Two piece barrel
- Thread starter df06
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Boogsawaste
Member
The inside of the barrel and outside are 2 pieces. Like a sleeve.
Some pics are worth 1000 words.....
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-re...311636-peek-inside-s-w-500-barrel-shroud.html
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-re...311636-peek-inside-s-w-500-barrel-shroud.html
stantheman86
US Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 2,479
- Reaction score
- 531
The Smiths with 2 piece barrels are more accurate than most of us can even hold.
My 66-7 4" shoots like a match gun, so accurate I sold my Dan Wesson 15....the 66-7 out shot it and had a better action.
My 66-7 4" shoots like a match gun, so accurate I sold my Dan Wesson 15....the 66-7 out shot it and had a better action.
jglsprings
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2010
- Messages
- 313
- Reaction score
- 334
S&W Modern Revolver PDF Manual
Here is the PDF of the current manual for revolvers. Look on page 25 it gives you a great diagram of how the two piece barrel works.
The forcing cone on the 69 is "beefier" than the original forcing cone on the now discontinued 696 44 specials.
They also fixed the forcing cone "cut" on the newly released Model 66. This is also a two piece barrel assembly.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,018
- Reaction score
- 7,100
Without going into merits of the two-piece barrel, and there are many, the term "two-piece barrel" is a misnomer.
The barrel is still in one piece, a rifled tube.
The second "piece" in the current arrangement is the shroud, which is affixed to the frame by fitting over a "key" so that the sights are held straight up and down. The shroud is held in place against the frame when the tube (the rifled part through which the bullet passes) is screwed into the frame at the cylinder end, and the other end of the tube screws down tight to a specific torque setting against the muzzle end of the shroud, holding the shroud tight to the frame.
The barrel is still in one piece, a rifled tube.
The second "piece" in the current arrangement is the shroud, which is affixed to the frame by fitting over a "key" so that the sights are held straight up and down. The shroud is held in place against the frame when the tube (the rifled part through which the bullet passes) is screwed into the frame at the cylinder end, and the other end of the tube screws down tight to a specific torque setting against the muzzle end of the shroud, holding the shroud tight to the frame.
"Tensioned barrel" is a more accurate description.
S&W and Dan Wesson both used tensioned barrels but obtained them in different ways. DW trusted the owner with a "T" wrench and shim to replace barrels and set the B/C gap.
S&W got a patent on how they did theirs but completely cut out any user serviceable aspect of barrel adjustment or replacement. Its nice for S&W from a manufacturing point of view for cost savings but stinks for the average guy or gunsmith point of view.
Tensioned barrels can be VERY accurate.
S&W and Dan Wesson both used tensioned barrels but obtained them in different ways. DW trusted the owner with a "T" wrench and shim to replace barrels and set the B/C gap.
S&W got a patent on how they did theirs but completely cut out any user serviceable aspect of barrel adjustment or replacement. Its nice for S&W from a manufacturing point of view for cost savings but stinks for the average guy or gunsmith point of view.
Tensioned barrels can be VERY accurate.
riverrat38
US Veteran
"Tensioned barrels can be VERY accurate."
That probably factors into the equation, also.
Best,
Rick
That probably factors into the equation, also.
Best,
Rick
scooter123
Member
I don't believe there are any cost savings in the 2 piece barrels, instead of one precision part you now have two separate precision parts that have to fit together and be tracked in inventory and QC.
It's my belief that the drive towards 2 piece barrels is twofold.
One is that tensioned barrels are more accurate than a one piece cantilever barrel. This is because the barrels are supported at each end.
BTW, it would have been nice if S&W went to a user serviceable mounting system but I suspect the reason they didn't is due to liability concerns. I also suspect that the lack of actual Dan Wesson revolvers in stores in spite of announcements by CZ since about 2004 or so is due to the same liability concerns.
The second reason for the drive to 2 piece barrels is probably Quality. Do a search for "cocked barrel" and you'll see that barrels improperly mounted is a continuing warranty issue for S&W. BTW, this particular problem isn't actually a recent issue, it's been a problem with both Colt and S&W revolvers that probably goes back to the mid 1800's. The reason we see so many complaints today is the internet and the lack of actual Gunsmiths in the shops selling firearms today.
It's my belief that the drive towards 2 piece barrels is twofold.
One is that tensioned barrels are more accurate than a one piece cantilever barrel. This is because the barrels are supported at each end.
BTW, it would have been nice if S&W went to a user serviceable mounting system but I suspect the reason they didn't is due to liability concerns. I also suspect that the lack of actual Dan Wesson revolvers in stores in spite of announcements by CZ since about 2004 or so is due to the same liability concerns.
The second reason for the drive to 2 piece barrels is probably Quality. Do a search for "cocked barrel" and you'll see that barrels improperly mounted is a continuing warranty issue for S&W. BTW, this particular problem isn't actually a recent issue, it's been a problem with both Colt and S&W revolvers that probably goes back to the mid 1800's. The reason we see so many complaints today is the internet and the lack of actual Gunsmiths in the shops selling firearms today.
cyberiad
Member
I agree with Scooter. While the vast majority of design changes (in almost any product) appear or in fact are to be to save cost, none of us actually knows whether that is the case with the 'two piece' barrel, and given its design it seems like it would cost more, no less. I don't work in manufacturing so this is all speculation, of course.
I have a 67-6 with the barrel and it is extremely accurate, particularly with proper size lead bullets. I sold a M66 I had with it and I was thinking about a 64-8 to replace it.
I have a 67-6 with the barrel and it is extremely accurate, particularly with proper size lead bullets. I sold a M66 I had with it and I was thinking about a 64-8 to replace it.
It's far simpler to set / adjust the barrel cylinder gap with a barrel tube & shroud design over turning the traditional one piece barrel. That saves time and reduces scrap.
It's a great idea from a manufacturing point of view but Dan Wesson had / has the better system IMHO.
It's a great idea from a manufacturing point of view but Dan Wesson had / has the better system IMHO.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,018
- Reaction score
- 7,100
I had this discussion with Herb Belin at the SHOT Show the first year that the two-piece barrels were introduced. Mr. Belin was the engineer in charge of revolvers at the time, and the above was the main reason he gave for the change. Simpler assembly and less time to get the proper barrel cylinder gap during fitting.
At the time, the "flange" arrangement was used in order to make the muzzle end look as close as possible to what the one-piece barrels looked like. I, for one, am glad they introduced a newer system on the new 2014 Models 66 and 69.
Similar threads
