|
|
03-20-2014, 09:00 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,545
Likes: 2,636
Liked 2,268 Times in 863 Posts
|
|
Two piece barrel
I have read a number of comments about "two piece barrels" on the new 69, 44 magnum.
What is a two piece barrel?
|
03-20-2014, 09:34 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Quakertown PA
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 4,773
Liked 1,180 Times in 491 Posts
|
|
The inside of the barrel and outside are 2 pieces. Like a sleeve.
__________________
Jim
|
03-20-2014, 07:43 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 547
Likes: 100
Liked 441 Times in 147 Posts
|
|
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor & RSO
|
03-21-2014, 05:05 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,477
Likes: 18
Liked 527 Times in 242 Posts
|
|
The Smiths with 2 piece barrels are more accurate than most of us can even hold.
My 66-7 4" shoots like a match gun, so accurate I sold my Dan Wesson 15....the 66-7 out shot it and had a better action.
|
03-21-2014, 06:18 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 307
Likes: 487
Liked 325 Times in 93 Posts
|
|
S&W Modern Revolver PDF Manual
Here is the PDF of the current manual for revolvers. Look on page 25 it gives you a great diagram of how the two piece barrel works.
The forcing cone on the 69 is "beefier" than the original forcing cone on the now discontinued 696 44 specials.
They also fixed the forcing cone "cut" on the newly released Model 66. This is also a two piece barrel assembly.
Last edited by jglsprings; 03-21-2014 at 11:18 PM.
|
03-21-2014, 07:53 PM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,916
Likes: 3,523
Liked 6,744 Times in 2,626 Posts
|
|
Without going into merits of the two-piece barrel, and there are many, the term "two-piece barrel" is a misnomer.
The barrel is still in one piece, a rifled tube.
The second "piece" in the current arrangement is the shroud, which is affixed to the frame by fitting over a "key" so that the sights are held straight up and down. The shroud is held in place against the frame when the tube (the rifled part through which the bullet passes) is screwed into the frame at the cylinder end, and the other end of the tube screws down tight to a specific torque setting against the muzzle end of the shroud, holding the shroud tight to the frame.
|
03-22-2014, 11:43 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 547
Likes: 100
Liked 441 Times in 147 Posts
|
|
"Tensioned barrel" is a more accurate description.
S&W and Dan Wesson both used tensioned barrels but obtained them in different ways. DW trusted the owner with a "T" wrench and shim to replace barrels and set the B/C gap.
S&W got a patent on how they did theirs but completely cut out any user serviceable aspect of barrel adjustment or replacement. Its nice for S&W from a manufacturing point of view for cost savings but stinks for the average guy or gunsmith point of view.
Tensioned barrels can be VERY accurate.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor & RSO
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
03-23-2014, 12:29 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,831
Likes: 3,902
Liked 5,902 Times in 2,543 Posts
|
|
Thoughts on why S&W transitioned over from one piece to two on several models?
|
03-23-2014, 01:19 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 547
Likes: 100
Liked 441 Times in 147 Posts
|
|
Easier / simplified manufacturing and lower cost to manufacture.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor & RSO
|
03-23-2014, 03:29 AM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: La Conner, WA
Posts: 2,138
Likes: 9,094
Liked 2,174 Times in 974 Posts
|
|
"Tensioned barrels can be VERY accurate."
That probably factors into the equation, also.
Best,
Rick
|
03-23-2014, 06:47 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Metro Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 6,926
Likes: 179
Liked 4,301 Times in 2,112 Posts
|
|
I don't believe there are any cost savings in the 2 piece barrels, instead of one precision part you now have two separate precision parts that have to fit together and be tracked in inventory and QC.
It's my belief that the drive towards 2 piece barrels is twofold.
One is that tensioned barrels are more accurate than a one piece cantilever barrel. This is because the barrels are supported at each end.
BTW, it would have been nice if S&W went to a user serviceable mounting system but I suspect the reason they didn't is due to liability concerns. I also suspect that the lack of actual Dan Wesson revolvers in stores in spite of announcements by CZ since about 2004 or so is due to the same liability concerns.
The second reason for the drive to 2 piece barrels is probably Quality. Do a search for "cocked barrel" and you'll see that barrels improperly mounted is a continuing warranty issue for S&W. BTW, this particular problem isn't actually a recent issue, it's been a problem with both Colt and S&W revolvers that probably goes back to the mid 1800's. The reason we see so many complaints today is the internet and the lack of actual Gunsmiths in the shops selling firearms today.
|
03-23-2014, 09:42 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
|
|
I agree with Scooter. While the vast majority of design changes (in almost any product) appear or in fact are to be to save cost, none of us actually knows whether that is the case with the 'two piece' barrel, and given its design it seems like it would cost more, no less. I don't work in manufacturing so this is all speculation, of course.
I have a 67-6 with the barrel and it is extremely accurate, particularly with proper size lead bullets. I sold a M66 I had with it and I was thinking about a 64-8 to replace it.
|
03-23-2014, 12:33 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 547
Likes: 100
Liked 441 Times in 147 Posts
|
|
It's far simpler to set / adjust the barrel cylinder gap with a barrel tube & shroud design over turning the traditional one piece barrel. That saves time and reduces scrap.
It's a great idea from a manufacturing point of view but Dan Wesson had / has the better system IMHO.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor & RSO
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
03-23-2014, 12:43 PM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,916
Likes: 3,523
Liked 6,744 Times in 2,626 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cal50
It's far simpler to set / adjust the barrel cylinder gap with a barrel tube & shroud design over turning the traditional one piece barrel. That saves time and reduces scrap.
|
I had this discussion with Herb Belin at the SHOT Show the first year that the two-piece barrels were introduced. Mr. Belin was the engineer in charge of revolvers at the time, and the above was the main reason he gave for the change. Simpler assembly and less time to get the proper barrel cylinder gap during fitting.
At the time, the "flange" arrangement was used in order to make the muzzle end look as close as possible to what the one-piece barrels looked like. I, for one, am glad they introduced a newer system on the new 2014 Models 66 and 69.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
03-23-2014, 04:39 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 547
Likes: 100
Liked 441 Times in 147 Posts
|
|
I think s&w has a patent on the design (barrel tube retention) and it's great from a manufacturing aspect.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor & RSO
|
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|