S&W stainless steel sleeve barrels

[jski]

Thought I’d start a separate thread for this topic:

Jerry Mucilek states the the new stainless steel sleeve barrel design is both a manufacturing win because it reduces costs and a customer win because it allows for tighter tolerances when setting the cylinder gap.

Is that a fair claim?

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Sure. This has been an open secret on the Dan Wesson revolvers forever.

 

[earlthegoat2]

It is an improvement. And as has been stated, it is not a new idea. S&W may have tweaked it for their own processes though.

 

[jski]

Hickok45, are you listening?

Hickok is always lamenting they (S&W) were not using the same manufacturing techniques they used prior to ‘81.

 

[Kookla]

Wonder why they use the rifling to screw in the barrel and not something on the flange itself.

 

[jski]

Wonder why they use the rifling to screw in the barrel and not something on the flange itself.

Do they ?

 

[jski]

I remember years ago I read an article about the development of the Savage 110 rifle. The piece of the article that really captured my interest was the development of their famous barrel nut.

Evidently, at one point in the engineering process, Savage had a fairly conventional rifle design when the project manager brought in a manufacturing engineer who, as it turned out, was not a gun designer.

He approached the design from the point of view of reducing manufacturing complexity and consequently manufacturing cost.

As he examined the problem he realized one of the major costs in building ACCURATE rifles is adjusting the headspace. He then suggested using a nut to dial in the headspace to exactly where you want it without requiring expensive manual adjusting, which is an iterative process.

Well, I think most of us know the howls of criticism that Savage received for that decision but in the long run Savage was proven correct: the barrel nut is a better approach.

Is that in essence what S&W did with their barrel sleeves?

 

[JohnKSa]

Wonder why they use the rifling to screw in the barrel and not something on the flange itself.

Aesthetics. If you have something that a wrench of some sort can get purchase on, it will show. It doesn't have to be glaringly obvious, but it's going to show. On the Dan Wesson revolvers, it is visible as holes at the muzzle. The wrench fits into the holes (similar to the way the back of a watch is removed) and turns the nut.

S&W apparently decided they didn't like that look so they came up with a way to do it that doesn't require any sort of visible nut--but that left the rifling as pretty much the only other thing they could use to get a purchase on the barrel for installation.

 

[Sistema1927]

I have two S&W Model 64-8 revolvers with the new two piece barrel. One is 4", the other is 3". Even with the IL, MIM, etc., they are as good, or better, than any of my older S&W revolvers. They certainly shoot well.

 

[jski]

What about the advantages this gives S&W when fitting the external (i.e., outer) barrel?

 

[9mmepiphany]

but in the long run Savage was proven correct: the barrel nut is a better approach.

Is that in essence what S&W did with their barrel sleeves?

Not really. What S&W did was follow the lead of the Dan Wesson line of revolvers.

Dan Wesson has proven that it is a better approach of how to mount a barrel into the frame. S&W has been the first to copy that engineering principle

What about the advantages this gives S&W when fitting the external (i.e., outer) barrel?

What about them?

I think they have utilized it almost as well as the Dan Wesson revolvers did

 

[jski]

Not really. What S&W did was follow the lead of the Dan Wesson line of revolvers.

Dan Wesson has proven that it is a better approach of how to mount a barrel into the
What about them?

Not really. What S&W did was follow the lead of the Dan Wesson line of revolvers.

Dan Wesson has proven that it is a better approach of how to mount a barrel into the frame. S&W has been the first to copy that engineering principle


What about them?

I think they have utilized it almost as well as the Dan Wesson revolvers did

What are the advantages to the sleeve + outer barrel approach when fixing the outer barrel to the frame?

 

[AustinTX]

Dan Wesson has proven that it is a better approach of how to mount a barrel into the frame. S&W has been the first to copy that engineering principle

Korth was actually the first to copy DW, all the way back in the early 1970s.

 

[243winxb]

My 337PD. Shooting lead may make it near impossable to get the barrel off, if needed?

 

[Sistema1927]

What about the advantages this gives S&W when fitting the external (i.e., outer) barrel?

