Two Piece Barrel?

[StrawHat]

In another thread, I learned about the new lock detent on the S&W Model 69 Combat Magnum. What I do not understand is the two piece barrel.

Is it a barrel and shroud system similar to the Dan Wesson revolver, tensioned at both ends? Or is it similar to the Charter Arms style, a barrel screwed into the frame and a shroud setscrewed to the barrel?

Photos would help if available.

I have a few S&W revovlers but the newest ones were the 686 and 686-1, that I used in competition and have since sold. Everything else is a -2 or earlier.

Thank you.

 

[MrBorland]

It's a true 2-piece design. The shroud is placed on the frame with indexing tabs. The barrel has threads on one end, and a T-shaped flange on the other. Once the shroud is in place, the barrel is screwed in, and the flange covers the muzzle end of the shroud and tensions the barrel and shroud. The barrel is tightened with a mandrel that engages the rifling. The tool isn't available outside S&W, so that's why barrel replacement is a factory-only job.

 

[Drail]

That "factory only" part is what I object to more than anything else. But I can kind of see their side of it also - a lot of guys will mess up their guns if given the proper tools. (or improper tools) and then send them back to S&W. Ruger adopted that policy many years ago and I'm sure it has saved them a lot of money and hassles.

 

[Desertrat357]

I am also unfamiliar with a two piece barrel design. I imagine it should hold up to many rounds fired etc.? But my biggest question is why? Is it less expensive to manufacture?

 

[98Redline]

The 2 piece barrel system I would imagine lowers production costs from the standpoint that the barrel does not have to be machined to as tight tolerances in order to properly set the Barrel/Cylinder gap. An operator puts a proper shim against the cylinder, screws in the barrel until the forcing cone touches the shim then secures it in place with the locking nut on the front.

Savage has been doing something similar with their rifles and the big ugly jam nut on their barrel, but there is no arguing that they have the ability to set the headspace very precisely, quickly, and cheaply with that method.

 

[Old Fuff]

The 2-piece barrel is less expensive because the outer shroud can be made from an excursion that requires far less machining then the 1-piece kind. Obviously cutting the barrel down to a shorter length won’t work with a 2-piece, unless it’s done at the factory.

In their latest new revolver platform, the .38 Special M&P Bodyguard snubby, the shroud is part of the frame, and if Buba tries to unscrew it all sorts of unfortunate things are likely to happen.

While the 2-piece design contributes toward holding production costs down, the Old Fuff will continue to be focused on earlier revolvers.

 

[Saleen322]

The 2-piece barrel delivers excellent accuracy by avoiding the over-torquing bulge that sometimes happened on conventional barrels. At short ranges it is not so noticeable but at greater ranges and more precise targets, it is an advantage. This is the same performance edge that Dan Wessons had over other revolvers. Pretty clever actually.

 

[Sam1911]

Here's a good thread on it over at TFL: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248871

There are reasons to believe that a two-piece barrel design is slightly stronger at the threaded shank where revolvers take so much of a pounding. Don't know if it is enough to make a 624 live under punishing loads. Or a Model 19?

But between the 2-piece design and the use of the L frame, Smith thinks their new 69 can stand up to factory .44 Magnums, so they've got some confidence in the combination! (Of course...they may be just counting on the benefit of the balance between how many Magnums they think it can take, vs. how many the owner will be able to take. )

 

[buck460XVR]

The 2-piece barrel is less expensive because the outer shroud can be made from an excursion that requires far less machining then the 1-piece kind.

While the 2-piece design contributes toward holding production costs down, the Old Fuff will continue to be focused on earlier revolvers.

In talking to a S&W rep a few years back about the accuracy of my two S&W P.C. Revolvers, his first comment was that part of the accuracy was due to the two piece barrel assembly. He also claimed it was more expensive to produce them as opposed to a one-piece. The link provided by Sam1911 seems to support the Rep's claims.

The 2 piece barrel system I would imagine lowers production costs from the standpoint that the barrel does not have to be machined to as tight tolerances in order to properly set the Barrel/Cylinder gap.

I'm under the impression that standard one piece barrels for S&Ws are not machined to tight tolerances to properly set B/C gap either. The barrel is screwed in tight and then the forcing cone end is cut to produce proper gap. I may be wrong tho.

 

[Sam1911]

Personally, I think the 2-piece barrel design is a really neat idea, with some potentially quite noticeable benefits.

Unfortunately any time a manufacturer changes something, plenty of folks will instantly distrust it and opine that it's just to "save money." In a way, sure it is. If they don't get as many returned guns for poor accuracy, that saves money. If they don't get as many cracked forcing cones back, that saves money. If a relatively simply and repeatably-made item proves very accurate and upholds the brand's status as the folks to beat, that makes them money. Ideally, them making money and us getting good guns in our hands is a symbiotic relationship.

 

[DPris]

Some minor observations:

There is no nut to tighten on the front end.

The two-piece barrel may be more expensive to MANUFACTURE, but it's cheaper in man hours to fit to the gun.
Accuracy is not the driving factor behind it.

S&W dropped the two-piecers on the 64 & 67 a while back, and I've seen photos of two-piece barrels that broke off at both ends.

Fuff, the shroud COULD be made during an excursion, but normally it's done by an extrusion.

Fun thread.

