Pinned barrels BETTER?

[Old Fuff]

Pinning the barrel just simplifies the barrel fit. You dont' have to have the thread length perfect if you have a pin.

Indeed? Then how come the slot in the barrels was made before the barrel was installed, and is an elongated slot? It does insure that the front sight will be at the 12:00 position (more or less within a couple of degrees), as if it isn't the pin won't go through.

 

[Remo223]

^I'm not understanding why you are not understanding. If the barrel isn't up to proper torque, but the pin lines up, put the pin in and you're good to go.

The front sight isn't machined on the barrel AFTER the barrel is installed. Why would the pin be any different?

I just don't get your comment at all.

 

[MrBorland]

IMHO, I'd rather never have a revolver with recessed chambers. There is little to no reason for it and you can't tell at a glance that it is loaded.

Likewise. The recesses are also more nooks and crannies for gunk to build up. Additional cleaning, to be sure, but they also provide additional opportunities for freshly-loaded rounds to not fully seat - either because of the crud in the recesses or because of some kind of burr on the case rim. Either one will slow your reload and/or affect the trigger pull. I can live without either.

 

[Old Fuff]

If the barrel isn't up to proper torque, but the pin lines up, put the pin in and you're good to go.

If the barrel isn't tight it will either be loose or will become loose, pin or no pin. If you look at a new or previously fitted barrel you should notice that the slot in the barrel is larger then the pin that goes through it.

In Smith & Wesson revolvers the pin was never necessary because barrels were correctly fitted in the first place. S&W used them as a (questionable) sales point over competitor's products - with a special aim at Colt's.

When the barrel is correctly (and tightly) fitted the slot in the barrel will allow the barrel to turn in enough so that when it is tight, with the front sight a 12:00, the pin will still go through the slot. If this resulted in the barrel being too long at the back thereby closing the cylinder/barrel gap, the barrel was filed to adjust the gap.

 

[Remo223]

^You are saying the pin is a fraud. I've never heard that before. That's a pretty strong accusation.

 

[earlthegoat2]

Remo223, just give up.

You cannot just use the pin to fit a barrel. If the barrel does not have proper seating to the frame it WILL come loose from shooting be it a 32 S&W or a 44 magnum. The pin does insure and simplify proper front sight indexing.

Continually arguing with members who have been outstanding contributors to this forum for many years will get you no where and gain you no sympathy. Use the information to learn for the future.

Dont turn this into a repeat performance of you telling 1911Tuner he knew nothing about 1911s.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=579601&page=3

 

[CraigC]

Remo223 has a habit of this, last I saw he knew more about making revolver grips than Roy Fishpaw.

 

[Old Fuff]

You are saying the pin is a fraud. I've never heard that before. That's a pretty strong accusation.

Ah no, that isn't what I said at all. The pin is sort of a suspenders & belt sort of thing, and a feature S&W could point to that Colt (and later, Ruger) didn't have. I have seen a fair number of older (meaning pre-World War Two and sometimes pre-World War One) revolvers that had been rode hard and put away wet, where for whatever reasons the pin was missing but the barrel was rock-solid tight. Colt's and Ruger revolvers never had a pin, and they're products never developed a reputation of having a barrel come loose.

On a number of occasions I have had to set a barrel back a turn or two to correct a cylinder/barrel gap and the pin went back in regardless.

Some firearms - mostly inexpensive .22 rifles - have barrels that are press fitted into the frame or receiver and then cross-pinned. Quality revolvers were never made that way.

Fishpaw, who....?

 

[earlthegoat2]

Some firearms - mostly inexpensive .22 rifles - have barrels that are press fitted into the frame or receiver and then cross-pinned. Quality revolvers were never made that way.

Here is an example of this. The pin did not help this barrel it seems.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=586109

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Pinning is really no better than crush fit.

Well . . . the crush fit has two consequences. One of them is a slight "choke" or constriction at the breech end which causes inaccuracy. The other is that a worn or cracked forcing cone is a factory repair job, since your average smith doesn't have the capability to remove or install a crush fit barrel.

 

[woad_yurt]

While a pinned barrel may make no difference in shooting quality, it denotes quality. A pinned barrel, to me, functions like a Shelby badge on an old Mustang. The badge doesn't do anything for the car; it just informs those who know what it means.

 

[Old Fuff]

Yup, the Old Fuff agrees - up to a point.

Unless a barrel change comes into the picture, the pinned barrel vs. crush-fit issue doesn't matter, but some changes made over the years to reduce manufacturing costs do. But without these changes many popular handguns would not be affordable in the general market. The key objective of most of these changes was to reduce or eliminate the handwork that S&W (and others) were famous for.

The argument between those that claim the "new-guns-are-better" and those that prefer "oldtime-quality" will go on as long as revolvers continue to be made, but the Old Fuff - who keeps track of such things - has noticed that in recent years the going price for used, but in excellent condition, or for all practical considerations - like new, have been going up much faster then similar increases for used/recent production models.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

And some, but not all, of that price increase is psychological -- people pay more because they believe the older models are better.

 

[Old Fuff]

people pay more because they believe the older models are better.

