Do the tensioned barrels on Dan Wesson revolvers make them more accurate?

[westernrover]

In the early and mid-eighties literature concerning the Dan Wesson revolvers, the tensioned barrel was frequently cited as a major reason among several other factors combined to lending DWA revolvers greater accuracy that was most notable at ranges beyond 50 yards. The theory offered in explanation was that the barrel tensioned between the frame and muzzle nut flexed and whipped more consistently than one fixed on only the frame-end. Is this true, or have we found different explanations or alternative understandings in hindsight and given the benefit of 40 years to consider it?

If I recall correctly, someone did further experimentation with tensioned barrels on rifles and the results did not necessarily validate the supposed tensioned-barrel advantage. Unforunately, I don't know any more than that, but perhaps someone else can explain.

 

[J-Bar]

Good question, watching with interest.

 

[Elkins45]

A lot of 22 target barrels are tensioned liners in a larger sleeve, so the idea must have some merit.

 

[Frulk]

I’ve never toyed around with different torque settings on the Dan Wesson revolvers I own. That is to say I’ve not shot the same ammo to see if the gun becomes more/less accurate as the barrel tension changes via tightening the barrel/shroud lug nut. I’ve always found my DW’s to be inherently accurate. In fact, I consider them the most accurate revolvers I own.

It would be very interesting to see the results of a test using a Ransom Rest and different torque settings on 6 and 8 inch barrels.

As far as rifles go since they were mentioned: Years back I was very intrigued by the Browning BOSS system…different approach to barrel oscillation tuning. From what I read it did work. My one experience with it in action was a friend setting off a 25-06 who had one. I was well off to the side and the sound signature was more than a little oppressive. Part of that can probably be attributed to the round. He seemed to think it did help with accuracy but I don’t remember the specifics of the discussion.

 

[flightsimmer]

I played around with my 6-in Dan Wesson 357 Magnum tightening and loosening the barrel nut and as long as it was fairly snug it didn't seem to matter how tight you made it, it was very accurate probably the most accurate 357 I have ever had.

I did of course notice quite a difference between cylinder gap at different settings as you would expect.

 

[Charlie98]

I played around with my 6-in Dan Wesson 357 Magnum tightening and loosening the barrel nut and as long as it was fairly snug it didn't seem to matter how tight you made it

That was my impression as well, with my DW .41 6". Like other's have mentioned, it is very likely the most accurate revolver I've ever had. The legendary accuracy of the Dan Wesson has to be, at least in part, attributed to the barrel tension.

Another aspect of this might just be the barrel itself. Instead of just drilling a hole in an irregular shape piece of steel, the DW barrel is not unlike a rifle barrel... in that it is a very uniform tube, with no protrusions, not unlike a benchrest chassis rifle. The exception, of course, is the shroud and barrel nut, but even then, it is still quite uniform (the barrel does not touch the shroud... or it's not supposed to.)

 

[WestKentucky]

I don’t buy it. Rimfire sleeves maybe, but not on centerfires. It’s a simple concept of supporting mass. Does a 1/8” thick sleeve and a 1/8” barrel support with more mass than say a 3/8 thick solid barrel? Certainly not because there’s a void in there where reinforcement should be.

Now I’m not discrediting the practice because it works. I just don’t buy the hogwash of barrel tension supporting it better. I think it has more to do with harmonic resonance. Think of a guitar. The lower strings vibrate larger and slower. The higher strings vibrate fast but on a very small wave. Perhaps the harmonics are tightened up to more resemble the higher strings when tensioned by a spacer sleeve and tension nut. Yes it’s a factor of barrel tension, but that’s really just the means to an end.

 

[BobWright]

From my observation, and that only, I've not noticed any practical difference in tensioned barrels. In rifle barrels, accuracy is dependent partially on bedding at the "nodes" of barrel flex points. There is a curve above and below the line of sight, the "nodes" being the point these curves cross the line of the barrel. But handgun barrels are to short, therefore stiff, for this to make any difference. Neither the Colt target revolvers nor the S&W revolvers, had tensioned barrels, and records still stand these guns have set.

