[Master Blaster]

I have gotten the bug to buy another smith revolver in .357, or possibly a single action ruger or a stampede in .357. I'm toying with the idea of getting a 6" 686+ because I like my 4" 686+ pre agreement model from 1999 so much.

Any hoo I read about the new 620 which is an L frame with a half underlug instead of the full underlug barrel found on the 686. I noticed that it has a 2 piece barrel and is stainless steel. So I called S&W to ask about this 2 piece barrel and had a nice conversation with ther Customer service person. He explained that the outter barrel is cast and the inner barrel is forged steel and broach rifled. This is the design found on the lightweight titanium/ scandium snubbies and on the new 500 series x-frames. It has the advantage for them of lessening the number of machining set ups and helping them keep the manufacturing process costs low. It also may make for a more accurate barrel because the barrel is tensioned, like the Dan Wessons made in the 1980s.

He also told me that they are thinking of going to this design feature on all of their revolvers in the future. HMMM

Well I'm not sure if that is a good thing or not. so I'm thinking; get a 6" 686+ or 686 now while the entire barrel is still forged, rather than just the insert.

My 1999 686+ has the ECR rifling (eletrochemical rifling, similar to EDM) its very accurate and the mirror finish and lack of tooling marks make it easy to clean. The CS rep mentioned that at the moment they have discontinued this process because it is less expensive to do the tension barrel set up but they may be using the ECR/EDM method in the future to make the inserts. The tension barrel allows them to make a long rifled pipe and then cut it to length and insert it in different barrel lengths and styles using the outer cast sleeve, and elimiates different machining setups (much like frame mounted firing pins did away with different hammers)

Very interesting, HMM maybe I should just look for an older smith because I dont want to be a guinea pig again, but then again a 6" 620 without the underlug in 7 shot may be worth waiting for. OTOH my local shop has a 6" 686 six shot nib for $529, a 4" 620 7 shot for $529, as well. Also tempting is a LNIB 6" 629 if I wanted to add the the 44 mag collection (I have a ruger super blackhawk and red hawk already) made just before the key lock was added for $529.



What do you all think ?????

[Ala Dan]

I have a S&W 6" six shot model 686, and its a tack driver. ;)
This is one purchase I've never regretted. Only modification made
to it was the installation of WOLFF springs; with the 13 lb. trigger
return spring. Now, its slick as a newborn babys butt. :D

FWIW, $529 is what we sell 'em for NIB.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

[Standing Wolf]

...the outter barrel is cast and the inner barrel is forged steel and broach rifled.

I wonder how long it will take the self-appointed geniuses at Smith & Wesson to think of plastic barrels, plastic triggers, plastic hammers, and...

[Tacoma]

Not in my future. I'll continue to buy up old production but am not sold on a concept that failed Wesson Arms years back. ( Just this week I watached a guy try to sell a 4 barreled DW cased set for $300 and get turned away. ) This might make for a cheaper to produce revolver but I'm not buying it's a better one.
My 2 cents,

[Preacherman]

Another problem with this production technique is that if you want to shorten the barrel (say, from 4" to 3", to make the gun shorter for CCW purposes), you're SOL. Shortening it removes the front tension point, so it can't be done. The only way would be to install a whole new barrel and shroud - assuming that S&W actually makes one in the desired length.

[Standing Wolf]

The only way would be to install a whole new barrel and shroud...

Well, yeah, but it'd keep Smith & Wesson repair people in pay checks, right?

[Master Blaster]

Another problem with this production technique is that if you want to shorten the barrel (say, from 4" to 3", to make the gun shorter for CCW purposes), you're SOL. Shortening it removes the front tension point, so it can't be done. The only way would be to install a whole new barrel and shroud - assuming that S&W actually makes one in the desired length.

Actually I think ist more cost effective, and probably less risky, now even with the fully forged barrels, to just sell the gun with the longer barrel and buy one with a shorter barrel, assuming that they make the configuration you want, or buy an older smith and have a custom gunsmith, or S&W make the conversion.

