[Dacos]

Does the new internal lock change the trigger pull in any way on S&W's latest revolvers or have an effect over time on the trigger? Could I remove it or do I need to send it to a smith to have it removed, if I felt like it? I noticed the S&W 686 in .38 Super is finally available but I'd like to answer this question prior to purchasing the gun.

[Robert inOregon]

Does the new internal lock change the trigger pull in any way on S&W's latest revolvers or have an effect over time on the trigger? NO.

Could I remove it or do I need to send it to a smith to have it removed, if I felt like it? NO.

I noticed the S&W 686 in .38 Super is finally available but I'd like to answer this question prior to purchasing the gun. Distributor is already sold out, so what is on the street is what there is. Don't wait too long.

[M1911]

Dacos: When the internal lock is unlocked, it does not contact any moving parts. So it does not effect the trigger pull nor does it in any way cause wear on the action parts (nor do the action parts cause wear on the internal lock). Unlock the thing, toss the key into the box, put the gun in your safe and stop worrying about it.

[kalibear45]

I think its more of a cosmetic nuisance than anything. I personally do not like the "-6" models because of the internal lock - that and the MIM parts that now come with it...

[Robert inOregon]

that and the MIM parts that now come with it...

Guns from the Performance Center only come with forged parts.

[Standing Wolf]

Guns from the Performance Center only come with forged parts.

I had no idea!

[J Miller]

Dacos,

Here is a pic of the S&W Key lock.

[Sam C]

I refuse to buy a new S&W. First it was suck up to Klinton then install a liberal pc locking device. Screw Smith & Wesson!!! I'm now a Ruger fan. Sam:)

[J Miller]

Sam C,
Welcome to The High Road. Join in and have some fun.


Hey, I feel the same way about S&W you do, I just happened to have that pic in my files and decided to share it.

As I looked at it, I realized that is an excellent pic of the MIM hammer too. Looks like a cheep piece of...........well junk.

But I don't argue with the other members here. Takes too much effort, and causes too many hard feelings.

There are many good used S&W's out there, and besides S&W does not make even one gun I want.
Too Bad....

[Robert inOregon]

As I looked at it, I realized that is an excellent pic of the MIM hammer too. Looks like a cheep piece of...........well junk.

Actually the picture is the inside of a Performance Center gun. Parts are forged!

[Sam C]

J Miller,
Thanks for the reply. I wasn't trying to be argumentative, that's why I inserted the smiley face.
I was just trying to make the point that we should support company's that produce what we want and need, not what the Lefties demand. IMHO, when gun makers cave in to the anti's, it emboldens them to demand more and more. Don't forget, in the end, the left isn't working for responsable gun ownership but rather for total disarment of our citizens.
Sorry if I came off to strong but the integral locking system just smacks of capitulation. Sam:)

[Dacos]

J Miller,

Thx for the pic. I agree with your and Sam C's sentiments and decided against getting a new S&W. Rather, I've decided to look for a USED model 36 with a 3" barrel.

Dacos

[Mark IV Series 80]

Originally posted by Robert inOregon:
Guns from the Performance Center only come with forged parts.Hello Robert,

I am no expert, but in J Miller's photo, it looks like porosity on the surface of the new S&W hammer. I would not expect to see porosity in a forged part.

Also, if that hammer is not MIM, then why did they press in a carbon-steel bushing at the pivot point?

If MIM is so great, why do they make the Performance Center revolvers with forged parts?

[Robert inOregon]

I am no expert, but in J Miller's photo, it looks like porosity on the surface of the new S&W hammer. I would not expect to see porosity in a forged part.

That is where the ignorance of MIM starts. There is NO visible porosity of a MIM part! Its a cost savings product that will give most users a lifetime of satisfaction. The company does not chrome MIM parts like in the photo (bead satin) and MIM hammers are also skeletonized. MIM also has molding marks like those you would see in a molded plastic part. Mr. Miller took this picture from another forum. The original author of this photo said it was from the inside of a Performance Center gun.

If MIM is so great, why do they make the Performance Center revolvers with forged parts?

