How can I tell from looking if my 66-7 has a two or one piece barrel?

I have heard that the two piece versions are more rare, and I was just curious which mine was.

Also, is there a benefit to having a two piece barrel?

Here are some pictures of my gun if it will help identify what it has.

Thanks!





I shot this on Saturday and cleaned it, but I am having a hard time cleaning the area around the forcing cone as you can see.




Thanks!

That's a two piece barrel, the lack of rifling at the muzzle is a giveaway, and the seam on the outside of the muzzle. I don't know of any advantage, other than its cheaper to manufacture.

That is the last of the 66's, looks like a safe Queen to me, the price will double in ten years. A savings account won't do that, yes it is a two piece barrel. Enjoy

There is zero benefit to the consumer in a two-piece barrel OF THAT TYPE, and S&W has dropped it on at least the 64 & 67.
Denis

Yours is a two piece barrel.

Some will tell you that the 2 piece barrel is more accurate or may have the potential to be more accurate. Dan Wesson guns with that feature have a tremendous reputation for accuracy and use similar barrel system.


You aren't having any more than the normal difficulty in keeping things clean around the forcing cone.

Perhaps a different powder might make a difference but that is just a fact of life with revolvers.

Two piece barrels CAN theroetically be more accurate. In the Dan Wesson revolvers, the barrel/cylinder gap can be precisely set, and the attachment method means the barrel is tensioned equally from both ends; these are supposed to be good things. But, as already mentioned, the S&W method of construction doesn't allow for that sort of adjustability. In the main, it is a less-expensive method of manufacture.

__________________
Pisgah

Those S&W versions were actually more of a negative than anything else.
The barrels can't be user-adjusted like the Wessons, S&W won't make the barrel removal tool available even to gunsmiths, gunsmiths can't R&R those barrels which means no local barrel replacements can be done to alter length or correct issues otherwise addressable by any competent gunsmith on the standard one-piece barrels, and there have been reports of the internal barrel tube breaking off.

Not all two-piecers are going to break, but....

Denis

I'm going to call Hogwash on the 2 piece barrels being less expensive to manufacture. With the 2 piece barrels you have to make to precisely machined components that not only must fit together properly, they also have to fit the frame properly. Quite simply, it's nearly a universal rule in production that making 2 parts is more expensive than one.

The ONLY way that the 2 piece barrel system would be if it permitted a greater economy of scale. Suppose that S&W went to making all of the 38 caliber and 357 Magnum guns using this system. This would allow them to produce the barrels as one single standard blank and then cut the barrel to length and thread it for a specific barrel length offering. That would allow a cost savings because it's both efficient and cost saving to make lots of one single item without any line changeovers.

However, there still is the added cost of making the various barrel shrouds so I suspect that if S&W were to make the 2 piece barrels universal it wouldn't result in any significant reduction in cost.

As for it's superior accuracy, it's both demonstratable in Engineering Dynamic modeling and in practice. Mount a reflex sight on that model 66 and put in the time to learn how to bench shoot it to it's optimum and you'll group under an inch at 25 yards with that gun with the right ammo. I'll grant that it doesn't have the adjustable B/C gap of the Dan Wessons but it's still a more rigid method for mounting a barrel and they are very accurate. BTW, I have a model 620 with the same barrel system and the accuracy when shot from a bench rest is nothing short of stunning for a major caliber, mine rivals what I can do with my 6 inch 617.

Thanks everyone for the verification that this is a 2-piece and also the explanations!

I am not sure if 2-piece is good or bad. However, I took it to the range for the first time on Saturday, and I was very pleasantly surprised.

The first 3 shots out of the gun where 1.5" apart at 25 yards in the dead center of the bulls-eye. My wife was actually impressed! And I didn't bother adjusting the adjustable sights after that.

I have a feeling this is going to be a fun shooter/carrier.

-bg

Regarding the cost differences, on the two-piece flangebarrels it's my understanding that the shroud is cast, which if precisely done requires little to no machining. The internal tube requires comparatively little machining, of a simpler type.

The conventional one-piece barrel requires lengthier and more complicated machining to produce a number of different external contours that include rounds, flats, extensions, and threads.
It's much faster to machine a tube with a flange at one end and threads at the other.

Additional cost savings accrue from the lack of fitting time & manpower required in the newer two-piece system.
Since the front sight's cast in place and the rear of the shroud's designed to mate precisely in a pre-regulated engagement with the frame, there's no need to take the time to line up front & rear sights by screwing the barrel in or backing it out.
It takes very little time to mount the shroud in place, insert the tube, and tighten the tube down to a gauged depth.

The savings is a result of reduced manufacturing time and reduced assembly time.

The Wesson system has a user-adjustable nut at the front end that's much stronger than the S&W flange. There have been reported incidents of breakage at the rear of the two-piece tube and also of the flange breaking off at the front.

The front & rear tension principle is valid, when correctly applied as it was in the Wessons, but I'd suspect S&W is distancing themselves from it because of a combination of warrantee repairs and lack of sales in models so equipped.

Denis

If the two-piece barrels were not cheaper to manufacture and install, I doubt that S&W would have used them.

And, there's always that.....
Denis