I didn't want to derail another post by asking a seemingly stupid question. What the hell is wrong with a non pinned and recessed gun? What is so odious about them, that some people will turn their noses up at a non P&R gun. I have both, and wouldn't turn around for the difference. as a matter of fact I would absolutely LOVE to own a 2.5 inch 19-5, or 66 equivalent. I just haven't found one yet.
Thanks for letting me vent.

AFAIK, there is nothing at all "wrong" with them. I think most people here, simply like the older, pinned and recessed models better, for whatever reason. I know I do. I've never bought a Model 19 that wasn't P&R, but that's mostly because I wasn't in a hurry for one, and could wait until I found exactly what I wanted.

If I just wanted one to shoot, I wouldn't worry about the "dash number."

__________________
John 3:16 .

Functionally? Absolutely nothing.

Being an old guy, I too, like the P&R revolvers better than their later siblings.
That being said, I have a 19-5 snub that locks up tighter than any of my other S&W revolvers.

There's nothing, in concept, wrong with a non pinned and recessed S&W revolver. Colt never did it, and the revolvers from their heyday were excellent, too. All pinned and recessed tells you is that your S&W revolver was made at a time before certain cost cutting measures were instituted, like dropping the pinned barrels and recessed chambers. Just so happens that a whole bunch of other cost cutting measures were taken right along with those, such as less care in the assembly of stock revolvers. The care, and expert hands-on, that used to go into stock revolvers at S&W was, at that time, moved over to their Performance Center.

That's not to say that post P&R S&Ws aren't excellent too, just not quite as excellent.

Nothing.

John

__________________
Scoundrel & Ne'er-Do-Well

I can tell you that there is nothing wrong with them. I bought this one new as a christmas present to myself back in December 1984.
I couldn't be any happier with it.

Not being pinned and recessed doesn't bother me. I have a 3" 13-3 that was built like that. It's those other "upgrades", the ones that came later, that I have a problem with.

__________________
'Merica!

People love the L frame 357's and no P&R version exists.

Each revision has its advantages and disadvantages but collectors generally prefer the older revisions.

It's not "something wrong", rather it's part of an opinion held by some folks about the evolution of Smith and Wesson.

This gets asked periodically. The answer's always the same: nothing's wrong with non-P&R revolvers.

Sentimental devotion to P&R has little to do with mechanical function -- the pin was over-engineering and the recessed charge holes were no longer needed decades before they were phased out.

P&R is associated rightly or wrongly with a supposed superior era of craftsmanship and therefore overall better revolvers -- never mind that documented evidence of stinkers and lemons exists in every era, and the longer the timeline goes the more the lemons disappear, leaving the mistaken impression that certain build eras only produced excellence.

That's all. Mechanically, P&R is useless; if you're selling, it's useful.

Wanna know if you have a good S&W? Go shoot it. The build-date is irrelevant...

Each major cost cutting measure was indicative of an overall reduction in quality, even if only slight. Switching from five screws to four, and then to three, was another example. Those were visible cost cutting measures, i.e., you can see them in the actual product, but what you don't see are the slight reductions in individualized attention given to each revolver before they left the factory, something that went along with each visible cost cutting measure. Another more recent example was switching from forged to MIM parts.

Hawkeye pretty much summed it up.

__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER

During a high pitched gun-battle, there's nothing more annoying than having your barrel fall off. It's a little embarrassing as we'll.

__________________
Why, I aughta.....

They're nostalgic to me. They stopped producing P & R models around 1980, and I like old things in general.
That's why I own a 1970 Plymouth Roadrunner today.
4 speed , three 2 barrel carbs with 390+ hp., air grabber hood.
Today's offerings just don't compare, in cars or guns.

Sweet Ride and a six pack taboot. NICE

For shooting, I'll take a non-P&R as my preference.

For looking at under pretty lights on a fancy backdrop, I like P&R.

I have few P&R guns because I like to shoot (and clean) my revolvers and the recessed cylinders are a pain.

__________________
No good deed goes unpunished.

What's wrong with a 19-5? Why, not a dang thing! I have a few P&R and a few non P&R M-19's and the targets cannot tell the difference. However the P&R guns do have a certain panache.

__________________
Stay safe people!

Own both, love both. Nuff said!

IBTL

Is it really factual or is it just assumed that when the pins and recesses went away so did the so called "personal attention" to detail and assembly??? I don't get the idea of "every cost cutting measure was an indicator of quality cutting." It's as if cost cutting and quality cutting were automatically one and the same. They went from four screws to three and chattered up the inside of the bore???? They did away with the useless chamber recesses and now can no longer make a cylinder round?? I have seen some quality lapses on both pre and post guns but I can't tie any of them to cost cutting.

I'm of the opinion that the omission of non essential features does not degrade the quality of the guns.

