Pinned Barrels, yes or no

I have four N-frames. None of them are pinned or recessed (two are magnums that might have been in the past). They collectively have about 50,000 rds of ammunition through them while in my possession. I bought them all used and I know for sure I am the third owner of the one.

IMHO a pinned barrel is over rated and solved a problem that was never very prominent. Recessed cylinders always seemed like a liability more than an asset to me. It did not added any real strength and was just a place to catch crud that might hold a cartridge proud jamming the action by rubbing the case head against the recoil shield.

Never heard of a pinned barrel coming loose.

Recessed cylinders are a non-issue until you have a case rupture.....

All things being equal, I prefer P&R.

I prefer a pinned barrel but there's no valid reason for it. I care neither one way or the other on recessed chambers.

Because to me, they are a window looking back at the days of fine machining and pride in manufacturing, I really like pinned & recessed S&W magnum/rimfire revolvers and pinned barrels on .38 Specials.

I don’t know if they are any more accurate or reliable than my non pinned ones, but I still prefer them.

Stay safe.

I was competing in IPSC when S&W brought out the M686 and stopped pinning their barrels. At one match, a competitor who was a local law enforcement officer told us a story about the fixed sight L frame revolvers his Department had been issued. The non pinned barrel unscrewed on his. LEO decided to play a joke on his unit armorer. He told the unit armorer that he had cleaned his revolver and could not get it back together again. He pulled the cylinder and crane from a paper bag and put that on the table, then the frame, and then lastly the barrel! Need we say the armorer had a strong reaction?

Well something was wrong with that pistol as the barrel did unscrew. While I would prefer a pinned barrel, they are not coming back.

As for recessed cylinders, they probably made sense when shooters were using balloon head cartridges. I have some vintage 45LC balloon head, and I pulled several case heads off in the sizing die. It took hardly any effort, and it was very time consuming knocking the case body out of the die. Those balloon head cases might have been appropriate for black powder, but I bet the weak heads were a continuing problem with smokeless. I believe with modern solid head cartridges, the case head has sufficient support without the recesses. And it is easy to look at the side of the cylinder to see if there are cartridges in there. Popping the cylinder open to examine for loaded rounds takes two hands.

I always find recessed cylinders a pain to clean. Cleaning those shallow recesses of debris is time consuming and I need a pointy thing for the rim holes.

Riomouse911 said:

Because to me, they are a window looking back at the days of fine machining and pride in manufacturing, I really like pinned & recessed S&W magnum/rimfire revolvers and pinned barrels on .38 Specials.

I don’t know if they are any more accurate or reliable than my non pinned ones, but I still prefer them.

Stay safe.

Click to expand...

Ditto.
They are features I like, of an era when hand fitting and finishing was at its best. All my S&W's have pinned barrels, and all are magnums except for one (M25-5), so they have the recessed chambers as well. I know there's little to no difference in how a P&R operates compared to a non P&R, but I'd pass on a non P&R if I thought I could find a P&R version later.

Slamfire said:

As for recessed cylinders, they probably made sense when shooters were using balloon head cartridges.

Click to expand...

When was that?
The only recessed rims I know of are Magnums and rimfires.
But I am not experienced with the various off brands.

the pin seems like it is better to have it, but I'm not dedicated to it

Riomouse911 said:

Because to me, they are a window looking back at the days of fine machining and pride in manufacturing, I really like pinned & recessed S&W magnum/rimfire revolvers and pinned barrels on .38 Specials.

I don’t know if they are any more accurate or reliable than my non pinned ones, but I still prefer them.

Stay safe.

Click to expand...

Was gonna say pretty much exactly the same thing, but Rio said it for me.

bangswitch said:

I'd pass on a non P&R if I thought I could find a P&R version later.

Click to expand...

Yep, and I've traded away a Model 66 and a Model 19 -- because they weren't P&R. (Yeah, shoulda kept the 66, though, it was a sweet revolver with a great trigger)

IIRC Colt never used them, Ruger never did, one of the advantages of the Dan Wesson is that you can adjust the barrel tension yourself. So they were pretty much an S&W design feature, like so many things, seemed a Good Idea at the time,-like the S&W 5 screw. People expected then, when the designs for changed for ease of manufacturing shooters saw them as shortcuts,-"cheapening". Like the pre-and post-64 Winchesters.

S&W has used the pin at the breech of the barrel as far back as the New Century (Triple Lock) in 1907 when they supplied revolvers to the Army Board tests of that same year. In the report it is specifically mentioned that the pin kept the barrel from unscrewing, as happened to at least one of the revolvers submitted to the trials. S&W continued to use the feature. It does not stop the barrel from rotating, but it limits the rotatation to +/- 5 degrees or so.

