It is my understanding that the Model 620 revolver was introduced by S&W as a replacement for the much revered Model 19. As near as I can tell, it is not really any lighter or better handling than a 686. The only feature that seems reminiscent of the Model 19 is the partially lugged barrel. I have heard rumors that the 620 did not sell particularly well.

I understand that the 620 uses a barrel shroud with a threaded barrel liner, rather than a one piece barrel like most other S&W revolvers. I have seen some people talking trash about the 620 on other forums while implying that the barrel shroud and liner is just a cheaper method of manufacture which reduces the overall quality and desirability of the revolver. Of course, some old timers would not be satisfied with anything but a careful reproduction of the original Model 19 on the original K frame.

I think it is likely that the barrel shroud & liner probably does reduce the cost of manufacture, and it also probably makes it easier to get a precise fit and close cylinder gap. But does it really reduce the quality in any way?

The Dan Wesson revolvers were manufactured by a similar method, and they earned a reputation for long range accuracy in the various Met. Sil. sports. Maybe it's actually a better way of making a high quality revolver with a good barrel and cylinder fit. ( I think the DW revolvers also had a front cylinder latch on the crane which also helped accuracy, IIRC)

So what's the story on the 620? Are they good shooters?

Think about this for a moment. Do you really think the it's cheaper to produce 2 precision parts than one? Nuff said on that subject. As for it's accuracy, it's simply stunning as long as the scope your using doesn't shoot loose, see the following report. BTW, I've been considering the purchase of a Nikon Encore 2.5-8X28 for a Christmas present to myself to see if I can improve on these results. If so, I'll make good and sure it won't shoot loose during the sighting in process and warmup.

Put a scope on my 620 just to see what it could do.

PS; normally my 620 is equipped with a J Point reflex and I've constantly been teased by 3 and 4 shot cloverleafs at 35 yards with this setup. While I'm sure the 620 is capable of hitting a 1/2 dollar consistently at 35 yards with this sight I have doubts on my own ability. Fact is that shooting for extreme precision may take more self control than I can produce. However, it is an interesting and challenging exercise so I'll keep at it. Someday I'll have one of those "in the zone" days and unload a full cylinder into a 1/2 dollar sized group.

I think the 619 (fixed sight 620) and the 620 are among the coolest of the new breed of S&W revolvers.

I had been wishing for a non-lugged L-frame and the 619 and 620 are the answer!

I like the 619 and 620 very much. Mine are pre-lock, but with frame mounted firing pins. The 620 is apart now (barrel off frame for chopping) but will be back together soon enough.
The 619 is fun. I pinned on a trijicon sight, and it shoots well enough with BB 158 grain loads.

They may be the answer, but they also seem to be part of the history. I would like a 3 inch version of the 619, but S&W doesn't seem to be interested in 3 inch "K" frame revolvers anymore. I know that these are L frames, but with the look of a K frame magnum. I want a 619 version of the M13. One disadvantage of the two piece barrels is that it may be too expensive to offer them in different sizes, removing that dimension from my favorite revolvers. Its like the M64. I think probably more shooters would prefer the 3 inch version of fixed sight revolvers. If I buy a fixed sight gun, it is not because I am going to use it for bullseye work. I want it to be handy and easy to conceal.

Rick

S&W shot themselves in the foot with some of these revolvers they supplied to the State of OK, because the 2-piece barrels were not installed properly.
The barrels broke and fell off on the OHP range!!
Needless to say OK is not buying any more of them, even though the manufacturing problem has been corrected.

__________________
Science plus Art

It's often the case where one QC error will haunt a company for decades......****ger had an issue with improperly lubed Redhawk barrels, Glock had the infamous exploding .40's.........now this S&W 2-piece barrel thing is part of internet and gunshow lore, where "those 2-piece S&W barrels fly off the guns!"

I am slowly starting to see a demand for the 2-piece S&W revolvers on the internet forums, where shooters are seeing that the tensioned fit of these barrels leads to greater accuracy. I think we will see the day when 620's are desireable and collectable.

For reference I also believe that there are some model 67s and 64s with that two piece barrel configuration A LGS had a model 64 3" with the 2 piece barrel but not sure if still available, A 619/620 6" would sure scratch an itch I have

Perhaps it's just me, but I prefer a one piece solid barrel. It looks better and has to be stronger. A neighbor of mine has been a Smith & Wesson distributor or 6 decades and we have discussed the decline of S&W quality many times. All one has to do is look at the handguns they produced in the 50 and 60s and the differences are obvious. The 2 piece barrels along with the MIM parts are cheaper to produce and fit. That said I'm still a loyal S&W customer and still believe they are an innovative company with great customer service. My latest purchase was a 3" 632 in 327 Magnum and even with the MIM parts I like the gun. Ofcourse if it was made in the 60s it would be even better. There is a good reason the older S&W bring premium prices here and on auction sites. The old adage "they don't make them like the use to" is so true here.

Scooter123 makes a good point: it might be more difficult and expensive to make two precision parts than one. My thought was that the manufacture of the simple round barrel liner should be a relatively simple straight forward process, while the manufacture of the shroud should be easier than the manufacture of a one piece barrel.

But I don't really know anything about the manufacture of revolvers. For my part, it's all speculation.

From what I have seen, the model 620 is a high quality good looking revolver which often delivers a little better accuracy than its 686 cousins. I think it probably deserved more popularity and acceptance than it received.

S&W is still offering 2 piece barrels, unfortunately you have to pay a lot more than what the 620 cost to get them. ALL of the Night Guards feature 2 piece tensioned barrel, as to the Scadium framed L and N frames such as the 386 or 327 series. I'm also under the impression that some versions of the 500 Magnum use a tensioned barrel but that is based on information posted 2 or 3 years ago.

As for the accuracy, Guns & Ammo took the M&P R8 they were testing and mounted a scope on it to test it at 50 yards because it shot so many cloverleafs during their standard 25 yard machine rest testing. With a cold barrel it yielded 1/2 inch groups at 50 yards with a couple of different hollow point SD loads. I believe it was Speer Gold Dots and Whichester Ranger-T but it's been too long since I read the report to be certain of that.

IMO it's a real shame that S&W dropped the 620. Because I would just love to see just how accurate something like the 610 or 625 could be if they employed a tensioned barrel. However there were some early failures in the barrels on the 620 and model 67's that featured this system and it sort of polluted the market. I also suspect that the cost savings that S&W anticipated with this system didn't prove out. If we ever do see a resurgance of tensioned barrels in steel framed revolvers I expect that next time it won't be offered in a budget model, it will be a high dollar high end model.