Question about the 500 Magnum

[racoonbeast]

It looks to me like the new Smith 500 Mags have the two-piece barrel. Is this true? If so, how far back do I have to go to get one that does not have it?

Thanks in advance.

 

[__steve__]

Two piece as in a barrel/nut/shroud? I am guessing they all have this from the start. What characteristic of this design is negative?

 

[jscheck]

I believe it was always a two piece.

 

[racoonbeast]

Two piece as in a barrel/nut/shroud? I am guessing they all have this from the start. What characteristic of this design is negative?

I don't wish to start a debate or argument. There are those who think that the two piece barrel is a wonderful thing. There are those who don't. I belong to the second group. I will keep my reasons to myself, though. I just wanted to know if there were ever any that did not have it. It looks like probably not.

 

[colt_saa]

It is a shame that there is such mis-information and prejudice against technological advancements. In many cases it borders on the emotional rather than the factual issues of change.

Old = Good
New = Bad

All of the Smith & Wesson 500 Magnum revolvers utilize the multi piece tensioned barrel that made the Dan Wesson revolvers so famous for their accuracy during the metallic silhouette days

Fortunately Dan Wesson's patent expired some time ago allowing Smith & Wesson to utilize this design

This is part of what makes the 500 Smith & Wesson cartridge and it's firearms such stellar performers

 

[The Mighty S&W]

I don't have an opinion on the barrel design, but the lock alone is enough reason for me to stay away from the 500. Well, that and the fact that I don't know what in the world I would find to use one for. I do agree with others who have said that all of the 500's have been made with the sleeved barrel however.

 

[dwever]

I don't have an opinion on the barrel design, but the lock alone is enough reason for me to stay away from the 500.

Here comes the lock, and it is not even close to the subject at hand. And a myth.

 

[racoonbeast]

Thanks guys. I have pretty much established that they all came that way.

In terms of the unfortunate wrong feelings about this "stellar design" you may be interested to know that this is not the same design as Dan Wesson used. It is something like it I guess, but it is very wrong to say that it is the same system nor is there any reason to believe that it will do what the DW barrel arrangement did.

In terms of the horrible prejudice around technological advancements, I am the first to admit that I have not spend years working on Smiths. I do not have so much experience working on these guns that I have written the shop manual that is generally considered the benchmark for the design, construction and gunsmithing of the Smith & Wesson revolver. So, I have carefully read the shop manual written by the guy who actually does know all of these things.

Please read what Jerry Kuhnhausen has to say in "The S&W Revolver - A Shop Manual" about his opinion of this barrel arrangement and what he thinks of the newer Smiths in general. Then come back and tell me why I should love this foolish barrel design.

I tried to keep my opinion to myself, but some things just have to be challenged.

 

[The Mighty S&W]

Here comes the lock, and it is not even close to the subject at hand. And a myth.

I don't think that you can classify my personal opinion about the lock as "a myth". I'm not saying that the lock has a negative impact on the performance of a revolver. What I am saying is that I personally find the lock to completely ruin the aesthetic appeal of a revolver, and that I won't consider one that has it. I can assure you that I'm not alone. If you love them, great. But, there's no reason to become defensive about the fact that some people might not share in your opinion. For what it's worth, there are certain types of music I don't like, certain types of women I'm not attracted to, and even certain cars I won't drive so long as I have a choice. None of that is myth. Indeed it is a fact.

 

[Bald1]

U are definitely not alone Mighty. I hate them too. For every reason you stated. Never owned one. Probably never will.

 

[dogdoc]

I hate the lock and don't like the ideas of the two piece barrel. But I own several and have found them to be very accurate especially my Smith 69. So as a shooter the two piece barrels seem to be as good or even better . My smith 69 outshoots my 29-2 s and 29-3s (better benched 25 yard groups with most loads). My 500s are very accurate as well. I have tried to hate the barrels but performance will not allow it

 

[ken158]

All are correct regarding the two piece barrel of the 500 as well as the lock. I had one of the 6.5 inch 500's, shot it a few times and let some friends shoot it and we all asked "why" are we doing this? Sold mine to another guy that wanted the 500 experience and I continue to have plenty of high powered fun with my other revolvers.

 

[dwever]

What I am saying is that I personally find the lock to completely ruin the aesthetic appeal of a revolver, and that I won't consider one that has it.

That's the myth. That this slightly larger than ball-point pen size hole ruins the aesthetic appeal. It's just too insignificant to matter. Agree to disagree. Again, the thread is about an X-Fram barrel, don't even know why the completely off-point lock was even brought up.

 

[murphydog]

Question asked and answered with thread drift...closed.