New style barrels

[YogiBear]

Aloha,

I'm curious on why SW changed their barrel to the two piece.

I did do a search and did not find an answer(or maybe I asked the question wrong).

Also, can someone post a cut away or cross section of how it is attached?

I don't own any of the new style barrels and I am very leery of them.

Am I mistaken in my thinking?

Thank you

 

[shawn mccarver]

Aloha,

I'm curious on why SW changed their barrel to the two piece.

I did do a search and did not find an answer(or maybe I asked the question wrong).

Also, can someone post a cut away or cross section of how it is attached?

I don't own any of the new style barrels and I am very leery of them.

Am I mistaken in my thinking?

Thank you

One of the engineers (Herb Belin) patiently explained to me at the SHOT Show one time that the two piece was easier to install as the outer sleeve would be straight up as required and the inner barrel, which locked the sleeve to the frame, could be tightened to the proper torque and then a quick hit given on a belt sander to take off any material necessary to set a proper barrel/cylinder gap.

Not being an engineer, I have not idea if that is a good explanation, but that is what was given.

Many people on this forum do not like the two piece barrels, but I have not seen any evidence that they cause more problems than the one piece. Certainly, there are anecdotal stories on this forum, but it is anybody's guess as to what percentage of those get returned with problems.

Remember that many people on this forum do not like lots of things and that is not necessarily a good indicator.

I have never had a problem with a two piece barrel, nor do I know anyone who has had. You find stories of problems on here, but a miniscule amount compared to the total number produced. I would not worry about it.

 

[colt_saa]

Not too sure who pioneered the multi piece tensioned barrel design for handguns, however Dan Wesson did patent it almost 4 decades ago. That patent expired in the early 2000s.

Yes it make assembly easier. However, it also increases accuracy. Not to mention that it makes barrel replacement much easier than S&Ws older design.

When the first 460 S&W Magnums came out barrel life was a concern with the initial batch of gain twist rifled barrels.

Several high end precision rifle makers have been using a similar tensioned barrel design for decades. Volquartsen has been using it for the 10/22 family of rifles.

 

[scooter123]

It happens that I am a Mechincal Engineer. Barrels mounted under tension and tied to the frame at each end are capable of greater accuracy than a barrel that is screwed into the frame at one end. In Engineering terms, a beam supported at each end will deflect less than a cantalever supported at just one end.

Currently we see a lot of one piece barrels with a full length underlug and this is an attempt to minimize barrel whip by making the barrel stiffer. However, these barrels are necked down at the point at which it is shaped and threaded for mounting and they will pivot at this point somewhat like a hinge. In addition, they will exhibit more side to side motion because the barrel is not as well reinforced in this direction. Finally, a barrel that does not have a constant cross section will show a tendancy to "warp" when it's heated due to uneven rates of expansion because of uneven heat transfer through the matrix.

Now, look at a barrel that is mounted withing a shroud. S&W uses a system with a large diameter cap at one end of the barrel and a simple thread at the opposite end. Basically, it's a hollow "bolt". The shroud is a larger diameter tube that is only registered to the barrel at the very end, for the rest of it's length there is an air gap between the barrel and the shroud. The result is a barrel assembly that is tied to the frame at each end, under tension, and allowed to heat evenly across it's diameter. The result is a barrel that can produce accuracy that is equal or even superior to a "bull" barrel of larger diameter and much heavier.

BTW, this is not a new innovation. Dan Wesson revolvers used a somewhat similar system back in the 70's and the DW revolver dominated precision and silouette shooting for many years. However the DW system did differ in how the barrel was mounted. DW used a barrel that was threaded at each end and used a special nut at the end of the barrel shroud. Pluses for the DW system is that they allowed an easy user change of barrels and permitted "tuning" of the B/C gap in the field. The minuses was that the torque applied to the DW barrel nut was lower and they had a tendancy to "shoot loose". Enough so that it was standard practice for a DW shooter to check his B/C gap and tightness at the start of every match or practice session. In addition there were periods during the production of the Dan Wesson revolver when a new gun immediately went to a gunsmith to have the timing tuned before one single round was fired. For many years Dan Wesson was cash poor and the quality of what was shipped really suffered. However, they have a reputation for a superb action and amazing accuracy.

