What is the advantage of Pinned Barrels?

[jaymoore]

. Smith & Wesson still makes some great handguns (mostly semiautos) but quality wise they are a shadow of their former company.

I just don't think so. I've seen plenty of old S&Ws with dramas. Crappy timing, lousy polishing (1970s in particular was hit or miss), unsmooth actions, poorly regulated barrels, Bad forcing cones, out of square cylinder faces, poorly fit stocks. What have you. And that's been with either new (1970s and later) or high condition revolvers. I'd guess Smith is doing about the same job as ever. There's lots of good to great ones and some with dramas.

The internet thingie just makes it easier to hear about the bad stuff en masse.

Pre-WWII hand ejectors seem to have better finishes than the post war stuff, but even the good ones that are left generally have heavier trigger pulls. Smooth, usually, but heavy.

There's no substitute to an educated hands-on examination before purchase of any S&W, new or old. Unless you just intend on making a museum piece out of it.

 

[GBertolet]

I agree with many of the comments about the pinned barrels and recessed cylinders.There is no functional or strength differences between them. That being said, the pinned barrels and recessed cylinders are from a bygone era, where detail to fit and finish were much greater. Compare the blueing and smoothness of the actions between new and older S&W's. Rising labor costs and retirement of the old craftsmen, bring on new manufacturing methods, and the short cuts necessiary to be competitive in today's world. I have a definite preference for the pinned barrels.

 

[2K7]

Very interesting responses. I have learned here again today. First thing I look at when inspecting a prospective purchase is the barrel/frame alignment (yep, even before timing check). If the alignment is not 12 o'clock or the ribbing doesn't line up, I pass.

I must admit, the old pinned barrels seem to pass this test overwhelmingly in comparison to the non-pinned versions. Just my observation.

 

[Doc44]

Having looked through many (albeit a small fraction) of the records of S&W from 1932-1941 and found many complaints about broken main springs, cylinders that do not rotate properly, etc. I really don't think the fit and finish of older S&Ws is any better than the guns made today with machines that are much more precise and aided by computers.

I believe collectors want to believe this, but I would like to see definite proof to back it up.

I own guns from the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, etc. and the ones made during the last ten years are just as nice. True, they don't have a barrel pin or recessed headspace, but overall they are good guns that function well.

Bill

 

[ontmark]

Thanks Doc44

Roy

 

[bmcgilvray]

One thing you'll never see is a pinned barrel and a lock hole on the same revolver.

 

[captaint]

Being a noob here and learning every time I sign on, there are still some observations that can be made. Being a strict cast boolit shooter, I can say that the Rugers, for whatever specific reason, suffer from "thread choke" far more often than Smith & Wessons. It seems relatively rare to hear of this condition being repaired by fire lapping on Smiths. On the Rugers, it's quite common. Just an observation. enjoy Mike

 

[big_gus]

With most gun companies, the older the model/gun the superior made weapon, there are a few exceptions, but S&W Revolvers is not one of them. All you need to do is get a real nice 5 screw and then a real nice post P&R and the difference is like night and day. I'm not saying the post P&R guns (pre-IL) arent good guns, they are, their is just a big difference in the work/quality that went into them. JMHO.

 

[jaymoore]

I know for a fact that pinned barrels can be canted, with the sight to the left of center as viewed through the rear sight. I am still trying to decide whether to send an otherwise fantastic S-prefix revolver with a pinned, but canted barrel, back to S&W for repair. It shoots far to the right with the back sight centered, but shoots to POA with the rear sight adjusted way over to the left.

Yah, i've several that are canted to one degree or another. Including a couple of favorites.

Early Model 67 with the un-blackened stainless rear sight:

Rear sight is about out of travel to the left side. Shoots well, though.

A 1940s 2" .38 Spl. M&P round butt is way off, and the Terrier might be a skosh out, but not nearly as bad as the "Pre-10".

50 yards with the Terrier:

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

Especially Rugers.

I didn't know Ruger made a take down revolver.

 

[bmcgilvray]

Yeah, that's the rare automatic take-down model. Much like various self-loading firearms this one uses power from the cartridge to provide an instantaneous take-down.

The put-back feature was found to have some bugs in it though.

 

[M3Stuart]

Interesting and informative!

 

[Mike McLellan]

There's nothing more annoying than being in a running gun battle and have your barrel fall off. You have to yell "Time out!", and everyone has to wait for you to pick up your barrel and screw it back on. It's time consuming, and can be dangerous in a heated fire-fight.

 

[TexasRider]

I read most of the pieces, but I think it was just extra insurance.

Smith had to do something at the time(s) to stand out against Colt too. So it worked, as we are still talking about it today.

Smith could say to their law enforcement or military customers, we do this to insure against that less than 1% failure, so we are better. And cheaper.

 

[TexasRider]

Especially Rugers.

Ugggggggglly.

 

[mkk41]

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.

So do you know for a fact exactly what class fit threads S&W uses for barrel and frame?

 

[Stephanie B]

Yeah, that's the rare automatic take-down model. Much like various self-loading firearms this one uses power from the cartridge to provide an instantaneous take-down.

Bit of a typo, there. That revolver was an example of a "self-loathing" model.

 

[k22fan]

This just isn’t rocket science boys. Think about it. You’ve all screwed a nut onto a bolt sometime in your lives. S&W barrel shanks are threaded for about ½ inch at 36 threads per inch. How could you turn a nut onto a bolt for around 18 revolutions if the threads don’t match?

While I’m back on this thread I’ll add that I bought my first S&W with a canted barrel in 1974. I adjusted its sight and it shot very well. Handejector has posted that canted barrels have been coming out of the S&W factory as long as S&W has been in business. The old barrel pins did not limit rotation enough to prevent the amout of barrel cant members are routinley bitching about. The trough milled across the barrel threads for the pin has to be generous enough to allow for fitting barrels to frames. I’ve seen S&W barrels rotated far enough that the front lock would not engage and their barrel pins could still be reinserted. While they’re one thing to consider when deciding between similar revolvers for sale, for an adjustable sighted revolver that is going to be shot rather than just examined, a canted barrel is less important than trigger pull, carry up, cylinder end shake and rotational play at lock up.

 

[jaymoore]

So do you know for a fact exactly what class fit threads S&W uses for barrel and frame?

Yah, non-interference fit. Probably a bit tighter spec than 3A and 3B, which is where normal classifications end in my Machinery's Handbooks. Had enough barrels off other the years to notice these little things.

(In the 20th ed. the UN series charts only go up to 32tpi. Doing a 36tpi tolerance window is a bit more trouble than I'm will to go right now, but given incentive, I reckon the thread mics could be broken out and the ciphering commenced.)

.455 HE 2nd

to:

TRR8

No particular difference after aalll this time...

Sorry to steal any thunder from you, shawn mccarver, but.

 

[k22fan]

[...]

TRR8 [...]

Thank-you for the picture of a disassembled TRR8. I hadn’t noticed the muzzle end barrel nut before. Even if there’s never a need to remove the barrel, using a nut is an improvement over the flanged muzzle used on my “two piece barrel” model 66. Presumably to remove distortion caused by the tightening wrench, approximately 3/8” of rifling was reamed out of the front of that model 66. I believe that was done by S&W after the original barrel installation, but I bought that 66 used so I’m not sure.

While I’m not getting in enough range time for this to be anything but conjecture, both assembly methods have potential to improve accuracy like Dan Wesson’s tensioned barrels did.