I'm no big fan of recent production S&W revolvers


PDA






hAkron
November 27, 2012, 12:43 PM
But, I'm starting to come around ;)

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-gnhRAeBoCN0/ULTssiEtARI/AAAAAAAADXc/spFFjHYlswo/s912/IMAGE_79EE48A4-2870-419E-A69D-0E101D43650A.JPG

I just saw this used 686-6 Plus 2.5" beauty winking up at me from the display case. It needs a little mild TLC to clean up some surface issues by the cylinder latch and on the rear sight blade, but other than that, it looks mint.

If you enjoyed reading about "I'm no big fan of recent production S&W revolvers" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Guillermo
November 27, 2012, 12:48 PM
I hope you enjoy your new toy

Bubba613
November 27, 2012, 01:04 PM
The 686SSR is probably the best regular production .357revolver ever made.

CPO15
November 27, 2012, 01:13 PM
Almost didn't open this thread, so tired of the anti MIM and lock boys living in the past and hand-cranking both their ice cream and their Fords.

Thanks for validating my purchase of five S&Ws in the past few years.

Bubba613
November 27, 2012, 01:16 PM
Yeah, it's like advances in metallurgy and engineering are meaningless.

Guillermo
November 27, 2012, 01:25 PM
Don't turn this thread into anything other than a guy celebrating the acquisition of his new toy with his online gun friends.

To do so would be very inconsiderate

hAkron
November 27, 2012, 01:37 PM
The trigger seems every bit as crisp as my 686-4. I'm more of a semi auto guy, but I've been on a bit of a revolver buying spree lately. 3 of the last four guns I've purchased have been revolvers. A Dan Wesson 15-2, a Dan Wesson 44, now this 686-6...who knows where my collection will take me next.

hAkron
November 27, 2012, 02:53 PM
Glamor shots
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/11/28/a7a2uhyq.jpg
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/11/28/eje4e5es.jpg

BYJO4
November 27, 2012, 08:54 PM
Nice S&W and I know you will enjoy it.

bozzman3
November 27, 2012, 09:05 PM
Sweet enjoy it.Thats going to have some kick to it!!

PRM
November 27, 2012, 09:44 PM
so tired of the anti MIM and lock boys living in the past and hand-cranking both their ice cream and their Fords.

Now that's just funny, don't care who you are - one of the old guys.

I do like homemade ice cream and a vintage Ford could find a spot in my garage.

Smith & Wesson has always and still does...make a quality revolver. Their customer service is a cut above. You chose well.

Certaindeaf
November 27, 2012, 09:48 PM
From some angles it seems like the locking bolt is barely peeking out or something.

Nice gun!

bannockburn
November 28, 2012, 01:24 AM
hAkron

Nice find!

I have been very impressed by the overall quality and performance of my new S&W Model 638 as well.

Walkalong
November 29, 2012, 08:26 AM
The 2 1/2" 686 is a great gun. The SSR is one round better. You'll enjoy it. Congrats.

hAkron
November 29, 2012, 08:28 AM
There is a deal on an SSR on Armslist in my area that looks great. I'm trying to resist the temptation to add yet another 686...I'm shocked at my lack of will power.

WoodchuckAssassin
November 29, 2012, 09:00 AM
My only gripe is with the Locks. I understand that they want to sell guns in California, but there are other companies that are doing quite well without cattering to people who need a LOCK on a gun to keep themselves "safe." People that need a lock on a gun...probably shouldn't own a gun.

RUGER may print 3 pages of warnings on their guns, but their "old school" 1911 didn't have any extra safeties, and I'm pretty sure they're doing all right :neener: Same thing with the the GP100, SP101, and LCR. No lock safeties here!

splithoof
November 29, 2012, 11:30 PM
^^^I don't mind the locks; I have used several, and they have all functioned 100%. That S&W pictured is a very good find, and used properly a very good self defense tool. As a side note, the Ruger 1911 mentioned in the above post is generally not available for new sales to non-LE in California, because the state considers it an "unsafe handgun". The average Joe resident to buy it legally would have to find a used example. It is a very nice 1911 though, solid, smooth, and accurate.

Old Fuff
November 30, 2012, 01:04 AM
Almost didn't open this thread, so tired of the anti MIM and lock boys living in the past and hand-cranking both their ice cream and their Fords.

Well gee...

Us boys who are living in the past are also generally older, and have the advantage of experience. We offer no objection toward those who are satisfied with newer products offered by this venerable maker. We simply believe that the older ones offered a better fit and finish with attention to details, made by experienced craftsmen; then that turned out by CNC machines and other processes incorporated when it became necessary to control costs.

For that reason we seek out what we prefer on the used market, rather then the new. Our behavior in no way impedes those who want to go the other way. If someone can't see the difference it is not our place to offer unsolicited advice. By not buying what we want you are doing us a considerable favor.

Carry on.

Why should anyone get upset?

wlewisiii
November 30, 2012, 01:41 AM
Some cheese, sir?

skidder
November 30, 2012, 02:46 AM
Us boys who are living in the past are also generally older, and have the advantage of experience.

Old Fuff-- Trying to explain the affirmation of "what was" to the younger generation is commensurable to us fuddy-duds discerning the proclamation that exhausting a weapon sideways and then implementing a tactical retreat with your pants on the ground is a categorical advantage in a combat situation. :D

Stay thirsty my friend. You're gonna need it :D. I love ya Fuff. ;)

PabloJ
November 30, 2012, 03:17 AM
The best production revolver I have seen was made by Performance Center ca. 2002. It was large-bore top break single-action cavalry revolver. The price for mint second-hand sample in wood presentation box was only $1100.
I would think with enough takers for about 2K per new gun the best yet to come would be much more then old 5 cent candy bar dream.

Guillermo
November 30, 2012, 03:19 AM
Fuffster,

You are not smart enough to understand that 2 piece barrels, injection molded parts are "advances in technology".

Just like particle board is an "advance in wood technology" and therefore better than solid oak.

jason41987
November 30, 2012, 05:19 AM
i think smith and wesson makes some gorgeous revolvers, and id love to own one.. unfortunately my wallet is the one that doesnt like smith and wessons

edit: what am i even talking about?... i dont keep my money in a wallet anymore, its the 21st century already, i bury it under a rock so the banks cant find it

b.thomas
November 30, 2012, 07:18 AM
A very nice gun, lock or not! you just gotta love those front sights with a insert.:cool:
I've got one on my Security six and of all my four handguns, with my old eyes, the S6 is the only one I can see the front sight on it. (turn 68 next Monday):D

Jaxondog
November 30, 2012, 08:08 AM
Nice looking S&W. Hope you enjoy it.

Old Fuff
November 30, 2012, 12:10 PM
Old Fuff-- Trying to explain the affirmation of "what was" to the younger generation is commensurable to us fuddy-duds discerning the proclamation that exhausting a weapon sideways and then implementing a tactical retreat with your pants on the ground is a categorical advantage in a combat situation.

The Old Fuff, who is now in his dotage and well over the hill, admits that when he was much younger he knew a lot more about handguns (revolvers in particular) then he does now Ė or at least it seemed to him to be that way at the time. :D

Anyway, the current arguments over old vs. new seem a bit ridiculous to him because both sides can have it their way.

He does occasionally point out that he has, over past decades, examined in great detail Smith & Wesson products made from the Civil War to present, and done so both inside and out. If someone has better credentials I invite them to step forward.

