Counterbored vs. non-Counterbored

JamesD

JamesD

US Veteran
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
117
Reaction score
39
Location
Georgia, up in the mounta
_

Hey All,

I was wondering what the distribution of opinion was about Smith revolvers with counterbored cylinders vs. those without.

Not particularly pertaining to "value" or "collectibility".
Sure, a "no dash" is better than a "late dash" in that regard.

But say if the revolver is a pure shooter for you, where value or collectibility is of minimal importance.
What about, then, in terms of use? Or safety?
Or from an engineering point of view?
Or reliability?
Do you care if it has a counterbored cylinder or not?
Is a non-counterbored cylinder actually "better" in some regard?
Etc.

Something I've been thinking about and just wondering what all the wise old heads here think about the matter.

Thanks,

James

_
 
Last edited:
Counterboring of chambers serves no useful purpose. Its admiration is founded mainly in the belief that it is an artifact of the high manufacturing quality prevalent in past years. The elimination is beneficial from a safety perspective as it is much easier to visually detect if the cylinder is loaded.
 
Last edited:
Colts were never CB'd and nobody worries about it.

Most S&W never were, either, when you consider that only the 22 rim fire calibers and various Magnum calibers received this treatment. All those 38s were not CB'd. Nor were the 44s and 45s.

Having said that, to me the elimination of the CB feature from revolvers that previously had it symbolized a step back, a reduction in quality. Same with the pinned barrel. It was cost cutting and it made the guns a bit...cheaper...in more ways than one. They lost some panache. A 29-3 shoots just as well as a P&R 29-2, but with a bit less style.
 
Counterbored does make it easier for rapid speed loader work, or it could make a difference in a shtf situation. (Think of a hogged out magazine well in bottom feeders)

I shot much PPC using a couple different revolvers and at least to me it does make things easier.

My model 15 was not counterbored and I carefully chamfered the cylinder holes for that reason.
 
Thanks Mr. Saxon.

Read on...

SaxonPig said:
Colts were never CB'd and nobody worries about it.

Most S&W never were, either, when you consider that only the 22 rim fire calibers and various Magnum calibers received this treatment. All those 38s were not CB'd. Nor were the 44s and 45s.
Click to expand...

Ya know, I AM deep into the world of .357 Magnums at this present moment in time, and I guess I was writing my OP with "magnum blinders" on, didn't stop to zoom out and consider the bigger picture. So... your point is well taken. Thanks.


SaxonPig said:
Having said that, to me the elimination of the CB feature from revolvers that previously had it symbolized a step back, a reduction in quality. Same with the pinned barrel. It was cost cutting and it made the guns a bit...cheaper...in more ways than one. They lost some panache. A 29-3 shoots just as well as a P&R 29-2, but with a bit less style.
Click to expand...

And this is well taken also. I'm well into my 7th decade here, and I do miss, and through missing... appreciate, a lot of the finely done stuff of the '40s, 50s., through... ? So, yeah, maybe counterbored cylinders are not currently terribly important from a function point of view... but they sure are swell. To me anyway.

Thanks,

James

_
 
NYlakesider said:
Counterbored does make it easier for rapid speed loader work, or it could make a difference in a shtf situation. (Think of a hogged out magazine well in bottom feeders)

I shot much PPC using a couple different revolvers and at least to me it does make things easier.

My model 15 was not counterbored and I carefully chamfered the cylinder holes for that reason.
Click to expand...

Mr. Lakesider,

Well, I have sorta understood that.

And looking here at a counterbored cylinder and a non-one, it looks like a flat cylinder face counterbored might even be easier to load than a traditional counterbored cylinder. Haven't ever chamfered one, but it seems to me, picturing it, that it would give you all you would need.

Thanks.

James

_
 
Counter boring chambers made sense when it was started in the 1930's and still makes sense today for rimfires, but I don't think that balloon head cases have been made since WWII, so it no longer serves the original purpose for centerfires, and never did serve any purpose for the .44 mag and later high pressure rounds which were all designed with solid head cases.
 
I'm seeking out an older gun with recesses because I love the look of shiny flush cartridges contrasting on blue, and the smaller rear cylinder gap. I love the slight rarity and exclusivity of this "once upon a time" feature.

Its another level of elegance and luxury that is missing from today's manufacturing. Really makes the gun special.
 
As I understand it, the original decision in the 1930s to counter-bore the charge holes on the .22/32 and the K-22 Outdoorsman had much to do with the fact that the rimfire cases of the time were made of copper and not brass. It was believed they needed the support of recessed chambers for safety reasons (correctly or incorrectly). I suspect the same logic was used (probably with less reason) on the original .357 Magnum. By the postwar period, neither practice was any longer necessary, but the pattern had been established. It took new ownership of the company to provide the impetus to make the change. Note that the L frames never had these well-liked features.
I favor the P&R features, but not because I think they were particularly necessary from a safety standpoint or any other truly practical reason.
 
Doesn't a counterbore give it a tighter cylinder gap? I thought that was the purpose.
 
I still prefer counter-boring on a .22 LR. Just a year ago I had some new Winchester factory .22 LR blow about three rims in three cartridges.

