Pinned and Recessed??

Clemson · January 4, 2005, 12:48 PM

I have seen some mighty strong sentiments toward S&W revolvers with pinned barrels and recessed cylinders. One of my Model 66 revolvers is pinned and recessed. Two are neither pinned nor recessed.

My 686 is not pinned nor is it recessed.

My Model 15 in .38 Special is pinned but not recessed. In fact, only magnum cartridges were available in recessed cylinders (excepting the .22's).

My opinion is that I would never make a purchase decision based on pinned barrel or recessed cylinder. I would base a purchase decision on the overall condition of the gun. In fact, for a combat revolver, I would prefer NOT to have a recessed cylinder. It seems to be much easier to drop a cartridge rim under the extractor star of a recessed model than on a flush cylinder model.

So there. I feel better now.

Clemson

Striker · January 4, 2005, 12:51 PM

Quote:

In fact, for a combat revolver, I would prefer NOT to have a recessed cylinder. It seems to be much easier to drop a cartridge rim under the extractor star of a recessed model than on a flush cylinder model.

Emphatically concur!! Especially if not doing a full cylinder dump and 2x2 reload drill

tulsamal · January 4, 2005, 01:44 PM

I use P&R primarily as a quick way to pick "the good ones" out of a display rack of older Smiths. I see that pin and the condition and price look good, I want to see the gun! I will agree that a pinned barrel isn't really necessary but it does look "classic." The recessed cylinder (I think) really looks better. The cylinder will sit back further in the "window." So you have less gap there. The rounds "disappear" into the cylinder and look like they were machined into it. Just looks elegant. Whether it is better or worse in a reliability sense doesn't really matter to me since I use the beautiful old guns on the range and not in a daily holster.

Gregg

Hawgleg44 · January 4, 2005, 02:33 PM

P&R are features mostly attributed to collectors. They do demand a premium. I have only M29-2 which is P&R. My M64 is also pinned. Everything else I have is newer.

I've seen no advantages to either. They are just design changes.

**James K** · January 4, 2005, 02:53 PM

Some folks have made up their minds that the older a S&W is the better it is. Going by that idea, I guess those folks carry the Model No. 1, first issue, first type, but that recoil plate and sharp barrel catch must be nuisances.

Jim

Ninjato · January 4, 2005, 05:24 PM

The only problem I have w/ my M19-3 P&R is that .357mags shells get "stuck" real tight. I have no problems extracting .38sp but w/ magnum shells, after being fired, I puch the ejector rod to clear the cylinder and about 1/4 of the way out it gets "stuck".

I have cleaned and cleaned and polished and polished the cylinder, made sure it was dry when I fired, made sure I didn't have lead build up from shooting too many .38sp but it still gets stuck w/ magnum rounds. I feel like I paid for a .357mag that can only shoot .38sp.

I have been told that the older 19's did have very tight tolerances and that may be the contributing issue, and others have told me it is because of heat. Sorry, ALL my other .357s don't have this issue.

tulsamal · January 4, 2005, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Some folks have made up their minds that the older a S&W is the better it is.

I know you are just stretching the point! I don't own any pre-war Smiths and maybe I never will. But the production after WWII until somewhere around 1983 is always going to be the most desirable to me. It isn't some unfounded prejudice in my mind. I just got a 19-3 made in 1973. It is the first gun I've gotten through my dealer in a long time that he just kept complimenting. "That sure is a nice gun. They sure don't blue guns like that anymore. They must have polished that gun to a very high finish before they blued it. Lot of handwork to get that just right." Etc. The finish almost looks wet even when totally dry. Everything fits together "just so." I'm glad there are people who like the current production guns because that means more older beauties for me.

Gregg

Sir William · January 4, 2005, 05:44 PM

Let me see, 32 and 38 breaktops, lemonsqueezers, Models of 1902, 1903 and 1905, pre-WWII M&Ps, three post-wars, P&Rd 6" N frames and Ks and Js in pinned barrels. I like older S&Ws. Of course, H&Rs were pinned and recessed too.

PKAY · January 5, 2005, 08:10 PM

P&R is primarily a collector issue and for some a quality issue. The pinned bbl and recessed cylinder evokes in the minds of many an attention to detail and aesthetics gone by the wayside in conformance to the demands of a "bean counter" mentality that says such things just add cost to the product and do not necessarily make the piece stronger or more efficient.

