What is the advantage of Pinned Barrels?

[ontmark]

I read that many people prefer pinned barrels. Besides it is the older style. What is it’s plus.

Thanks
Roy

 

[VaRecon]

They cannot be unscrewed without the pin, obviously and they are reminiscent of an era before people saw canted barrels.
I am sure mistakes happened back in the day too, but would chalk it up to nostalgia mostly.
Personally my two favorites are both pinned.

 

[Flint Ridge]

Typically higher resale value.

 

[pownal55]

Eliminating the barrel pin and recessed cylinder was a production cost cutting decision. That's never good news.

 

[shawn mccarver]

I read that many people prefer pinned barrels. Besides it is the older style. What is it’s plus.

Thanks
Roy

There is really no engineering advantage. One piece barrels are installed exactly the same way today as when they had the pin. The pin did not "hold the barrel on" or anything like that.

It is all about preference for what is perceived to be an indication of the "good old days."

Colt and Ruger never used pinned barrels.

 

[montegomx]

the smiths with pinned barrels are better quality than the new smiths
made today,all gun manufacturers made better stuff then than they do today.not to say the new stuff is total junk either.

 

[gboling]

Basically, the pinned barrel and the recessed chambers in the cylinder were engineering overkill. Eliminating these features significantly reduced operating costs without reducing reliability. It was simply a mater of competition in the marketplace. Those features are sought after by aficionados as the 1959 Imperial is sought after by demolition derby drivers. They are the strongest things made by their parent companies.

 

[45Wheelgun]

I think the real distinction is that there is a pin there. On newer guns there isn't.

 

[nipster]

They look perty

 

[Dennis The B]

Until the mid-1950's S&W had a "soft fit" department for attaching barrels. They then eliminated the soft fit, in favor of what some folks refer to as a "crush fit". I.E., the threads on the barrel and frame are just a bit different, and the attachment of the barrel requires a lot more torque to fit it.

The pin, after the mid-1950's is just a hold-over, much the same as the recessed cylinder head on magnum and .22 rimfire calibers.

In about 1982, S&W did away with the pin, and the recessed cylinders. The transition period went on for a couple of years, and you'll see examples of pinned barrels and un-recessed cylinders, and vice-versa.

S&W adopted, in the mid-1950's what Colt and the rifle manufacturers had done for years with their barrels.

As others have mentioned, it reflects different times, and to some, better ones.

 

[chief38]

Mostly Braggin' Rights..........

 

[A10]

For a lot of us they serve as a quick visual indicator of whether or not we want to look at a gun in the used case.......

 

[G-Mac]

Colt and Ruger never used pinned barrels.

Yet another reason why S&W made a superior firearm!

 

[mkk41]

Whether they made the threads on the barrel ever so slightly bigger , or the threads in the frame slightly smaller to achieve the tighter 'interference' fit , something has to move as two pieces of material cannot be in the same spot. Either the hole in the frame is gonna stretch (like all those cracked aluminum J's) , or the threaded shank of the barrel has got to somehow shrink , perhaps giving a tight spot in the bore and ruining accuracy. A plug gage down the bore has shown this. Also , when trying to thread such tight fits together , ya run the risk of galling before ya get it fully threaded in. We've seen far more revolvers with cracked frames or broken barrels than we ever saw with pinned barrels.

Especially Rugers.

 

[riverrat38]

Eliminating the barrel pin and recessed cylinder was a production cost cutting decision. That's never good news.

Unless we don't like paying more for our guns!

Best,
Rick

 

[k22fan]

There is a misconception in this thread that needs to be dispelled. All
S&W barrels screw freely into the frame until the barrel’s shoulder contacts the frame, or in the case of modern two piece barrels until the barrel’s front flange contacts the front of the barrel sleeve. Whether or not the barrel is pinned there are no “interference fit threads” or any other such nonsense. It is unfortunate that the term “compression fit” is being misapplied to the installation of S&W barrels. Whether or not they will be pinned barrels are installed the same way. The barrel’s shoulder is lathe turned so that it will contact the frame 1/10 to 1/8 revolution before it is aligned vertically, then tuned in very tight to bring the front sight up to 12 O’clock. The pins are only tight in the frame. Pins pass through a trough milled across the barrel threads. The pin can only stop gross movement. A barrel that is only stopped from unscrewing by the pin is desperately in need of a trip back to the gunsmith’s lathe and should not be fired.

 

[shawn mccarver]

Until the mid-1950's S&W had a "soft fit" department for attaching barrels. They then eliminated the soft fit, in favor of what some folks refer to as a "crush fit". I.E., the threads on the barrel and frame are just a bit different, and the attachment of the barrel requires a lot more torque to fit it.

This is simply not true. The threads are not mismatched. The threads are the same as when the pins were used. There have been other discussions of this if you will search.

One piece barrels then, and now, spin on until they are almost tight - say 10 o'clock position. The "crush" is not the threads being cross-threaded or anything of the sort. The "crush" is the shoulder of the barrel against the frame, and it is simply no different than when they used pins.

 

[dewey]

AMEN SHAWN

You said a lot in afew words. Thanks-Dan

 

[Dennis The B]

This is simply not true. The threads are not mismatched. The threads are the same as when the pins were used. There have been other discussions of this if you will search.

One piece barrels then, and now, spin on until they are almost tight - say 10 o'clock position. The "crush" is not the threads being cross-threaded or anything of the sort. The "crush" is the shoulder of the barrel against the frame, and it is simply no different than when they used pins.

You are correct. I mis-read an earlier post.

 

[mag318]

Interesting thread. To me the pinned barrel was as stated above a little bit of engineering overkill. It along with the recessed cylinders were done away with as a cost cutting move and represent the quality that was once Smith & Wesson. Over the years some engineering changes actually enhanced performance but most were for cost cutting and savings. My favorite LGS had two Model 27s he obtained for a customer off an auction site. One was 40 plus years old and the other current production. Looking at both (mint by the way) was like comparing a Rolex to a Timex. The cost cutting engineering changes made over the decades were to the obvious detriment of the product. The Model 27 was one of S&Ws premium handguns and comparing a current one to an old one was really telling. Just holding them and cycling the action you can understand why collectors and shooters seek out the old examples. Smith & Wesson still makes some great handguns (mostly semiautos) but quality wise they are a shadow of their former company.