I cant really blame S&W for trying to keep the manufacturing costs down, because they have to compete with other companies like Taurus, and Springfield Armory that save costs by using cheaper foreign labor. S&W is still employing american workers to make all of their offerings. We should give them some credit for that anyway. :)

[BluesBear]

What some enterprising company needs to do is to start making after market interchangeable barrels and shrouds for the new S&Ws.

Or offer a service to cut the barrel, rethread the muzzle and shorten the shroud.

This way you could get a S&W in any length you wish.



But what I suspect will really happen is that S&W will continue to cut corners on barrel manufacturing and just use the lifetime warranty to replace those cheaper barrels that get shot very much. :(

The bean counters policy of "it's cheaper to fix it if they complain than to make it right the first time" seems to have prevailed. :banghead:

[444]

I for one and anxious to see exactly how this pans out. I am not going to offer an opinion until I have some experience to back it up.
"This is the design found on the lightweight titanium/ scandium snubbies and on the new 500 series x-frames. "
From everything I have heard, the 500 revolvers are very accurate. I haven't heard of any problems with longevity either and if any revolver cartridge was going to put the gun through it's paces, the 500 would do it.
Wouldn't it be amazing if someone did invent a new better mousetrap ?

[Master Blaster]

I have to agree with you 444, but like I said I dont want to spend $529 to be the guinea pig on this one. :)

Its interesting that the CS rep I talked to mentioned that the design was doing well on the 500 revolvers also, I imagine they are doing the same thing on the new model 460 2300 fps jobber as well.

[c_yeager]

Well I'm not sure if that is a good thing or not. so I'm thinking; get a 6" 686+ or 686 now while the entire barrel is still forged, rather than just the insert.

I just purchased a used 6" 686-3 and I couldnt be happier. These things are awesome and I think you should pick one up. I almost always suffer a little buyers remorse after a big purchase (for me guns = big purchase) but, not-so with this one. I just keep looking at it and smiling. the long 686 is such a solid gun that I think a two-piece bbl would really mess up the feel of it.

[DHart]

I'm not blaming S&W for trying to cut their production costs, but that doesn't mean I'm interested in buying any of these. They probably shoot real well and will run just fine! But I guess I'm just old fashioned and like my Smiths the way they used to be (NO locks, NO MIM, firing pin on the hammer)...

Hopefully lots of new S&W buyers will be wowed by these "wave of the future" guns and leave the dwindling supply of classic S&W's on the used market to those of us who prefer them! ;-)=

Master... I think it's a right fine idea for you to go and git yersef one a them new 620's! I'll bet they're the "wave of the future"!

In the meantime, I'm waiting for the 686-4 +1 (7-shot) 2.5" I just bought to arrive at my FFL. It's just a used, fuddy-duddy gun though, firing pin on the hammer, no internal lock, no MIM... but I'll suffer through! :rolleyes:

[444]

I doubt that I will be buying any of the news ones, simply because I own plenty of the old ones that I don't shoot enough as it is. But, I was far more upset about the lock than I am about any of this stuff. For all I know, this stuff we are talking about here is better than what I already have. The lock is a step down IMO, no matter what.

[Master Blaster]

What some enterprising company needs to do is to start making after market interchangeable barrels and shrouds for the new S&Ws.

His name is Jack Weigand, he already does it for the L frames currently produced. Or correction he used to do it it seems that this is on closeout, so maybe there was not much demand.

http://www.jackweigand.com/interchangeL.html ;)

[ponyexpress]

FWIW I believe these new barrels are more widespread than Smith & Wesson claims. A friend of mine bought a new model 66 last fall and I noticed that it had a two piece barrel on. Thanks for the FYI on the construction, I was wondering how the were going about that.

[Lone Star]

In S&W's, I believe that I'll just look for good used ones, made the traditional way.

I hope Ruger doesn't foul its nest by "improving" the GP-100.