Forged parts are aesthetically cleaner than MIM and the parts give a "custom look" that S&W is trying to portray with the Performance Center line. MIM parts also cannot accommodate options such as a trigger stop, which is a Performance Center staple.

[Sir Galahad]

Yeah, Sam, Ruger is SOOO much better with their help in banning high cap mags.:rolleyes:

MIM parts are in LOTS of firearms. It's just people use it with S&W as another reason to hate Smiths. Can anyone provide documented sources that show a statistical rate of failure of MIM firearms parts? Not anecdotal failures, I mean actual documentation of the number of failures versus the number of parts made. Oh, who needs that! People just KNOW they're not good, right? :rolleyes:

[Sam C]

Sir Galahad,
Point well taken. At some point we need to let manufacturers know what we want and what we will not tolerate. We should at least try. Sam:)

[bountyhunter]

"That is where the ignorance of MIM starts. There is NO visible porosity of a MIM part! Its a cost savings product that will give most users a lifetime of satisfaction."

With all due respect, that hinges on the semantic definition of "porosity". The new MIM parts SW uses have a very lumpy and grainy surface not seen on machined parts. The newer MIM parts I've seen look worse than the ones I saw back in 2000. They show more surface "lumps" which is indicative of not having a completely uniform size of the metal powder or not having a homogenous mixture of metal powder and polymer binders. The ones I've seen on my new guns are not well made parts. So far, they work. They are also very ugly.

[Poohgyrr]

Since last Fall, I've spent most of my S&W drooling time looking at .44 Specials and N frame .357's....

So I finally looked at something with one of those new internal locks, and thought I was looking at some ugly scratches..... My first thought was yuck, and then is it worth it to try and get a discount on this damage ???

After a much closer look, I saw a keylock and an arrow...... Still think it is ugly, but the 4" 686+ still looks pretty good too. It sure isn't a 3.5" N frame, but it's not an old Rossi either.

[M1911]

First it was suck up to Klinton then install a liberal pc locking device. Screw Smith & Wesson!!! I'm now a Ruger fan.Ruger? The company whose chairman sent a letter to each and every congress-critter proposing a 15 round magazine ban?

Or how about HK, whose USP has an integrated lock. Taurus revolvers have an integrated lock too, don't they? So do Remington shotguns (and rifles?) these days. I'm sure there's others.

[owen]

Before surface treatments, MIM usually looks better than machined parts. MIM has no toll marks. The porosity people are referring too, is most likely an artifact of steel shot blast, of glass beading. The key to idenrifying a mim part is they will always be skeletonized, to prevents sinks.

For some reason, S&W insists on Color case hardening the parts, which creates an ugly finish. If they just case hardened and glass beaded them, they parts would look a lot better

[J Miller]

Mr. Miller took this picture from another forum. The original author of this photo said it was from the inside of a Performance Center gun.
Robert in Oregon is correct. I did take the pic from another thread somewhere. At the time I had never seen the inner workings of the S&W lock and so I put the pic in my files.
I was not attempting to take credit for it. And I apologize if it apears that I was.
Since the subject of the lock came up, and I had the pic I posted it.

I mistakenly assumed the hammer was a MIM part. I have seen forged S&W hammers for eons. Also many plated ones. But I have never seen one with that kind of surface texture.
If that is a plating, what is it?

I will be out and about in the near future revolver shopping. I'll have to see if any gunshops around here have any of the new S&W's. Maybe the dealer will allow me to photograph one with MIM parts for reference.

Robert, since you seem to have more info about the newer S&W's than I do, do you have any clear photos of MIM parts?

[bountyhunter]

"Before surface treatments, MIM usually looks better than machined parts. "

I've seen some MIM parts that looked good, even some on my SW guns: my 1999 model 66 has a beautiful hammer and trigger, as far as surface finish goes. At the time, I couldn't see why anybody would not like MIM parts. It's the two new ones that have the hideous looking hammers and triggers that have the lumpy surfaces. I didn't mean to imply it's a NECESSITY that MIM parts are all poorly made (mixture not well controlled), just that they are really ugly when they are made that way (and, I suspect, may have internal voids or weak seams).