From my observation, accuracy is in the hand of the shooter.

Bob Wright

 

[MrBorland]

The theory offered in explanation was that the barrel tensioned between the frame and muzzle nut flexed and whipped more consistently than one fixed on only the frame-end. Is this true, or have we found different explanations or alternative understandings in hindsight and given the benefit of 40 years to consider it?

Their explanation might be correct, but another issue might be less stress on the frame/forcing cone interface. AFAIK, S&W developed their version of the 2-piece barrel when designing the .500mag revolver, specifically for this reason. It worked well, and likely was more efficient (and cheaper) to produce, so they used it subsequently. I don't know if 2-piece S&Ws are any more accurate than DWs, but it seems to me the DW design should reduce stress here as well.

 

[CraigC]

I don't buy it either. Even if tensioned barrels resulted in more accurate revolvers, there ain't much tension there. You're just tightening the barrel nut enough to keep it from coming loose. Dan Wessons are accurate, at least mine are. However, my Super Redhawk is one of the most consistently accurate revolvers I own, that is not a Freedom Arms.

It may have more to do with the fact that DW went to more effort to make sure their chambers lined up with their bores and couldn't rely on the forcing cone for minute alignment adjustments.

Their explanation might be correct, but another issue might be less stress on the frame/forcing cone interface. AFAIK, S&W developed their version of the 2-piece barrel when designing the .500mag revolver, specifically for this reason. It worked well, and likely was more efficient (and cheaper) to produce, so they used it subsequently. I don't know if 2-piece S&Ws are any more accurate than DWs, but it seems to me the DW design should reduce stress here as well.

You're certainly not going to have any issues with thread choke.

 

[westernrover]

Their explanation might be correct, but another issue might be less stress on the frame/forcing cone interface. AFAIK, S&W developed their version of the 2-piece barrel when designing the .500mag revolver, specifically for this reason. It worked well, and likely was more efficient (and cheaper) to produce, so they used it subsequently. I don't know if 2-piece S&Ws are any more accurate than DWs, but it seems to me the DW design should reduce stress here as well.

In my limited sample size of a half-dozen or so, one-piece S&W barrels are often distorted where they screw into the frame. They use a two-piece sleeved barrel design on a variety of guns in all frame sizes (340 PD, latest Model 19, PC 686+, TRR8, and 350 Legend models all have them as well as many others). I think most people are aware of the "canted barrel" issue they had with careless or unskilled assemblers inaccurately clocking the threads cut on the barrel so that it wasn't aligned when torqued. The independent barrel sleeve eliminates that, but I suspect it also reduces the distortion of the barrel where it is screwed into the frame.

I understand the reason Dan Wesson used a "choke bore" barrel is because they understood that the barrel would not have the same bore diameter throughout its length. The choke bore would ensure that the bore was not smaller at the breech end than it was at the muzzle.

I'd like to know if DWA used the choke bore in Model 15-2 or only in the large frames beginning in the early 80's.

 

[Jim Watson]

Choked? I didn't know that. How do you make a choked rifled barrel in mass production?

 

[westernrover]

To be sure "choked" was the term applied by journalists contemporary to the period Dan Wessons were prevalent (the early 80's heyday of IHMSA). I understand the barrels were very gradually tapered from the breech end to the muzzle. I suppose it could be accomplished with a tapered reamer. I don't know if only the lands were tapered or if the grooves were also. The rifling was reported to be broach-cut. Since the depth of the grooves is cut incrementally with this method, maybe they could have stepped them and then lapped the steps. I lament not being as imaginative as good machinists.

 

[Jim Watson]

That's an ugly image. Pedersoli says their barrels are tapered and that they are broached. Hmm.

The main thing I recall from Dan Wesson advertising was "The Ugly Muzzle" because the tube was just faced off flat without a conventional crown.

