Barrel Crown
- Thread starter hsc
- Start date
Invictus357
Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 553
- Reaction score
- 500
You stated you bought the 4" model a few days ago. Does that one have a crowned barrel?
My 4" is between the two 6" I was looking at. Its better than one but not as deep as the other Took my 4" to the range the other day and was shooting one ragged hole at 10yds off a rest. The first 6 shots all touched. I want to get the 6" next. Lockup on both the 6"'s was solid, cylinder gap looked about the same as on my 4" .006 and barrel was strait, no cant. Single and double action were the same if not just a tad better than on my 4". It's just the barrel crown that's got me wondering.
Last edited:
Alk8944
US Veteran
It is not possible to have a barrel without a "crown"! The crown is nothing more than the muzzle end of the barrel. How the crown is finished can vary. Some are flat with a bevel to the bore and chamfer on the outside, a rounded so-called "sporter crown" as is usual on rifles, or even a taper "target crown". S&Ws have been made with all these styles.
Contrary to popular myth the style of crown has nothing to do with accuracy as long as the muzzle is square to the bore and there are no burrs into the bore.
Contrary to popular myth the style of crown has nothing to do with accuracy as long as the muzzle is square to the bore and there are no burrs into the bore.
Invictus357
Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 553
- Reaction score
- 500
When he said crowned barrel I thought he meant like a tapered style. My thanks for your correction. I learn something new almost everyday here.
The crown of the barrel is the 15 degree (or so) taper cut into the end of the rifling. It has nothing to do with whether the end of the barrel is rounded or flat, and everything to do with accuracy. It is nearly invisible to the unaided eye, barely deeper than the thickness of a piece of paper.
The crown allows the bullet to depart the barrel smoothly. If there is any assymmetry or damage to the crown, the gas behind the bullet will push it slightly one way or another.
The crown allows the bullet to depart the barrel smoothly. If there is any assymmetry or damage to the crown, the gas behind the bullet will push it slightly one way or another.
Got any data to back that up? I don't doubt it...but I don't believe things I read on the internet without data, preferably from multiple sources.
Crown options are described here:
Connecticut Precision Chambering--Crown Options
A recessed target crown is far less likely to be damaged than the typical sporter crown by handling the gun.
Connecticut Precision Chambering--Crown Options
A recessed target crown is far less likely to be damaged than the typical sporter crown by handling the gun.
New Smiths using the electro-chemical rifling process tend to vary in the depth and consistency of their crowns.
It's not entirely accurate to say that a muzzle crown has no affect on accuracy, because it does & can produce erratic bullet flight paths if the crown's off on one side, uneven, and so on.
I did a .357 shootout between a new 686 and a new GP100 a few months back, the 686 crown was quite sloppy and shallow looking in appearance while the GP's was decently deep and cleanly cut.
The Smith outshot the Ruger, slightly, but measurably.
On Monday I worked with a new 586, same indistinct and shallow crown. Appears to be cut unevenly, but shot OK at 25 yards off the bench.
You can't really tell by looking, unless it's way off on one side or another (which has been reported). You need to shoot the gun to find out for sure. I was frankly surprised that both Smiths did as well as they did, considering how "muddy" those crowns were.
Denis
It's not entirely accurate to say that a muzzle crown has no affect on accuracy, because it does & can produce erratic bullet flight paths if the crown's off on one side, uneven, and so on.
I did a .357 shootout between a new 686 and a new GP100 a few months back, the 686 crown was quite sloppy and shallow looking in appearance while the GP's was decently deep and cleanly cut.
The Smith outshot the Ruger, slightly, but measurably.
On Monday I worked with a new 586, same indistinct and shallow crown. Appears to be cut unevenly, but shot OK at 25 yards off the bench.
You can't really tell by looking, unless it's way off on one side or another (which has been reported). You need to shoot the gun to find out for sure. I was frankly surprised that both Smiths did as well as they did, considering how "muddy" those crowns were.
Denis