[Robert inOregon]

Robert, since you seem to have more info about the newer S&W's than I do, do you have any clear photos of MIM parts?

Picture is of a pre 2002 MIM product. Back of trigger was changed last year to a teardrop shape cutout to prevent breakage.

Note that there are no pins, smooth finish and Mattel plastic look.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=270766

[J Miller]

Robert, thanks for the pic.

Very interesting pic too. This is the first I have seen of actual S&W MIM parts.

Why in the world do they "hollow" out the parts? It seems to me that this would lighten the parts to such an extent that it would require much more spring pressure to get the same impact force at the fireing pin.

And, well forgive my opinion, but it just looks cheep! Like something you'd see in an RG or something.

[VictorLouis]

Back of trigger was changed last year to a teardrop shape cutout to prevent breakage. AFAIK, the MIM part was always this way. You may have seen some hybrid or transitional guns with a forged trigger(solid) and MIM on the rebound-slide and hammer. Not unusual with S&Ws.:)



Why in the world do they "hollow" out the parts? For the same reason that a steel 'I'-beam is stronger than an equilvalent size, square solid beam. The skeletonizing provides more rigidity. To compensate for the lighter weight, the notch cut for the base of the mainspring at the bottom of the grip-frame has been moved forward. This has the geometric effect of increasing the mainspring tension.

[Penforhire]

I'm not a structural engineer but are you SURE the I-beam is "stronger" than an equivalent solid beam? I thought it had similar stiffness but reduced weight. Similar to hollow round anti-roll bars on cars, a solid center does not contribute much to resisting twist loads. It would be lighter and use less material (cheaper) but it would not technically be stronger.

It is possible the reasons have more to do with hot casting technology (injection molding). By having a hollow interior section they might get better material flow from the "gates" (more complete fill or less directional shrinkage) or better temperature control in a mold.

[VictorLouis]

Heck, neither am I. However, you clearly understood what I meant. You may very well be correct in what you expounded upon, also. For those not already familiar with it, here's and interesting link about MIM:

http://www.flomet.com/flash/index.asp

[Robert inOregon]

AFAIK, the MIM part was always this way. You may have seen some hybrid or transitional guns with a forged trigger(solid)..........

Contraire amigo! I'll post a picture when I get a chance. Triggers now have a teardrop cutout (S&W is keeping this change low-key! Remember when one of mine broke?) and not like the one pictured, which is straight.

Welcome to S&W 101. School's open!. ;)

[VictorLouis]

I cannot see the trigger in the pic above very clearly. Are you saying that the 'straight' hollow with the bridge across it has been changed to the tear-drop shape?

[Jim K]

FWIW, Bill Ruger proposed a ban on magazines over 10 rounds.

Also, there are reports that Ruger will go to an internal lock some time this year.

Jim

[Robert inOregon]

Are you saying that the 'straight' hollow with the bridge across it has been changed to the tear-drop shape?

Disco!

[J Miller]

FWIW, Bill Ruger proposed a ban on magazines over 10 rounds.

Also, there are reports that Ruger will go to an internal lock some time this year.

Jim
Mag ban old news and OT.
As for Ruger possibly adding internal locks in the future, well, I guess I won't buy those either. I detest them. We will see.

[caseydog]

Hi , this thread stirred enough in me to make me join up and make a respectful reply. First let me say I own a Ruger or two and consider them excellent arms, but i'm an S&W revolver man at heart.

That being said, S&W made a deal with the devil at a time when firearms companies were under severe stress from the cities lawsuits against manufacturers and firearms related stocks were worth so much floor sweepings. Bill Ruger helped forge a deal with the devil on his own accord. S&W's deal only affected S&W , Smiths now have locks and some new investors, but thanks to some help from good 'ol Bill we now all shoot 10 rounders.

