Misc revolver questions

L

Lord Grey Boots

New member
Was looking at a nice Model 66, round butt, 2 1/2" barrel today at the WAC gun show.

The tag mentioned it had a "pinned barrel". I understand that is as opposed to just screwed on. But is that better?


Other question, any real differences between the Colt and S&W 1917 45 ACP revolvers?
 
The 2.5 inch barreled Model 66, was introduced in 1974.
In 1982, the pinned barrel and counterbored cylinder were eliminated.

I would prefer a Model 66 from that era to a more recently produced M66.
 
Not really.
The reason S&W discontinued the pinned barrel was it was just cheaper to tork the barrel up tight, instead of torking and pinning. For all intents, there's no real difference between the two, but purest's will insist on a pinned gun.

The only real difference in the S&W and Colt 1917 revolvers, is that the early Colts HAD to have 1/2 moon clips, since the chambers were bored straight with no "step" in the chamber.
The cases had nothing to headspace on and would slip down into the chambers. Later issue's had the headspace steps and the gun could be fired without clips. However, on both brands, if the gun is loaded without clips, the cases must be punched out with a pencil or other device, OR you must use the .45 Auto Rim cartridge, which is just the .45 ACP with a rim added for the 1917.

Both guns are good shooters, and a piece of American history.
 
Pin locks the barrel in place. Pinned barrels stay put with less torque required than non pinned barrels. Not uncomon to look in a later shiny bored stainless gun and see a slight ring in the bore even with the end of the frame. Barrel streched from tightning it and has a small portion that is larger than bore size.

I have seen quite a few late stainless guns that came from the factory with the stretch mark.

Sam
 
Dammit, Sam, you beat me to it.

It's not at all uncommon for someone who's not familiar with how to deal with getting a new barrel into a newer Smith frame (post pinning) to actually damage the barrel and or frame by over torquing.

The pin was pretty much idiot proof. The barrel was in the proper location when the keyway was clear.

But, believe it or not, that shiny ring is, because of the new design, virtually impossible to get around.

The threads are cut so that there has to be a little bit of a crush fit, which leads to a tiny bit of barrel stretching.

If the threads are miscut, or if a newbie doesn't know the proper techniques, the barrel and frame both can be damaged.

Quite frankly, I think things would have been a bit better design wise had S&W simply engineered a special crush/lock washer.
 
re: model 1917

all colts that i've handled have cylinders which rotate clockwise (when viewed from the rear), while smiths rotate counter-clockwise.

did the 1917's follow this pattern?
 
Hi, guys,

If LGB is still not clear, it is not "pinned as opposed to screwed in", it is pinned in addition to screwed in. S&W did not want to torque their barrels too tightly (for reasons mentioned by others) and the pin kept the barrel from unscrewing during firing due to the rifling twist.

The Colt Model 1917 and S&W Model 1917 are different designs, even though they fire the same ammunition. The Army lumped them together under "Model 1917" for convenience in supply (it didn't matter which was issued), but they handle differently, work differently, and have no commonality of parts.

Jim
 
Jim,

I understood, hence the "just screwed on" in the original post. The 66 I was looking at had the recessed chambers too, and looked real clean and solid. He wanted $365 for it. It was tempting...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top