You can't polish MIM parts


PDA






Bubba613
June 18, 2013, 05:47 PM
Another myth dies. Here are pics of the Smith PC637 Gunsmoke.

If you enjoyed reading about "You can't polish MIM parts" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Mauser lover
June 18, 2013, 05:57 PM
Oops, I didn't realize that you couldn't polish MIM parts. Glad to know you can though!

Just as a side note, why can't you polish MIM parts? (in the myth)

WC145
June 18, 2013, 05:58 PM
MIM parts polish up nice if done right -

Bobbed and polished 360J hammer
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-7YuqrAEulIE/UL4qy4bsBEI/AAAAAAAAFA0/bwlTFKLHeAs/s800/SDC10024.JPG

I don't have any good pics of the trigger but this one will give you an idea
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-YRYzq8g2bfQ/UL4ql52zsaI/AAAAAAAAFBY/SaYrbCVVkRg/s800/SDC10022.JPG

rswartsell
June 18, 2013, 07:43 PM
At one time "sintered" parts were not good candidates for polishing because they had a hardened "crust" encasing steel of a less hardened character which formed the "core". Polishing could penetrate the "crust" and expose the softer "core" which would not perform to the standards of the hardened "crust". If you accept this as true, it once was not a good idea to fool with these parts. As I only dimly understand it, the current technologies used in producing modern "MIM" parts alleviate the vast majority of these concerns.

I make no claim to being a metallurgist, or even a production engineer.

Old Fuff
June 18, 2013, 09:52 PM
Yes you can polish MIM parts, but under high magnanification you will see tiny pits in the surface that don't go away. This is because the material is not truly homogeneous, but made up of metal particles fused together with the remains of a binder.

You can get similar results by simply dry-firing the gun and let the parts burnish where they come into contact under pressure. Other then cosmetic affect, polishing elsewhere doesn't make any meaningful difference.

Want to see the difference? Look at a hammer taken from a pre-war S&W revolver that was polished on the sides before it was case hardened, vs. what you see today. :barf:

I won't bring up the fact that S&W cannot color-caseharden MIM hammers and triggers, and unlike Taurus doesn't even flash-chrome them for better appearence. All this of course comes under the heading of cosmetics, which is not critical for function but does relate to quality which is now lost. :banghead:

PabloJ
June 18, 2013, 10:24 PM
Don't let them BS you there is nothing wrong with the MIM parts.

rswartsell
June 18, 2013, 11:42 PM
Sounds like "don't think too hard and just trust me religiously", not a big subscriber to that. Current MIM production seems to work well, but telling the Old Fuff and I we are wrong "just 'cause" ain't feeding any bulldogs.

Even without being a metallurgist, I understand that "natural" steel has a crystalline form that has the advantage of "chemical bonding" that takes advantage of the positive and negative charges of the outside shells of the sub-atomic orbits to "weld" molecular structures in a far more homogenous way than powder and binder under heat and pressure will ever achieve. There isn't anything that mysterious about that. I encourage resistance to "because I said so".

Jaymo
June 18, 2013, 11:50 PM
I still prefer forged.

glocking26
June 19, 2013, 12:19 AM
Smith + Wesson went to MIM parts for one reson to cut cost. They still use forged parts on some there P.C. Guns why.... Because they know there better. But you'll pay for them. MIM parts may hold up as good as forged parts but they look like parts off a toy gun. Oh yea I carry a 340pd and it shoots great but I still hate looking at the trigger...but that's just me.

Jaymo
June 19, 2013, 12:44 AM
I was going to say, "Lookit that. You CAN polish a turd. But, you still can't pick it up by the clean end."
But, I decided to be nice.
And, yes, I do have a few pieces that use MIM parts.
Funny thing, my Judge hammer and trigger are either CCH or fake CCH.
Go figure.

That said, your hammer and trigger came out looking far better than I would have expected, being MIM parts.
I would polish mine, but I'm just too darned lazy.

DPris
June 19, 2013, 01:06 AM
Fuff has it.
Denis

fletcher
June 19, 2013, 06:47 AM
Sounds like "don't think too hard and just trust me religiously", not a big subscriber to that. Current MIM production seems to work well, but telling the Old Fuff and I we are wrong "just 'cause" ain't feeding any bulldogs.

Even without being a metallurgist, I understand that "natural" steel has a crystalline form that has the advantage of "chemical bonding" that takes advantage of the positive and negative charges of the outside shells of the sub-atomic orbits to "weld" molecular structures in a far more homogenous way than powder and binder under heat and pressure will ever achieve. There isn't anything that mysterious about that. I encourage resistance to "because I said so".