As might be expected this experience has led to some opinions, and it is these opinions that tend to direct his personal preferences.

However, nowhere is it written that others have to agree with him, and fortunately those folks are the ones who are keeping the company in business Ė and by any standard they are doing well. At the present time their stock value has doubled over the last 12 months. As I pointed out earlier, I am delighted that a large number of buyers are satisfied with the current guns because it keeps them away from what I am interested in. All this proves is that some buyers are perhaps deluded or lack more extensive experience. ;)

hAkron
November 30, 2012, 12:47 PM
If I had seen a pre-lock 686+ next to this 686+ with a lock, similarly priced, I would have most assuredly purchased the pre-lock. I probably won't carry this gun too often, and I probably won't shoot it as often as my range favorites (but who knows), so I'm sure any discrepancy in quality between, say my 686-4 and this 686-6 probably won't affect me, and hey, if it does I will take advantage of the lifetime S&W warranty (course, being the 2nd owner, maybe not). Either way, I got this fine gun at a fine price, mostly to convince MYSELF that the recent S&W's were still good guns.

Guillermo
November 30, 2012, 12:55 PM
hAkron,

While like you, I am going to buy the pre-cost cutting gun every time...at the right price, I would have bought it too.

I truly do hope that you enjoy it and then make a profit.

CraigC
November 30, 2012, 01:06 PM
Almost didn't open this thread, so tired of the anti MIM and lock boys living in the past and hand-cranking both their ice cream and their Fords.

Thanks for validating my purchase of five S&Ws in the past few years.
Yeah, it's like advances in metallurgy and engineering are meaningless.
Wow, you guys even poop in your own threads. You don't need our participation to argue about it. :neener:

Thaddeus Jones
November 30, 2012, 01:31 PM
Well said Craig C. I thought the same thing. :)

OP, congrats on your new revolver. If you like it, that is all that matters. ;)

hAkron
November 30, 2012, 03:44 PM
I want to clarify my last statement, if they would have had 2 at the price I got this one for, one pre-lock, and one with the lock, I would have bought both. :)

MCgunner
December 1, 2012, 12:54 PM
You know, with a slightly bigger cylinder release, you could cover up that hillary hole. http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/lachen/laughing-smiley-009.gif

J/K

Nice lookin' gun. Enjoy! :D

Dave T
December 1, 2012, 03:55 PM
To the OP, if you are happy with your new S&W more power too you. As for me I am afraid I have to side with Old Fluff. I too am over the hill, at least the broken parts are, and my experience leads me to only spend my limited resources on S&Ws made prior to about 2000. YMMV!

Dave

Bubba613
December 1, 2012, 08:21 PM
You are not smart enough to understand that 2 piece barrels, injection molded parts are "advances in technology".


Perhaps.
Maybe you can discourse on how they negatively affect performance. Perhaps Old Fuff can tell us how underpaid machinists using inferior materials produce better results than computer-aided machines.
Heck, the 3 screw models were cheaper alternatives to the older 5 screw models. And we all know the pre-war long action is just a whole lot better than the post war short action. Those guys drooling over their 1970s guns are on to an inferior product. They really need the original 1899 M&P with its un-heat treated cylinder. Now there was a pistol!

rswartsell
December 1, 2012, 08:53 PM
Well Bubba,

I am not the equal of the Old Fuff, but it doesn't take his equal to answer that one.

Longevity for one thing- yes, there are advances in metallurgy and I'm not saying they are done. The MIM parts now prevalent in production revolvers are not advancements in the quality of the metal for purpose, but advancements in cutting production costs. Advacements realized in "sintering" metal parts that lead to current MIM production do not represent an advancement of this category over machining and fitting quality bar stock, but improvements over the early cost cutting methods. While MIM parts may perform well enough on newly produced arms, they have been in use for long enough to definitively prove they are not as break resistent or good candidates for long term (100 years?) productive service. Any opinion to the contrary is ill-informed.

Precision- Yes, computers are superior to human frailty in some regards. That doesn't equate to this type production resulting in a superior (or even equal) product over the human driven craftsmanship of the past. The precision of current production levels is repeatable ad infintum, without costly human hand intervention to levels "acceptable" to a corporate board and a buying public with no readily available alternative. That is the standard of current production and is simply a completely different animal than the standards set by and achieved by premium producers of the past. The theoretical gains of computerization in the factory floor of a modern mass production facility are very noticably absent to those who experince AND highly regard the products of the "craftsman" era. To deny this is simply naive.

A parting thought. A MIM revolver component, while having achieved a serviceable level of function, is still a hardened crust in a shape and specs decidied and executed by mass production machinery. Inside the crust is the "fiberboard" metal equivalent to the sawdust Guillermo alluded to. Break the crust trying to adapt the part to wear or specific fitting and it is scrap. Computers are CAPABLE of precision beyond human hands, assuming these production methods ATTAIN that is simply incorrect.

Bubba613
December 1, 2012, 08:58 PM
So basically you cannot articulate why today's guns are inferior, but are merely guessing based on some past experience with some MIM part somewhere possibly produced 15 years ago.
Do you think S&W has machine settings marked "Great", "Acceptable" etc?

I'll add the antipathy to modern S&W stuff seems to stem from some romantic attachment to "old fashioned craftsmen dedicated to the highest artisanship." This is nothing if not naive.

rswartsell
December 1, 2012, 09:31 PM
what kind of grades did you get in reading comprehension?

P.S. Simply, they are not as good now, (not nearly as precise) and they will not last nearly as long.

USSR
December 1, 2012, 09:37 PM
...the antipathy to modern S&W stuff seems to stem from some romantic attachment to "old fashioned craftsmen dedicated to the highest artisanship." This is nothing if not naive.

Ah, youngster, I know it may be hard for you to believe, but there was once an America with "craftsmen dedicated to the highest artisanship".;)

Don

bikemutt
December 1, 2012, 09:56 PM
While I appreciate, and own many, old school Smiths, the main thing I dislike about today's variants is the integrated lock. I'll continue to buy the scandium and titanium guns as they come about despite the lock because there's no other choice. The carbon and stainless steel ones with locks, not so much.

Bubba613
December 1, 2012, 10:11 PM
what kind of grades did you get in reading comprehension?

P.S. Simply, they are not as good now, (not nearly as precise) and they will not last nearly as long.
Very high road.

I'm asking you to articulate (that means explain) precisely why "they are not as good now". And why you think they will not last nearly as long. The latter is entirely guessing on your part, of course, because there is no evidence of that.

Bubba613
December 1, 2012, 10:12 PM
Ah, youngster, I know it may be hard for you to believe, but there was once an America with "craftsmen dedicated to the highest artisanship".

Old codger, of course there were. But they weren't unionized machinists working in factories turning out piece work.

rswartsell
December 1, 2012, 10:18 PM
Do your own homework and take a close look at yourself. We have expressed our experiences and thoughts and you have been given the same respect you have chosen to give others. If you need a change in this dynamic, it can only come from you.

CraigC
December 1, 2012, 11:06 PM
Sorry sir but I've handled, disassembled and used modern sixguns that were built as precisely as humanly possible. I've handled some of the finest custom sixguns available, expertly built by a long-experienced master craftsman. The facts as I know them and 'most' fellow shooters understand them are as follows:

1. The best firearms in existence are not machined on CNC mills and then simply assembled by semi-skilled labor with MIM parts. They are hand-built of high quality forgings, some with cast frames and then hand-fitted with forged lockwork or that cut from steel billet.

