Question about S & W revolvers
- Thread starter TWOSHOES
- Start date
Mike Irwin
Staff
On Smith & Wesson revolvers made before 1983 or so, when the barrel was assembled into the frame a small pin was inserted through the frame and a keyway cut into the top of the barrel (at right angles to the bore) to essentially lock the barrel into place and keep it from loosening during firing.
It is very evident when you examine an older Smith & Wesson.
You'll also often see an older magnum revolver (.357, .41, or .44) described as being "pinned (as described above) and recessed."
The recessed part means that the cylinder chambers were counter sunk so that the face of the cartridge head was flush with the face of the cylinder, instead of sitting above it.
Essentially, in a recessed cylinder, when viewed from the side, you couldn't see the rounds that were loaded into the cylinder.
Starting in 1983, the pinning and recessing features were slowly phased out as part of a series of cost cutting moves.
It is very evident when you examine an older Smith & Wesson.
You'll also often see an older magnum revolver (.357, .41, or .44) described as being "pinned (as described above) and recessed."
The recessed part means that the cylinder chambers were counter sunk so that the face of the cartridge head was flush with the face of the cylinder, instead of sitting above it.
Essentially, in a recessed cylinder, when viewed from the side, you couldn't see the rounds that were loaded into the cylinder.
Starting in 1983, the pinning and recessing features were slowly phased out as part of a series of cost cutting moves.
The Model 629 was introduced in 1978 with prototype serial no. N629062. Regular production guns started with N748564. In 1982 Smith dropped the pinned barrel and counter bored cylinder features and renamed the pistol the Model 629-1. A number of other improvements were made with the introduction of the Model 629-2 in 1988, some even stamped 629-2E. The 629-3 came in during 1990 and the 629-4 in 1994.
The early models had a problem with the cylinder unlocking when firing heavy, magnum loads like a 240 gr SWC. The cylinder unlocks, rotates backwards, and when the trigger is pulled again, places the just fired round under the hammer. This results in a quiet click instead of a loud boom. Smith and Wesson corrected the problem in 1988.
The early models had a problem with the cylinder unlocking when firing heavy, magnum loads like a 240 gr SWC. The cylinder unlocks, rotates backwards, and when the trigger is pulled again, places the just fired round under the hammer. This results in a quiet click instead of a loud boom. Smith and Wesson corrected the problem in 1988.
Robert the41MagFan
New member
TWOSHOES
When people speak of S&W being weak guns, those old models are the ones they're talking about. The pinned and recessed guns are useless, other than for collectors and others that seem not to be able to let go of the past. If you want a strong gun, find a S&W 629-3 or better. The latest incarnation are the best Smiths ever.
Robert
[Edited by Robert the41MagFan on 05-14-2001 at 10:41 PM]
When people speak of S&W being weak guns, those old models are the ones they're talking about. The pinned and recessed guns are useless, other than for collectors and others that seem not to be able to let go of the past. If you want a strong gun, find a S&W 629-3 or better. The latest incarnation are the best Smiths ever.
Robert
[Edited by Robert the41MagFan on 05-14-2001 at 10:41 PM]
Mike Irwin
Staff
Wow, Robert, EVERY ONE of my S&W Magnums is pinned & recessed.
Not a single one is "junk," as you seem to imply, not even the Model 58...
Care to share just what you base that "opinion" on?
Not a single one is "junk," as you seem to imply, not even the Model 58...
Care to share just what you base that "opinion" on?
Robert the41MagFan
New member
Hold on cowboys! I didn't say junk! And ain't talking K frames either.
Up until 1988 (pre 29-3 and 629-2), Smith & Wessons were taking a pounding at the silhouette range. Under a constant hammering of full power loads, cylinders were unlocking and turning backwards, parts were breaking, actions were wearing prematurely and guns were going out of time. It's no big secret! That is were the term came from, that S&W were weak guns. After 1988, S&W addressed the problems by strengthening the yoke and cylinder crane and by lengthening the cylinder notch to prevent jumping. Full retrofits were complete on models 29-5 and 629-4 and beyond.
In the modern construction of a Smith & Wesson revolver, pinned and recessed barrels are unnecessary, add cost and do nothing. It is useless. They are beautiful guns and the finish quality would be cost prohibitive today, but that in no way makes them better or stronger guns. Ask any Ruger guy that (ugliest guns around, but strong as heck!).