BTW, Dan Wesson is now owned by CZ USA and I do not believe that we will ever see a new issue of the fine DW revolver. I suspect that they are concerned about liability issues associated with producing a handgun that requires the user know how to maintain these revolvers properly.

I also suspect that liability concern is why Smith and Wesson didn't fully copy the Dan Wesson method of mounting a suspended barrel. Mounting the barrel on a S&W requires a special tool that engages the rifling in the barrel with a very close fit. I also believe that they apply more torque to tightening the barrel than the small hand wrench that was supplied with the DW revolvers was capable of producing. This will create more tension on the barrel which will reduce the mid barrel vibration of the barrel during fire. However, there have been some reports of the barrel end cap breaking free and also some reports of barrels being shot loose. I suspect that the barrels that were shot loose were actually partial failures of that barrel end cap. They didn't actually break off, however they probably failed to the point where they effectively "stretched" and then became loose.

Now, is this a problem to be concerned about? I do not believe it is. When this failure has happened, the barrel has remained in the frame of the gun and the main effect was an immediate loss of accuracy. Quite simply, the barrel failed at a point that presented the lowest potential of injury to the shooter, the end cap. I have seen posting on the net of similar barrel failures on the 686. However, in those cases the barrel sheared off at the point where it's attached to the frame, sending the barrel downrange and in some cases some debris back at the shooter. Fact is, gun barrels are exposed to some pretty hard shocks and if there is a microscopic flaw in the wrong spot, they can fail. If that should happen to me, I would prefer the location of the failure be a location that was engineered to occur at a point that presents the least likely possibility of injury to me.

Bottomline, from an Engineering standpoint it's a superior system of mounting a barrel on the frame of a revolver. It's also safer for the shooter and easier for hte factory to repair. However, it's possible that S&W was a bit conservative in designing this system to assure that the end cap on the barrel always was the point of failure and they may need to fine tune the design a bit to reduce the failure rate while assuring maximum safety. Good news on that front is that S&W does have a lifetime warranty and seems to be very customer oriented.

BTW, I own a model 620 and it is a real tack driver. On two seperate occasions I have managed to shoot a 3 shot group at 40 feet that I could cover with a dime. I also have a model 610 and the best I've done with that is a 3/4 inch group, not bad but not an equal to my 620 despite the longer sight radius of the 6 1/2 inch barrel. BTW, I was shooting in single action off a bench rest when I did this, in double action I can't come close to shooting this well. So, for action or defense shooting in double action it really doesn't matter how the barrel is constructed, in either case the gun will be far more accurate than almost any shooter.

 

[Nightowl]

Nice explanation, Scooter123. Thank you.

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

I agree. Very well said Scooter123.

I still hate two piece barrels though. I have owned a boatload of "good" S&W's, and almost all of them will group as well as that at that range from a bench. My old 27-2 will do that with certain ammo at 25 yards for 5 shots.

The main reason Smith went to the two piece has nothing to do with accuracy, or it being a better way to mount barrels. It was a cost cutting measure, pure and simple. It takes less fitting, and man hours to mount barrels this way, and the barrels can be mass produced by their new EDM machines, and only the shroud need be finished off nicely to look good.

I owned a Dan Wesson 745 for almost 20 years. I never once had the barrel nut loosen up on me. In fact, it always got a little tighter from shooting. A drawback to the DW system that many are unaware of, is the you have to re-zero the sights every time you removed the barrel shroud and barrel from the frame. It might not be off that far when re-installed, but enough to ruin a match, or miss, or worse yet, wound an animal.

Their system allowed the owner to switch barrels at will, and you could even buy custom barrels to mount in the frame/shroud. That was money not going to the company, which is another reason that S&W made the switch. More money for them, since a gun has to be rebarreled by them, and them only. They will not sell the "special tool" to even high end gunsmiths. That may be smart business by them, but it torques off a lot of guys who would like something different than what the factory will provide. It also smacks of greed to the normal consumer like me, and I won't buy any of their guns with mim/IL, or two piece barrels.