I believe I have read that counter-boring in the original S&W .357 Magnum was intended to protect from the same "expected" problem. I guess it never happened because Colt and most later manufacturers never counter-bored .357s.

For me, if I am looking to buy one of the S&W models that was originally counter-bored, i.e. "pinned and recessed" I will buy one instead of a later version; as in a M19-4 versus a M19-5.

However I do not consider "pinned and recessed" necessary in a revolver other than the .22 LR.
 
Counterboring serves no useful purpose other than safety in rimfire revolvers. It is one more niche which can collect unburned powder grains and debris, which can interfere with loading.

Counterboring is valued to the extent that S&W doesn't do it any more for centerfire revolvers. It must be better, then.
 
SaxonPig said:
Colts were never CB'd and nobody worries about it.

Most S&W never were, either, when you consider that only the 22 rim fire calibers and various Magnum calibers received this treatment. All those 38s were not CB'd. Nor were the 44s and 45s.

Having said that, to me the elimination of the CB feature from revolvers that previously had it symbolized a step back, a reduction in quality. Same with the pinned barrel. It was cost cutting and it made the guns a bit...cheaper...in more ways than one. They lost some panache. A 29-3 shoots just as well as a P&R 29-2, but with a bit less style.
Click to expand...

+1 one what he so rightfully said.
 
It is a lot easier to clean a cylinder that does not have recessed head space. Cleaning the residue from the small recessed area is a pain. I have shot Model 629-1s and 29-3s as well as later versions with no concern for function or safety.

My latest is a Model 69 and it functioned flawlessly last week when I shot about 100 rounds each of 44 Magnum and 44 Special ammunition.

Bill
 
Comrad said:
Doesn't a counterbore give it a tighter cylinder gap? I thought that was the purpose.
Click to expand...

The space between the cylinder face and recoil shield is closer on a recessed cylinder but the distance between the back of the round and the recoil shield is the same in both cylinders because non recessed cylinders are shorter at the rear.

On a side note S&W changed their blueing process around the same time as they stopped recessing magnum cylinders to a lighter chemical blueing so older P&R versions generally have a deeper darker blueing (except SS and Model 28's).
 
I think, in summary, it can be said that recessed chambers at present have no significant technical benefits and several disadvantages. No big loss that they are no longer used.
 
I believe that the .22 RF counter boring came about as a result of the introduction of high speed .22 LR ammo, with its higher pressure. 1st, 2nd and 3rd model single shots were not counterbored, nor were early .22/.32 HFTs. I also believe that all .22 Outdoors men were counterbored because they were introduced after the high speed ammo.. I have never seen a smokeless loaded .22 rimfire with a copper case, but I have seem modern .22 rimfires rupture cases in non counterbored chambered guns, not necessarily revolvers.
 
A manufacturing timesaver aimed at cheaper production costs. Not really necessary, but not as classy either. Given a choice, I'll take counterbored, it speaks of quality, just as a lathe does over a CNC machine. Small marks left by a lathe are nostalgic for me, less a "defect" than some of the quality control that seems to be considered normal today. You pays your money, you takes your choice, when you can these days regarding S&W revolvers. I haven't too many older ones with canted barrels, and the bluing just ain't the same. I have catalogs back into the late 60's, dozens of models and options, I yearn for those times because I was there. Trouble was, you couldn't get many of them even if ordered, 29's were impossible to find, 19's the same, and I lived 20 miles from the factory!
 
I believe the reference to "pinned and recessed" revolvers refers to an era of production rather than to those particular features....

Arguably, many people including me, consider that to be a time period of superior engineering, fit and finish. It was a simpler time in handgun production when function and detail were more important than cost cutting and company liability risks for the company.

Today we have MIM parts, internal locks, composite grips and two piece barrels. I have a very large collection of pinned and recessed period revolvers and very recently I have purchased a new 69 and the new 66. For me these new revolvers are both miraculous firearms to be manufactured by S&W during this period of anti-gun politics, a declining economy and a continually inflating dollar.

I love the "P&R" guns and always will. That feeling is reflected by many others by the rapidly escalating selling prices of the early guns. They are, however, about to become prohibitively expensive for all but the more serious collectors...

For those considering a shooter today I find little fault with the new S&W production. And with the new advances in metallurgy and the outstanding lifetime warranty it's almost a "no brainer" which to choose for a work-horse firearm today....

JMHO
 
I have both, and love my examples of both neither more nor less because of it. I have a model 19-3 (p&r) 4" in nickel that is primarily a target gun. It's a sweetheart. Very accurate. My daily carry is a model 19-6 (not p&r) blued, in 2 1/2" that is every bit it's mechanical equal. "You want that Whopper with fries or onion rings?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Model 19 vs. 66
Replies
9
Views
783
SGT ROCK 11B
SGT ROCK 11B
F
Terrier purpose vs .38 special
Replies
12
Views
725
.455_Hunter
.455_Hunter
ezb57
Steel vs Brass Stock Escutcheons
Replies
11
Views
532
Doc44
Doc44
M
Model 66-1 2.5 vs Ruger Speed Six
2
Replies
22
Views
978
whelenshooter
W
C
44mag (mod 29) vs 357 mag (mod 27,28) recoil
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
gnappi
gnappi

Latest posts

Back
Top