Why are 2-piece barrels generally disliked?

C

ColumbusJBR

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
392
Reaction score
865
Location
Columbus, OH
I think the thread title says it all, but I'll elaborate.

With Smith's announcement of new no-lock models (YES!), it seems many members were rightfully happy with the news. But I've also seen plenty of grumbling about still using the more modern 2-piece barrels on some models, particularly on the new no-lock Model 19 classic.

What's the beef? Are they truly inferior? Or is this just grumbling because they're different than the old way?
 
The 2 piece barrels used on the big-frame Dan Wesson revolvers were
what made them so accurate! I have a Smith 500 mag, with 8 3/8" barrel, and it shoots lights out at 50 meters! There's nothing wrong with
moving into a more modern era, and I think the 2 piece barrels show more potential accuracy available*
 
Because it is not the way Smith & Wesson used to do things. Some people will argue that a two-piece barrel is a better design. Smith & Wesson still has one-piece barrel models. I own a 66-8 and a 19-9 Classic. They are both two-piece barrel K frames and they are both fantastic revolvers. Here is an outstanding video on the construction of the Model 19 Classic. As far as I know, the only difference on the new one is that it no longer has the lock.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h9l2ipiKf4&t=15s"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h9l2ipiKf4&t=15s[/ame]
 
Here's a write up of S&W engineering changes.

To summarize: It's mostly grumbling because they're different than the old way.

The old way required skilled labor to get the proper amount of torque. Too little, and barrels would eventually loosen (the original reason for pinned barrels), and too much, the frames would crack. Things got trickier when S&W started making revolvers out of stainless, which required even more force. Workman's comp claims for arm/back injuries were relatively high, which is part of why S&W started automating this process in 1993.

Done properly, a 2 piece barrel has some advantages over a one piece barrel. It's easier to consistently make barrels with sights at 12 o'clock/top dead center while also having ideal cylinder gap, while imparting less stress in to the frame, and there are theoretical accuracy improvements.

When gunsmiths grumble about it not being done the old way, they have a point. It's harder to remove the one piece barrels that were installed via the automated method without risking frame damage, and FWIU, S&W has never made the special wrench needed for 2-piece barrel removal/installation available outside of the factory.

Lots of S&W changes are due to cost cutting, but the primary way that the 2-piece barrels can cut cost is by getting it right more often on the first try. I've read elsewhere that the 2 piece barrels are more expensive to do than the one piece barrels. Heck, high end German revolver makers like Spohr and Korth are likely doing 2-piece barrels for performance/consistency benefits, not cost-cutting.
 
The folks that complain are drunk on what I call the “pinned and recessed kool-aid”. They just cannot accept that modern manufacturing methods and materials can produce a revolver that is equal to their precious Smiths of yesteryear. And any attempt to do so is met with a baaahh-humbug! and another swallow of the kool-aid.
 
This may no longer be an issue, but from what I’ve read it was t too uncommon for early two piece barrels to fail and launch down range. Haven’t heard of this in a long time. Probably fixed.
 
AlHunt said:
I bet if they had made them a user changeable part like the old Dan Wesson, there'd have been far less resistance.
Click to expand...

I have a foot in both camps. I know the Dan Wesson setup worked well, tensioned barrels are fine by me. I prefer pre lock, pre MTM Pistols as well. I also want to be able to switch barrels as desired without destroying them.

That’s not resistance. Some of the comments in this thread are pretty snotty, if you don’t like collecting you do you. Personally I think the quality is better between my pre-80ish pistols and the versions I see now.
 
cadmike said:
The folks that complain are drunk on what I call the “pinned and recessed kool-aid”. They just cannot accept that modern manufacturing methods and materials can produce a revolver that is equal to their precious Smiths of yesteryear. And any attempt to do so is met with a baaahh-humbug! and another swallow of the kool-aid.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about pinned and recessed? They stopped doing that over 40 years ago.
 
-BTM- said:
Who said anything about pinned and recessed? They stopped doing that over 40 years ago.
Click to expand...

I never liked the recessed chambers at all. They serve no purpose with modern ammo, and are mainly just another place for gunk and unburned powder granules to accumulate and interfere with reloading.
I don’t have any problems with the two-pieced barrels though.
Too bad Smith does not give you the option of swapping barrels at home and setting your own barrel-cylinder gap like the Dan Wessons did.
 
I like the idea of the 2 piece barrel, would like to see it as an option. I bought (3) different 686 Plus 7" revolvers and each of them had an over torqued barrel resulting with crushed rifling in front of the forcing cone area. Could not run an inspection range rod down the barrel to check cylinder lockup alignment. Fix- remove barrel, face it and re-install, kinda like having a 2 piece barrel:-)
 
I'm not partial to either type barrel. Just make it work right. Whichever is most accurate, but I haven't noticed any difference; I shoot just as bad with both. Actually, there's nothing more beautiful than some of the old deep-blued revolvers with wood stocks. I'd settle for an old nickel & pearl revolver, too. Stainless is an easier gun to maintain.
Yeah, I suppose the old ones looked nicer, to a point, but if it works properly and shoots straight that's what counts. I respect everyone's opinion on the subject mainly because even though I'm pushing 68 YO in March, I grew up with rifles & shotguns, and many of you were born with a .38Special in your hands. That's why I trust most opinions on anything I ask on the Forum.
 
epj said:
This may no longer be an issue, but from what I’ve read it was t too uncommon for early two piece barrels to fail and launch down range. Haven’t heard of this in a long time. Probably fixed.
Click to expand...
I think I read that happened with some 619's or 620's. But I believe they used a different method to secure the barrels back then. There was a post on here about an old Model 67 barrel launching down range.
 
Beju said:
Here's a write up of S&W engineering changes.

To summarize: It's mostly grumbling because they're different than the old way.

The old way required skilled labor to get the proper amount of torque. Too little, and barrels would eventually loosen (the original reason for pinned barrels), and too much, the frames would crack. Things got trickier when S&W started making revolvers out of stainless, which required even more force. Workman's comp claims for arm/back injuries were relatively high, which is part of why S&W started automating this process in 1993.

Done properly, a 2 piece barrel has some advantages over a one piece barrel. It's easier to consistently make barrels with sights at 12 o'clock/top dead center while also having ideal cylinder gap, while imparting less stress in to the frame, and there are theoretical accuracy improvements.

When gunsmiths grumble about it not being done the old way, they have a point. It's harder to remove the one piece barrels that were installed via the automated method without risking frame damage, and FWIU, S&W has never made the special wrench needed for 2-piece barrel removal/installation available outside of the factory.

Lots of S&W changes are due to cost cutting, but the primary way that the 2-piece barrels can cut cost is by getting it right more often on the first try. I've read elsewhere that the 2 piece barrels are more expensive to do than the one piece barrels. Heck, high end German revolver makers like Spohr and Korth are likely doing 2-piece barrels for performance/consistency benefits, not cost-cutting.
Click to expand...

Huuuum.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
Why are N-frame .357 cylinders short?
Replies
7
Views
790
Groo01
Groo01
B
When did the 617 get the two piece barrel?
Replies
8
Views
775
-BTM-
B
B
The Model 10 - Why the bull barrel?
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
3K
CAJUNLAWYER
CAJUNLAWYER
A
Sweet brace of SS short barrels
Replies
7
Views
159
CH4
CH4
W
S&W Model 60 Pro 2-piece Barrel
Replies
7
Views
486
BillBond
B

Latest posts

Back
Top