In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Pinned and recessed
mackcrane
Member Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
What does this term actually mean about barrels? I see a pin at the top of the frame where the barrel screws in , but does the recces have to do with the crown or what? Thanks.
Comments
As was mentioned above, the counterboring of the cylinder for the cartridge rims was also for safety but is no longer needed. For example, my S&W M29-2 has a pinned barrel and counterbored cylinder. My daughter's S&W M29-3 has neither. Both shoot and handle identically. [:p]
I think pinning the barrel was out of an excess of caution. Back then, I think there was a concern that the AWESOME power of the magnum cartridge might cause the barrel to start coming loose. [:D]
As was mentioned above, the counterboring of the cylinder for the cartridge rims was also for safety but is no longer needed. For example, my S&W M29-2 has a pinned barrel and counterbored cylinder. My daughter's S&W M29-3 has neither. Both shoot and handle identically. [:p]
Back then, there were no magnums in 1917. There are several 1917's on the auction side that are pinned. The pin was to prevent the barrel from backing out. I think it is as good an idea then as it is now. I think they should take that up again, and get rid of the damn bean counters to save the money.
Best
EDIT 1
quote:quote:
Originally posted by tsr1965
Back then, there were no magnums in 1917. There are several 1917's on the auction side that are pinned. The pin was to prevent the barrel from backing out. I think it is as good an idea then as it is now. I think they should take that up again, and get rid of the damn bean counters to save the money.
Best
Empirically, there is no problem with NON-pinned barrels coming unscrewed under ordinary use. Perhaps this can happen, but I've never actually seen nor heard of it happening in any factory gun. If it does happen, its probably only in guns that have been "bubba'ed", it should be easily fixable with a drop of loc-tite, and its probably not worth talking about.
As a separate issue, I think the modern "crush fit" barrels basically make an additional pin unnecessary.
Now, you can argue that a pinned and fitted barrel is replaceable, and therefore better than a crush fit one. . .no argument there, BUT the fact is that probably 99.9% of Smith revolvers never have nor need their barrels replaced.
So it probably does make sense as a cost-saving measure for the average shooter. Remember extra costs of manufacturing will ultimately get passed onto the customer.
On recessed cylinders, those are a nice historical touch, but purely from a functional standpoint, those are (arguably) LESS desirable in centerfire guns than ones that aren't counterbored. (I'd say for rimfire guns, counterbore is probably a plus).
Dirt inside the counterbored rim area is a bit harder to clean out than dirt on the rear face of the cylinder, and that makes maintenance a hair harder with counterbored cylinders.
Also, with the NON-counterbored cylinders, you can tell if the gun is loaded or not with just a glance at the rear cylinder gap. If you don't see brass, the gun is empty. Yes, arguably you treat every gun as if its loaded anyway, but I think its nice to be able to see for sure if there is or isn't brass inside without having to crack the gun open.
I still stand by my statements. If you had any machining/assembly/gunsmithing experience, so wouldn't you. "A drop of loctite" can't fix everything.
I do realize that you understand some of the tecniques involved, or the principals involved, but some of the statements come from the lack of experience in the fields stated.
It comes down to pride and workmanship, and the lack of it in some American factories...not so much by the grunts, but by the lazy, egotistical management, that knows nothing about the products of which it makes. If it keeps going in this direction, some companies in 20 years will be bringing a piece of rifled pipe, and a ball peen hammer with a firing pin welded on it to the SHOT show, as the newest greatest invention of the bean counters.
Best
EDIT 2
Bean,
Thanks for agreeing, and agreeing to disagree. You are always a gent. But damn it...your carry gun isnt pinned?!I would tell you to send it to me, and I would put one in it for you.[:D][:D][:D]
best
Back then, there were no magnums in 1917. There are several 1917's on the auction side that are pinned. The pin was to prevent the barrel from backing out. I think it is as good an idea then as it is now. I think they should take that up again, and get rid of the damn bean counters to save the money.
Best
Empirically, there is no problem with NON-pinned barrels coming unscrewed under ordinary use. Perhaps this can happen, but I've never actually seen nor heard of it happening in any factory gun. If it does happen, its probably only in guns that have been "bubba'ed", it should be easily fixable with a drop of loc-tite, and its probably not worth talking about.
As a separate issue, I think the modern "crush fit" barrels basically make an additional pin unnecessary.
Now, you can argue that a pinned and fitted barrel is [more easily] replaceable, and therefore better than a crush fit one. . .no argument there, BUT the fact is that probably 99.9% of Smith revolvers never have nor need their barrels replaced.
So it probably does make sense as a cost-saving measure for the average shooter. Remember extra costs of manufacturing will ultimately get passed onto the customer.
On recessed cylinders, those are a nice historical touch, but purely from a functional standpoint, those are (arguably) LESS desirable in centerfire guns than ones that aren't counterbored. (I'd say for rimfire guns, counterbore is probably a plus).
Dirt inside the counterbored rim area is a bit harder to clean out than dirt on the rear face of the cylinder, and that makes maintenance a hair harder with counterbored cylinders.
Also, with the NON-counterbored cylinders, you can tell if the gun is loaded or not with just a glance at the rear cylinder gap. If you don't see brass, the gun is empty. Yes, arguably you treat every gun as if its loaded anyway, but I think its nice to be able to see for sure if there is or isn't brass inside without having to crack the gun open.
Edit: responding to TSR1965 below
Sorry, I should have been a bit less flippant with my "bubba" comment. To be clear, I don't really mean to say that a little glue is a substitute for properly torquing and fitting a barrel.
The question is what real-world difference is there with torque/crush-fit barrels as opposed to the older pinned ones. Again, I've never heard of the non-pinned Smith barrels having any unusual tendency to come out on their own, and its been what, nearly 30 years since Smith stopped pinning barrels?
Please correct me if I'm wrong about this, but don't all the Colt and Ruger revolvers also use non-pinned barrels? Are they all inferior? (OK. . .maybe they are [;)]). Taurus used to use pinned barrels too. . .not sure that makes them particularly desirable guns to own either.
I "get" that "crush fit" barrels are a cost saving measure, as are lack of counterbore, MIM parts, fewer screws in the frame, and other things.
To me the question isn't whether forged parts, pinned barrels, etc are "better". All else being equal, of course they're better, but in the real world, cost matters. The question is whether or not I'm going to actually notice any difference, and to the extent that I am, whether or not its worth it to pay another $100+ for a new gun made the "old" way.
I do appreciate your point about the loss of "old world" American craftsmanship. That's probably the best reason to buy the older guns with the pinned barrels. Not necessarily because the pinned barrel by itself is likely to yield a functional benefit, but rather because you're buying something from a lost era of handcrafting that will probably never return. Put differently "they don't make them like THAT anymore", and that's why with only one exception, every single Smith I own has a pinned barrel.
The reality now is that we live in a world of international trade, cheap consumer goods and automated manufacture. Smith used to be privately held, but now its a pubically traded corporation, and it has a fiduciary duty to maximize profits for its shareholders, like any other company.
Do you think Smith would sell more revolvers if it brought back pinned barrels? I strongly doubt it. The average buyer wouldn't notice or even care, and the "purists" would still decry locks, MIM parts, etc. If Smith did bring back pinned barrels, it would either have to increase the cost of its guns (making them less competitive) or eat the difference itself (making less profit per gun).