Why so few revolvers with interchangeable barrels?

The whole switch barrel thing never appealed to me. Much the same as the interchangeable cylinders for the rimfire SAs. I have both and have switched barrels or cylinders exactly 1 time for each just to test them.
I think @JohnKSa hit the nail on the head.

To me, user changeable barrels are like buying one AR lower and buying multiple uppers.

Which makes some sense if you live in an area where buying the serialized receiver is a restrictive PITA. But where I live, I'd rather have a whole gun to go with each barrel (or upper).

I bought a Dan Wesson revolver when they first came out, a .357 that I wanted a 2 1/2 barrel on for concealed carry.

Turned out to be one large gun, heavy, and more than I wanted to carry everyday.

If the frame is large enough to make it worthwhile with longer barrels, they may not sell smaller barrels for carry.

I know of two instances in which the inner barrel bulged, or swelled, and the barrel assembly had to be cut off to unscrew the barrel.

One such case involved the .44 Magnum with the vented barrel/shroud. The barrel became "soldered" to the shroud and the shroud could not be removed. In another case, a .357 Magnum, water droplets had entered the muzzle and when fired, the barrel bulged to literally "weld" itself to the shroud.

The system worked fine, but it was user error that provided the headaches!

Bob Wright

I've got a Dan Wesson .44 with 4", 6", 8" and 10" barrels. IMHO, it's overrated and the utility is limited. The rear sight stays with the frame so you have to rezero the sights every time you change a barrel. It's nice that you don't have to worry about the scarcity of factory configurations. It would make the most sense if you had one 4-6" barrel you used with irons and one you used with an optic for hunting. The lightweight 8" is nice for hunting while the 10" full lug is a boat anchor. These guns are heavier than comparable Rugers.

CraigC said:

The rear sight stays with the frame so you have to rezero the sights every time you change a barrel.

Click to expand...

This is why the idea of multiple/interchangeable barrels has never appealed to me. Similar to the usage of different calibers in the same firearm. Unless you are happy making noise and just hitting the paper, I at least, need to adjust my sights when going from shooting .44 mag hunting loads to .44 specials or other guns that shoot multiple calibers. I prefer having another gun. But that's me. I don't expect my 6" 686 to be my EDC, nor do I have the desire to hunt with my 1 7/8" 637. Many folks claim the ability to shoot multi-calibers or to interchange barrels makes a firearm more "versatile". IME, it really doesn't. Kinda like thinking that putting Knobbly tires on your Harley Cruiser will make for an excellent ORV and you will be able to keep up with your buddies on their KTMs.

buck460XVR said:

This is why the idea of multiple/interchangeable barrels has never appealed to me. Similar to the usage of different calibers in the same firearm. Unless you are happy making noise and just hitting the paper, I at least, need to adjust my sights when going from shooting .44 mag hunting loads to .44 specials or other guns that shoot multiple calibers. I prefer having another gun. But that's me. I don't expect my 6" 686 to be my EDC, nor do I have the desire to hunt with my 1 7/8" 637. Many folks claim the ability to shoot multi-calibers or to interchange barrels makes a firearm more "versatile". IME, it really doesn't. Kinda like thinking that putting Knobbly tires on your Harley Cruiser will make for an excellent ORV and you will be able to keep up with your buddies on their KTMs.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%. Some people seem to be satisfied with "close enough" but it drives me nuts. I have too many guns to remember where they all print relative to the sights. I need them to shoot to the sights so it doesn't matter which one I pick up. So I don't shoot mild loads for practice and then heavy loads for hunting out of the same gun. Same for convertibles. If you have to adjust the sights every time you swap the cylinder, what is the point? This is why my .22 convertibles get dedicated to one or the other.

I owned a Dan once. They weren't cheap as revolvers go. You didn't just change the barrel. You had to change the shroud too. Shrouds and barrels also weren't cheap. I never messed with mine. I finally disposed of it and got a GP100.

I have three Dans. It’s not just the barrel that makes the DW so easily changed, the grips and front sights are a piece of cake to swap, too.

They are somewhat overbuilt and hefty, especially with the VH shrouds, but I do like the ability to make the gun what I want, when I want in about five minutes…all without having to go through the cost, paperwork and a ten-day wait to buy another gun.

Stay safe.

Probably as much a matter of "look", tradition, fashion, compare a current Python with a pre-war Official Police, see how much they resemble each other, compare a 1980s S&W with a pre-war one. I have 2 DWs, people either love them or hate them. As far as re-sighting them after a barrel/shroud change, no different than re sighting a handgun after a change in ammunition, but people make a fuss over it.

BLACKHAWKNJ said:

Probably as much a matter of "look", tradition, fashion, compare a current Python with a pre-war Official Police, see how much they resemble each other, compare a 1980s S&W with a pre-war one. I have 2 DWs, people either love them or hate them. As far as re-sighting them after a barrel/shroud change, no different than re sighting a handgun after a change in ammunition, but people make a fuss over it.