2. The best revolvers in existence are completely hand-finished. They are not polished on a buffing wheel or in a tumbler, as S&W's are.

3. The best revolvers in existence do not contain any MIM parts.

4. The best revolvers in existence do not have one-piece barrels.

The bottom line is that the modern S&W has ZERO in common with the finest revolvers available. Nothing that has been changed about the design over the last two decades has been to make them better. They have simply been cost-cutting measures. This should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about revolvers. MIM parts are cheaper to manufacture but more importantly, they are easier to make more consistently and thus, require less hand-fitting by skilled laborers. Two piece barrels are easier and cheaper to manufacture.

Guillermo
December 2, 2012, 12:43 AM
Craig

You are wasting your time.

Expect an ad hominem response instead of conversation.

The bottom line is that NO ONE thinks that MIM is an "advance"
They know it is a "cost cutting measure"

NO ONE thinks that 2 piece barrels are an "advance"
They know it is a "cost cutting measure"

NO ONE thinks that forged parts are "inferior"
They are not used so as to "cut costs"

Those are irrefutable facts and no one will discuss them as they try to say that "new S&W's are better than ever".

Obfuscation and misdirection are what you can expect.

Old Fuff
December 2, 2012, 12:45 AM
Guys...

Don't tear up Bubba613, 'cuz he's ask some good questions, and maybe made some points. However he hasn't come up with anything the Old Fuff can't rebut. It will take some time however.

Incidentally, those "craftsmen" weren't underpaid, at least for the times; and during the Great Depression of the 1930's the company almost went bankrupt rather then lay off any of they're workforce. Smith & Wesson's owners and management (the company was privately held) knew that those craftsmen, as well as most other workers were a critical component in the process of turning out S&W handguns - and they were treated accordingly.

The appreciation and loyalty of the workers is reflected in the high quality of the guns they made.

PabloJ
December 2, 2012, 02:17 AM
High quality products can still be had in USA just look at made in Ohio Ithaca 37 shotgun. Smith & Wesson could still make best ever revolvers but they will not because you will not pay for the final product. This discussion is not very informative but is very entertaining please go on.

Guillermo
December 2, 2012, 02:27 AM
Bubba has said (on other threads) that the current S&W revolvers are better than ever and that he is one of the few intelligent enough to recognize that such is the case.

In addition, that MIM is an "advancement in metallurgy"

So now that everyone is up to speed, please discuss.

skidder
December 2, 2012, 02:51 AM
Not the most popular refute, but the day "Lock and Wesson" (Saf-T-Hammer) took over is when I stopped wishing for an S&W. I know they have had some distinguishable decades, but none so noticeable to me as the year "Saf-T-Hammer" took over.

My drooling stopped as I browsed the display cases at the turn of the century. I'd be hell-bent to ever consider an S&W with a manufacture year that began with a 2.

To the OP....
Did you really think the way you arranged your title and first post that it would bring a peaceful discussion???

rswartsell
December 2, 2012, 03:26 AM
Bubba,

You are talking to a man who owns and uses (for over 30 years) a Smith & Wesson Model of 1905 Target produced in 1910. Precision is at a premium, and the metallurgy was significantly inproved after heat treating the cylinders was adopted in the early 1930's. That's why I also own a S&W Mod 14-2 from 1963. Use it too, and for a long time.

I also compare the 1892 Safety Hammerless that I own to revolvers from the '60's, '70's, '80's, and '90's.

I bought and owned a "new production" 686+ for about 3 years. These are the things that upon which I base my opinions of current production Smith revolvers. I am assuming you have less experience and context.

That could be wrong. If so correct me. Your argument will be put into best context by telling us where it comes from.

P.S. that 100 years I previously referred to was up in 1992 for the Safety Hammerless, and 2010 for the M&P Target. Nothing made after 1998 by S&W compares at all.

Bubba613
December 2, 2012, 05:36 AM
OK, so the argument is: S&W revolvers are worse now than they were in _______(fill in the blank) because I had some models from that time that were beautiful.

That's pretty persuasive!

Boxhead
December 2, 2012, 06:38 AM
The vast majority of people would not be willing to pay the price S&W would have to charge to build revolvers as they were built in the past, assuming a proper return for their shareholders. There is a reason why a FA revolver sells for what it does.

conhntr
December 2, 2012, 09:29 AM
//Yeah, it's like advances in metallurgy and engineering are meaningless.//
Besides the use of MIM has there been any difference in the metallurgy between say a 1970 model 10 and a 2012 model 10 repro?

I honestly dont know, but reading thriugh the various models "-1, -2" improvements i see no notice on metallurgy besides MIM which wuld be a stretch to call an improvement; at best you could call it "just as good" which is what s&w does. Have they made any other changes?

Guillermo
December 2, 2012, 10:13 AM
Have they made any other changes?

no parts are interchangeable...they are totally different guns.

two piece barrels are another "improvement"

Also, the build quality is not very good. Take a look at the "how to disassemble a Model 10" sticky at the top of the Revolver section. Look at the toolmarks.

There is no significant difference between Taurus and S&W revolvers except price.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=85544&d=1222909543

j1
December 2, 2012, 10:19 AM
Hey, I counted and there are seven cartridges in that cylinder, not six. Surprise surprise bad guy, smile. :)

I have been saying for years that the older guns were made better. All guns not just S & W. My model 19 will never be for sale as long as I live. It has a pinned barreol and counterbored cylinder. What my wife does with it is her decision.

CraigC
December 2, 2012, 11:48 AM
You are wasting your time.

Expect an ad hominem response instead of conversation.
I know but sometimes I just can't help myself. ;)

Bubba613
December 2, 2012, 01:01 PM
You could help yourself by offering an explanation with facts. Guillermo is fixated on cost savings measures. But Smith has been innovating cost saving measures on their guns probably since WW2. The 4 screw frames were cost savings over the 5 screws. The 3 screws were cost savings over that. Yet no one complains the 3 screw guns from the 1950s were inferior to the 5 screw guns from the 1930s. Same here.
Long on rhetoric and opinion here, short on facts.

CraigC
December 2, 2012, 01:06 PM
Post #43 has facts which you conveniently ignored. Fact is, you ignore/discredit everything that does not agree with your view with ZERO facts of your own.


Yet no one complains the 3 screw guns from the 1950s were inferior to the 5 screw guns from the 1930s.
Fact, you're not paying attention if you believe this. S&W has been continually cutting production costs. They just finally managed to take it too far for the asking price.

Bubba613
December 2, 2012, 01:21 PM
Fact-free post in #43. It is merely your opinion, nor do you substantiate any of what you say. Pointing out production methods have changed is not equivalent to showing the product is inferior.

Hardly anyone could afford a hunting rifle made the way they were previously: buy a milsurp action like a Mauser, take it to a gunsmith, and have him do extensive stock, barrel and action work to it. Yet I hope no one is going to argue that today's top shelf hunting rifles are worse guns. They aren't.
You'll need to try harder to be taken seriously.

MagnumDweeb
December 2, 2012, 01:42 PM
What have I learned from reading this post. If a S&W revolver was made pre 85' it's a good-to-great revolver. After 85' it's not really that great of a gun. Don't get me wrong I only like S&W for their K frames. If I want an L-Frame I go with a Ruger (their guns get higher velocities it seems), or if I want a N Frame or something similar I go with Ruger as well. If I want a precision hand-fitted gun I need to call Freedom Arms, or put down a ton of money and talk to Reeder.