Denis

 

[Desertrat357]

I'm getting a little more understanding of the "dreaded 2-piece" barrel. So one question that I'm really curious about is this: is there a relatively tight clearance between the barrel and barrel shroud, and what about at the muzzle end of the barrel. I would be mainly carrying it while I'm hunting and exploring. There are many times when I get into rain and snow. Would it be possible for moisture and/or condensation to collect in between the barrel and shroud? I realize the model I am considering is stainless, just my thoughts

 

[Sam1911]

I wouldn't think it would be any more likely than for moisture to get in between the barrel and frame of a 1-piece barreled gun, but I suppose it could happen.

 

[VA27]

The 2-piece barrel delivers excellent accuracy by avoiding the over-torquing bulge that sometimes happened on conventional barrels. At short ranges it is not so noticeable but at greater ranges and more precise targets, it is an advantage...

This is the exact opposite of my experience. My 396 Mountain Lite in 357 and my 5" 60 were not near as accurate as they should have been. The 351 not only displayed poor accuracy but the point of aim/point of impact relationship was casual enough to suggest coincidence. On top of that, even after a trip back to the factory, it required two trips around the cylinder to fire seven shots.

I hope they've got it sorted out now because I like the idea of the 69, but I'm no longer a Smith beta tester.

 

[Old Fuff]

Would it be possible for moisture and/or condensation to collect in between the barrel and shroud? I realize the model I am considering is stainless, just my thoughts

Smith & Wesson have been using 2-piece barrels for some time, and Dan Wesson Arms was doing so before them. It seems probable that if a problem developed it would be well known by now.

 

[Saleen322]

VA27 Wrote:

This is the exact opposite of my experience. My 396 Mountain Lite in 357 and my 5" 60 were not near as accurate as they should have been. The 351 not only displayed poor accuracy but the point of aim/point of impact relationship was casual enough to suggest coincidence. On top of that, even after a trip back to the factory, it required two trips around the cylinder to fire seven shots.

I hope they've got it sorted out now because I like the idea of the 69, but I'm no longer a Smith beta tester.

I tend to think this is pretty good. I haven't seen many one piece Smiths shoot better. Consistently under 2" @ 100 yards.

 

[StrawHat]

Thank you, I think I have an idea of how the system works.

 

[CraigC]

Cost-cutting measure. Guns that can only be worked on by the factory do not interest me at all.

 

[9mmepiphany]

The tool isn't available outside S&W, so that's why barrel replacement is a factory-only job.

Guns that can only be worked on by the factory do not interest me at all.

I guess it depends on how much you want to work on the gun.

I have a friend who is a forensics firearms expert who wanted to take the barrel off a S&W with a 2-piece barrel, but he need to maintain a chain of custody.

What he did was make a lead cast of the rifling at the muzzle and have a local machinist replicate it in a male fixture that he attached to a handle. Barrel screws right out...easier than one piece barrels, with the added advantage that it can be screwed back in without damage

 

[Sam1911]

Yeah, I was kind of thinking that, if S&W can put it together, somebody else could take it apart with a little ingenuity, and put it back together again, too. Now getting or making parts like shorter barrels and shrouds might be cost-prohibitive if S&W doesn't make them, or want to sell them, but it could happen.

(*** Like the 3" barrel and shroud set for that new 69???)

 

[StrawHat]

...(*** Like the 3" barrel and shroud set for that new 69???)...

Just what I was thinking.

 

[eldon519]

I took my 69 out today and shot it for the first time. I can't say if it is more accurate than a one-piece barrel, but I certainly didn't find it to be inaccurate. As an engineer, I don't think the idea seems bad. I'm not in the gun business, but it seems like it involves some familiar concepts. There is often an assumption that old ways of doing things are better when the notion of "craftsmanship" is involved, but that isn't always true with modern manufacturing.

 

[9mmepiphany]

There is often an assumption that old ways of doing things are better when the notion of "craftsmanship" is involved, but that isn't always true with modern manufacturing.

This is true. I have friends who see a lot of S&W revolvers pass through their shop every year for custom work and they have told me that the MIM action parts have much better fit and finish than older steel parts.

The two part barrels take advantage of having the barrel under tension to dampen harmonics an it is much easier to remove and replace the barrel if the throat area needs to be cleaned up

 

[Peter M. Eick]

While I can't comment on the S&W's, but Dan's work well in the two piece. I have 3 of them now and have owned another 4 but been talked out of them over the years. Dan's tend to be quite accurate and easy to clean and work on because the barrel reasonably easy to remove. The problem comes when you over torque it or do it when it is hot. I have found that over time the Dan's tend to loosen on their owns if you shoot them quickly and get them good and hot. This has saved me a few buggered barrel nuts.

As to removal of a stuck barrel or an S&W one I presume, I saw a neat trick for the DW's. Take a long enough threaded rod (smaller than the barrel diameter and run it down the barrel. Tighten two nuts on the exposed end in the frame window. Now take tow more nuts and tighten them up on the other end of the barrel by the front sight. Once you get things good and tight, the barrel can be easily backed out by turning the threaded rod.

 

[buck460XVR]

Over the years and the seeing of so many "bubba'd" guns in the used gun rack, I'm kinda glad S&W makes it difficult for the average Joe to change a barrel.

That said, for those that want to, there are plenty of other options out there. We as Americans are lucky we have that choice. Don't like something about one gun, there are a ton out there that are different.