Lone Star

[John Ross]

IMO the two-piece, tensioned barrel is an improvement, especially on high-intensity calibers. Replacing a barrel with a shot-out forcing cone is MUCH cheaper to do than on an old style gun, and anyone shooting the .460 much will take out the forcing cone.

My 500s are all tack-drivers, and I think the tensioned barrel is part of the reason.

JR

[Majic]

concept that failed Wesson Arms years back.
The concept didn't fail Dan Wesson. Even though you may not reconize DW if you look in the record books for the Silhoulette shooters you will see that DW dominated in those games. The business failed when the parent company wasted all of the assets of DW on other companies they owned then dumped DW as they were no longer profitable.

[lawboy]

the tensioned barrel is not new, cheap technology. It is an old idea, proven to have great merit by DW, volquartsen, and other manufacturers both here and abroad. If that guy still has a cased set for $300, have him email me. I will buy it. behightower@yahoo.com. I paid $600 for my last 4-barrel, cased m15-2 set in .357 and I am still dancing like a school girl about it a year later. I hope DW, monson, mass. made guns remain misunderstood and under appreciated until I can get my hands on a .44 mag. cased set! regards to all.

[only1asterisk]

The new barrel is a cost saving measure, I'll not have anything to do with it.

David

[Master Blaster]

Well I took delivery of the 6" 686 6 shot yesterday, the action feels excellent just as good as my 5 year old 686 plus. I will be taking it out for a test drive later today. I did a little better than the asking price of $529 NIB and here in DE we dont have a state transfer fee or any sales tax, so the price is the price.

My new 686 appears to have the ECR/EDM rifling which is a very good thing, since it imparts a mirror finish and will make the barrel much easier to clean than a conventionally rifled barrel. The only minor annoyance is the key locking hole but, I can live with that, since it hasn't caused any problem on my 642 carry gun.

I own about 8 s&w revolvers and this is only the second one bought NIB, even my 686+ was preowned and sold by the original owner to me at a considerable discount after they fired a box of ammo and decided .357 mag was not for them, and the gunstore where they bought it offered them $250 ;) .

[Dave Markowitz]

:barf: :barf: :barf:

[L-Frame]

I don't know much about the differences in barrels that this conversation deals with. There are a few things that I do know though. First, I really like the concept of the 619 and 620. Long overdue in my opinion. Second, I have no problem with the new style barrels as a cost cutting measure as long as there is no quality cutting. Those 2 things do not have to go hand in hand and too often that connection is assumed. Third, I heard someone say it would make cutting the barrel down impossible. That might be relevant to some but to the vast majority, including me, that is irrevelant. If you are one of those people who likes to have the barrel cut, I understand not wanting to buy it. And, it always seems that any change is looked at with scorn until it has proven itself. Many people won't buy S&W because of the lock. Fair enough. I think it's ugly and unnecessary. But if I had let that stop me from buying, I would have cheated myself out of one of the nicest shooting guns I've ever owned (686+ 5", hi viz). I remember when I was in college and the 686's came out. I had a number of friends and acquaintances cry bloody murder "butt ugly, completely lost the grace and elegance of the K and N frames". "Better suited for a hammer with all that metal under the barrel", etc, etc. I'll wait until I see one and feel it. If I like it I'll buy it. If I like shooting it, I'll keep it. If not I'll sell it.

[Guy B. Meredith]

I was at the Ruger site today to look up the number for customer service as I had sent in my MK512 (deep tool mark circumference of bore) and noticed the Alaskan. The image shows what seems to be a 2 piece barrel. Correct or not?

[Flying V]

Not the same thing.
A Super Redhawk has two inches of barrel threads in that frame extension.
The Alaskan just bobs the barrel flush with the end of the extension, but it's a conventional barrel.

[9x19]

Wave of the future?

Charter Arms was putting sleeved barrels on their revo's in the 80s, and Dan Wesson had the ultimate two-piece barrels on their revolvers before that.

With every move they make, I keep telling myself: Thank goodness for all the fine used S&Ws on the market!

