P&R

[lppd4]

When buying a vintage S&W how important is pinned and recessed to you? I prefer a P&R gun but I have several that aren't and I like them just as much. Bought 2 29-3's figured I saved $500 maybe more over a 29-2 in similar condition. I have 2 686's and a 586 that were never offered in a P&R configuration and have never even thought about them not being P&R'ed Of course presentation cases, tools etc come into play. I am interested to see what others think

 

[Green Frog]

If you buy K Masterpiece revolvers of any vintage, they may be pinned, but unless they are chambered in 22 RF, they will never be recessed.. That doesn’t harm their value in my estimation.

Many of the later introductions came entirely after the P&R era ended, but if a specific one has feature I want, I go for it. Witness my Model 60-4.

Froggie

 

[22hipower]

I'll always buy the P&R first although for shooting there's probably not an iota of difference. There are some where P&R does make a significant difference as very few were made before changing over to non-P&R; the early 629s, especially the 4 inch is an example. I don't much care about the presentation cases and tools unless they're in great condition and were original to the guns; storing the boxes etc. gets to be a challenge once they start to stack up. I certainly won't turn down the presentation boxes though as they're bringing several hundred dollars these days but I don't go looking for them. The older boxes, for Registered Magnums, the red ones for Outdoorsmans (and others), and early 44/45 1950 gold boxes are scarce though so I'll grab those if the price is right.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

 

[.455_Hunter]

I like P&R. When I bought my 4" 629 "No Dash" working gun, the premium for those features was not too bad over a later variant. I understand it's not a rugged as -2E or newer, but I am satisfied with topping out at standard SAAMI performance levels, with significant use of mid-range handloads for bulk shooting, and NOT serving as a Buffalo Bore/Garrett/Underwood/Corbon test bed.

 

[scruffy]

I like P&R for the reason that they represent a time in revolver manufacturing when skilled gunsmithing, machining of steel parts, hand fitting and pride in workmanship and fit & finish were prioritized over cost cutting. Are they any better functionally? Hard to quantify, but when you handle one it's an awesome thing to behold and that is worth something to me.

 

[John Patrick]

I think Scruffy put it well.

I think the same way about grips too.

But I don’t sweat it if the revolver I want was never offered as a pinned or recessed gun with pre war service stocks or diamond magnas.

 

[ZGrand]

Pinned and recessed is preferred, but the ones without it shoot just as well. When I'm in the middle of a range session, I don't even think about it.

 

[sigp220.45]

Pythons were never pinned or recessed (and always had frame mounted firing pins) but seem to have a good reputation for quality.

As for S&Ws I’m like most geezers here and prefer them P&Red.

 

[rjm6120]

I'm a big P&R fan too. They're hard to find in my general area and when I find one, it's hard to say no to it.

Case in point: a little known pawn shop a couple counties west has had a 4 inch 13-1 for a handful of months that I've passed on. It's not in horrible shape---has the wrong grips on it and, IIRC, has a little bit of minor rash on some areas of the finish. I know I can talk them down but I've been thinking about that gun for a couple months now. I have a chance to head over that way tomorrow to see what I can do on it.

 

[dsk]

I prefer pinned & recessed guns simply because I like the quality of guns produced during that era plus I like the look of the cartridges being countersunk into the cylinders. Function-wise however P&R means nothing. All else being equal a non-P&R revolver will be just as reliable and durable.

I already had two P&R Smiths so I wasn't concerned about it when I bought my latest toy, a 4" 19-6 which of course isn't P&R. However I did notice that S&W reduced the level of final polishing on these later guns, making the finish more dark. Both of my P&R Smiths are brighter and more glossy.

 

[Hair Trigger]

I agree with scruffy and dsk. All my S&W's are pinned, and the only one that isn't recessed is the only non-magnum I own. It's just a matter of preference; I also prefer "S" prefix N frames when I have a choice, I like the lazy ampersand, I like diamonds in the middle of my stocks, and it would tickle me no end to have four or five screws instead of just three. Unfortunately, I don't have all those features in all my revolvers, but those to me are signs of an era when S&W revolvers were as much pieces of functional art as they were a simple tool with a specific purpose. I made up my mind long ago that I'd have certain features or I wouldn't buy the gun. P&R is my baseline, as their disappearance marked the beginning of major changes in how S&W's were built, and if they at least have those features, then when moving back in time, I stand a better chance of getting the other features I like and want.

 

[stansdds]

The pinned barrel era of S&W revolvers are considered to be of higher quality than the non-pinned barrel revolvers. The pin, and recessed chambers on magnum revolvers, was dropped as cost saving measures during a downturn in S&W's fortunes while under ownership of Bangor-Punta. This was also the time in which the Carbonia oil blue finish changed to black oxide.

 

[JohnRippert]

I prefer them but they are not a deal breaker.

 

[Marksman]

I bought my first M/629 4" no dash several years ago and in a weak moment let it go, recently I replaced it and it cost me 2x what the first one did. Money well spent as far as I'm concerned, like others I only shoot midrange type loads these days. During the Dirty Harry days I shot my share of full power loads to the point I now take it easy on myself and my magnums.

 

[9mmsubgun-m11]

I prefer P&R as others have mentioned due to a time when folks cared about the quality of their craft.

 

[BC38]

If you buy K Masterpiece revolvers of any vintage, they may be pinned, but unless they are chambered in 22 RF, they will never be recessed.. That doesn’t harm their value in my estimation.

Many of the later introductions came entirely after the P&R era ended, but if a specific one has feature I want, I go for it. Witness my Model 60-4.

Froggie

I'm not following you. A 1955 Combat Masterpiece 357 magnum is going to be both pinned and recessed isn't it?

