Why are 2-piece barrels generally disliked?

My issued revolver saved my life more than once so in retirement the EDC is a light J Frame thirty-eight.
 
"The two piece barrel makes it easier to consistently make barrels with the sights at 12 o'clock/top dead center".
You'd think that would be the case, but both my 66-8 and model 69 have front sights that are slightly canted.
It's not enough to bug me so that I want to send them back, the canted sight just takes up a click or two or windage.
But clearly the ribs on top don't line up.
 
I will agree that the two piece barrel system is not as aesthetically pleasing as the old, one piece barrel, but like Dan Wesson revolvers, it should produce better accuracy if the barrel is properly tensioned. The proper tensioning seemed to be an issue with the early production of S&W's with the two piece barrel. I think the assemblers finally figured out how to correctly torque the two piece barrels.
 
I never liked the recessed chambers at all. They serve no purpose with modern ammo, and are mainly just another place for gunk and unburned powder granules to accumulate and interfere with reloading.
I don’t have any problems with the two-pieced barrels though.
Too bad Smith does not give you the option of swapping barrels at home and setting your own barrel-cylinder gap like the Dan Wessons did.

I never had that problem, even when doing multiple qualifications in one day.

Of course, Marines tend to keep their firearms clean...:D
 
They are never going to make them like they did in the
Old days
I would be interested in a S&W with Dan Wesson style
Barrels , all frame sizes.
How about a model66 with 2” 4” and a 6.5” barrels.
Or a model 25 with a 3” and a 5”.
 
If they made them the way they did in the old days few could afford them. The cost of labor is simply too high today...not that it can't be done...just the return on investment is too small.

Automation and computer controls are how it's done today with as little human interaction as possible.
 
Back
Top