Smith & Wesson 2 piece barrel 620 Wave of the future?

[9x19]

Wave of the future?

Charter Arms was putting sleeved barrels on their revo's in the 80s, and Dan Wesson had the ultimate two-piece barrels on their revolvers before that.

With every move they make, I keep telling myself: Thank goodness for all the fine used S&Ws on the market!

 

[500swmag]

S&W 2 piece barrels

Just to clarify some previous statements made.
NO our barrel shrouds are NOT CASTINGS, they are machined from billet extruded steel, come on down to the plant for a tour and you can see our process. The inner barrel sleeve or barrelette is turned on a lathe from 410 bar stock. This 2 piece barrel is not cheaper to manufacture, our cost savings was in scrap and rework, it is much harder to control the threads of a one piece barrel to "clock up" properly to the 12'O'clock position then it is to tighten up an inner barrel sleeve to a to specified torque setting. The two piece barrel design gives a much more consistantly assembled gun. Hope this can clarify some mis-understandings.
BC

 

[Master Blaster]

500 it was your own CS technical guy at your customer service 800 number who told me that the outter barrel was a casting, and that was on the 620.

So ?????????????

 

[unspellable]

S&W barrel

If S&W has gone to a two piece barrel ala DW, why couldn't have made it interchangable ala DW?

With a DW the cylinder gap is adjustable, this would eliminate one of my gripes with S&W's where I keep pulling them out of the box with too much cylinder gap.

 

[Majic]

You know it sounds like the investment in CNC machines have resulted in a reduction in the machinist's skills if there was a problem in barrel installation. After about 150 years of building revolvers you would think the manufactor would have that process down pat.

 

[lawboy]

I don't mean to be rude, I really do not. But some of this stuff just plain sounds ignorant. The idea that because it was done one way 150 years ago, any new way is a cheapening of the product, flies in the face of so much industrial- and computer-age history, that I am dumbfounded that people conceive of product development and industry progress so simple-mindedly. If you prefer it because you like it better the old way, good, bad or indifferent, just say so. But to call it cheaper without any technical information about how, why or what it can do, is stupid. I am sorry, it truly lacks intellectual effort of any measurable amount. Respectfully, (really). Lawboy.

 

[only1asterisk]

You know it sounds like the investment in CNC machines have resulted in a reduction in the machinist's skills

Actually, I think CNC equipment has resulted in a reduction in machinist.

Lawboy,

We aren't simpleminded, we just remember hand fit revolvers that where made with real steel and lovingly finished with deep, dark blue. No, they were not all perfect, but they were real. What S&W puts out now looks to me like the illegitimate child of Dan Wesson and a Taurus, complete with Clinton hole, MIM parts and 7 shot cylinder. I want nothing to do with it. I hope it doesn't take S&W as long as Winchester to start giving customers back more of what they want.

If the choice is between a new 620 and a 20+ year old model 13 I know which one I want and why.

David

 

[lawboy]

David, that is the type of honesty I am talking about. You like the old ones, perfect or not. But folks trying to justify their preference by saying the new stuff is junk ... come on. I am not buying it for one minute. I like older revolvers too. I don't like the new locks either. But are they junk? Of course not. In fact, I think they may even save somebody's life, and I know for a fact some of the older handgun and rifle designs were just plain foolishly unsafe. I know one attorney who made his millions suing gun companies for that kind of thing, and my own firm has defended several of those companies on product liability cases. Folks, some of the old stuff is near and dear, but it is not always the best. Some of it it was plain stupidly designed no matter how well it looked, felt or fit in the hand. Good night.

 

[Majic]

My reference was that for 150 years they have been making a forged barrel and installing it on the revolvers. Now it was posted above that there's to much trouble trying to "clock" the barrels at 12 o'clock during installation creating waste and rework. This is an age old process used throughout the industry and now they are having trouble doing this? That points to either their machinists today aren't up to the task or there's problems with their CNC machines. Using a barrel liner or tube which doesn't have to be referenced in place and a shroud which can only fit properly in one place means you now don't have to have highly skilled machinists. You just need machine operators and parts assemblers (which may be robotic).

