Pinned Barrels on S&W
- Thread starter ky hunter
- Start date
For many years, S&W fitted their barrels rather loosely and kept them from unscrewing by using a cross pin. As you note, that was costly and they were the only revolver company to do that. But in recent years, S&W has gone to the simpler method of torquing the barrel shoulder against the frame. Yes, it is a cost cutting measure, and like other such measures has a lot of folks ranting about TEOTWAWKI since S&W quality has gone to heck in a handbasket.
But a company that can't or won't come up with innovative ideas to keep costs down will soon be remembered by another word - bankrupt.
Jim
But a company that can't or won't come up with innovative ideas to keep costs down will soon be remembered by another word - bankrupt.
Jim
Actually, the fitting is the same. The pin was there to keep the barrel from coming completely off if the threads got stripped somehow.
Neither approach is better; the company simply moved towards a more efficient approach. The same goes for not counterboring chambers any more--it wasn't necessary, and it just added to the cost.
There really isn't any difference in function, accuracy, or durability.
Well, no. The barrels were not a crush fit and once the pin was driven out, the barrel was put in the barrel vise and a hammer handle or a piece of 2x2 through the cylinder window used to turn the frame off the barrel. Trying that with a new S&W will result in a badly bent frame.
I agree there is no practical difference.
Jim
I agree there is no practical difference.
Jim
Could you elaborate? I was under the impression that crush fitting meant a final "oomph" of torque, and that the older ones were held by torque as well.
I could be wrong; I've heard it both ways.
Not really, but you can get a good estimate from the serial number. There's a thread at the top to inquire.
highpower3006
New member
Actually, the pin does more of less date when it was made. They stopped pinning barrels and counterboring the cylinders sometime around 1982.
Whether they are better without the pinned barrels or not, the fact is that the pinned barrel models are more desirable than the unpinned variety. Those looking to collect S&W revolvers will generally pay a premium for the earlier guns over their later cousins. That's why the prices were higher for the earlier guns.
The same can be said for the S&W's with no MIM parts or the internal locks. There is a perception that the revolvers that were made before those features were introduced are better made and there are people out there that won't own the latest production models.
I personally see no real functional difference between the early vs the later guns.
I do however, collect pinned barrel Smiths and prefer the 5 screw models.
Whether they are better without the pinned barrels or not, the fact is that the pinned barrel models are more desirable than the unpinned variety. Those looking to collect S&W revolvers will generally pay a premium for the earlier guns over their later cousins. That's why the prices were higher for the earlier guns.
The same can be said for the S&W's with no MIM parts or the internal locks. There is a perception that the revolvers that were made before those features were introduced are better made and there are people out there that won't own the latest production models.
I personally see no real functional difference between the early vs the later guns.
I do however, collect pinned barrel Smiths and prefer the 5 screw models.
Mike Irwin
Staff
The difference is in the amount of torque used to tighten the barrel down, Tom.
The older guns didn't use nearly as much torque. Jim is correct that you can often remove the barrels on the older guns with very little pressure.
The major problem with the new style is that there is no absolute reference to indicate when the barrel is screwed on straight. For years after dropping the cross pin S&W had problems getting the barrel screwed on so that the front sight was vertical. When I was working for the gun shop in the early 1990s we sent quite a few back to the factory that had front sight cants of 10 degrees, or worse.
The older guns didn't use nearly as much torque. Jim is correct that you can often remove the barrels on the older guns with very little pressure.
The major problem with the new style is that there is no absolute reference to indicate when the barrel is screwed on straight. For years after dropping the cross pin S&W had problems getting the barrel screwed on so that the front sight was vertical. When I was working for the gun shop in the early 1990s we sent quite a few back to the factory that had front sight cants of 10 degrees, or worse.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Dose the pin date the gun?"
Yes, it does.
S&W dropped the pins (and the recessed chambers on the centerfire magnum revolvers) around 1983.
In some models it happened earlier, in others later. Some revolvers also show one feature and not the other. They're called, roughly, transitional models.
Yes, it does.
S&W dropped the pins (and the recessed chambers on the centerfire magnum revolvers) around 1983.
In some models it happened earlier, in others later. Some revolvers also show one feature and not the other. They're called, roughly, transitional models.
highpower3006
New member
The SCSW does not mention a +P rated Model 60 until the guns made from 1993 on. However, if someone has a copy of the literature that came with an earlier gun, it will mention as whether the heavier loading can be used.
My 19-3 pinned & recessed is a work of art.
My 1995ish 640 just works...both are fine guns without locks.
I see no reason to buy new ones when the old ones are better and cheaper. Maybe S&W should try listening to their customers. They have a good thing going. Maybe they could shrink the number of models and increase quality and volume to be more profitable??
My 1995ish 640 just works...both are fine guns without locks.
I see no reason to buy new ones when the old ones are better and cheaper. Maybe S&W should try listening to their customers. They have a good thing going. Maybe they could shrink the number of models and increase quality and volume to be more profitable??
One thing I have noticed regarding pinned/non pinned S&Ws is that most of the non pinned crush fit barrels have a slight constriction where the frame's threads surround the barrel shank. Most of my S&Ws are P&R models but I have a couple of newer ones (post 94) and you can clearly see the constriction where the frame "crushed" the barrel. It does not seem to be enough of a problem to affect the bullet's engagement with the rifling after squeezing through the tight spot but I feel the old method was better. The old P&R Smiths were assembled with greater care than the current ones and the fit and finishing is better and you almost never got an old one with a trigger pull that really needed any further "enhancement".
There is nothing magical about P+ ammo. It's almost the same power level as standard 38 special ammo used to be back in the day. Smith & Wesson has said that any gun with a model number is safe with P+.
I like the pinned barrels better, but I won't turn my nose up at a nice unpinned one.
Bob Wright
New member
I might add the current method of fitting barrels is adequate so long as its the original barrel installation. I had a Model 29 fitted at the factory with a 5" full lug barrel, a factory retrofit. After a few thousand rounds being fired, by barrel canted slightly until I ran out of windage adjustment in the rear sight. So, took the gun to my gunsmith and had him realign the barrel and dirll and pin it. Problem solved.
Bob Wright
Bob Wright
Lotta misinfo here. 
On the older model S&Ws the one piece barrels were threaded into the frame - the cylinder gap was checked and the fixed sights were checked to make sure they weren't canted.
Then the barrel was pinned to make sure it didn't move.
This was before CNC milling machines were common and
handfitting of parts was still the norm.
The pin disappeared when they went to more efficient methods.
On the older model S&Ws the one piece barrels were threaded into the frame - the cylinder gap was checked and the fixed sights were checked to make sure they weren't canted.
Then the barrel was pinned to make sure it didn't move.
This was before CNC milling machines were common and
handfitting of parts was still the norm.
The pin disappeared when they went to more efficient methods.
Also, IIRC, only the magnum and rimfire calibers had recessed chambers. For example, my model 25-5 is pinned but not recessed. I think 22s are still recessed to prevent damage to the face of the cylinder from firing pin strikes, while on magnums the reason was in the event of case head blowouts which was really not needed.