Steel in MIM parts also has a crystalline structure and relies on the same bonding method ("sea of electrons" around a lattice of cations) to join the atoms. The big disadvantage of MIM is porosity. Because of the use of binders, it is more difficult to achieve theoretical density. Internal defects really weaken a structure's static and fatigue properties.

To the original post, and as noted earlier, MIM parts can certainly be polished, but the appearance will be dependent on the amount of porosity present.

PRM
June 19, 2013, 07:07 AM
Don't let them BS you there is nothing wrong with the MIM parts. - PabloJ

Really - must be why S&W are replacing MIM Hammer Blocks with the older style stamped ones. The block in my Model 60-9 has snapped into (twice) with less than 200 rounds fired.

evan price
June 19, 2013, 07:07 AM
Polishing a MIM part is akin to polishing a slab of granite. Yes, the end product looks good, but even in highly polished granite countertops you still find pits and voids where there are gaps in the material.

MrBorland
June 19, 2013, 07:24 AM
As far as I can tell, this thread's about putting enough shine on an MIM part to be pleasing to the eye. Whether it's too porous to be a true "polish" is minutiae, IMO. Looks good to me.

And how well MIM parts perform, why they're used, their strengths & weaknesses, personal preference/bias, etc. have all been discussed ad nauseum in plenty of other threads.

mope540
June 19, 2013, 07:43 AM
looks great.

Yes you can polish MIM parts, but under high magnanification you will see tiny pits in the surface that don't go away....



everything, including a fine diamond, looks pitted under high magnification

fletcher
June 19, 2013, 07:54 AM
Its an accurate comment.

Under enough magnification any surface will likely show some defect, but it won't necessarily look pitted. A properly polished surface on wrought material will show no pitted look well up to 1000x - we do this routinely with metallography. Keep going to many thousands, such as in a SEM, and one may see something.

460Kodiak
June 19, 2013, 10:03 AM
DUMB comment!!!!!


Not high road material.

No offense meant, and no, I realize I'm not a moderator, but I'd keep comments like that to yourself. You can disagree without being rude. The mods don't take well to people who yell inflamatory things like that.

Also, it is an accurate statement Fuff made. Old Fuff has been sharing great tips, info, and wisdom on THR for a long time. I have yet to read something he has written that is incorrect regarding handguns, or "DUMB", and he is well respected here. Please treat him, and all forum members with respect.

Looks great OP. I've polished MIM, and it certainly does improove the appearance.

Walkalong
June 19, 2013, 10:31 AM
You can disagree without being rude.Exactly. ;)

CraigC
June 19, 2013, 10:45 AM
"Lookit that. You CAN polish a turd. But, you still can't pick it up by the clean end."
Ha! :D


DUMB comment!!!!!
Proof that there are no dumb questions, only dumb answers.

Old Fuff
June 19, 2013, 10:48 AM
I may be a little bit misunderstood (or maybe more then that). If so, it's my fault.

From a functional perspective they're doesn't seem to be anything wrong with most MIM parts - hammer and trigger in particular- used in current and recent Smith & Wesson revolvers. If one is satisfied with that go forth and buy these products.

The Old Fuff however is spoiled, and wants much more then that. He has examined in great detail all kinds of Smith & Wesson revolvers which date from the Civil War to present, and in his view if one goes beyond functional they're are some that are better from the fit & finish perspective. How important this is or isn't depends on the individual, and given today's marketplace in both new and used (but like new) guns anyone can have what they like, and the Old Fuff has never been one to say, "My way or no way!"

Now to be honest if S&W or any other of the principal handgun makers made what they used to in today's manufacturing economy, most of us - including me - couldn't afford to buy them. It is also why most manufacturers are turning to pistols with polymer or similar frames rather then revolvers because these can be made at a price-point where the industry makes a profit and the buyer doesn't have to max their credit card.

So there is no reason to start a war here, and if some disagree with me that's fine because I won't lose any sleep. The Old Fuff has a thick skin that's bullet proof. ;)

Bubba613
June 19, 2013, 11:20 AM
Some people buy guns because of their function.
Some people buy guns because of their appearance.

For the former, present S&W models provide superior performance and function.

For the latter they should stick with inferior performing guns from the 60s and 70s.