Insofar as a review of the pinned bbl vs. the crush fit, I was told by a rangemaster at a local So. Cal indoor range in the S.F. Valley that he had to send a couple of his Model 686 crush fit rentals back to S&W because the bbls BROKE OFF while a customer was firing. He said S&W sent him two NEW guns. I asked how many rounds had been through the guns prior to the bbl's departing the frames. To which he replied, "One was at around 50,000 rounds and the other had over 60,000." Oh My!! I don't think any of my S&W revos without a pinned bbl will ever SEE that many rounds. And if any one does, it will be time to retire it or rebarrel it anyway dontcha think?

Sail7Seas · January 6, 2005, 12:52 AM

I find it interesting that people tend to talk highly of 70s era pinned and recessed S&Ws now. Back then people were whining of the quality control under Bangor Punta ownership...that was before MIM parts and lock abominations though.

RUT · January 6, 2005, 08:39 AM

>>that was before MIM parts and lock abominations though.<<

And to think, these will be looked upon as being "desirable" at some point in the future!

trespass · January 8, 2005, 10:30 PM

pinned and recessed is collector stuff..older models...crush fit barrels and no recessed cylinders is the cheaper, newer production...not much diff in shooting, but pinned and chamferred is better..is the old quality stuff....also, look along the top strap, those older models with the little divots cut in the end are a mark of the old quality guns too.,....

Brian 45 · January 9, 2005, 10:10 AM

My favorite S&W revolvers also happen to be P&R'd. Just something about the fit and finish of them that make me smile. My newer models don't seem to hold up as well either, maybe they were just handled rougher by their prior owners.
Even my P&R M-28 seems of better quality than my newer guns and it was made as a work-a-day gun then.
I don't pass up the newer stuff but the P&R gets my attention quicker and I'm often willing to dig a little deeper for one.
I don't intend to be selling much of anything but it's good to know the nicer ones will bring a little more if I do.

January 4, 2005, 12:48 PM	#1
Clemson Senior Member Join Date: March 9, 2001 Location: Greenwood, SC Posts: 816	Pinned and Recessed?? I have seen some mighty strong sentiments toward S&W revolvers with pinned barrels and recessed cylinders. One of my Model 66 revolvers is pinned and recessed. Two are neither pinned nor recessed. My 686 is not pinned nor is it recessed. My Model 15 in .38 Special is pinned but not recessed. In fact, only magnum cartridges were available in recessed cylinders (excepting the .22's). My opinion is that I would never make a purchase decision based on pinned barrel or recessed cylinder. I would base a purchase decision on the overall condition of the gun. In fact, for a combat revolver, I would prefer NOT to have a recessed cylinder. It seems to be much easier to drop a cartridge rim under the extractor star of a recessed model than on a flush cylinder model. So there. I feel better now. Clemson __________________ NRA Life Member, NRA Certified Instructor CWP Holder US Army veteran Gunsmith

January 4, 2005, 02:33 PM	#4
Hawgleg44 Senior Member Join Date: June 19, 2004 Location: People's Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 440	P&R are features mostly attributed to collectors. They do demand a premium. I have only M29-2 which is P&R. My M64 is also pinned. Everything else I have is newer. I've seen no advantages to either. They are just design changes. __________________ Results of the 1998 Massachusetts gun laws: It is important to keep in mind the ISP reports show that firearm related homicides decreased 56% from 1994 to 1998. From 1998 to 2002, firearm related homicides increased 48%. During the same time, firearm related accidental deaths have increased 200%. Will work for ammo.

January 4, 2005, 02:53 PM	#5
James K Staff Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 16,428	Some folks have made up their minds that the older a S&W is the better it is. Going by that idea, I guess those folks carry the Model No. 1, first issue, first type, but that recoil plate and sharp barrel catch must be nuisances. Jim __________________ Jim K