[500swmag]

Just to clarify some previous statements made.
NO our barrel shrouds are NOT CASTINGS, they are machined from billet extruded steel, come on down to the plant for a tour and you can see our process. The inner barrel sleeve or barrelette is turned on a lathe from 410 bar stock. This 2 piece barrel is not cheaper to manufacture, our cost savings was in scrap and rework, it is much harder to control the threads of a one piece barrel to "clock up" properly to the 12'O'clock position then it is to tighten up an inner barrel sleeve to a to specified torque setting. The two piece barrel design gives a much more consistantly assembled gun. Hope this can clarify some mis-understandings.
BC

[Master Blaster]

500 it was your own CS technical guy at your customer service 800 number who told me that the outter barrel was a casting, and that was on the 620.

So ?????????????

[unspellable]

If S&W has gone to a two piece barrel ala DW, why couldn't have made it interchangable ala DW?

With a DW the cylinder gap is adjustable, this would eliminate one of my gripes with S&W's where I keep pulling them out of the box with too much cylinder gap.

[Majic]

You know it sounds like the investment in CNC machines have resulted in a reduction in the machinist's skills if there was a problem in barrel installation. After about 150 years of building revolvers you would think the manufactor would have that process down pat.

[lawboy]

I don't mean to be rude, I really do not. But some of this stuff just plain sounds ignorant. The idea that because it was done one way 150 years ago, any new way is a cheapening of the product, flies in the face of so much industrial- and computer-age history, that I am dumbfounded that people conceive of product development and industry progress so simple-mindedly. If you prefer it because you like it better the old way, good, bad or indifferent, just say so. But to call it cheaper without any technical information about how, why or what it can do, is stupid. I am sorry, it truly lacks intellectual effort of any measurable amount. Respectfully, (really). Lawboy.

[only1asterisk]

You know it sounds like the investment in CNC machines have resulted in a reduction in the machinist's skills

Actually, I think CNC equipment has resulted in a reduction in machinist.

Lawboy,

We aren't simpleminded, we just remember hand fit revolvers that where made with real steel and lovingly finished with deep, dark blue. No, they were not all perfect, but they were real. What S&W puts out now looks to me like the illegitimate child of Dan Wesson and a Taurus, complete with Clinton hole, MIM parts and 7 shot cylinder. I want nothing to do with it. I hope it doesn't take S&W as long as Winchester to start giving customers back more of what they want.

If the choice is between a new 620 and a 20+ year old model 13 I know which one I want and why.

David

[lawboy]

David, that is the type of honesty I am talking about. You like the old ones, perfect or not. But folks trying to justify their preference by saying the new stuff is junk ... come on. I am not buying it for one minute. I like older revolvers too. I don't like the new locks either. But are they junk? Of course not. In fact, I think they may even save somebody's life, and I know for a fact some of the older handgun and rifle designs were just plain foolishly unsafe. I know one attorney who made his millions suing gun companies for that kind of thing, and my own firm has defended several of those companies on product liability cases. Folks, some of the old stuff is near and dear, but it is not always the best. Some of it it was plain stupidly designed no matter how well it looked, felt or fit in the hand. Good night.

[Majic]

My reference was that for 150 years they have been making a forged barrel and installing it on the revolvers. Now it was posted above that there's to much trouble trying to "clock" the barrels at 12 o'clock during installation creating waste and rework. This is an age old process used throughout the industry and now they are having trouble doing this? That points to either their machinists today aren't up to the task or there's problems with their CNC machines. Using a barrel liner or tube which doesn't have to be referenced in place and a shroud which can only fit properly in one place means you now don't have to have highly skilled machinists. You just need machine operators and parts assemblers (which may be robotic).

[Maxinquaye]

"Just this week I watached a guy try to sell a 4 barreled DW cased set for $300 and get turned away."

Sorry, that story's either crap or you don'tknow the deal of the century when it's staring you in the face.

Hell, the barrels alone sold on Ebay will net you double the purchase price.

