[Confederate]

What's the problem with MIM triggers and hammers? How did Smith & Wesson used to make them and do they sell them as special order items? Would hard chroming mitigate their performance?

Thanks!

[huntershooter]

S&W's MIM parts are well executed IME. Nothing like the rough crap I've seen SA put out. No, you can no longer purchase anything but MIM hammer/trigger thru S&W according to staff I spoke to there recently (last summer). You can still find forged/case hardened parts thru Numrich as of Oct. Not sure what you mean by HC "mitigating their performance" HC trigger group parts wear extremely well-they better be the way you want them before chroming though.

[The Real Hawkeye]

I know a gunsmith who specializes in tuning Smith & Wesson doulbe action revolver actions. He says that with the new MIM trigger and hammer, and other internals, he simply cannot make the actiosn as sweet as he used to with the forged parts. They don't take to high polishing I think, so it just doesn't get as glassy smooth.

[Old Fuff]

T.R. Hawkeye's gunsmith is right, and also because the hammer is lighter, due to an "I" beam cross section used to facilitate MIM technology, a heavier mainspring may be necessary. As for flash hard chroming - that's something S&W should do for both cosmetics (looks better with stainless steel) and wear. Taurus by the way, does flash chrome the hammer and trigger.

[Confederate]

When did Smith first begin using MIM triggers and hammers? And how about third party manufacturers? The last ones I remember are the case hardened parts. Does anyone have a photo of an MIM hammer or trigger?

Also, what about Taurus? Are their flashchromed parts MIM?

Thanks, again.

[MCgunner]

Taurus parts are forged steel.

Both my Taurus M66s have color case hardened hammer and trigger. The M85UL must be chromed, didn't know. It's bright and shiny and I'd just figured it was stainless like the barrel and cylinder, but maybe it's chromed. Something I didn't know, anyway. This site is great for the learning experience.:D

I haven't made up my mind on the MIM stuff, but if it can't be worked as easily, make as slick an action, that right there is a strike against it. You'd think some aftermarket niche company would start cranking out forged parts for 'em for smiths to get the triggers they want.

[Confederate]

Yeah, I'm beginning to have a lot of mixed emotions about Smith & Wesson. They're clearly not the classy guns they were and they seem to have a go-to-hell attitude towards their civilian clientele. Their prices have skyrocked, yet they keep cutting corners. (A fellow showed me a recent production 66 and the stainless steel looked like it was finished with sandpaper, something I've noted elsewhere on this board.)

I keep hoping that Taurus will one day really come into their own. If they could get their guns within specs, I think Smith would be in trouble.

[Old Fuff]

Taurus parts are forged steel.

Older ones were, but the newest ones are MIM.

Look at the back of the trigger on your model 85UL and see if it isn't hollowed out. Then look at the trigger on your older model 66 and you'll see the difference. They don't use stainless steel in lockwork (except Ruger) because some engineers believe it's too soft. That's open to argument. Flash chrome makes the parts look better (they can be and are case hardened, but they can't be color case hardened like the old lockwork) and more slick as long as somebody doesn't polish it off.

Because of some design differences the current Taurus revolvers can in theory, have a lighter trigger pull then a similar Smith & Wesson. In practice this may or may not be the case.


So far my Taurus revolvers with MIM lockwork haven't given me any trouble, and I don't own any S&W's of this kind. The problems with MIM parts in 1911 platform pistols don't translate to the same thing in double-action revolvers.

[MCgunner]

My 85 is solid behind the trigger. It's my newest production Taurus, but was bought about 96 or 97, so it ain't the latest. But, apparently it's forged. :D

[Old Fuff]

Some people have all the luck.....:neener:

[Jim K]

Actually, IIRC, S&W triggers and hammers have not been forged for many decades. Since at least WWII, they have been blanked (punched) out of steel plate, then cold forged and machined as necessary.

As for smoothness, one of the ways gunsmiths "smoothed up" S&W triggers and hammers was to remove the machining marks. With MIM there are no machining marks and the surfaces are as smooth as they can ever get. I suspect many gunsmiths don't like that because they made a lot of money stoning out those tool marks.