Has metallurgy advanced? Yes. Has S&W really used those advancements? Eh if you count Scandis and Titanium. Does it seem like S&W has bit the semi-auto bug in 1911s and plastic fantastics over revolvers? Yup.

The good days are gone. Semis are the way to go. S&W will still produce revolvers people will want and will buy, but they are going the way of the semi. Hand fitted precision and fabrication are gone. The skilled workers aren't there (through a mix of lack of pay, lack of interest, and lack of employment opportunities). The shareholders control or at least highly affect the quality of the guns because it's about profit not quality. The old days are dead, long live the new days.

Bubba613
December 2, 2012, 03:05 PM
Here's a new Taurus I got in. Note the pitting above the trigger guard. Yeah, Smiths always show up looking just like that.

CraigC
December 2, 2012, 03:17 PM
It is merely your opinion, nor do you substantiate any of what you say.
How many of the various vintages of S&W's have you owned? How many new guns? How many other guns of other vintages? How many single actions have you done action jobs on? How many custom guns have you had built? How many have you worn out? In other words, what qualifies you to discredit me???

Or are you just defending the new guns because you're selling them?

CraigC
December 2, 2012, 03:38 PM
I'm reminded of this exchange from a previous discussion on the subject:

CraigC - "That's interesting. How exactly do we know that 10yr old S&W's will last as long as 100yr old S&W's??? If so, it will be the first time in history that anything "injection molded" lasted longer than forged steel."

Bubba613 - "There is no "injection molding". Maybe the plastic boxes they come in, or the rubber type grips."

So we're basically arguing that forgings are better than injection molded parts with someone who doesn't even understand that MIM parts are "Metal Injection Molded". Additionally, someone who predicts that the parts will last longer than existing 100yr old guns have, even though they've only been in use for a few years. I think that speaks for itself.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=644285&page=2

Bubba613
December 2, 2012, 03:40 PM
You failed to support your contentions. There is no need to compare sizes here.

CraigC
December 2, 2012, 04:01 PM
Do you contend that the finest revolvers available anywhere are NOT hand-built from forgings and high quality castings? Do you contend that Freedom Arms, USFA and Korth do not produce a better quality sixgun than S&W? Do you have any authority on the subject to back your position? Or are you just going to say I'm wrong and leave it at that? That's a very convenient position you have there? I worked in a gun shop once, does that put us on equal footing???

Don't worry, I don't really expect you to actually answer my questions.

Bubba613
December 2, 2012, 05:18 PM
I contend that your questions are nonsense and irrelevant and you fail to define "finest" "better" "worse" or any other subjective term.

FWIW I have handled, bought, sold and serviced somewhere between 200 and 300 S&W revolvers starting with models from the 19th century and probably every period in between. I do not base my judgement on the Model 19 I bought in 1979 and the Model 686 I had to send back last year.

hAkron
December 2, 2012, 05:56 PM
I would like to replace the hogue mono grip. It doesn't have the S&W logo like some hogue's I've seen that I presume come stock on some models. Does anybody know if the rubber mono grip is stock on this gun, or what else the 2.5 686-6's have been know to come with?

Bubba613
December 2, 2012, 06:03 PM
That appears to be the stock grip for that type model. I've seen them with and without the logo.

Guillermo
December 2, 2012, 06:29 PM
I contend that your questions are nonsense and irrelevant and you fail to define "finest" "better" "worse" or any other subjective term.

But Bubba claims that new S&Ws are "better than ever" and offers such as a fact. Pot or kettle?

Here are a few undeniable facts

FACT : MIM parts were adapted so as to cut labor costs

FACT: MIM parts, as they are used at S&W are the same hardness all the way through, and thus brittle

FACT: S&W methods of manufacturing are virtually identical like Taurus (with regards to double action revolvers)

FACT: S&W warranty returns are higher than they have ever been (based on the largest volume gun retailer in the country and the S&W representative)

FACT: two piece barrels were adopted so as to save labor costs and have been known to go downrange with the bullet

FACT: MIM parts do not polish well and in fact, some gunsmiths will not do "action jobs" because their clients are oft disappointed

FACT: MIM does not take plating well

FACT: high end guns are made with forged parts, non MIM

Those are undeniable facts

Ignoring them does not make them not the truth

Bubba613
December 2, 2012, 06:41 PM
None of that is true, no matter how many times you say it.

Guillermo
December 2, 2012, 06:55 PM
Thank you for the well thought out response of "nuh uh!!!"

Guillermo
December 2, 2012, 06:59 PM
for anyone that is following and want to actually discuss and learn...every one of those are an undeniable fact.

a quick google search will back up everything that was not face to face (although I can supply one of the names and telephone number of the experts that are cited that I spoke to personally)

Saddlebag Preacher
December 2, 2012, 07:03 PM
Back in the day....:rolleyes: when Tubbs and Crocket ruled the cop shows....:cool: I had to carry one of the originals...but we only had six...six....six bullets.....:( Six in the gun and 2 speed loaders with six each...

What I wouldn't have done for a seventh round back then.

By the way, I like your gun and I am pre MIM parts days, ya just gotta go with the times....like a new model 10 costing over $500.00.

Shoot on brother, shoot on :D

skt239
December 2, 2012, 07:17 PM
Very nice. My first revolver was a 7 shot .357 magnum, a Taurus 617. That revolver had its issues but I've always liked the idea of a 7 even 8 shot magnum.

bikemutt
December 2, 2012, 07:22 PM
FACT: S&W warranty returns are higher than they have ever been (based on the largest volume gun retailer in the country and the S&W representative)

Returns are only relevant as a percentage; S&W is selling WAY more guns these days. So, do we know if it's just the number of returns that's gone up, or number of guns per thousand sold?

Guillermo
December 2, 2012, 07:24 PM
BTW

I did underestimate the ability of some to deny the undeniable.

According to their blog the Flat Earth Society has over 400 members.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=53612.0#.ULvi0YM0WSo

Guillermo
December 2, 2012, 07:30 PM
do we know if it's just the number of returns that's gone up, or number of guns per thousand sold?

The S&W rep I talked to was bemoaning the large total of returns and did not go into it very far...mostly he was wishing that they had no lock and QC.

The gun retailer said that it was a higher rate of returns.

Of course some might say that such is only a portion of the market and while I think representative sample, it might not be.

Maybe S&W only sends their bad guns to Central Texas?

Guillermo
December 2, 2012, 07:33 PM
BTW

The S&W rep HATES the lock.

He hears about it EVERY DAY.

Got to love a company that ignores what their customers want.

He says he could sell a lot more guns if the lock was gone.

Only police departments that will not allow locks on j frames BUGs are why we see those with regularity.

bikemutt
December 2, 2012, 09:55 PM
The lock is the deal breaker for me. I bend over on Scandium guns because I have to; but that's my choice, I don't have to have one.

My LGS has quit showing me any new S&W with a lock, unless the model number starts with a 3.

The integrated lock on a revolver is something I just don't get.

460Kodiak
December 2, 2012, 10:15 PM
Almost didn't open this thread, so tired of the anti MIM and lock boys

MIM? Internal lock? Ahhhh!!!!! Clearly it's crap! :rolleyes:

Yeah, I have two Smiths with all those sinful parts, and haven't had any problem. I'm not saying I don't prefer forged parts, and no lock, I just don't think they are as big of a problem as people make them out to be. Granted, I have a small sample size though.