:rolleyes: :barf:

[DHart]

I don't think any product line in any industry can stand still for very long, for various reasons. Some of the changes are good and some are not so good.

I would probably enjoy a new 620 and who knows, someday I may buy one. But it would never take the place of an earlier model 13, 19, 65, or 66. There is just a quality, a nature, a look and feel of the Smiths made in earlier years which has an allure head and shoulders above all the Starwars inspired, post-post-modern age wheelguns S&W is making today, those wearing atomic symbols and locks and all the rest of it. I understand that S&W needs to go there for various reasons and we'll probably never see another S&W without a built-in lock (dang it!!!), but like another poster said, it would be nice if S&W wakes up and realizes that continuing to build some of the classic designs would please a LOT of people. Perhaps, though, most of us that are drawn to the earlier versions of Smiths will fade away and the younger generations will take to the new-fangled Smiths with joy. In the meantime, I continue to seek out and enjoy beautiful Smiths of a slightly earlier time. I think they will hold value or appreciate much more than anything coming out of the S&W factory today and they also happen to bring me a lot more owner satisfaction as I enjoy looking at, handling, and shooting them.

There is one use I personally might find for a brand new Smith... that of a "beater" gun... a gun you don't mind throwing in the glovebox or under the seat of your car, one which you know you can rely on but don't have to be concerned for as far as keeping in beautiful condition. Brand new Smiths are more "disposable" in that way, you can easily replace them if they get messed up... a beautiful older Smith is not so easy to replace.

I feel the same way about 1911's. That's why most of the 1911's I've bought over the last few years have been Colts. And most of the rifles I've bought have been Winchester and Marlin lever rifles. Guess that makes a real statement about where my firearms preferences lie. Not to be totally type-cast though, I thrive on and love new Macintosh computers, new cars, DVD players, new TV's and stereos, new digital cameras, etc.

[only1asterisk]

I just want to add that I don't have any problem with new technology. If S&W would put out a new model 12 in .357 with one of their new alloy frames, a steel cylinder, normal 3" barrel, firing pin on the hammer and no Clinton hole I'd buy 4. That's progress.

20 years ago, you couldn't do it, but now you can.

MIM parts are not progress. They use MIM to make parts that are "close enough" and don't fit them. That's a step back (not to mention ugly and structurally inferior). Firing pins on the frame is not progress. The 7 shot cylinder is not progress. The triggers on guns with new lock work aren’t capable of the level of tune their predecessors could achieve. The Clinton hole is not progress. Its added parts have no function except to prove Murphy’s law true. In addition, it provides another route by which crap can enter. The two piece barrel wouldn’t be so bad if I could set the cylinder gap myself (Dan Wesson style), I’d almost trade the ability to replace/cut down a barrel. It still isn’t progress.

Not progress not by a long shot. A step backwards, less gun for more money. Cheap, for the sake of being cheaper. Like the switch Coke made in the 1980’s from cane sugar to corn syrup. Not better, not progress, just the song of the chicken.


David

[L-Frame]

I would not disagree with any of the points Only1asterisk made about what constitutes progress or not, except for the 7 shots. Giving me an extra round in the exact same package, which happens to be my chosen self defense/carry gun, is the very definition of progress in my opinion. MIM parts, the lock, etc. you'll get no arguments from me there.

Regarding earlier posts about the lack of quality craftsmen and all of the robotics nowdays, some of the best machining in the world, in the auto industry, computer industry, etc, uses robotics heavily. Heck, pick an industry where you don't find robotics. To compete you have to. It's OK to mourn an age of master craftsmen being seen less and less, but the fact is that for that age to continue you would be paying 2 and 3 times for guns what you pay now. Also, as I stated earlier, I just bought a 686+ 5" hi-viz revolver and it is extremely well done in all respects (except for the butt ugly lock). I think that the action jobs I've gotten in recent smiths is every bit as good as older models I've had worked on.

