Pinned vs Nonpinned Barrels
- Thread starter Krell1
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
By difference I assume you are refering to the performance of the revolver. The short answer is no, no difference, but....................... 
The S&W "pin & recessed" handguns represent craftmanship and quality. Some disagree with that also. Collectors definitely prefer them and as a result they bring more money than the new guns. I reload and I like the mechanical advantage of recessed chambers for the brass cases. I have had two case separations over the years.
I never met anyone who did not like an older S&W .
The S&W "pin & recessed" handguns represent craftmanship and quality. Some disagree with that also. Collectors definitely prefer them and as a result they bring more money than the new guns. I reload and I like the mechanical advantage of recessed chambers for the brass cases. I have had two case separations over the years.
I never met anyone who did not like an older S&W .
Dennis The B
US Veteran
After the mid-1950's, the pin was a "belt and suspenders" "thing", because S&W changed the way that barrels were fitted to the frame. S&W kept up the pinned barrels until the early 1980's (ca. 1982). However, the L frames were introduced without the pinned barrels.
Recessed cylinders are still around for rimfire revolvers. However, for magnum calibers, the recessed cylinder was another safety feature carried over from a time when pistol brass was formed differently than it is today.
From a performance perspective, there's no real difference.
The barrel pin was a marketing gimmick that set S&W apart form other brands. The barrels are screwed in with the same torque whether or not they are pinned. A groove was milled across the barrel threads for the pin to pass through. To allow for barrel fitting that groove had to be generous enough for the pin to freely slip through with the barrel turned a few degrees one way or the other. The pins were only tight in the holes through the frame. They could only stop gross rotation of a loose barrel. Apparently S&W decided what ever increase in sales resulted from the pin wasn't worth the cost and discontinued pinning barrels about 1982. For collectors who want older revolvers the presence of a pin quickly identifies a revolver as being made before 1982.
Florida Guy
Member
I'm an old fogie, and fondly remember the p/r guns of my youth, and prefer them to non p/r models.
I guess it's a mental/sentimental thing.
I guess it's a mental/sentimental thing.
Except for the pin, my WW I vintage 1917 .45 ACP's barrel was fitted exactly the same as current one piece barrels. There was no change to how barrels are installed in the 1950s.
Dennis The B
US Veteran
I'm demurring to a thread in which this topic was discussed, and I've also discussed this with other S&W collectors.
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1961-1980/199863-pinned-barrels.html
Whether the pin makes a hill of beans or not it's what I grew up with and I like them and that's why I buy them before newer S&W revolvers. The beauty of it all is I still have a choice and can buy what I want even if that means buying Old Foggy revolvers that have pinned barrels.
Wingmaster
Member
I think pinned barrels represent a time when S&W hand fitted more parts and their craftsmanship was second to none.
Now they use cnc machining and MIM (Injection molded) parts and they just assemble guns.
I prefer real craftsmanship to assembly.
Wingmaster
Now they use cnc machining and MIM (Injection molded) parts and they just assemble guns.
I prefer real craftsmanship to assembly.
Wingmaster
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,018
- Reaction score
- 7,100
The difference is that certain older models had pinned barrels and recessed cylinders.
It is mostly about nostalgia, as I know there is no difference in the way the barrels are installed. The newer one just lacks the pin.
As far as functionality, I don't think there is any real difference. As far as extra machining steps, the P&R models certainly had extra steps.
I agree completely, and the old Smiths are much, much nicer, the new guns have some great engineering changes or enhancements, but the older pinned and recessed smiths are like a fine old watch that was built by someone who cared, and who considered himself a craftsman, as such they command much higher prices and normally do not depreciatte as does other equipment. I have a couple of nice Colts, but nothing is nicer than a registered model or pre-27, or even 27-2s, that nicely checkered top strap and the serated backstrap say quality, but nothing says it any better than the pinned barrel, and that counterbored cylinder and ejector star, that my friend says Royalty, and when the crane to frame fit looks like a solid forging, well the Python lovers yack about how wonderfull they are, but from a mechanical standpoint the Smith and Wesson is superior, but don't take my word, check the prices on a reg model. I could have bought lots of pythons, and king cobras and anaconda's, not one to be found at my house. Billy Magg
hotrod150
Member
The pinned barrels were discontinued on the j-frames (which is where my interest lies) in 1982. Not that I think a 1983 non-pinned j-frame is not just as good a gun as any of my pinned-barrel Chiefs, but it is a good dividing line when it comes to "do I want it or not?"-- kinda like having a pre-AMF Harley back in the day, for those of you who were into bikes & remember that.
Snake Plissken
Member
I agree 100 %. IMO now they have gone to the other end of the spectrum with the new PC Smith's they are just plain ugly and not revolver like to me, just sayin'
BigBill
Absent Comrade
This isn't a S&W but its more knowledge and something to think about.
Ok my experience with the pinned barrels and the threaded barrels is with the sks rifles. They say the pinned barrels are a tad more accurate over the threaded barrels. I believe this is caused by the barrel vertical flange being out of square to the threads. Once its tightened its out of square a tad just enough to throw the accuracy off.
Its the machining being out of square to the mating parts.
I really don't think that S&W could make that mistake but i do expect this mistake being made in the sks.
Ok my experience with the pinned barrels and the threaded barrels is with the sks rifles. They say the pinned barrels are a tad more accurate over the threaded barrels. I believe this is caused by the barrel vertical flange being out of square to the threads. Once its tightened its out of square a tad just enough to throw the accuracy off.
Its the machining being out of square to the mating parts.
I really don't think that S&W could make that mistake but i do expect this mistake being made in the sks.
had3nuf
Member
Krell1 us older guys just tend to stay old school, here is a photogragh of some smiths 2 don't have pinned barrels see if you can tell which ones.
[/IMG]
Here we go again. Unlike SKS carbines, all S&W hand ejector revolver barrels are screwed into the frame. IIRC, some SKS barrels were pressed into the receiver rather than screwed in, so as the old saying goes, you're comparing apples to oranges.
Krell1 us older guys just tend to stay old school, here is a photogragh of some smiths 2 don't have pinned barrels see if you can tell which ones.
The 686 and the Safety Hammerless. Do I get a prize?
