my 4506-1, though.

[Mr. Vigilante]

8 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

Actually it's coming back into vogue with a number of shooters. 10mm, that is. I'll still stick with my 4506-1, though.

That's interesting.  When I first started in police work, my department was carrying a Smith & Wesson 10mm automatic.  I don't remember the model as I only had one for a short time.  They switched to the S&W 99.  Anyway, when I found out we were carrying 10mm, the Vice nerd came out in me and I said "Why not just carry the Bren Ten??"

[Jeff_Cooper]

2 hours ago, Robbie C. said:

Actually it's coming back into vogue with a number of shooters. 10mm, that is. I'll still stick with my 4506-1, though.

seems that way to me too. A bunch of autoloaders and even wheel guns popping up in 10 mm. Looks like it is .40 s&w going out of style with 9 mm and 10 mm making hay

-J

[Robbie C.]

Colt kept a 10mm in production for some time if I recall, and they're not uncommon in the 1911 style market. .40 S&W's always been kind of an odd bird to me, and 9mm always gets the capacity people in a tizzy. I'm just a traditionalist, I guess. Still love my .45ACP, although I do prefer the 3rd Gen Smiths to the classic M1911 platform. The third gen Smiths always felt more like a combination of the 1911 and the Hi-Power to me. That and there's just something about stainless steel...