CraigC
June 19, 2013, 11:31 AM
For the latter they should stick with inferior performing guns from the 60s and 70s.
Now THAT is funny! Now injection molded parts are actually better than hand-fitted forged parts. Wishful thinking at its finest (funniest).

Here's a hint, if you examine the finest guns on earth, you won't find any injection molded parts that get installed as-is. What you will find are forged parts that are hand-fitted. What S&W has done is to cut manufacturing costs and MIM parts cut skilled labor costs. Now they can be thrown together by assemblers, rather than master gunsmiths. Has not a damn thing to do with making anything better but their bottom line. Which is sad considering that most of their revolver designs date back to the turn of the last century.

1911Tuner
June 19, 2013, 11:45 AM
For the former, present S&W models provide superior performance and function.

For the latter they should stick with inferior performing guns from the 60s and 70s.

Apparently, Bubba has never handled a real Smith & Wesson, Colt, Winchester, etc.

'Tis the world that we live in.

Back up another 30 years and find a nice Smith & Wesson still in good shape that dates back to the 30s or 40s, and you can feel the difference just by pickin' it up. One of those things that can't be explained. It has to be experienced in order to be understood.

CraigC
June 19, 2013, 11:47 AM
Back up another 30 years and find a nice Smith & Wesson still in good shape that dates back to the 30s or 40s, and you can feel the difference just by pickin' it up.
I find that they have an aura that one can feel before even seeing it. ;):p

glocking26
June 19, 2013, 12:43 PM
Until this happens to you after you dish out $$$$ you just won't understand. As the saying goes....they just don't make them like they used to. Yea they put out some lemons back then but god not like today. All I here is well we have the Internet now so more people here about the problems. I don't by it. Check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9McFq_GwXo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Old Fuff
June 19, 2013, 12:44 PM
Some people buy guns because of their function. Some people buy guns because of their appearance.

For the former, present S&W models provide superior performance and function. For the latter they should stick with inferior performing guns from the 60s and 70s.

Well again it's a matter of opinion, but I haven't seen any evidence that the current/recent crop of Smith & Wesson revolvers offer any superior performance over older ones. Of course how you define "superior performance" could make difference, and on both sides picking isolated examples doesn't count. I would suggest reliability and accuracy.

Neither older or newer guns have a reputation for questionable reliability, and if they're a wide difference in accuracy I'm not a good enough shot to tell. Machine rest tests at 50 yards anyone?

rswartsell
June 19, 2013, 01:31 PM
Thanks fletcher, I stand corrected. I don't play a metallurgist on TV either and that's probably a good thing.

CraigC
June 19, 2013, 01:32 PM
Machine rest tests at 50 yards anyone?
If anybody wants to buy me a new S&W I have a Ransom Rest, N-frame inserts and several older N-frames to test against.

I really wish I believed the new guns were better because I'd love to have several of the new "Classics". Particularly the fixed sight N-frames. I just can't bring myself to spend that much money on what I believe is an inferior firearm.

Bubba613
June 19, 2013, 06:34 PM
Apparently, Bubba has never handled a real Smith & Wesson, Colt, Winchester, etc.

'Tis the world that we live in.

Back up another 30 years and find a nice Smith & Wesson still in good shape that dates back to the 30s or 40s, and you can feel the difference just by pickin' it up. One of those things that can't be explained. It has to be experienced in order to be understood.
And you would be wrong. Just that comment makes me wonder if you've ever pulled the trigger on a pre-war Smith.
The pre-war Smiths had the "long action". No one would buy a revolver like that today to shoot. I owned a Colt Python bought new in the '80s. A Smith 686SSR will outshoot and outlast that Python any day. Yeah, it doesn't cost $1500 so obviously it can't be as good.:rolleyes:

savit260
June 19, 2013, 07:01 PM
Just that comment makes me wonder if you've ever pulled the trigger on a pre-war Smith.
The pre-war Smiths had the "long action". No one would buy a revolver like that today to shoot. I owned a Colt Python bought new in the '80s. A Smith 686SSR will outshoot and outlast that Python any day. Yeah, it doesn't cost $1500 so obviously it can't be as good. ]
Some of us find that old long smooth trigger pull to be quite nice. Yeah, I've pulled a few triggers on vintage Smiths & Colts.. I kinda like 'em.

Old Fuff
June 19, 2013, 07:09 PM
The pre-war Smiths had the "long action". No one would buy a revolver like that today to shoot.

