PDA

View Full Version : Two piece barrels on S&W model 69, Why?


Sagerider
December 02, 2014, 13:36
As the title asks why the two piece barrel, an inner and outer? Cheaper to manufacture or what. I am not real thrilled about this two part barrel for some reason, maybe because it is different. I am a huge fan of S&W but not of making a cheaply built revolver that still goes for over $800.00.
Anyone know anything about the why of this two part barrel?
I like the Model 69 a .44 mag 5 shot on a smaller frame than the N but this barrel thing really through a bucket of cold water on my enthusiasm.
Thanks

kev
December 02, 2014, 15:57
That's what they make now, innit? Seems like all the ugly little wheelguns they make anymore have been dumbed down to one step above 'junk'. I'm sure it's all cost-cutting,........every change since about 1980 has been a cheapening. No different than all the plastic framed autos. Used guns are all that are worth buying. You can buy used Smith revolvers and autos for $300 that put the thousand dollar 'new' guns to shame.

Wildcat
December 02, 2014, 16:57
Jerry says:
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/1cbVl3cDMTY#t=828?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

jump to ~13:50 for comments on the new K-frame:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1cbVl3cDMTY#t=828

2-piece barrel explanation at ~15:38

jdmcomp
December 02, 2014, 17:08
Shades of Dan Wesson. Nothing new here. Nothing to see, move along.

W.E.G.
December 02, 2014, 17:09
The Model 69 is sort of the answer to the question that nobody is asking.

Except, folks have money burning a hole in their pocket, and this gun meets the criteria of what a lot of talkers have said they think would make a real nice gun.

At the end of the day, an N-Frame .44 Magnum with real magnum loads is a handful. A gun that weighs even less than the N-Frame will be an even BIGGER handful. I predict most people who buy them will talk about them a lot, and shoot them very little. Those who do shoot them much, will handload ammo that doesn't feel like your arm-bones are being shattered every time it fires. By then, they might as well be shooting a .38 or a .40 S&W.

The only "practical" application I can see for a "lightweight" .44 Magnum is in bear country. I predict that less than 1% of the buyers for the Model 69 will ever see a bear in the wild, let alone find themselves in a situation where they will be really glad they have that .44 Magnum for just in case that bear who just surprised them might attack. Most folks who live in places where that's much of a possibility can't afford the price tag of the Model 69 anyway.

I think the two-piece barrel is ugly as sin. I understand the mechanics of it, and why it really is a "better" design. I keep encountering new things that are supposed to be "better," and a bunch of talky-talk people who are dead-set on telling me why my inferior intellect is the reason why I don't appreciate all these "improvements" and "changes."

Jerry Miculek is one of the greatest marksmen to ever walk the face of the earth. Shame that being a marksman (just a marksman) don't pay the bills. So, Jerry has a job as a salesman. I get that, and I don't disrespect him for it. But it is what it is.

Meantime I've already got three big-bore revolvers. Last time I shot one of 'em had to be three years ago. Another has to be more than a decade. The other I ain't never shot.

Since I can't carry my whole gun collection around with me as an EDC thing, I've got to pick one before I leave the house. I won't be picking a big-bore revolver for my EDC, that's for sure. Not even one of the older ones that they built the right way.

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/pistol%20pics/Model%2057/M57pocketcarry.jpg

L Haney
December 02, 2014, 18:20
How do they derive that a ball detent is "supporting" the front of the cylinder. Unless that ball is locked from rear movement it provides no "support". It does help index, depending on the force of the loading spring involved, but I just don't see support.

brunop
December 02, 2014, 20:02
Hey, hey now!!

No logical questions about the superior product you don't understand.

:p

4x401
December 02, 2014, 20:08
How do they derive that a ball detent is "supporting" the front of the cylinder. Unless that ball is locked from rear movement it provides no "support". It does help index, depending on the force of the loading spring involved, but I just don't see support.

Utter bullshit, steeped in the proud tradition of S&W.

Dan Wesson got it right the first time, Ruger gave it a good second shot.

easttex
December 02, 2014, 21:17
Utter bullshit, steeped in the proud tradition of S&W.

Dan Wesson got it right the first time, Ruger gave it a good second shot.

Meh...Ruger over did it. Their revolvers are solid, if not a touch bulky, but they'll damn sure soak up recoil and digest whatever you throw at them.

L Haney
December 02, 2014, 21:31
Hey, hey now!!

No logical questions about the superior product you don't understand.

:p

I get it. I been out engineered by the marketing types yet again.

ftierson
December 02, 2014, 21:42
I get it. I been out engineered by the marketing types yet again.

:)

Forrest

jdmcomp
December 03, 2014, 14:15
but of course, if you don't like the barrel length you have you can change it to something else, same for the shroud. There could be advantages but in a gun I might want to use for social purpose I do not want to risk it.

Wildcat
December 03, 2014, 16:13
but of course, if you don't like the barrel length you have you can change it to something else, same for the shroud.
It might be a while before it becomes that easy.
In the mean time maybe Smith will do it if you ask nicely (and offer money).
The 2 piece barrel idea requires a special wrench that is proprietary equipment. The barrel has effectively become a hollow bolt that holds the shroud to the front of the frame. The tool engages the rifling.

I've read posts from people trying to figure out how to abbreviate the two piece barrel on a S&W 500. It turned into quite a project. One guy chopped the barrel, turned an external thread at the muzzle end of the barrel then fabricated a barrel nut to get the shroud fastened on.

There is a series of photos on the project here: http://s645.photobucket.com/user/cal50/media/Smith%20500/finished2_zpsb80c10a1.jpg.html

Sagerider
December 08, 2014, 00:40
I was getting a little woody for one of the Model 69s but think I will pass.

dasu
December 08, 2014, 09:45
Good info. I am embarrassed to admit that I bought the line on the stronger frame and lockup, but also have to admit I cant see enough from pictures.

Gary nailed it, most folks dont need a magnum but we sure do want one. Witness the ever larger handguns that are sold; the 44 mag is almost a midrange cartridge now, lol. I am toying with buying a 69, but would mainly shoot 44 special. The place in my arsenal for magnums is largely gone, as I have to admit I never needed them in the first place.

Temp
December 08, 2014, 12:05
This is the type of workmanship that Americans were putting into revolvers 110 years ago. Nothing else really needs to be said.

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h225/FalMike/perfect_zps060b6070.jpg (http://s65.photobucket.com/user/FalMike/media/perfect_zps060b6070.jpg.html)

Guy-epic
December 08, 2014, 13:50
Sleeved barrels are not so new on S&W my old AirLite has a sleeve. I don't see the issue? So they have made changes maybe they are better maybe not? Time will tell I guess