Jim

[Old Fuff]

If you look at the surface of an MIM hammer or trigger under high magnification it has a sort of pebbly look, and it doesn’t polish out. It will to a degree, burnish, but not as well as “real steel” in my experience. Rather then being a homogenous material, MIM parts consist of metal particles fused (but not melted) into a binder. If you deliberately break one the grain(?) appears to be course. Where a “real steel” part has a density of 100%, a MIM part will always be less because of the binder in the composition, and the binder is not as hard as the metal it surrounds.

I suspect many gunsmiths(?), not to mention individual owners will try and hone & stone this stuff to the point of cutting through the case hardening without getting any improvement. I will happily leave this work to others.

[GrantCunningham]

I'm agnostic with regards to MIM parts; in some cases they've been a real improvement (MIM rebound slides are great) while in others they're not (the flash-chromed MIM hammer as used in the 625JM may be the worst thing to happen at S&W since Bangor-Punta.)

I suspect that a lot of gunsmiths dislike them because the new technology requires a change in technique. The required change comes not just from the material, but also from the new designs made possible by the process.

For instance, the new double action struts have a completely different profile than the old parts; they require different contact angles and adjust differently. Frankly, it's even taken me some time to get used to them!

The issue of the action quality is certainly a matter for discussion. This isn't a matter of smoothness, but rather one of feel. It's hard to describe, but there is a slight "syrup" feel as opposed to a "butter" feel of the old parts. This is a very subtle difference; I won't say that the new feel is better or worse, but it is different. On the plus side, I suspect less than one out of a hundred shooters will be able to feel the difference blindfolded.

I'd like to correct a possible misconception: S&W is in fact still using a forged trigger on one model, the aforementioned 625JM. To the best of my knowledge, it is the only forged lockwork part still being used on a S&W revolver.

[RON in PA]

Old Fuff: are you sure there is any binder left in a MIM part? I thought that the binder was eliminated in one stage of manufacture (in oven).

[Onmilo]

You can't stone MiM parts, you will cut through the hardened outer surface and expose the much softer inner surface.
Once this happens it is a short matter of time before the part fails.

I think Lasers can be used to surface polish and harden MiM parts but I don't have the $60 or $70,000 to buy one and try it out.

There are Companies working now to produce forged steel replacement parts for MiM original equiptment.

Gunsmiths just find other ways top work the guns, if we can't stone and polish a part, we will replace it with something we can,:)

[Stainz]

I bought my 625JM within days of it's announcement. The hard chromed hammer looks just like my other MIM hammers, save the HC finish - and has been trouble free. The HC trigger is solid, ie, not hollow back a la the MIM parts. After easing the sharp grroves with some emery cloth, it has been trouble free, too. All of my S&W's, save the '96 625MG and '01 PC627 V-Comp, were bought new and have MIM parts, and have been as slick as my 'older' S&W's - and 100% reliable. They all broke in quite well, after cleaning & lubrication, not needing gunsmith 'fitting'. Actually, that is a great manufacturing savings - MIM parts are interchangeable - and don't have to be fitted - more labor saved. Of course, a CCH S&W hammer & trigger look nice, the MIM parts don't. Kind of reminds me of comparing a blued Ruger BH's faux CCH finish to a real one.

Stainz

[Old Fuff]

RON in PA:

Rather then being a homogenous material, MIM parts consist of metal particles fused (but not melted) into a binder. If you deliberately break one the grain(?) appears to be course. Where a “real steel” part has a density of 100%, a MIM part will always be less because of the binder in the composition, and the binder is not as hard as the metal it surrounds.

Old Fuff: are you sure there is any binder left in a MIM part? I thought that the binder was eliminated in one stage of manufacture (in oven).

Something remains, because the density of the part is less then 100% (usually around 95 to 98 percent). This isn't exactly the case, but to illustrate, think of a glass bedding compound with metal powder in it.

It is not my contention that MIM hammers and triggers are not working out (something I wouldn't say about some 1911 pistol parts). However when it comes to a smoother, better feeling double-action I believe the older "real steel" parts were better. Grant is also right about his comments about the design of Smith & Wesson's new actions. :banghead:

I would never question the point that this new construction is advantageous for manufacturers and helps cut their costs with some of the savings being passed on to the consumer. However that saving comes at some cost in the performance of the revolver. To a large degree they have eliminated hand fitting and adjustments, but this is what made the older guns what they were and are. I need all of the help I can get when it comes to D.A. trigger pulls, and will continue to buy guns on the used market that aren't based on technology for the sake cost savings.