Age and Features of S&W Mod 49-1, Serial # BFP4576 ?

P

Para Bellum

New member
Hi Folks,

it has been a while and I am happy to be back here. :-)

I am being offered a S&W Mod 49-1, Serial # BFP4576

Can anybody here tell,
  • how old this specific gun is, and
  • whether it has the safety features of modern S&W revolvers such as that it only strikes the primer when the trigges is pulled all the way back, and
  • whether it can take .38+P loads?

Thanks a lot and have a nice weekend,
PB
 
Made between 1988 and 1990. As such, yes, it has all modern safety features.

The barrel will not be pinned (or at least it shouldn't be).

And yes, it will handle +P.
 
"pinned barrel"

Thank you Mike for your quick and competent answer! :)

Now a possibly stupid question, what is a "pinned barrel"?

Thanks a lot and have a good sunday,
PB
 
pinned barrel, #2

meanwhile I've found this thread here: http://thefiringline.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-453333.html

and these two posts somewhere else:

Non-pinned barrels are held in place with either tight (interferance or 'crush') threads or over-torquing. Either way , something gets overstressed. Either the thin forcing cone area of the barrel or the frame. The threaded potion of the barrel has been known to constrict , effectively making that part of the bore slightly smaller , leading to poor accuracy , or cracked frames , especially in the yoke cut-out area of aluminum frames (bores 6 o'clock). With a pinned barrel , the threads can be made to mate properly and the pin prevents loosening.
Click to expand...

Colt never used a pin to retain the barrel and never seems to have had much trouble with them. S&W, on the other hand, seems to have experienced a lot of problems with barrels since 1982 when the pin was eliminated. many reports of damaged, misaligned barrels and even some flying off during firing.
Generally the pinned barrel is symbolic of the time when craftsmen built guns. Now the accountants and the lawyers design them.
Click to expand...

I'm just wondering if the fact that the specific gun offered to me (see initial post above) has a non-pinned barrel and was made between 1988 and 1990 should be in any way a reason not to by that one and to buy another older pinned one or rather a new one?

Thanks and have a nice weekend,
PB
 
"Either way , something gets overstressed"

Not as dire as it sounds. The crush fit barrels were designed with a crush zone.

Yes, S&W had problems early on getting things right, especially in getting the barrel aligned so that the front sight was vertical. But generally the system worked fairly well.

As long as your front sight is vertical, and you don't see any evidence of cracks in the frame around the barrel, you should be good to go.
 
new ones better?

Thanks a lot for your time and thought.

Would a new one be technically better?

The difference in price is no issue for me in such an important purchase decision.

Have a good Sunday,
PB
 
Better? No.

Different.

I prefer my S&Ws with the pinned barrels, but I have a couple with the crush fit barrels.

I've seen quite a few with the canted front sight over the years. S&W went through a long period, especially in the 1980s through the 1990s, when they had QC problems and stuff was leaving the factory that never should have left the factory.
 
Thank you.

That reminds me of my recently bought new Marlin 336SS. Junk right out of the box.

So I guess I'll look for a quality snubby with a shrouded hammer instead.

Have a good evening,
PB
 
Another anti-S&W diatribe with no validity. If "crush fit" barrels are bad, just about every rifle maker, as well as revolver makers Colt, Ruger, Charter, etc., has been doing things wrong sometimes for a century or so. (Not to mention makers of every other machine using ordinary nuts and bolts.)

It was S&W that was out of step in using the pinned barrel.

Jim
 
Diatribe?

Who, other than yourself, is diatribing?

The statements made in this thread are factual.

Where's this alleged current of anti-S&Wism?

Is calling out S&W's KNOWN QC problems being anti-S&W?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top