True, but sometimes what they believe is backed up with knowledge and experience...

Anyway, I think that folks in both camps should be happy, because they can both buy what they want. But unfortunately I cannot steal those older gems for what I used too.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

That was my point -- part of the premium paid for old revolvers is based on the quality of those guns, part of it is psychological.

 

[CraigC]

My issue is that I see the value in the older guns. IMHO, they are worth paying a premium for. The prices S&W is asking for new guns, with all the cost-cutting measures and the silly internal lock, are nothing short of insane. They've lost their appeal and become little more than sterile, soul-less tools. I guess you're better off if you don't remember what wonderful sixgun you could buy for $400 only ten short years ago. Should've bought more when I had the chance.....boo hoo.....

 

[Hondo 60]

I have 2 S&W Model 10-5s that are pinned & a 66-2 that isn't.
I don't think the pin makes the 10s any better.
But as mentioned above by several, it shows from what era the gun hails & therefore we know (or think) that is was made to better standards than current guns.

(there! how's that for getting this conversation back on track)

 

[Guillermo]

Unless you like ultra light revolvers there is no reason to buy a new Smith.

Older guns have forged parts, hand fitting and assembled by actual human beings with pride in their work.

These days Smith revolvers are made a cheaply as possible and filled with MIM parts (the metal equivalent to particle board) in addition to having the idiotic lock. There seems to be no QC. These days Taurus is building as good or better revolvers at a much better price.

The pin, in and of itself means nothing. Only that the gun was made before the wheels came off the bus.

 

[Walking Dead]

CNC machining is far superior to manual machining in every way. A fire arm that need extensive hand fitting after machining (other than polishing) only reflects that the machinist don't know what he is doing on the machine. The pinning of anything indicates the fact that Smith could not hold the tolerance back then.

 

[x_wrench]

all i know about any of this is that my 629 classic certainly does have a constriction in the barrel where it goes through the frame. to me, this makes very little sense. they are creating much higher pressures there, and forcing more of the burning powder out through the cylinder gap. thus lowereing the overall velocity of the round. i can see where a tighter fit may help with shooting lead bullets, as it would force the rifling into the lead, and keep it from "striping out" on hotter loads.

 

[StrawHat]

x_wrench ...all i know about any of this is that my 629 classic certainly does have a constriction in the barrel where it goes through the frame...

There are ways to eliminate this constriction. Check over on the S&W sites or the cast bullet sites for more information. The constriction acts as a sizing dies and makes the bullets smaller than they need to be for accurate shooting.

 

[Old Fuff]

CNC machining is far superior to manual machining in every way.

Absolutely true!

Which means each and every Smith & Wesson is perfect, because it's made with perfect parts.

But I do wonder about the threads and posts we see concerning current or recent guns that have been returned, and had cylinders, barrels, and even frames replaced because of manufacturing defects.

Of course not all of the older guns were without flaws, especially those made under wartime pressure (Korea, Viet Nam, etc.), but no one ever claimed they were.

What tends to happen with CNC machined parts is that if something does go wrong the machines make a lot of identical "wrong" parts before the error is discovered.

"Back when..." machines had individual operators that made frequent checks, and they were backed up with floor inspectors.

That said, I am delighted with those that actually believe the new guns are better. They keep the company in business, and that's a big plus.

Meanwhile my limited needs can be filled with older junk (hand selected of course) that can be purchased for lower prices because they represent inferior quality.

Sure they do.

 

[CraigC]

CNC machining is far superior to manual machining in every way. A fire arm that need extensive hand fitting after machining (other than polishing) only reflects that the machinist don't know what he is doing on the machine. The pinning of anything indicates the fact that Smith could not hold the tolerance back then.

Then I'm sure you will find no shortage of new S&W's to strike your fancy.

The finest firearms available in the world today are hand-fitted, not produced from finished parts right off the CNC, as they were 100yrs ago. Period. End of discussion. A "Best Grade" Bowen custom is not "Best Grade" because a CNC machined it perfectly. It is "Best Grade" because Hamilton Bowen is a master at his art and put his HANDS on it. Machines don't produce perfect guns, men do.

 

[Guillermo]

I am delighted with those that actually believe the new guns are better

me too

less competition

 

[Walking Dead]

Then I'm sure you will find no shortage of new S&W's to strike your fancy.

The finest firearms available in the world today are hand-fitted, not produced from finished parts right off the CNC, as they were 100yrs ago. Period. End of discussion. A "Best Grade" Bowen custom is not "Best Grade" because a CNC machined it perfectly. It is "Best Grade" because Hamilton Bowen is a master at his art and put his HANDS on it. Machines don't produce perfect guns, men do.

Having a custom gun builder build a single gun does not matter if it is on a manual machine or cnc. The fact that one man follows the build from start to finish and takes pride in what he is doing is the difference. With that said you will cut down the work that has to be done by hand by 95 percent when working from cnc machined components. The ability of a cnc machine is strictly dependent on the machinist. If Smith built guns to the tolerances we hold at the aerospace shop I manage they would cost 5X the price. That's what the difference is.