 

[Maxinquaye]

"Just this week I watached a guy try to sell a 4 barreled DW cased set for $300 and get turned away."

Sorry, that story's either crap or you don'tknow the deal of the century when it's staring you in the face.

Hell, the barrels alone sold on Ebay will net you double the purchase price.

 

[DHart]

I don't think any product line in any industry can stand still for very long, for various reasons. Some of the changes are good and some are not so good.

I would probably enjoy a new 620 and who knows, someday I may buy one. But it would never take the place of an earlier model 13, 19, 65, or 66. There is just a quality, a nature, a look and feel of the Smiths made in earlier years which has an allure head and shoulders above all the Starwars inspired, post-post-modern age wheelguns S&W is making today, those wearing atomic symbols and locks and all the rest of it. I understand that S&W needs to go there for various reasons and we'll probably never see another S&W without a built-in lock (dang it!!!), but like another poster said, it would be nice if S&W wakes up and realizes that continuing to build some of the classic designs would please a LOT of people. Perhaps, though, most of us that are drawn to the earlier versions of Smiths will fade away and the younger generations will take to the new-fangled Smiths with joy. In the meantime, I continue to seek out and enjoy beautiful Smiths of a slightly earlier time. I think they will hold value or appreciate much more than anything coming out of the S&W factory today and they also happen to bring me a lot more owner satisfaction as I enjoy looking at, handling, and shooting them.

There is one use I personally might find for a brand new Smith... that of a "beater" gun... a gun you don't mind throwing in the glovebox or under the seat of your car, one which you know you can rely on but don't have to be concerned for as far as keeping in beautiful condition. Brand new Smiths are more "disposable" in that way, you can easily replace them if they get messed up... a beautiful older Smith is not so easy to replace.

I feel the same way about 1911's. That's why most of the 1911's I've bought over the last few years have been Colts. And most of the rifles I've bought have been Winchester and Marlin lever rifles. Guess that makes a real statement about where my firearms preferences lie. Not to be totally type-cast though, I thrive on and love new Macintosh computers, new cars, DVD players, new TV's and stereos, new digital cameras, etc.

 

[only1asterisk]

I just want to add that I don't have any problem with new technology. If S&W would put out a new model 12 in .357 with one of their new alloy frames, a steel cylinder, normal 3" barrel, firing pin on the hammer and no Clinton hole I'd buy 4. That's progress.

20 years ago, you couldn't do it, but now you can.

MIM parts are not progress. They use MIM to make parts that are "close enough" and don't fit them. That's a step back (not to mention ugly and structurally inferior). Firing pins on the frame is not progress. The 7 shot cylinder is not progress. The triggers on guns with new lock work aren’t capable of the level of tune their predecessors could achieve. The Clinton hole is not progress. Its added parts have no function except to prove Murphy’s law true. In addition, it provides another route by which crap can enter. The two piece barrel wouldn’t be so bad if I could set the cylinder gap myself (Dan Wesson style), I’d almost trade the ability to replace/cut down a barrel. It still isn’t progress.

Not progress not by a long shot. A step backwards, less gun for more money. Cheap, for the sake of being cheaper. Like the switch Coke made in the 1980’s from cane sugar to corn syrup. Not better, not progress, just the song of the chicken.


David

 

[L-Frame]

I would not disagree with any of the points Only1asterisk made about what constitutes progress or not, except for the 7 shots. Giving me an extra round in the exact same package, which happens to be my chosen self defense/carry gun, is the very definition of progress in my opinion. MIM parts, the lock, etc. you'll get no arguments from me there.

Regarding earlier posts about the lack of quality craftsmen and all of the robotics nowdays, some of the best machining in the world, in the auto industry, computer industry, etc, uses robotics heavily. Heck, pick an industry where you don't find robotics. To compete you have to. It's OK to mourn an age of master craftsmen being seen less and less, but the fact is that for that age to continue you would be paying 2 and 3 times for guns what you pay now. Also, as I stated earlier, I just bought a 686+ 5" hi-viz revolver and it is extremely well done in all respects (except for the butt ugly lock). I think that the action jobs I've gotten in recent smiths is every bit as good as older models I've had worked on.