Next up , MIM parts , those of you who were around guns when Ruger started using Investment castings out of powdered metals for virtually all parts that could be made that way will remember all the hubbub about how much junk they were, and how Ruger was cheaping out on their guns etc etc (hmm , sounds familiar), fast forward to 2000 (twenty some years after Ruger started large scale Investment Casting) and S&W decides to go to MIM on a few of their parts and a whole world of new shooters is outraged again , nevermind that many folks in the know of the process report that the parts are very similar in quality to investment cast parts of the same metals and that grain structure and strength can be very good.

Mag ban old news and OT

My point is not that S&W is great and Ruger is bad , it is that the latest sin is always certainly the most horrible (no matter how horrible the last one was), so until the next sin S&W will surely be taking the beating , as for me - if I fancy a new S&W i'll buy one (and i've fancied a few lately) because if I don't support S&W , enventually there will be just Rugers and Tauri' , and that is unacceptable to me. Case

PS: great place y'all have here , been lurking a while , great job Oleg

[M1911]

FWIW, Bill Ruger proposed a ban on magazines over 10 rounds. Actually, he proposed a ban on mags over 15 rounds, as you can see here: http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-papabill.html

[owen]

The MIM parts are hollowed out for two reasons

1) Less material. MIM is cheaper the less material you use. More material requires a longer cooling time in the tool, before the part can be dropped. The actual tool is a one time, up front charge. The parts are basically priced by the pound, and the cycle time per part. With milling, removing excess material costs money. with MIM, removing excess material saves money.

2) Sink. Molded parts show a phenomonon called sink when there is a thick section. If you were to injection mold a cube (from any material) the centers of the faces would be sunk in. It looks terrible, and creates a lot of internal stresses. By hollowing out the part, and using webs and ribs for reinforcement where required, you end up with better geometric integrity.

owen

[VictorLouis]

Both of your explanations make sense.;)

[J Miller]

I will be out and about in the near future revolver shopping. I'll have to see if any gunshops around here have any of the new S&W's.
I found a dealer in Springfield with a new 629-6 on the shelf. I looked it over and wanted to hate it. I couldn't.
What I found is this. If I hadn't known the hammer and trigger were MIM, I wouldn't have seen it. The difference is that subtle. As a mater of fact the only clue that could be seen was the hollowed out area on the back of the trigger. (It was the teardrop version Robert was talking about.)
I tried the single action trigger and it felt just like a S&W. A bit heavy, but most new guns are.
I closed my eyes as I cycled the action and if I hadn't known this was a MIM gun, I wouldn't have been able to tell it.
It was tight and stiff, just like every NEW S&W I have ever handled. So as of now, I will hold further opinions on MIM parts untill I actually get to shoot a S&W equiped with them.

The key safety, well my opinion of that hasn't changed. :barf:

[EJ]

THANKS CASEYDOG!

Saved me the effort--
That is the point--

[Leaky Waders]

At first I hated it...it was like this empty little hole always nagging at me...but the hole is filled by a handcuff-like key that flips out a little band of metal that says "locked." So all in all it doesn't really look all that bad, compared to some screw thingy on a trigger guard.

What I dislike about it...w/ the obvious exception of it being there, is that the gun has a slight rattle when it's shaken side to side...like a coke can tab rattling 1/16' inside a piece of steel - I think it's the fascist lock rattling. Maybe a little grease will 'stick it' to the side...

Overall I like the revolver - haven't shot it yet - just dry fired it. It's action both single and double is sweet! I've read that the trigger is polished to mimic 5,000 rounds going through the weapon, hopefully I can dry fire mine 4,900 times and save a few bucks on ammo.

I read alot about the boycott before finally purchasing this particular weapon, my revolver quest started out as a colt saa and ended up on a 686. I'll probably end up in getting a 60LS too...

As for boycotting S&W that's another thread entirely, but I wonder what the world would be like w/o S&W? I mean it's kind of funny how a liberal democrat can make the gun enthuisasts 'eat their own' especially an icon that has been around for over a century.

-L.W.

[Freightman]

Boycot only works to do what the anti boys want, it to, removes one company from the list. Then they will start on another.
I do not want to see one company including the Sat night special ones go out. Every one we break with our "boycot" is one step closer to NO GUNS.
I will buy a S&W if I want it, I have a Taurus and the lock is not noticable,and I do not keep it locked as I carry it everyday. No big deal.
This is my opinion, and all have one and with this opinion and $.50 I might be able to get a cup of coffee.