Guillermo
December 2, 2012, 10:21 PM
460

In my opinion, the use of MIM parts is not a problem in a value oriented product.

Every knowledgeable person acknowledges that S&W has done everything that Taurus does production-wise to cut corners.

Ruger and Taurus are fine using those and other cost cutting methods and others such as cast parts and frames.

The problem with S&W is that they are asking a premium price and delivering a bargain product.

Old Fuff
December 2, 2012, 10:44 PM
The integrated lock on a revolver is something I just don't get.

Three major manufacturers (Smith & Wesson, Taurus and Ruger) have incorporated internal locks in some, if not all of they're revolvers to provide a defense against lawsuits if an unauthorized person - in particular a minor or prohibited person obtains an unsecured handgun and a tragedy occurs. The real responsibility lays with the gun owner, but this in no way stops certain lawyers from suing the gun manufacturer. I donít see it this way, but the respective company attorneys do. Liability Insurance carriers also favor locks for obvious reasons, and may revise premiums upward if they are not present.

In addition the manufacturers expect that at least some states, and perhaps the federal government will in the future pass statutes requiring internal locks, and itís easier to make provisions for one while in the process of making other unrelated changes.

None of the above seem particularly concerned about what some consumers think.

bikemutt
December 2, 2012, 10:55 PM
I have to disagree a bit with Guillermo on the value message S&W products; I believe they are asking a premium price for what they believe is a premium product. Now their belief may be misguided, in fact, I'm certain it is. On the other hand Guillermo is so right that S&W is not listening. I don't really know how a business listens; is it those who buy your products despite shortcomings, or those who don't buy your products because of the same shortcomings? I do believe they are in the cat bird seat right now, it's not easy to get the attention of a man who's eating well.

Guillermo
December 2, 2012, 11:19 PM
it's not easy to get the attention of a man who's eating well

Hey Bikemutt!!!

Hope you are doing well amigo.

I would argue that S&W is feeding well not because they are worthy, but because they have a wheelgun monopoly analogous to the robber barons.

(Taurus and Ruger are not direct competitors price-wise)

That you and others find that S&W make a product worth the money is why they are successful.

After all, anything is worth what you can sell it for. And no matter what the reason (including lack of competition) your point is valid.

The market says that they are worth it.

(the market says that $8 cups of coffee are worth it too)

sleepyone
December 2, 2012, 11:27 PM
Congrats on your new gun! I have a 4" 686 Plus with the dreaded lock and love it. All cylinders lock up perfectly. It has been my hunting sidearm since buying it. Used it to kill my first hog from 8 yards. It ran about 150' and then dropped dead.

Guillermo
December 2, 2012, 11:30 PM
Used it to kill my first hog from 8 yards.

bet that was an exciting hunt!!!

bikemutt
December 2, 2012, 11:50 PM
No matter what we may believe Guillermo, there will be no move back to the old days. It's done, over.

I hug my 586s daily :)

Guillermo
December 3, 2012, 12:12 AM
It's done, over.


No doubt

But I opine that we get the kind of guns we deserve.

If Dan Wessson can produce a no-MIM gun for 1K, s&w, with their volume, can do the same for CONSIERABLY less (if nothing else, just economies of scale can be a huge difference ).

It is because we buy their version of Taurus at premium prices that they continue to cheapen their product and increase prices.

Guillermo
December 3, 2012, 12:15 AM
Put another way, as long as we belly up to the bar and order 16 dollar drink of Usher's green label...why should they stock Glenmorangie?

hAkron
December 3, 2012, 12:53 AM
No doubt

But I opine that we get the kind of guns we deserve.

If Dan Wessson can produce a no-MIM gun for 1K, s&w, with their volume, can do the same for CONSIERABLY less (if nothing else, just economies of scale can be a huge difference ).

It is because we buy their version of Taurus at premium prices that they continue to cheapen their product and increase prices.

This is a very good point. Though one of the design philosophies, as I understand it from a vintage Dan Wesson ad I read on eBay the other day, was to produce an accurate revolver that required little or no hand fitting.

skidder
December 3, 2012, 01:09 AM
Put another way, as long as we belly up to the bar and order 16 dollar drink of Usher's green label...why should they stock Glenmorangie?
My theory is...

They both have the same "label", and once you've had a few you won't really care what's in the bottle.:D

Guillermo
December 3, 2012, 01:44 AM
once you've had a few you won't really care what's in the bottle

MIM guy huh? :neener:

skidder
December 3, 2012, 03:20 AM
The S&W rep I talked to was bemoaning the large total of returns and did not go into it very far...mostly he was wishing that they had no lock and QC.
This has always been my biggest concern. They are stubborn to listen to loyal customers who really want to buy their product. I bet if they redesigned the lock and moved it to a more appealing and less critical location, their sales would increase. Some of those loyal customers that were snubbed right from the start by Saf-T-Hammer might give them another shot.
Honestly, who would be offended if the lock was moved??
MIM guy huh?
MIM-- Masonry Institute of Michigan. How the heck did you find out? :scrutiny:
You're good G, my wife doesn't even know. :D

Woogeroo
December 3, 2012, 07:26 AM
Almost didn't open this thread, so tired of the anti MIM and lock boys living in the past and hand-cranking both their ice cream and their Fords.

Thanks for validating my purchase of five S&Ws in the past few years.

My ice cream machine has an electric motor... and who would drive a Ford anyway? :D

Modern engineering and advanced metallurgy are fine if it makes the gun better, more durable, more accurate and last longer.

However, if I wanted to do a bunch of silly things to make my gun work, I'd just buy an automatic, not a wheel gun.

-W

Bubba613
December 3, 2012, 09:50 AM
Modern engineering and advanced metallurgy are fine if it makes the gun better, more durable, more accurate and last longer.

Amazing that none of the guys bashing Smith have been able to address these points. Probably because Smiths today are better, more durable, more accurate, and last longer.
I'm sure if there had been discussion boards back in the day some old codgers would be griping about the sissy hammer block safety while others would be swearing that double action was a fad and they would stick with their trusty single action guns.

Old Fuff
December 3, 2012, 09:51 AM
Supposedly the introduction of modern manufacturing technology should insure that all parts are identical and perfect - or at least as much so as is possible.

Larger components are made using machines that are controlled by computers rather then human hands, and smaller ones are molded using methods that produce tighter tolerances then was ever possible before.

So it would seem that when these perfect parts are assembled, the result would be a perfect revolver (or whatever).

This being the case no guns should be returned for warrantee repairs. :uhoh:

hAkron
December 3, 2012, 09:56 AM
Are all of the internals MIM? Has the aftermarket addresses this with forged steel trigger/hammer sets?

Guillermo
December 3, 2012, 10:06 AM
Has the aftermarket addresses this with forged steel trigger/hammer sets?

For some parts, like the trigger, yes. Some gunsmiths won't do "action jobs" without changing it. (I think they use a Smith part for the guns that had not been redesigned for MIM, but they used MIM triggers, like the 1997 686. I can't say for the MIM guns)

The problem is that MIM does not slide smoothly against parts made of other materials so simply changing one part does not solve the problem.

