Sleevec Barrels?

[spanky509]

Is ruger making any thing using them? Thanks

 

[spanky509]

Should say sleeved bbls

 

[CraigC]

Apparently some of the new Redhawks have sleeved barrels. Cost cutting measure.

 

[needsmostuff]

Cost cutting ? Or evolution?
With sleeved barrels you don't get over torqued barrels with a bore constriction (like Ruger is well known for).
With sleeved barrels you don't get canted front sights (Like Ruger is well known for).
I think eventually they will become the norm in the industry , like the Savage barrel nuts on rifles.

 

[CraigC]

Cost cutting. This is not new technology. It's a manufacturing shortcut and S&W has not been without issues.

I don't know that it alleviates any of those issues.

 

[Acorn]

Cost cutting. This is not new technology. It's a manufacturing shortcut and S&W has not been without issues.

I don't know that it alleviates any of those issues.

While I’m sure it’s cheaper and that’s the main reason I read the S&W barrel sleeves are indexed so that when installed the front sight is at 12 o’clock.

 

[41-44-45-48]

I don't think it's any cheaper to make. Think about it - it takes more machining operations to make the barrel and the sleeve rather than one combined part. I do think it saves them money in QC though. The problem with "normal" threaded barrels is that you're trying to get torque within spec AND get the front site indexed correctly with a single adjustment. At the same time!

Yes, a custom 'smith is capable of cutting perfectly timed threads to make this operation possible on $5000 customs. But this method was and is a problem on mass-produced $600 Rugers. Going to the two-piece system separates the operations such that barrel torque can be achieved independent of indexing the front site.

Smith has had a few issues with barrels unscrewing themselves but that sounds like more of a design problem in that they didn't do a good job of engineering anti-rotation properties into the threaded joint.

 

[CraigC]

Yes, it is easier and cheaper to produce a sleeved barrel than to forge a complicated DA barrel. This is why S&W and Ruger are doing it. It also precludes any barrel shortening operation. So whatever they make is what you're stuck with.

It would be pointless on SA barrels.

 

[cas6969]

I don't think it's any cheaper to make. Think about it - it takes more machining operations to make the barrel and the sleeve rather than one combined part. I do think it saves them money in QC though. The problem with "normal" threaded barrels is that you're trying to get torque within spec AND get the front site indexed correctly with a single adjustment. At the same time!

Machining is done by machines now.
Clocking a barrel is done by a person.
Time is money, easier is cheaper.

 

[CraigC]

Casting a barrel shroud is both easier and cheaper than hammer forging a rifled DA barrel.

 

[Laserbait]

I have one of the 4" sleeved barrel Redhawks, and I can say it's every bit as accurate as I could ask for. I'm very impressed with it. I've put through a couple thousand rounds through it, and it's been stellar!