Robert
Up until 1988 (pre 29-3 and 629-2), Smith & Wessons were taking a pounding at the silhouette range. Under a constant hammering of full power loads, cylinders were unlocking and turning backwards, parts were breaking, actions were wearing prematurely and guns were going out of time. It's no big secret! That is were the term came from, that S&W were weak guns. After 1988, S&W addressed the problems by strengthening the yoke and cylinder crane and by lengthening the cylinder notch to prevent jumping. Full retrofits were complete on models 29-5 and 629-4 and beyond.
In the modern construction of a Smith & Wesson revolver, pinned and recessed barrels are unnecessary, add cost and do nothing. It is useless. They are beautiful guns and the finish quality would be cost prohibitive today, but that in no way makes them better or stronger guns. Ask any Ruger guy that (ugliest guns around, but strong as heck!).
Robert
Mike Irwin
Staff
Alright, guys, stand the possee down. No lynching tonight. 
Junk was implied...
I think your comments are, however, just a bit on the harsh side though, Robert, but then again, I've NEVER been known to make a harsh comment on TFL...
And some of the same problems that you're noting with the N-frame .44s aren't unknown in the K-frames, though; hence the genesis of the L-frames.
But, that takes nothing away from the simple fact that the Model 19 is the most perfect .357 Magnum revolver ever developed.
Junk was implied...
I think your comments are, however, just a bit on the harsh side though, Robert, but then again, I've NEVER been known to make a harsh comment on TFL...
And some of the same problems that you're noting with the N-frame .44s aren't unknown in the K-frames, though; hence the genesis of the L-frames.
But, that takes nothing away from the simple fact that the Model 19 is the most perfect .357 Magnum revolver ever developed.
Oh, Boy...Gotta agree with Robert about the sturdiness of the "old-style" S&W .44's...the NEWER guns, WITH the so-called "endurance package" ARE MUCH sturdier, more "uniform" in manufacture and, with the CNC-made cylinders, among the most accurate revolvers ever built. Now, on ANOTHER topic...between us, Mrs. 3-5-7 and I own SIX K-frame .357's...66's and 19's...while I like them very much, I PERSONALLY believe that the L-frame .357's with adjustable sights--the 586 and 686--are as close to "Ideal" or "Perfect" revolvers as have EVER been made by ANYONE, ANYWHERE...just MY two cent's worth....mikey357
Mike Irwin
Staff
Mikey,
Saw off that full-length worthless POS underlug and I'd probably agree with you.
For me, that underlug makes the L-frames handle like complete and total pigs.
Saw off that full-length worthless POS underlug and I'd probably agree with you.
For me, that underlug makes the L-frames handle like complete and total pigs.
What does the underlug do for you? I've seen that some have it and some don't, but I dont' know why it matters. Apart from weight and balance, I don't think it would have a great deal of impact on the gun's performance. I'm not speaking from experience, here, so anyone who's spent a lot of time with these guns, let me know. Is it a structural thing?
Mike Irwin
Staff
Griz,
I'm pretty certain that it was the Python.
I can see a full underlug on a really heavy kicker like a .44 Mag. used for hunting, but on .22s and .32s? You're frigging kidding me, right?
I'm pretty certain that it was the Python.
I can see a full underlug on a really heavy kicker like a .44 Mag. used for hunting, but on .22s and .32s? You're frigging kidding me, right?
Junk implied
Useless stated......disagree. Not good for 200m ram thumpin but useful for many other things.
For shootin steel critters and real bears, guess I'd go with the 29-5.......or a Ruger.
For packin, plinkin, punchin Xs, pride of workmanship and personal protection: I like the older style in blue thank you.
CNC equipment allows one to make a lot of parts to spec cheaply. The quality of the parts is still dependant on the operator and QC.
Sam...I've seen eight decades of shootin, feelin kinda useless.
Useless stated......disagree. Not good for 200m ram thumpin but useful for many other things.
For shootin steel critters and real bears, guess I'd go with the 29-5.......or a Ruger.
For packin, plinkin, punchin Xs, pride of workmanship and personal protection: I like the older style in blue thank you.
CNC equipment allows one to make a lot of parts to spec cheaply. The quality of the parts is still dependant on the operator and QC.
Sam...I've seen eight decades of shootin, feelin kinda useless.
Mike, A full lug certainly isn’t needed on a light recoil gun. Some folks like the looks of it though. I think that the desire for the "massive" look accounts for the proliferation of these huge handguns we see today. Maybe it’s tied into the I’ve got the biggest gun syndrome. Me, I still want a pre or post agreement airweight 22 with adjustable sights.