Smith tried to overcome this with the Jerry Miculek 625 by chroming it. Of course since MIM doesn't take plating well, it flakes off.

hAkron
December 3, 2012, 11:19 AM
Is it due to the sintered nature of MIM? Where you have many 'bits' all going in different directions, rather than all going the same way as with forged? Polishing and smoothing along the 'grain' rather than the microscopic grinding across a jagged a sintered surface?

Guillermo
December 3, 2012, 11:24 AM
I do not know but that seems logical.

The molding process would not create a "grain".

Interesting enough, while they do not polish well, they do "burnish".

Guillermo
December 3, 2012, 11:29 AM
dry firing can considerably smooth an action in an all MIM gun.

My current wife has a 686 with the MIM trigger and the action is horrid.

She won't let me send it off to have the offending parts banished.

FYI, that gun went back to Smith with an improperly set barrel.

USSR
December 3, 2012, 12:12 PM
...Smiths today are better, more durable, more accurate, and last longer.

Hmm, seems to be a little inconsistency here. Some of your previous quotes:

...you fail to define "finest" "better" "worse" or any other subjective term

You failed to support your contentions...

...nor do you substantiate any of what you say.

"Better" by your own words is a very subjective term, and you do EXACTLY what you accuse us of. More durable? Please define and post the test criteria and results. More accurate? What did the test consist of, and what was the sample size? Last longer? How can something that is a fairly recent innovation be determined to last longer than something that has been around for a very long time? This scatter-brained approach to defending what you believe to be true defies both logic and common sense.:rolleyes:

Don

Guillermo
December 3, 2012, 12:27 PM
Don,

in one post Bubba proclaimed the following...

MIM parts were not adapted so as to cut labor costs

MIM parts, as they are used at S&W are NOT the same hardness all the way through, and thus NOT brittle

S&W methods of manufacturing are NOT virtually identical like Taurus (with regards to double action revolvers)

S&W warranty returns are NOT higher than they have ever been (based on the largest volume gun retailer in the country and the S&W representative)

two piece barrels were NOT adopted so as to save labor costs and have been NEVER been known to go downrange with the bullet

MIM parts DO polish well and in fact, there are NO gunsmiths that will not do "action jobs" because their clients are oft disappointed

MIM DOES take plating well

High end guns are made with MIM, not forged parts




People that prove that they have no knowledge on a subject are really not worth your time.
Add the fact that he refuses to answer the simplest of questions, what is the point?


Some people come here to discuss, others have other agendas.

CraigC
December 3, 2012, 12:34 PM
If all he can respond with is the crap below, there is no point and we are all just wasting our keystrokes.
I contend that your questions are nonsense and irrelevant...


Because he obviously thinks that being a counter monkey makes him an expert.
I have handled, bought, sold and serviced somewhere between 200 and 300 S&W revolvers starting with models from the 19th century and probably every period in between.


Like he's talking to a bunch of 20yr olds that have one or two guns.
I do not base my judgement on the Model 19 I bought in 1979 and the Model 686 I had to send back last year.


No substance, just uneducated and unsubstantiated opinions that defy reality. Typical rhetoric from self-aggrandized internet experts. Which is probably what he thinks we are so it's all good. :p

Guillermo
December 3, 2012, 12:50 PM
I have handled, bought, sold and serviced somewhere between 200 and 300 S&W revolvers starting with models from the 19th century and probably every period in between.

BTW,

200-300 guns is a week's business at the store to which I refer.

Bubba613
December 3, 2012, 01:17 PM
Supposedly the introduction of modern manufacturing technology should insure that all parts are identical and perfect - or at least as much so as is possible.

Larger components are made using machines that are controlled by computers rather then human hands, and smaller ones are molded using methods that produce tighter tolerances then was ever possible before.

So it would seem that when these perfect parts are assembled, the result would be a perfect revolver (or whatever).

This being the case no guns should be returned for warrantee repairs.
And by the same token guns that were made the old fashioned way by careful craftsmen dedicated to their trade would always be 100%. Right? :rolleyes:

In truth it is between computers that do the same thing over and over and over-paid union help that can't be fired. Between those two guess which one will turn out a more consistent product.

Bubba613
December 3, 2012, 01:18 PM
No substance, just uneducated and unsubstantiated opinions that defy reality. Typical rhetoric from self-aggrandized internet experts. Which is probably what he thinks we are so it's all good

Projection.

CraigC
December 3, 2012, 02:38 PM
And more of the same......

Guillermo
December 3, 2012, 03:19 PM
ignorance is not a crime...everyone has to learn. We are not born with knowledge.


ignorance coupled with a supercilious attitude is amusing.

Old Fuff
December 3, 2012, 04:14 PM
And by the same token guns that were made the old fashioned way by careful craftsmen dedicated to their trade would always be 100%. Right?

Of course not, but you missed the point. Supposedly current technology is able to reduce and eliminate human error. If so, then what leaves the factory shouldn't come back for warrantee repairs. It is the advocates of newer revolvers that claim perfection because it is impossible for a machine, controled by a computer to make a mistake.... :uhoh:

Bubba613
December 3, 2012, 05:11 PM
Does anyone claim modern machining eliminates error? No, I don't think so.:uhoh:

buck460XVR
December 3, 2012, 06:10 PM
Come February, it'll be six years since I joined this forum. This subject was just as argumentative then as it is now. Funny thing is, back then it was the same folks arguin' and pissin' and moanin' about MIM parts. As the years went by a few others joined the ranks. But it's always been the same core 3 or 4 folks that feel the need to turn any thread related to S&W revolvers into another anti MIM rant. In six years it's been the same argument using the same lame subjective opinions, on both sides of the fence. Only thing those six years have shown me is that some folks just like to whine....and some folks like to troll. Some folks can't accept the fact that others have a difference of opinion, taste and needs. In those six years there has been no real evidence brought to the table by these same folks to prove any difference in accuracy and reliability between old and new......the two most important values in a revolver. What I have gotten out of this is because no-one in those six years has brought anything to the table to prove their argument(other than their subjective opinions) that there is no difference. I just think folks like what they like and should be able to own what they like without someone else looking down their nose. We are fortunate we have that option. I also have come to the opinion that this type of discussion is a waste of time because in the previous six years, and hundreds of similar threads....... nuttin' has changed.:rolleyes:

Bubba613
December 3, 2012, 06:23 PM
Thanks, Buck. You hit it square on.

hAkron
December 3, 2012, 06:53 PM
I think most of the folks reading along are able to separate the key points from the background noise. This discussion has become quite spirited, but at the same time I think some good information is getting through as well. I appreciate all of the discussion so far.

Guillermo
December 3, 2012, 06:59 PM
Buck,
some discussions are different than others.

For example, Mr. Boreland likes MIM guns because he can fix them when he is at a match.

He runs his guns hard enough that he knows for a fact that they're going to break. The ease of repair is a big advantage for him.

But he is a smart man, and he knows that mim parts are brittle And he has no delusions as to why they came into being in Smith & Wesson revolvers. He followed the two piece barrel debacle. He looked at the advantages and disadvantages And made an informed, intelligent decision based on his use.

There is a huge difference between talking to a man of intelligence like Mr. Borland and a flat earther who claims that reality is what he wants it to be.

Guillermo
December 3, 2012, 07:03 PM
Buck,

But another way, you and I have had several discussions in the past and have not always agreed. But neither one of us lied about history or claimed things that were not true.

skidder
December 3, 2012, 07:26 PM
folks that feel the need to turn any thread related to S&W revolvers into another anti MIM rant.
The way a thread is started will often determine the direction it will go. It was a debate waiting to happen.