Beg to disagree... again. :uhoh:

"Long action" Smith & Wesson's were renowned for the smoothness of they're double-action trigger pull, and the single-action was equal or better then that found on any other make. The advantage over a later "short-action" design was that the position of the hammer stud on which the hammer rotated allowed the trigger to have more leverage.

Today, those who are particularly knowledgeable when it comes to trigger pulls sometimes seek them out - in particular N-frames that were made following World War Two and have a positive hammer block.

I admit that many (actually most) of today's "revolver combat gamers" shoot the newer guns, largely because of what they're backers are pushing. What they shoot is largely custom built, and/or internally modified.

1911Tuner
June 19, 2013, 07:18 PM
Just that comment makes me wonder if you've ever pulled the trigger on a pre-war Smith.

Several. That's the biggest reason that I like'em. The main drawback is that nice ones are too valuable to shoot very much. Shame.

No one would buy a revolver like that today to shoot.

And you'd be wrong. In my humble opinion, Smith's decision to drop the long action was a mistake. As Fuff noted, knowledgeable people pay a premium for a long-action N-Frame these days.

MrBorland
June 19, 2013, 07:44 PM
I admit that many (actually most) of today's "revolver combat gamers" shoot the newer guns, largely because of what they're backers are pushing.

Most of todays revolver "gamers" (I hate that term :mad:) are shooting newer guns by choice, not because of sponsorship. Matter of fact, a scant few are even factory sponsored.

The top gamers don't give a silly whit about what most here care about. They shoot the snot out of their match guns, and they choose newer guns because their features (e.g. hammer-mounted firing pin, new style cylinder release, pinned front sight, etc.) make the gun more amenable to tuning, and because they're durable and they flat-out perform. Had this thread been posted on the BE revolver forum, they'd more than likely tell y'all in very clear terms to stop wasting their bandwidth and go shoot. ;)

Bubba613
June 19, 2013, 07:52 PM
The top gamers don't give a silly whit about what most here care about. They shoot the snot out of their match guns, and they choose newer guns because their features (e.g. hammer-mounted firing pin, new style cylinder release, pinned front sight, etc.) make the gun more amenable to tuning, and because they're durable and they flat-out perform. Had this thread been posted on the BE revolver forum, they'd more than likely tell y'all in very clear terms to stop wasting their bandwidth and go shoot.

Well said.

1911Tuner
June 19, 2013, 08:07 PM
The top gamers don't give a silly whit about what most here care about.

At this point, it might be worth noting that not everybody cares about the games. If those disciplines were the whole enchilada, everybody'd be carrying a Razorcat in speed rig.

I'll let Fuff relate the story about the first time that Charles Askins attended an action match as a spectator. He was there, and tells it better than I do.

Take it away, Fuff!

rswartsell
June 19, 2013, 09:08 PM
The term "long action" as has been admirably described here, refers to the "hammer arc" being "longer" or traversing a greater percentage of a circle when traveling from cock to ignition.

They do indeed produce an infinitesimally greater "lock time", but lock time is measured in close to nano-seconds. The idea being that the longer the time spent between releasing the hammer and completing its journey to ignition, the more window for inaccuracy due to the vagaries of human stability. We aren't talking flintlock "lock times" here folks. The discipline that would most likely object to a long action would be the dying art of the "bullseye" shooter and is predominantly an issue in single action operation for greatest precision.

Instead, the "action" shooting sports are currently in the forefront, resting firmly on double action operation. The smooth, controllable and otherworldly "linear" double action pull of the best of these revolvers I would think would be finding new fans among the "action" shooters. I can also understand that someone that is going to shoot 10,000 and up rounds per year training and competing isn't going to choose an 80 (or more) year old classic to withstand the punishment. That certainly doesn't support the idea that the old long actions are in any way inferior. Just older and more "collectable".

The hand craftsmanship involved and quality of materials involved in producing these old gems has certainly NOT been superseded in current production. That quite simply is a function of cost of production and I would think it a fool's errand to dispute.

I am at a bit of a loss to understand what exactly proponents of the "new norm" are claiming here. Can you be a bit more specific?

1911Tuner
June 19, 2013, 09:39 PM
They do indeed produce an infinitesimally greater "lock time", but lock time is measured in close to nano-seconds. We aren't talking flintlock "lock times" here folks.

Exactly...and the difference between the long and short actions isn't all that great to start with. What is different is the silky smoothness even before use burnishes things. 500 rounds into it, the difference is remarkable.

The smooth, controllable and otherworldly "linear" double action pull of the best of these revolvers I would think would be finding new fans among the "action" shooters.