The overall quality of the gun really boils down to individual examples and can vary new or old.

What's wrong with a non P&R?

As a shooter, nothing.

As a collector, everything.

Agreed on cleaning those recessed chambers. Non-recessed is much easier.

You hit a bullseye here, sir: the assertion that cost cutting automatically equates with quality cutting is unfounded assumption.

What's been cited as cost cutting in this thread -- pin and recess delete, plate screws reduction -- just as easily falls under the rubric of efficiency building; manufacturing improvements allowing for the eliminating unnecessary extra steps.

A barrel pin seems a good engineering hedge initially but over time proves to be an unneeded extra step. Recessed charge holes a smart addition when magnum pressure loads are prone to rupture, but rendered moot when ammunition manufacturing solves the rupture issue. A fourth screw is needed to hold the plate in place until smarter and better design and machining permits three to do the same job as well or better at reduced production complexity and cost.

Individualized attention can be evidence of greater quality, but as easily evidence of less precise machining requiring more hands on correction; the reduction of individualized attention as easily the result of improvements in the mechanical production process and so less need for hand fitting, compared to the claims of loss of overall quality. Neither assertion is easily or definitively proven.

Ultimately, cost cutting can be indicative of greater efficiencies or loss of quality depending upon the context in which it arises. A company improving its process can cut costs while improving quality; a company driven by greed or nearing red ink can easily pair cost and quality cutting.

But one does not automatically equate with the other.

And obese people could just as easily be called horizontally challenged.

I know shooting my 19-4 with the serrated trigger that chews at the skin on my finger gets old quick. And yet shooting my 19-5 with its smooth combat trigger is something I can do all day long. Speed loaders on the non recessed chambers does seem a bit easier.

For all the lack of love for the -5 and newer 19's I hardly ever see them for sale anywhere but I sure see the -4's pop up often enough. Not sure if it's just that there were more of them or what though.

My well used M19-5:


I was told by the previous owner that it was a police trade in gun. I removed the goodyears and added the Ahrends.

Actually not "ALL" revisions were cost cutting measures,
The 19-2 to 19-3 revision relocated the rear leaf site screw away from the blast area above the forcing cone and the 19-4 revision moved the gas ring from the yoke to the cylinder to resist powder fouling from gumming up cylinder rotation...

Also while I am old enough to have owned a 1968 Charger,
Would probably choose the new Challenger R/T with AC, warranty, higher HP better brakes and MUCH better handling....


A new 700 HP Hellcat Challenger is just hitting the dealerships ...too bad gas isnt .50 cents a gallon anymore !

That's not what I said. Many revisions were needed improvements.

Cute, a semantic game; yes, obesity is a measurable fact no matter what you call it.

Cost cutting, however, is not de facto quality cutting, and in some instances is measurably the opposite.

That's not semantic manipulation, that's recognizing it's more complex than a one-to-one equation, and provably so.

I've seen more canted front sights on S&W non-pinned barrels. Don't know why. Possibly they were still trying to figure out how to crush torque the barrels.

I do have a -5 though. No canted barrel here. State Department gun.

Attached Images

	19-5 special 003.jpg (134.7 KB, 38 views)
	19-5 special 005.jpg (95.3 KB, 30 views)

I too have had a few of these come into my shop...you have to wonder!!! How much rocket science is it to put a barrel on correctly??? I have also seen and re-cut more than one muzzle crown. The last one I did, on a 629, looked like a circus chimp tried to do it with a bit brace while swinging thru the trees.

I would have opted for pinned barrels to stay if they were put on with less tension and then pinned. Maybe they get harder to remove with age but the pinned barreled guns seemed almost as tight as the later ones I had to remove.

There continues to be unresolved discussion about what changes, if any, were implemented to barrel tightening with the deletion of the pin.

Some say the crush fit ushered in the post-pin era; others say it's always been a crush fit.

There there's debate on what crush fit really means -- whether it's simply screwing on the barrel to a level of snugness where the shoulder meets the frame, then a high degree of torque to turn the last quarter or so and align the front sights, or if the threads were changed post-pin to be slightly askew and "crush" as they're turned to hold the barrel in place.

I think your experience that the barrels, new and old, all feel comparably tight is because nothing changed in barrel fitting pre and post-pin save for no more pin.

A few posters who have weighed in on these debates before, and who strike me as the most knowledgeable on the subject, say that this is the case -- the barrels are attached in the same manner as always, and that crush fit simply denotes that last bit of torque that's always been applied as final tightening and to align the sight; they shoot down the idea of asymmetric threading, which makes sense because otherwise barrel and frame threads would be ruined after one use, and the prevalence of b-c gap repair and re-barreling show this not to be the case.

Would love a definitive answer on the mechanics of this process, though...