It's natural to see a Deusenburg, see all of the unique features, time and materials spent on these unique beauties and long for the old, (in this case very old days). But 2 things need to be remembered: To make a car like that today with the same methods would be outlandishly expensive, and the big one for me, there are a whole lot of really nice autos being made today the new fangled way. No different for guns. Nostalgia is a powerful thing. Old was great, I think the new will be good too. If you don't like them, great. Hunt down the older guns. Heck, the hunt is half the fun anyway.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

If they made it like my Dan Wessons, it would be the future. The way they have it right now where the end user cannot change it, whats the point.

Why can Dan Wesson trust me to set the gap, change the barrel, buy different lengths, shrouds and flip them around easily, and Smith and Wesson cannot?


I really think there is a problem here.....

 

[444]

I didn't know there was a limit. An either/or situation.

I own a dozen or two S&W revolvers. They span a range of just about 100 years. I have numerous "pinned a recessed" S&Ws. That isn't going to stop me from buying more. In addition to all the Smiths I own, I have one with a lock. I am real interested in a couple of the revovlers they make now. I don't know if I will ever buy them, but I am not ruling it out by a damn sight.

 

[MoNsTeR]

This is an age old process used throughout the industry and now they are having trouble doing this?

Who said it's a new problem? I would conjecture the problem has been around since the beginning. The solution is what's new.


It's all well and good to bash cost-cutting measures and pine away for the hand-fit guns of yesteryear, but it's just not viable anymore. In the US, capital is cheap and labor is expensive, and that gets truer every day. If all DA revolvers were made like M27's or early Pythons, they'd cost $800-$1000 instead of $350-$550. In the 1911 world, just look at the price difference between a Baer TRS and a Kimber Custom. Producing guns the old-fashioned way just isn't the way a company earns the most profit, which is ultimately the point of being in business.

What is a damned shame is that there's so little choice, in terms of quality, in the revolver world. You can pay anything between $300 and $5000 for a 1911, but S&W and Ruger only turn out one grade of revolver (precious few models from the S&W Performance Center excepted). Unfortunately I think that as long as there are enough older units on the used market, priced they way they are, there won't be enough demand to support a line of "factory customs."

 

[500swmag]

2 piece barrels

master blaster, the technical department has been informed of their error. I am certain of the materials, design and process, as I have been involved in each of these aspects at one time or another.
Brett Curry

 

[444]

Anything that has been discontinued is better.
Three screw Rugers.
Pre-64 Winchesters
Pinned and Recessed S&W revolvers
"Pre-Ban"
"Pre-Agreement"

The definition of an expert is someone that lives over 50 miles away. The definition of quality in a gun is one that is "Pre" something.

 

[Majic]

Who said it's a new problem? I would conjecture the problem has been around since the beginning. The solution is what's new.

Strange how other revolver makers can still use the old barrel design and keep their costs down.

 

[Master Blaster]

If all DA revolvers were made like M27's or early Pythons, they'd cost $800-$1000 instead of $350-$550.

I was looking at my 1967 27-2, It would probably cost about $2,000-3,000 to make this revolver now, all forged machined parts made by a skilled machinist, case hardened trigger and hammer milled from barstock, and carefully finished, as are all of the internal parts (no milling marks visible requires extra grinding and finishing). Deep deep high polished bluing, and that 60 lpi checkered topstrap and barrel rib, all parts closely hand fitted. Yeah a new one $2500. How many do you think S&W could sell at that price point?????


As far as their competition goes, Taurus is made in Brazil, and they are using MIM and CNC machining even with their cheap labor. You can read about the mim process on their website IIRC.

Ruger, investment casting, not forged frames, all parts are cast. If S&W went to this same practice, everyone would be decrying the fact that they had cheapened their process by using "pot metal casting" instead of real forged steel for the frames.

BTW I own 1 taurus, and 3 rugers as well, Rugers just dont have that same quality feel as the Smiths do, although my super blackhawk made in 1980 is very nice and has that high polish blue missing on the new guns.

BTW my new 686 shoots as well or better than my 20 yearold model 19.