I am sure that they allow them to cut costs and simplify assembly. However, that doesn't negate the fact that they work well for the end consumer as well. A win-win, even though S&W "purists" would disagree.

 

[9mmepiphany]

What are the advantages to the sleeve + outer barrel approach when fixing the outer barrel to the frame?

The lack of the need to machine the barrel shoulder to correctly "clock" the sights.

It is less expensive to change rib, underlug, and sight mounting variations when you don't need to change the inner barrel

 

[SQLGeek]

It's rather refreshing to read something complimentary about the new S&W revolvers. As an owner of a couple of P&Red classics myself, I get their appeal but I also see the value in the ongoing engineering evolution that takes place in manufacturing and technology.

 

[9mmepiphany]

It's rather refreshing to read something complimentary about the new S&W revolvers.

A while back I spoke with one of the leading revolver smiths in the country about his feeling on current S&W revolvers with MIM parts. One of his specialties is tuning revolvers for competition in Action Pistol competitions.

He said that the fit and finish of the actions was of much higher quality than pre-MIM action parts. While it was still possible that a pre-MIM action, out of the box, might be better than than current actions, there was a much higher probability to it would be worst...some much worst. The biggest difference has been the use of CNC machines in producing parts. An easily seen example is that the ejector star not longer requires locating pins to align with the chambers of the cylinder.

 

[StrawHat]

The S&W system is not as user friendly as the Dan Wesson system. Matter of fact, it is not user friendly at all if the user expects to change barrel lengths or alter cylinder gap. The S&W system does not tension the barrel between the cylinder and the muzzle.

It is still a decent system but nothing like the DW system.


Kevin

 

[9mmepiphany]

The S&W system does not tension the barrel between the cylinder and the muzzle.

If you screw the barrel into the frame and then tighten the muzzle cap against the barrel shroud (pulling the threads in the frame forward while the cap applies rearward pressure), how is the barrel not tensioned?

This is the same way that DW tensioned the barrel except they used the barrel nut to pull the muzzle end of the barrel forward against the internal threads of the barrel shroud

 

[StrawHat]

If you screw the barrel into the frame and then tighten the muzzle cap against the barrel shroud (pulling the threads in the frame forward while the cap applies rearward pressure), how is the barrel not tensioned?

This is the same way that DW tensioned the barrel except they used the barrel nut to pull the muzzle end of the barrel forward against the internal threads of the barrel shroud

I understand what you are saying but there is no separate barrel nut. The barrel is threaded at both end and does not “tension” as the DW system did. Similar concept, different methods. It does result in an accurate barrel but I am not convinced it is more accurate than the earlier method of screwing into the frame.


Kevin

 

[9mmepiphany]

but there is no separate barrel nut. The barrel is threaded at both end and does not “tension” as the DW system did.

Maybe I'm not being clear in how I'm describing it. Let me try one more time.

The DW barrel nut is threaded onto the muzzle end of the barrel and applys a forward pulling pressure as it was tightened into the shroud. This also pulls on the threads of the barrel screwed into the frame.

The muzzle cap on the end of the S&W barrel applies rearward pressure against the shroud as it is tightened. This pressure also pulls on the threads in the frame and compresses the shroud between the frame and the barrel cap. The front of the shroud tensions the muzzle of the barrel as the forward pressure is applied to it by compressing shroud.

This is very similar to the early DW barrels with the external barrel nut. The change of placement to inside the barrel shroud was more for esthetics . The other thing to keep in mind is that interchangeable barrels was a design feature of the DW line. S&W designed their barrel installation without the intention that their customers would be changing barrels...as such they don't commonly sell the the "barrel tool"

 

[Viper1357]

Here's the front of my M&P R8 which appears to have the barrel nut similar to my DW 715.

 

[StrawHat]

Perhaps, I have misremembered what I read when they were first introduced. Obviously, more research is needed on my end. Thank you all for sharing your information.

Kevin

 

[9mmepiphany]

Perhaps, I have misremembered what I read when they were first introduced. Obviously, more research is needed on my end. Thank you all for sharing your information.

Kevin

I re-read what I posted last night and was a bit confused...sorry if I caused any confusion on your part. I cleaned it up a bit and hopefully it makes more sense