Click to expand...

Frankly, at combat ranges, I don't think the sighting differences add up to much.

It might be a niche market, but I like the concept, along with the ability swap barrels, as well as being able to adjust b/c gap, without mailing it out to someone.

I like my Dan Wesson 15-2 a lot but I spent a lot of my career as a commissioning engineer of industrial control systems so changing barrels and adjusting gap is not a big thing.. I only have the 8" barrel it came with when I got it and another 4" heavy shroud barrel from EWS.

If the DW idea had been invented in the late 1800's or early 1900's I wonder if acceptance today would be totally different. I am also thinking manufacturing and machining capabilities and technology in the early days had a lot to do with what was offered and tradition is huge in the firearm industry.

stonebuster said:

Why wouldn't Ruger, S&W and others offer an interchangeable barrel system similar to the Dan Wessons? My guess is they figure it would cut into their sales of revolvers if one with multiple barrel lengths could make owning multiple revolvers of the same model unnecessary. On the other hand, people who couldn't afford two guns could buy an extra barrel/shroud which the company would benefit from. Could it be manufacturers don't want the liability of knuckleheads not being smart enough to change them correctly?

Click to expand...

I just think of the customer support potential nightmare. "Ah cranked muh barrel down, and now..."

If I stumbled on a Dan Wesson revolver with two or three barrels and shrouds, I'd probably jump on it. But, it would probably end up with just one barrel being used.

Dan Wessons are an interesting concept though.

I got into Contenders in part due to the interchangeable ability of the barrels. I did compete in IHMSA silhouette with the gun in both production class (357 Magnum) and unlimited (7mm Int. Rimmed).

Over time, I got tired of swapping out the barrels and bought two more frames. Two pretty much stay as carbines, 22 Hornet and 221 Rem Fireball, and the third stays as a pistol.

chicharrones said:

To me, user changeable barrels are like buying one AR lower and buying multiple uppers.

Click to expand...

I feel the same about AR-15's. All my uppers have their own lower.

Ok, here's a possible answer for the problems you guys have with the DW system.

Pietta open tops !!!

Pietta has been producing a "main frame" with an interchangeable barrel assy for several years now! In fact, they don't serial # the barrel like Uberti does because all same Caliber bbls work with a common frame. So, with each single piece barrel assy (meaning no shroud mounted sight) being sighted in at whatever range, you'd have your "pre sighted" setup available with each individual barrel. Also, one could "customize" a "non standard" length and have as many barrels as wanted/ needed.

With a cartridge conversion, you could customize even further with "smokless" barrels!! The barrel length world is your oyster!!! For a fraction of the cost of a D W !!!!

Of course I mention Pietta mainly because of the arbor correction and precision setup for one's particular needs would be more "user friendly" but an Uberti setup could be done if preferred ( NOT user-friendly!!!).

Mike

HowieG said:

Frankly, at combat ranges, I don't think the sighting differences add up to much.

Click to expand...

They didn't. I've owned DW 15-2's and 715's since 1977(one was my second gun ever), and the only time I would ever have to mess with the sights after a barrel change was when we were shooting rotten melons out in the desert at long range. At a combat target, the error was meaningless to anyone not OCD, as one guy was. He blamed barrel changes for all his problems. He seemed to have a lot of trouble setting the gap, too. I tried to get him to sell me his 715, but he wouldn't do it, he just kept complaining. At the time I knew him, I could outshoot him without any problems, but now? I can shoot well enough to defend myself, but that's about it. I stink, honestly. My hands are just not good with recoil at all anymore.

I was looking for a S&W 625 in .45lc for a while and then a DW 744 came up for an excellent price I couldn't pass up. I didn't have much use for a scoped 8" barrel so I bought a 4" barrel from CZ for ~$200 and it is an excellent range gun. I also like being able to screw an EGW brake onto the muzzle of any of the barrels for some quick follow up shots. I don't miss not having the 625 at all and I am still into the 744 less than any 625 I found. The single action pull on my 744 is as good or better than any S&W trigger I have ever shot. Later I added a 2.5" barrel for fun... at $175 is was a cheap way to get a snubby... but it is by no means a carry gun.

I love the interchangeable barrels on my DW. If it is not your thing there is nothing wrong with that.

My 744 is sited for the 4" barrel. The 8" barrel has the scope mounted on the barrel but after removing the scope from the 8" barrel there is no adjustment needed between the 4" and 8" barrels. The 2.5" barrel site radius is short enough that it really doesn't make a difference but it hasn't needed a rear site adjustment either.

I would love to see a more compact revolver like a GP100 or SP101 with interchangeable barrels! A 6 inch barrel for the range and a 2 inch barrel for carrying would be really cool!... to me at least.

I wonder if DW (now CZ) has some kind of patent on interchangeable revolver barrels that is preventing other manufactures from selling them?