 

[dsk]

Only the magnums and .22 rimfire had recessed cylinders IIRC. Older .38s for example will have pinned barrels but not recessed cylinders.

 

[Sevens]

Gotta be careful with absolute and catch-all statements on a forum with a murderer's row of knowledgable posters. Enter the S&W Model 53 as your exception to the rule of only magnums got recessed chambers. If you need another (this may annoy you but...) check out the Model 547. As well as the statement that somehow the P&R guns were immune to cost cutting... which S&W (and honestly most any successful gunmaker...) has been doing since they opened the joint.

Yes, I love P&R Smith & Wesson revolvers also but there's a whole lot more that goes in to a potential purchase than simply P's and R's for me. And the Colt Python in this discussion is about as relevant as is a pre-64 Winchester Model 70 or a 1958 Packard. Not relevant at all.

 

[Tom S.]

Pinned and recessed does not equate to better craftsmanship. Neither step requires mad machining skills, precision fitting or magic fairy dust. Yeah, they look cool but they add no strength or advantage over their later brethren, hence S&W's decision to eliminate both operations. If you the aesthetics, then by all means, shell out the extra coin but neither process adds real value to the firearm, only the illusion of a better made product.

Many later Performance Shop products far exceeded early S&W offerings in terms of craftsmanship. Show me a pinned and recessed model with a vent rib, slab cut barrel, cuts for moon clips, beveled cylinders, spring loaded ball locks and the like - you can't because they do not exist unless done outside the factory. Don't let nostalgia cloud your perspective.

 

[Green Frog]

I'm not following you. A 1955 Combat Masterpiece 357 magnum is going to be both pinned and recessed isn't it?

Sorry. I was typing too fast and forgot about the Combat Magnum. Of course it’s not really part of the Masterpiece Series, like the Combat Masterpiece (that became the Model 15). IIRC, Smith labeled it the Combat Magnum (later Model 19) and in addition to features it shared with the Masterpiece Series it had a shrouded ejector rod like other magnums as well as recessed chambers.

Having typed this and thought it through I stand by my original statements since the Combat Masterpiece is not the same gun as the Combat Magnum in 357. Am I incorrect?

Froggie

 

[sigp220.45]

And the Colt Python in this discussion is about as relevant as is a pre-64 Winchester Model 70 or a 1958 Packard. Not relevant at all.

Maybe not. But it shows a revolver can be high quality without being pinned and recessed.

Here’s the other side. That is some nice looking irrelevance.

 

[Hair Trigger]

Gotta be careful with absolute and catch-all statements on a forum with a murderer's row of knowledgable posters. Enter the S&W Model 53 as your exception to the rule of only magnums got recessed chambers.

The Model 53 is a magnum cartridge (.22 Centerfire Magnum), so it does fall in the general rule that only rimfire and magnum revolvers have the countersunk charge holes.

The M547 has the recesses as part of the extractor system that allows using a rimless case without using moon clips. Throw the "rules" out the window when you start chambering rimless cases in a revolver.

 

[lrb1200]

Other than a pair of newer 638's for carry.

I have no interest in anything SW made after
about 1981.

 

[Sevens]

The Model 53 is a magnum cartridge (.22 Centerfire Magnum), so it does fall in the general rule that only rimfire and magnum revolvers have the countersunk charge holes.

The M547 has the recesses as part of the extractor system that allows using a rimless case without using moon clips. Throw the "rules" out the window when you start chambering rimless cases in a revolver.

No, bend the "rules" to fit the narrative! The .22 Jet is named the .22 Remington Jet and allllll the .45 ACP revolvers and the 10mm revolvers and the short-lived 646 are rimless cases without countersunk chambers.

Really, it would be easier to admit that the catch-all axioms are only "mostly" correct, most of the time. Kinda like "P&R is better and P&R going the way of the dodo is the example of how S&W cheapened stuff."

 

[Ameshawki]

Non-issue. Own multiples of both. The bulk of my Smith collection is in 38 Special so recessed is off the table there. In magnums it's roughly half and half.

 

[mss876]

On the right side of the barrel on my Model 53 it reads 22 Magnum

 

[handejector]

No, bend the "rules" to fit the narrative! The .22 Jet is named the .22 Remington Jet and allllll

Mod 53 revolvers in 22 Jet say "22 Magnum" on the barrel, but you can argue with one if you want to. It will probably just say "Read what I said!"
Cartridges Of The World says it is also know as the "22 Centerfire Magnum" but you can argue with the book if you want to. It will also probably just say "Read what I said!"


from Cartridges Of The World >>>>

 

[pasound]

I have six pinned guns - 1913 HE .38, 1923 HE .44, 1947 TM .22 P&R, 1948 TM .38, 1950 M&P .38, and a 1973 mdl. 36 .38. As all have said, only the .22 is recessed.

But my 72-year-old fogged memory seems to remember a friend having a .357 Smith, an early one (this was target shooting with buds in the early 80's), and it was recessed. I don't remember if it was pinned. I have the memory because I said "Gee - this looks stronger."

 

[scruffy]

Many later Performance Shop products far exceeded early S&W offerings in terms of craftsmanship. Show me a pinned and recessed model with a vent rib, slab cut barrel, cuts for moon clips, beveled cylinders, spring loaded ball locks and the like - you can't because they do not exist unless done outside the factory. Don't let nostalgia cloud your perspective.

I don't disagree with you, but I am guilty of letting nostalgia cloud my perspective. From 1971:

 

[66fan]

I only had 4 P&R Smiths. Only 1 remain. All together I have only 6 Smiths left but have other revolvers as well. The quality may not be the same but they are still great guns. Thanks for the forum.