January 4, 2005, 05:24 PM	#6
Ninjato Senior Member Join Date: December 5, 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 242	The only problem I have w/ my M19-3 P&R is that .357mags shells get "stuck" real tight. I have no problems extracting .38sp but w/ magnum shells, after being fired, I puch the ejector rod to clear the cylinder and about 1/4 of the way out it gets "stuck". I have cleaned and cleaned and polished and polished the cylinder, made sure it was dry when I fired, made sure I didn't have lead build up from shooting too many .38sp but it still gets stuck w/ magnum rounds. I feel like I paid for a .357mag that can only shoot .38sp. I have been told that the older 19's did have very tight tolerances and that may be the contributing issue, and others have told me it is because of heat. Sorry, ALL my other .357s don't have this issue. __________________ Kimber Ultra CDP II Dan Wesson Pointman Aussie PMA-S Colt Python .357mag 4" S&W 686-4 7shot 6" S&W Walther PPKS Gold Premier .380

January 5, 2005, 08:10 PM	#9
PKAY Senior Member Join Date: March 22, 1999 Location: L.A., CA, USA Posts: 911	P&R is primarily a collector issue and for some a quality issue. The pinned bbl and recessed cylinder evokes in the minds of many an attention to detail and aesthetics gone by the wayside in conformance to the demands of a "bean counter" mentality that says such things just add cost to the product and do not necessarily make the piece stronger or more efficient. Insofar as a review of the pinned bbl vs. the crush fit, I was told by a rangemaster at a local So. Cal indoor range in the S.F. Valley that he had to send a couple of his Model 686 crush fit rentals back to S&W because the bbls BROKE OFF while a customer was firing. He said S&W sent him two NEW guns. I asked how many rounds had been through the guns prior to the bbl's departing the frames. To which he replied, "One was at around 50,000 rounds and the other had over 60,000." Oh My!! I don't think any of my S&W revos without a pinned bbl will ever SEE that many rounds. And if any one does, it will be time to retire it or rebarrel it anyway dontcha think? __________________ Safe shooting - PKAY

January 4, 2005, 01:44 PM	#3
tulsamal Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2004 Location: Vinita, OK Posts: 2,404	I use P&R primarily as a quick way to pick "the good ones" out of a display rack of older Smiths. I see that pin and the condition and price look good, I want to see the gun! I will agree that a pinned barrel isn't really necessary but it does look "classic." The recessed cylinder (I think) really looks better. The cylinder will sit back further in the "window." So you have less gap there. The rounds "disappear" into the cylinder and look like they were machined into it. Just looks elegant. Whether it is better or worse in a reliability sense doesn't really matter to me since I use the beautiful old guns on the range and not in a daily holster. Gregg

January 4, 2005, 05:44 PM	#8
Sir William Senior Member Join Date: October 13, 2004 Posts: 3,261	Let me see, 32 and 38 breaktops, lemonsqueezers, Models of 1902, 1903 and 1905, pre-WWII M&Ps, three post-wars, P&Rd 6" N frames and Ks and Js in pinned barrels. I like older S&Ws. Of course, H&Rs were pinned and recessed too.

January 6, 2005, 12:52 AM	#10
Sail7Seas Junior Member Join Date: June 29, 2004 Posts: 6	I find it interesting that people tend to talk highly of 70s era pinned and recessed S&Ws now. Back then people were whining of the quality control under Bangor Punta ownership...that was before MIM parts and lock abominations though.

January 6, 2005, 08:39 AM	#11
RUT Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2004 Location: NH, USA Posts: 604	>>that was before MIM parts and lock abominations though.<< And to think, these will be looked upon as being "desirable" at some point in the future!

January 8, 2005, 10:30 PM	#12
trespass Senior Member Join Date: October 20, 2004 Location: oklahoma Posts: 334	pinned and recessed is collector stuff..older models...crush fit barrels and no recessed cylinders is the cheaper, newer production...not much diff in shooting, but pinned and chamferred is better..is the old quality stuff....also, look along the top strap, those older models with the little divots cut in the end are a mark of the old quality guns too.,....

January 9, 2005, 10:10 AM	#13
Brian 45 Member Join Date: October 22, 2004 Location: Davison,MI. Posts: 81	My favorite S&W revolvers also happen to be P&R'd. Just something about the fit and finish of them that make me smile. My newer models don't seem to hold up as well either, maybe they were just handled rougher by their prior owners. Even my P&R M-28 seems of better quality than my newer guns and it was made as a work-a-day gun then. I don't pass up the newer stuff but the P&R gets my attention quicker and I'm often willing to dig a little deeper for one. I don't intend to be selling much of anything but it's good to know the nicer ones will bring a little more if I do.