It's natural to see a Deusenburg, see all of the unique features, time and materials spent on these unique beauties and long for the old, (in this case very old days). But 2 things need to be remembered: To make a car like that today with the same methods would be outlandishly expensive, and the big one for me, there are a whole lot of really nice autos being made today the new fangled way. No different for guns. Nostalgia is a powerful thing. Old was great, I think the new will be good too. If you don't like them, great. Hunt down the older guns. Heck, the hunt is half the fun anyway.

[Peter M. Eick]

If they made it like my Dan Wessons, it would be the future. The way they have it right now where the end user cannot change it, whats the point.

Why can Dan Wesson trust me to set the gap, change the barrel, buy different lengths, shrouds and flip them around easily, and Smith and Wesson cannot?


I really think there is a problem here.....

[444]

I didn't know there was a limit. An either/or situation.

I own a dozen or two S&W revolvers. They span a range of just about 100 years. I have numerous "pinned a recessed" S&Ws. That isn't going to stop me from buying more. In addition to all the Smiths I own, I have one with a lock. I am real interested in a couple of the revovlers they make now. I don't know if I will ever buy them, but I am not ruling it out by a damn sight.

[MoNsTeR]

This is an age old process used throughout the industry and now they are having trouble doing this?
Who said it's a new problem? I would conjecture the problem has been around since the beginning. The solution is what's new.


It's all well and good to bash cost-cutting measures and pine away for the hand-fit guns of yesteryear, but it's just not viable anymore. In the US, capital is cheap and labor is expensive, and that gets truer every day. If all DA revolvers were made like M27's or early Pythons, they'd cost $800-$1000 instead of $350-$550. In the 1911 world, just look at the price difference between a Baer TRS and a Kimber Custom. Producing guns the old-fashioned way just isn't the way a company earns the most profit, which is ultimately the point of being in business.

What is a damned shame is that there's so little choice, in terms of quality, in the revolver world. You can pay anything between $300 and $5000 for a 1911, but S&W and Ruger only turn out one grade of revolver (precious few models from the S&W Performance Center excepted). Unfortunately I think that as long as there are enough older units on the used market, priced they way they are, there won't be enough demand to support a line of "factory customs."

[500swmag]

master blaster, the technical department has been informed of their error. I am certain of the materials, design and process, as I have been involved in each of these aspects at one time or another.
Brett Curry

[444]

Anything that has been discontinued is better.
Three screw Rugers.
Pre-64 Winchesters
Pinned and Recessed S&W revolvers
"Pre-Ban"
"Pre-Agreement"

The definition of an expert is someone that lives over 50 miles away. The definition of quality in a gun is one that is "Pre" something.
:rolleyes:

[Majic]

Who said it's a new problem? I would conjecture the problem has been around since the beginning. The solution is what's new.
Strange how other revolver makers can still use the old barrel design and keep their costs down.

[Master Blaster]

If all DA revolvers were made like M27's or early Pythons, they'd cost $800-$1000 instead of $350-$550. I was looking at my 1967 27-2, It would probably cost about $2,000-3,000 to make this revolver now, all forged machined parts made by a skilled machinist, case hardened trigger and hammer milled from barstock, and carefully finished, as are all of the internal parts (no milling marks visible requires extra grinding and finishing). Deep deep high polished bluing, and that 60 lpi checkered topstrap and barrel rib, all parts closely hand fitted. Yeah a new one $2500. How many do you think S&W could sell at that price point?????


As far as their competition goes, Taurus is made in Brazil, and they are using MIM and CNC machining even with their cheap labor. You can read about the mim process on their website IIRC.

Ruger, investment casting, not forged frames, all parts are cast. If S&W went to this same practice, everyone would be decrying the fact that they had cheapened their process by using "pot metal casting" instead of real forged steel for the frames. :rolleyes:

BTW I own 1 taurus, and 3 rugers as well, Rugers just dont have that same quality feel as the Smiths do, although my super blackhawk made in 1980 is very nice and has that high polish blue missing on the new guns.

BTW my new 686 shoots as well or better than my 20 yearold model 19.