 

[doubleh]

I don't know the secret of the DW's accuracy but it is good enough on my VH-8 that I have never messed with the barrel and don't have a clue where the wrench is now.

 

[Riomouse911]

My 15-2’s are both plenty accurate, despite the clown be hind the trigger (me!).

I don’t know if that is from their tensioned barrel arrangement, their excellent sights or great triggers.

Stay safe.

 

[jmorris]

Back when I was chasing revolver accuracy I had my eye on a 3 barrel Dan Wesson kit. Then wondered why the Smython was a thing and the Smwesson wasn‘t, (I’d like to shoot this one)



picked up a Colt instead and it might be the most accurate revolver I have. It is the one I have found the most accurate load for so far (golf balls to ~50 yards with 158gn JHP’s, go into low lunar orbit).

 

[westernrover]

What do you think it is with the Colt barrel? Faster twist? Forcing cone angle? The trigger? Your Colt a new one? Shoot the golf balls DA or SA? Did you ever get any Dan Wessons?

 

[Jim Watson]

the Smwesson wasn‘t

Dean Grennell showed a S&W .357, model 27 or 28 with a Dan Wesson barrel and shroud.
The gunsmith who put it together was named Smith, so Grennell called it a Smith and Smith and Wesson and Wesson.

What do you think it is with the Colt barrel? Faster twist? Forcing cone angle?

Might be the 14 twist, might be the smaller bore, allegedly tapered and burnished, but I think the main thing is that the Smython (or Cougar) is a custom proposition, put together with more care than the parent factory gun.

 

[jmorris]

What do you think it is with the Colt barrel? Faster twist? Forcing cone angle? The trigger? Your Colt a new one? Shoot the golf balls DA or SA? Did you ever get any Dan Wessons?

It’s an old (now) Python with a Leupold scope on Redfield rings, SA, pistol not contacting a rest but my arms were. I never did buy a DW but I have been able to shoot a few over the years, I might have bought but they were not the kit I originally wanted.

The Sights obviously make a huge difference, you can’t hit what you can’t reliably aim at. Take this dot for example, it’s not much better at aiming with precision that the factory irons.



Add a decent optic and the game changes. Making what might have seemed like an outlandish claim, something that’s not very difficult to do.



This is the same Leupold on a Mark II that will do the same thing at 50 yards.



It will put all 10 inside 3” at 100 yards on a calm day. I have played with other brands though and have better ways to test them now than I did in the past.



I would be interested in testing them side by side myself.

 

[CraigC]

I think Colt just made (or makes?) better barrels. I don't see the twist rate as making any difference with anything but full wadcutters.

Isn't the choked bore the claim to fame for Anschutz barrels?

 

[Jim Watson]

Back when PPC was administered by the Police Marksman's Association, they tried the wadcutters sold as "Can 'O Lead". The M19 grouped them closer than the Python.

If I understand what Anschutz does to choke their .177 and .22 barrels, it wouldn't work on a straight tube like the DW.

 

[sugarmaker]

Really no idea if the tensioned barrel helps or not but the 44VH8, at a tidy 64 ounces (same as the 6 1/2 inch sw500), is the most accurate revolver I own. Shoots enough better than I do that if I miss at under 150 yards, I know where the problem lies…

 

[hemiram]

I don't know if the tensioned barrel makes a DW so accurate, but at my peak of skills shooting, I was better with my 15-2's than anything else I owned, including a 6" Python, 6+1/2" 28-2, 6" 686, and other revolvers.

 

[tightgroup tiger]

I think Colt just made (or makes?) better barrels. I don't see the twist rate as making any difference with anything but full wadcutters.

Isn't the choked bore the claim to fame for Anschutz barrels?

I always thought the Colt Python barrels had a progressive riffling. The rifling got progressively faster the further down the barrel the bullet went.
Edit:
I guess the gain twist rifling was only used in the Cold percussion revolvers.