My fellow members know I like Security Six revolvers, but if I were to introduce my latest weapon like this: "One more reason why I prefer a Security Six over a GP" would I expect everyone to agree??? Not a chance!

When you start a thread like this one was started, you should only expect opinion, and opinion is not necessarily a bad thing until someone wears it on their sleeve

tomrkba
December 3, 2012, 07:44 PM
Hilton Yam has said on his article "Choosing a 1911 for Duty Use" that the lifetime service period of an MIM part in a 1911 pistol is typically between 5,000 to 10,000 rounds. He also stated that some small parts lasted 30-40,000 rounds. There a a wide variance in part quality and the function of the part will determine that part's function over time.

My ignorance of MIM part testing has led me to prefer non-MIM parts. If I cannot buy a non-MIM part (such as for a Glock), then I keep several spares in inventory.

buck460XVR
December 3, 2012, 07:47 PM
Buck,

But another way, you and I have had several discussions in the past and have not always agreed. But neither one of us lied about history or claimed things that were not true.


You are correct sir, we have not always agreed, and over the years we have come to respect those differences of opinions and each others experiences and knowledge. That really, IMHO, is what these types of forums is all about. The exchange of ideas, opinions and knowledge within a group of folk with the same passions and interests.




Buck,
some discussions are different than others.


Yes and no. While they all start off a little differently, these MIM rant/old vs new threads all tend to gravitate to the same ditch after a page or two. Then, at some point it always seems to be a need for the derogatory adjectives to come out......like "flat earther" and "ignorance coupled with a supercilious attitude". My dad always told me not to lower myself to levels of those that couldn't fight fair, as it made me no better than them. You my friend, are also better than that.

opinion is not necessarily a bad thing until someone wears it on their sleeve

Exactly...and just cause folks have a difference of that opinion, doesn't make either of them wrong, or right. Just means they are different. Nuttin' wrong with that.


As I said before, these types of threads have proven to be waste of time. I stayed outta this one till now, shoulda stayed out period.

Guillermo
December 3, 2012, 07:53 PM
I stayed outta this one till now, shoulda stayed out period.

sorry you feel that way.

It is always a good thread when you chime in.

This one didn't go agly because of difference of opinion, it is total denial of undeniable facts.


That said, like I should have gotten out when I realized that reality and facts were not confining issues.

After all, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

MrBorland
December 3, 2012, 08:45 PM
For example, Mr. Boreland likes MIM guns because he can fix them when he is at a match.

He runs his guns hard enough that he knows for a fact that they're going to break. The ease of repair is a big advantage for him.

But he is a smart man, and he knows that mim parts are brittle And he has no delusions as to why they came into being in Smith & Wesson revolvers. He followed the two piece barrel debacle. He looked at the advantages and disadvantages And made an informed, intelligent decision based on his use.


Dang - I was going to sit this one out. :(

I'm only chiming in to clarify a bit: Yes, competition is hard on revolvers. And yes, mine are MIM-equipped variants. And while they can (but not necessarily) be easier to field-fix if they break, my rode-hard MIM guns haven't yet broken, which speaks to their comparable durability. And because they haven't broken, the ease with which they might be fixed is a relatively theoretical and minor issue to me.

I run new-ish guns primarily because they're easier to tune, IMO, and they come with design goodies that allow them to really run, e.g. frame-mounted FP, aftermarket parts available, and a pinned front sight which makes it easier to swap in a FO. MIM parts and The Lock happen to come along as part of the package, but neither I nor many top wheelgunners find their presence matters one whit.

Whew...IBTL...:p

rswartsell
December 3, 2012, 08:48 PM
This is really in the end a question of values. What do you value and why. Create a table of pros and cons and decide based upon those values. I's not hard for me and the answer is clear.

The real fuel for continued animosity is the practice of meaningless devaluation of opposing opinion up to and including insults, and this presented as conclusive fact or victory in rhetorical combat.

In the end it is no skin off my nose if you prefer current production Smith & Wessons. Knock yourself out. I can even be glad you are happy. At the very minimum though I feel there is value in the dissemination of the experiences of those (not necessarily older, but often are) who are intimately familiar with the old guard or what has come before. We have reasons for our opinions too and little motivation to "prove" them to you when we have spent decades arriving at them. I personally am even less motivated to share in any positive way with smart-ass disrespectful brats than I am an average enthusiast. I make no specific charge, I state this is generally true in all my dealings and leave it to "if the shoe fits".

IMHO the depth and breadth of experience and insight available on these boards is valued by the wise and combated by the insecure. I don't need for you to agree with me and will not exert a lot of energy in that direction.

I do think it foolish to dismiss and denegrate the viewpoints and experiences of those who have gone before.:(

rswartsell
December 3, 2012, 08:53 PM
Mr. Borland,

A true question as in I really want to know. Should you have a future problem with a MIM part (I do not wish this upon you), is it your understanding that you can take the part to the bench to correct, or must you simply replace?

Further, the same MIM part, can you expect to take that part to the bench to improve or modify for purpose, or are you once again limited to replacement?

Guillermo
December 3, 2012, 09:00 PM
Dang - I was going to sit this one out.

Sorry Senor Boreland.

I used you as an example only because

A- you are universally respected
B- I thought that I could represent your opinion correctly

If I overstepped, please accept my apology

conhntr
December 3, 2012, 10:12 PM
//over and over-paid union help that can't be fired//

I bet you dont spew that scab tripe other than on the internet. Make sure you let the ups driver that delivers to your store know you want to refuse all packages from them becuase dirty overpaid teamster hands touched them.

MrBorland
December 3, 2012, 10:35 PM
If I overstepped, please accept my apology

No overstepping, and no worries, G. It's all good. Thanks for the kind words :D


Should you have a future problem with a MIM part (I do not wish this upon you), is it your understanding that you can take the part to the bench to correct, or must you simply replace?

A squared trigger face is a problem 'cuz it gives my fingie a boo boo, so I round and polish the trigger face. Problem corrected. A rough sear/trigger engagement is a problem too, but a little polishing helps that, too. OTOH, though I've yet to break one, ain't much fixing a broken firing pin other than flat-out replacement. And it can be replaced by aftermarket pins designed for competition.

Further, the same MIM part, can you expect to take that part to the bench to improve or modify for purpose, or are you once again limited to replacement?

I can use the MIM hammer as an example of a part that can be modified (radically bobbed) and improved (lighter & faster) as part of a well-tuned action. I submit my coin-on-the-barrel and El Prez drills as evidence that new-ish guns tune up nicely...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmy5mkjpUNI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNFerCV3W4Y&list=UL

...while remaining respectably accurate:
http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp239/becke016/GunsTargets/May2012Postal686.jpg

Bubba613
December 3, 2012, 10:44 PM
I bet you dont spew that scab tripe other than on the internet. Make sure you let the ups driver that delivers to your store know you want to refuse all packages from them becuase dirty overpaid teamster hands touched them.
The voice of union power calls. You should threaten to break my head or something, right. OT but unions have done more harm to every manufacturing enterprise in this country than the EPA could think of.

Guillermo
December 3, 2012, 11:48 PM
while remaining respectably accurate

in addition to your demeanor you are very skilled.

BTW, you and a couple of other folks (including David E) have inspired me to play the gun-games.

While my two outings have resulted in two wins (ssr) they also have revealed some glaring inadequacies. The void in my ability has created a new enthusiasm for shooting.

