Is theyre a advantage to the old smith pinned barrels. They seem to bring more money.
Give me all of your old Smiths, you don't need them since you have the Kimber.
My kimber is nice :however, those old smith are starting to turn me on.
I'm no Smith expert, but there were some transitional guns that had pinned barrels but did not have the recessed chambers.
As for the original question, I'm not convinced that the pinned barrels have any real advantage over the non-pinned but it does ensure that you are getting a gun back from a time when quality and craftsmanship were king. Those were the epitome of revolvers.
I just bought a 25-5 w/pinned barrel, and it does not have a recessed cylinder. Made in 1979, but it's not a magnum.
Actually, it's the other way around. The transition magnums had recessed cylinders but no pinned barrel. The "specials" (.38 & .44) never did have recessed cylinders, nor did the model 25 chambered in .45 LC, but they did sport pinned barrels. The pinned and recessed feature died in the late 70's/early 80's, but I'm thinkin' the .22 revos still feature a recessed cylinder even today.
And yes, P&R revolvers are more coveted by collectors than them new-fangled wheelguns. I personally like the P&R magnums and pinned K frame .38 Special snubbies, but I actually prefer my J frames to be from the mid 80's for some strange reason.
Look who's talkin'!
You've forgotten more about Smith & Wesson revolvers than I'll ever know!
There is also the theory that the pinned barrels are more accurate. The theory goes that the non-pinned are constricted slightly where it screws into the frame due to the tight fit and opening up to normal size out past the frame.
I don't know if I buy that theory but it's out there. I suppose anything is possible.
I don't know if I buy that theory but it's out there. I suppose anything is possible.
Similar threads
- Sale Price: 500$