I am a traditionalist, and readily admit it. I prefer the look and quality that went into "real" one piece forged barrels. The new ones look cheesy to me, and if that end cap/nut breaks while afield, you are screwed. Period. At least with Dan Wesson's system, you could re-tighten as needed on the go.

 

[Old Navy]

Scooter123 is quite correct about the Dan Wessons. I have 4 models. The M15 a 357 4" & 6" that has out shot every S&W it shot against, both mine and others. My 715 a 6" & 8" is still NIB after 25 years, can't bring myself to shoot it for some reason.

My 722 is a (7 denotes stainless) a real shooter and with 8" barrel has out shot a Ruger 8.5" Hunter/Citation models. It also has a 6" barrel I plink with and do not bother to use the sight on fast target acquisition shooting as it point just right for me to hit 2" cube at 25 yards 2 out of 3 shots. Only S&W to out shoot it has been a S&W 41 with 7" IIRC barrel.

My 744 is just as pleasant to shoot as the 722 with either the 8" or 6" barrel and has out shot two S&W's 29's since I have had the big hog leg. The 744 is slightly larger then a X frame S&W currently.

M-15

M-15 stripped for full cleaning and takes about 15 minutes to do the second time you do the break down.

With wood on.

The NIB 715, she is a beauty.

the 722 tack driver.

The 744 a real hog leg at 80+ oz to be sure. I dwarfs a 8" 29 Smith.

The 744 is currently back to open sight with 6" barrel ready for hunting back up when hunting in hog country. We are over run with hog here where I live.

The 6" barrel on the M15 currently sports a 3x9 scope for range use.

 

[Wayne M]

Smith had a fine tuned design in their traditional barrels. They're still in business and all the other companies are either gone or else sold and sold again and still trying to make a go of it. If you're one whose had great luck with the newest methods of whatever manufacturer you choose I really am on your side but I have personal knowledge of six Thunder Ranch custom shop 45ACP's(the model with the light rail attachment) that either came out of the box with loose shrouds or developed the condition after being shot. Add to that the custom three piece barrel posted here more than once and I think that the system should at the very least be in question. All these incidents may be a manufacturing/assembly problem as opposed to the actual theory of the two piece barrel. All I can say is that somewhere in the execution it leaves something to be desired. Hang in there long enough and it'll get worked out but make a 620 with a one piece barrel and I'll get two of them. There's just less things apt to go wrong.

 

[Old Navy]

I didn't know about S&W having barrels come loose on their Barrel and Shroud models. I have heard several people over the years make the comment about Dan Wesson barrels coming loose, but never had one do it with me or any DW owner I know, it it was properly torqued to start.

That model 15 above with it broken down after a couple range sessions and about 400 or 500 rounds down the tube without the barrel being removed and as a matter of fact was a little difficult to get the nut loose and the reason it was apart is for that extra cleaning of the front of the cylinder to soak off powder residue in the diesel fuel bath. Never seen any lead on cylinders of the DW's I own, the blue 15 sure gets funky nasty looking when shot a lot. It hasn't had but a couple cylinders of jacketed ammo through the gun, mostly lead reloads of mine and has never had lead fowling problem. I have never seen any starting that I have noticed. The DW has no forcing cone to deal with and is probably why. I would not trade any of my DW's for any S&W gun made if I want quality, accuracy and light triggered gun out of the box.

Dan Wesson had too high a quality made guns to compete with the likes of S&W and Ruger so they really never had a chance to make a go of the guns. When CZ bought the company they phased out the revolvers, but I failed to buy one of the Super Magnums before the quit couple years ago and now those guns are bringing twice to three times original cost. CZ dropped the guns because the cost of manufacture was too high for a proper profit margin and converted to 1911 production and make probably the best 1911 for the $$$ on the market and I would love to have a one of the new 1911 10 mm guns.