S&W vs. Ruger barrel constriction

[4bisley5]

This may be a dumb question for those of you that actually have experience and knowledge about this kind of stuff. Do Smith and Wesson barrels attach to the frame with the "crush fit " system that Ruger uses?

[Piedmont]

S&W started crush fitting barrels around 1983. The old pinned barrels stopped then. However, I suspect some pinned barrels had constrictions. I can't comment on their newer sleeved barrels because I don't understand exactly how they are set up. The locks eliminated them from consideration for me.

[dubber123]

I have a lot of older S&W's, and only a couple are newer, non pinned models. Barrel constrictions are far from rare, no different from Ruger as far as I can tell.

[Joni Lynn]

The barrel constriction in S&W vary from gun to gun with some being barely noticeable and others are just crazy tight. My 29-9 has the worst of any I've seen. S&W of course thinks it's perfectly fine.

[Petrol & Powder]

To address the OP's question, Yes, sort of.

Both Ruger and S&W have used the crush fit method to attach barrels to revolver frames. However that answer is a bit of an over simplification. Older S&W revolvers with the pinned barrel didn't require huge amounts of torque to lock the barrel to frame. Later, S&W eliminated the pin and relied on torque alone to secure the barrel to the frame. Now that pin can be a bit misleading because even guns with the pin had barrels that were screwed in pretty tight to start with. There is a shoulder on the barrel ahead of the threaded portion and the position of that shoulder determines how the barrel "clocks" when fully tightened to the frame. The term "clock" refers to the relationship of the front sight and the ejector rod lug to the frame. In other words, when completely tightened to the frame the barrel should end up with the front sight perfectly aligned on top of the barrel and the lug should be in line with the ejector rod. The barrel also needs to be tight enough that it stays put if there is no pin to help hold it in place.

On the older barrels that used a pin, the barrels were still tight to the frame but the torque needed to keep the barrel attached to the frame wasn't as critical because the pin would prevent the barrel from turning out of the frame.

The newest S&W revolvers that utilize the sleeved two piece barrel and shroud use tension to locate the barrel to the frame. The shroud is keyed to the frame to prevent the shroud from rotating.

Ruger simply uses barrel torque to locate the barrel on the frame (crush fit) similar to the older S&W's without the pinned barrel. Again, the location of the shoulder ahead of the threads determines how the barrel "clocks" when fully tightened to the frame. Ruger seems to use a LOT of torque when installing their barrels and this sometimes results in thread constriction where the barrel passes through the frame. In all fairness, S&W isn't immune to that issue either.

MtnGun44 has posted that he has used the services of a gunsmith that removes the barrel from the Ruger frames, slightly cuts the shoulder back and re-installs the barrel with Loctite and less torque. This results in a barrel that is properly "clocked" to the frame but doesn't rely on extreme torque to secure it to the frame and therefore eliminates the thread constriction problem.