[owen]

Leaky,

The rattle proabably isn't the lock. It is almost definately the Hammer Block. It is a piece of twisted sheet metal that rides loose in a channel in the side plate. One end engages a stud that sticks out of the side of the rebound (IIRC) and the other end sits between the hammer and the frame.

owen

[Leaky Waders]

Owen...you beat me to my post :)

I just finished reassembling my revolver - a touch of grease on the base of the hammer block 'fixed' the little rattle.

Owen is right - I was wrong.

Hopefully I'll get to shoot it some this weekend.

Thanks,
L.W.

[RQRWJB]

:cuss: Go ahead and defend s&w. When the war is finally won, we'll shave your heads and parade you down the street like the traitors that you are.


"I'll buy a S&W if I want"
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa, mommy I want some cookies!:cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

[CMcDermott]

Ahh - Victor, the I-beam analogy doesn't really apply as the two type of hammers are the same external shape except for the hollowing. The MIM part will be slightly weaker than the forged part simply due to having less metal. The reason the MIM parts are hollowed is to prevent porosity from being a problem. After a MIM part is pressed to shape from the powder that consists of Metal particles and a binder it has to be heated in an oven. This vaporizes the binder and causes the metal particles to bind together. But the vaporized binder has to go somewhere - and if the part is too thick then you get tiny holes left in the part caused by the vaporized binder traveling through the part. This effect limits the maximum part thickness that you can use the MIM process to form. So you see all kinds of small parts like safety levers, slide release levers etc being formed by MIM, but S&W is actually pushing the limits of the process to form hammers and triggers using MIM.

[Gary A]

"Go ahead and defend s&w. When the war is finally won, we'll shave your heads and parade you down the street like the traitors that you are."

Wow, pretty strong language! I must confess I'm of a mixed mind about S&W although I sold off a number of mine after the Great Fiasco. I'm not sure if I'll ever buy any more Smiths but am sure the only guy to shave my head is going to be me.

[Tamara]

We've reached our quota of "agreement" stuff, pro and con, for this thread.

Please confine legal and political posts to the Legal and Political forum. Thank you.

[Magnum PI]

Freightman's point is well taken as the Anti's would like S&W to go out of business from a boycott from gun owners. Anti's win.

Also, the counterpoint is that if you do "buy into" the S&W internal lock, you let them know that it's OK for them to place it there. Next there will be a keypad grip........ Anti's win.

The way I see it, the gun manufacturer must fear their customers MORE than they fear the politics of their industry.....and that is a very tough thing to do. Certain things must be adhered to by law, others do not.

I choose to no longer buy any firearm with an integral lock. I'll buy a pre-lock S&W, Remington, whatever. It's easy to do now, but 30 years from now pre-lock guns may be hard to come by if things continue to deteriorate.

My opinions only. I wonder if I'm the only one who feels that things are slowly being eroding away.......

MP

[oldfella]

This oldfella's opinion on this matter is that S&W makes a fine revolver, with and without the lock - I own both, and both go BANG each time I pull the trigger... and hit the target as aimed.

[J Miller]

Magnum PI,

Two points worth noting....

Actually you worded it quite well. And I agree with you. I can live with the MIM parts, but not the lock.

Used ones only for me.

[Sir Galahad]

My Smith 66 with internal lock just clocked another 100 rounds on the roundometer today and still going strong. No problems and still a great revolver and my favorite handgun. The lock and MIM---who gives a tinker's damn? My handgun works and it has a couple thousand rounds through it. Next handgun I buy will be another S&W.
RQRJWB----Hey, Mr.2 posts, lighten up.:rolleyes: Got something worthwhile to contribute? Your second posts says a lot more than you intended.

[RQRWJB]

My measly 2 posts probably have more sense in them than your 800+ posts.:cuss: :cuss:

[Tamara]

That'll be quite enough of that.