Thank you very much Mr. Boreland.

While I doubt that I will ever be worthy of carrying your range bag, it is a fun goal.

:)

rswartsell
December 4, 2012, 12:49 AM
Mr. Borland,

To be very clear, you are doing this with MIM parts?

CraigC
December 4, 2012, 12:49 AM
But it's always been the same core 3 or 4 folks that feel the need to turn any thread related to S&W revolvers into another anti MIM rant.
Go back and actually read this thread and look at where it went south and by whom. We knew where this thread would go in the first six posts. I must point out that Guillermo's first post was positive, his second was an attempt to keep it from going where it went. The rest you can credit Bubba and his nonsense.

Sorry but some folks post such outlandish and inflammatory nonsense that it warrants a response.

Hotshot10
December 4, 2012, 12:52 AM
...while remaining respectably accurate: :what: Wow! Nice group!

rswartsell
December 4, 2012, 01:13 AM
I do not know what flavor of competition that Mr. Borland engages in, I also do not have any problem in confering "expert" status upon him.

I WILL tell you that my interest lies in the antiquated "Bullseye" format that dates to he turn of the 20th century and perhaps before.

Any idea of "timed" or "rapid fire" shooting is quite slow by modern competetive revolver standards. I know this. But I also know that the masters of this archaic art cut the centers out of many a small black dot and the "combat, rapid fire, PPC, Plates, IPC, UPC, Bowling Pin, etc." never convinced me not to respect this.

My experiences with the 686 (I owned a pre-lock and a post) as compared to my Smiths (or Colts) of the craftsman, "golden age" did not cut it in that last 10%. You might not pay in the first round, maybe not the second. In the end that last % of precision would tell, and I own at least 2 that given the same skill with the shooter would prove this to Mr. Borland. This is just where my values lie.

Guillermo
December 4, 2012, 01:21 AM
Gentlemen

It was my intention to use Mr. Boreland as an example because of who he is.

He is skilled, polite and I have never seen anyone that, despite whether they disagree or not, fail to respect him.

I believe that he is an IDPA fellow that shoots SSR. And he wins...a lot.

He is a man that is worthy of respect.

While I disagree with him with regards to his revolvers, he is a smart man. He has well thought out reasons for the decisions that he makes.

(I am a newbie at IDPA but have 3 forged model 15s that I put into my range bag.)

rswartsell
December 4, 2012, 01:53 AM
Guillermo is in all regards a gentleman,

I have no doubt Mr. Borland is also.

The question between gentlemen is which is capable of the greater "Bullseye" style precision (at least in my mind). I vote the golden age Smith and Colts.

Guillermo
December 4, 2012, 02:05 AM
I vote the golden age Smith and Colts

There is no doubt that the older guns are amazing...but do they even produce a "bullseye" revolver these days?

(BTW, anyone privileged enough to pull the trigger on my Officer's Special .22 will never question the superiority of older revolvers. It is the most amazing gun that I have ever cycled. And that includes Diamondbacks, old K22s, Model 14 and other outstanding revolvers)

rswartsell
December 4, 2012, 02:08 AM
As far as the points I tried to advance, longevity and precision, it seems to be the heart of the matter.

Let the man respond, I mean him no ill will.

Guillermo
December 4, 2012, 02:33 AM
Let the man respond

I went as far as I feel comfortable speaking for him

As far as you go, I would just say what I want and say "rswartsell said it"

unless we are talking "dip"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Je3wNbZ1NqI

hAkron
December 4, 2012, 08:46 AM
Here is a reprint of what appears to be a letter from somebody at S&W that talks about their MIM process.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/219641-use-mim-parts-s-ws-explanation.html

MrBorland
December 4, 2012, 08:46 AM
To be very clear, you are doing this with MIM parts?

Correct. The gun's a 686-6, with the ILS and MIM parts. The cylinder release latch and sights are aftermarket, but the action is original (though tuned).


I do not know what flavor of competition that Mr. Borland engages in, I also do not have any problem in confering "expert" status upon him.
.
.
.

I WILL tell you that my interest lies in the antiquated "Bullseye" format that dates to he turn of the 20th century and perhaps before.
.
.
.

The question between gentlemen is which is capable of the greater "Bullseye" style precision (at least in my mind).

My primary game is IDPA, where I'm an SSR Master, and just finished my 3rd year of competition. I had hopes to snag a national championship and/or DM classification this year, and came close by taking 1st Master in IDPA's Big Three: S&W Indoor Nats, The Carolina Cup and the National Championships. I'll try again this year. ;)

Initially, my intent was to compete in bullseye, but I fell into IDPA and it's been a good run. Nonetheless, I spend a portion of every range visit working on fundamentals, and bullseye shooting is never far from my mind. It's a tough form of competition, to be sure, and bullseye shooters (revolver shooters in particular) certainly have my respect.

Whether current S&Ws are capable of greater Bullseye-style precision is tough to say. For one thing, though my guns haven't been accurized per se, they are tuned, so they don't necessarily represent factory function. I can't say, then, whether factory-stock MIM guns can deliver the goods, but my suspicion is that they can be tuned to be competitive. To be fair, though, I suspect the more vintage revolvers used in bullseye comp are generally tuned as well.

I have a bone-stock K-38, and it's capable of fine accuracy, but if I were to dabble in bullseye with a revolver, I'd be hard-pressed to choose between my K-38 and new-ish 686 (despite it's DAO conversion). If I were to get serious about bullseye with a revolver, the K-38 would get the nod after some tuning.

Really, though, my intent here isn't/wasn't to suggest that modern revos are superior. More as a response to any claims that suggest (or explicitly state) newer guns are, in every way, simple junk and/or that current manufacturing processes are, by definition, purely cost cutting steps that negatively affect function. I concede they don't have the fit & finish of the older ones, but even after some punishing treatment, I've not found them to be functionally wanting in any way that's mattered to me.



While my two outings have resulted in two wins (ssr) they also have revealed some glaring inadequacies. The void in my ability has created a new enthusiasm for shooting.

That's terrific, G! Yes, shooting a revo in competition has a way of exposing our weaknesses. I like to think it makes a better shooter of us. Kudos to you!

buck460XVR
December 4, 2012, 09:09 AM
Go back and actually read this thread and look at where it went south and by whom. We knew where this thread would go in the first six posts. I must point out that Guillermo's first post was positive, his second was an attempt to keep it from going where it went. The rest you can credit Bubba and his nonsense.

Sorry but some folks post such outlandish and inflammatory nonsense that it warrants a response.

You're right Craig.......most everybody here knew where this thread was going.....and many of us could have told you before the second post who was gonna be involved and exactly what they were gonna say. That's why I believe it was a waste of time and did not get involved until the name calling started....again. While debating over a personal preference and stating opinions and relevant facts are good things on a gun forum, there really is no place for name calling and belittling......or do you disagree?

Guillermo
December 4, 2012, 10:27 AM
Yep,

Everyone knew and I even tried to deflect it.

As Craig says, some things have to be responded to if nothing else, because this board and the answers given show up in internet search engines.

That said it was like like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over all the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it won.

Walkalong
December 4, 2012, 10:46 AM
I think most people know where they stand on MIM, but for those who are on the fence or new to the subject, there is some good info here, so thanks for all the helpful and informative posts, but for those who only wanted to argue, enough.

If you enjoyed reading about "I'm no big fan of recent production S&W revolvers" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!