Kevin

Riomouse911 said:

Because to me, they are a window looking back at the days of fine machining and pride in manufacturing ...

Click to expand...

[ APPLAUSE! ] Well said!

Barrel Pin- was used to index the barrel correctly. Then S&W learned how to hold the barrel by torque & getting the barrel to index correctly. Barrel shoulder to frame, like a Rem 700 rifle.

Just 1 of many improvement as models received upgrades.

Edit/Add-
In the late 60s early 70s, the demand for revolvers was high. The M29-2 was selling for $100 over list price. There was a waiting list to buy one. Quality control was non-existent, very poor.

If an FFL dealer wanted any S&W at all, had to order 3 Rugers first from the distributor, to get 1 S&W.
Later, a distributor was not allowed to sell both brands. I forget if it was a S&W or Ruger thing.

It my understanding that the “pins” were a way for the barrel to be properly indexed before crush-fit became the rage. I have examples of both, and cannot tell any difference in the functioning or mechanics of either.

As for recessed cylinders, anyone who has ever shot a lot knows what a pain they can be to clean. Any amount of grit in the recesses can tangle up your cylinder.

I picked up this 2" NY DOC Model 10-7 trade in a while back. It cleaned up OK, but was pretty rough looking and dirty when I got it. And it was the best of the lot that I had to choose from.

While cleaning it after shooting the second or third time out, the barrel spun off on me. Had a big lump of some kind of brown thread locker on it. Im thinking the -7's were right around the time they quit pinning them. Prior to this, I never really gave it much thought, now, although I understand its not something that probably happens much at all, I can see/appreciate the value of pinning them.

All I did was clean the threads up, put some blue Loctite on them, and timed it back up the best I could by eye, and have been shooting it ever since. Hasnt been a problem since either, and its had quite a few rounds through it too. Its one of my Smiths I shoot all the time and I dry fire it pretty much every day.

BLACKHAWKNJ said:

IIRC Colt never used them, Ruger never did, one of the advantages of the Dan Wesson is that you can adjust the barrel tension yourself. So they were pretty much an S&W design feature, like so many things, seemed a Good Idea at the time,-like the S&W 5 screw. People expected then, when the designs for changed for ease of manufacturing shooters saw them as shortcuts,-"cheapening". Like the pre-and post-64 Winchesters.

Click to expand...

Colt may not have but Ruger sure did. My flat top dating from1962when my dad gave it to me has a fluted and recessesed cylinder.

I have read of "thread choke" from barrels with tight threads screwed in hard. Seems more common in Rugers but sometimes "post-pin" Smiths.

hawg said:

I prefer a pinned barrel but there's no valid reason for it. I care neither one way or the other on recessed chambers.

Click to expand...

Riomouse911 said:

Because to me, they are a window looking back at the days of fine machining and pride in manufacturing, I really like pinned & recessed S&W magnum/rimfire revolvers and pinned barrels on .38 Specials.

I don’t know if they are any more accurate or reliable than my non pinned ones, but I still prefer them.

Stay safe.

Click to expand...

I like pinned and recessed mostly because they are from another time. With modern manufacturing the non pinned guns shoot just a good.

I take "pinned" as a mark of The Good Old Days, but a rim recess for a centerfire is just a dirt catcher and snag corner on the reload. But somebody at S&W thought it was somehow a sign of strength.

The pin was a great way to assure uniformity of front sight positioning on an assembly line by a mid-level worker at the time and not require a master gunsmith.

The recess was great marketing.

I have had a revolver barrel twist in the frame until the sight was so far over as to be useless. That gun was badly abused with idiotic handloads, though.

On the whole, I think @Riomouse911 has it right. "Pinned and recessed" isn't objectively better and may actually be worse - but it's a reminder of a different time.

Jim Watson said:

I have read of "thread choke" from barrels with tight threads screwed in hard. Seems more common in Rugers but sometimes "post-pin" Smiths.

Click to expand...

I think some Redhawks (?) had an issue with threaded barrel shanks having a constriction or even cracking/breaking due to the threadlock compound and stresses of crush fitting the barrels. Obviously there is quite a bit of strain involved to keep a barrel locked into place so maybe a pin holding things together might have reduced the chances of these issues?

Stay safe.

I have both and have no preference either way. Some seem to think there is a mystical quality about P&R, but I don't see it.

You can make an argument the newer models are better as the materials science has improved quite a lot since the days of P&R.

But I don't necessarily mind the locks either. I simply remove them if they offend me when I am cleaning.

I have S&W's with pinned barrels and the is barrel clocked so far to the left the rear sight blade sticks out further than the rear sight assembly. None of my modern S&W's have that problem.

Recessed cylinders make sense for .22 ammo but none of the magnum cartridges ever had balloon head cases so those would never have ruptured.