I sure would like to own a 19- anything. I was visiting family last week. My brother in-law produced a nickel 19-2 that was given to him by a friend. Obviously neither of them knew what it was. After explaining it to him he still had no respect for it.

NUTIN! Nuff Said! Nice Meep meep!

I have a 19-3 and a 19-5 both blued, both 4". I've shot the -3 very little and never shot the -5. I love them both, but when I go to the range it's usually with a my 4" model 65. A couple years back I passed on a beautieful nickeled 4" 19-3 for $450, I'm still kicking myself for that screw up.

Yes it is. I bought a 69 RR while in flight school. 383 HP (440 heads) with GTX interior. My x-wife trashed it while I was n Vietnam.

For me it's merely personal preference based on the lineage/nostalgia of a particular model. If the model originally came P&R then there is no substitute, however, if models like my 686, 629, 657, etc. didn't, then it's a non-issue. I would never own a 686 with IL, but I'd own a 460 or 500 with a lock because that's the way they come, however I'd quickly plug it! :-)

As long as it doesn't have the lock, I'm good......


Truth be told, the lock guns are OK too. I had a 25-13 that was one sweet packin' Nframe!

__________________
Even older, even crankier....

X-Wife - Nuff said.

With the possibility of saying again what has been said already.... I will just say that the guns produced over the years, until the MIM and lock features, have been produced with a certain "refinement," if you will. Yes the pinned/recessed guns may have been "over-engineered" but there was a certain refinement about the process. Colt revolvers never had the pinned barrels nor recessed cylinders, even with the older ammo production, Colt didn't see need to recess cylinders nor pin barrels....
Some of the more recent guns (it seems that when the British Company owned Smith) the quality came back somewhat. The side plates showed some of the fit that was found during the all hand fit frames of the 20's and 30's. Hairlines barely visible that were not necessarily seen during the 50's, 60's and 70's. Actions that indexed very cleanly, smooth and predictable... Etc... The refinement of the production of revolvers has always been a Smith and Wesson trademark. That idea is what is missing nowadays from the Smith and Wesson revolvers. I had a - 7 model 19 2 1/2" that was one of the finest Smiths I ever owned. Not pinned, not recessed, but just a great shooting revolver. So, no. Noting wrong with a -5. Nothing at all. It is the "idea" of "refinement" that seems to be missing now, although I am not certain that that is a really something to be concerned with.

The threads appear normal when placed on a thread gauge so I don't believe they are asymmetric. Further, stainless doesn't like to be threaded together and unscrewed...it galls even with the best of grease or "friction modifiers." What I have seen regarding "crush" when referencing barrel to receiver fit was when you do a few degrees backcut on the shoulder so it kind of smashes and also digs in to the frame or receiver. This is done to allow not just a tighter fit but also, and the main reason, to give a little more "window" for the threads to get tight when the barrel is timed. I don't see this either on S&W guns. I don't believe there is much distortion of the barrel in the breech or just ahead of it as a result of the barrel being really tight...at least not enough to affect accuracy in a pistol. Threads at the muzzle, such as for a suppressor or flash hider are a different story. Like the crown itself this is the last thing to touch the bullet and the one thing that can have the most affect on it leaving.

P&R=mammary glands on a boar.

True, but a mammary gland is a mammary gland, which includes all those in National Geographic!

When that gas was $.50 a gallon, minimum wage was $1.35/hour!

__________________
No good deed goes unpunished.

Nothing at all is wrong with a 19-5

Not a damn thing as far as I am concerned.

The gun that turned me on to Smith and Wessons is my Buddy's 4" 19-5 that has a Trigger job, Target Trigger and Target Hammer.

It may not be P&R, but it has it where it counts.

Nothing wrong. As a matter of fact, I hate cleaning out those recesses with a tooth pick after a range session. Not a problem with the 19-5.

The only thing wrong with your 19-5 is that it's not mine.

Bob

I remember that when I first started driving, I could buy Ethyl (104 octane) for 19 cents!!! I believe that was before the Federal minimum wage was bumped up to $1.35. When I got back from my second tour in SE Asia, I was shocked to find gas selling for $.35. It was an outrage!

__________________
Jack
SWCA #2475, SWHF #318

My first handgun was a P&R 19-4 bought new in 1981 for $235 including tax. I remember reading in gun rags at the time how the Bangor Punta guns were total **** and how S&W couldn't make decent guns anymore. I also remember how the target stocks weren't worth being used for kindling and should immediately be thrown away and replaced with Pachmayrs.

Fast forward to 2014: now my terrible **** gun is an example of how much better the older guns were, and when people see it they remark about what a shame that it has "Goodyears" instead of those magnificent original Goncalo Alves stocks.

Gun people just like to bitch. If I found a good looking 19 of any variant for a decent price I would snap it up immediately and not think twice.

__________________
NRA Endowment Member