I'd be willing to bet on it. Without exception, the reaction of first-timers with an old Smith & Wesson is: "Wow! That's slick!"

The hand craftsmanship involved and quality of materials involved in producing these old gems has certainly NOT been superseded in current production. That quite simply is a function of cost of production and I would think it a fool's errand to dispute.

This.

CraigC
June 20, 2013, 12:17 AM
And how many choices do gamers have? S&W's still have the fastest trigger return and the only other choice is Ruger. Shoot guns in games and you have to have spare parts available. Again, what other choice is there but newer S&W's?

skidder
June 20, 2013, 01:17 AM
I didn't care for my SP101 with MIM. You can see and feel the mold seam on both the hammer and trigger. The spurs are more slippery on my MIM hammer.

The top gamers don't give a silly whit about what most here care about. They shoot the snot out of their match guns, and they choose newer guns because their features (e.g. hammer-mounted firing pin, new style cylinder release, pinned front sight, etc.) make the gun more amenable to tuning, and because they're durable and they flat-out perform. Had this thread been posted on the BE revolver forum, they'd more than likely tell y'all in very clear terms to stop wasting their bandwidth and go shoot.

Well some of us hunters don't really give a hoot what the top gamers think is best for them. When I put my sights on a running Whitetail I prefer the most solid and adequate parts touching my thumb and finger. We don't often get a second shot.

Billy Jack
June 20, 2013, 03:06 AM
A little off subject, but my first thought on this subject......I bought some high dollar broad heads that apparently were MIM. They were gorgeous. But you could not put a decent cutting edge on them no matter how hard you tried. I recently noticed the company now offers the same broad head in carbon steel that take a "razor " edge.

Bubba613
June 20, 2013, 07:27 AM
The hand craftsmanship involved and quality of materials involved in producing these old gems has certainly NOT been superseded in current production. That quite simply is a function of cost of production and I would think it a fool's errand to dispute.
You could make the same point about cars. But "hand craftsmanship" does not yield a superior product. Today's cars last longer and run more efficiently than cars made in the 1930s. Similarly today's guns run better and last longer than guns made in the past. Quality of material is infinitely better. People are in thrall to the process with little regard for whether it yields a better product or not. It doesn't.

1911Tuner
June 20, 2013, 09:05 AM
You could make the same point about cars.

Straw man.

People are in thrall to the process with little regard for whether it yields a better product or not. It doesn't.

In that case, there are a lot of people who've paid through the nose for high end pistol and revolver smiths' attentions.

I'll have to beg to differ. I've handled and examined a lot of Smith & Wesson revolvers over the last 40 years...old, new, and in-between...and don't get me wrong. I love my 686s and 581s and especially my Model 58s and Model 10s...but there's really no comparison in the quality and workmanship. And, if we take arranged matches and split times out of the equation, I'd much prefer the silky long action of the older Smiths hands down, whether shooting for giggles or for blood. If only I could get replacement parts...but that's another story.

Bubba613
June 20, 2013, 09:10 AM
In that case, there are a lot of people who've paid through the nose for high end pistol and revolver smiths' attentions.

I think the phrase is "one born every minute."

For competition shooters price is no object in picking a firearm. The gun must perform. It must be durable through thousands of rounds of practice and competition.
ANd what do we find? Do we find dozens of top shooters using pre war Hand Ejectors with the allegedly "silky smooth" long action? Or do we find them using the latest from the factory 686s etc?

murf
June 20, 2013, 10:41 AM
glad smith & wesson is pandering to someone. might as well be the racegun crowd. the "game" back in the ira paine days was 100 shots at 50 yards on an eight inch bull. s&w pandered to that crowd, too. the 44 russian out of the model 3 won all the prizes.

hand craftsmanship is just not an option anymore. mim is here to stay. love it, or leave it.

murf

Old Fuff
June 20, 2013, 11:31 AM
In the overall picture of revolver users, combat competitors (I’ll avoid the use of the word “gamer”) make up a tiny fraction of the total, and those who are considered to be professionals are even fewer. What they chose to use, or not, are of little concern to the rest of us. Should they decide to use current production revolvers I (and many others) will be delighted because to a small degree they make what we prefer more available.

Clearly, what the competitors seem to believe is not what others do, which can be shown by the constant, never ending increase in the prices paid for the older guns, that ordinary used revolvers with MIM parts don’t seem to match. Some who have posted here blame this on ignorence, but I submit that some of those who have come to the defense of the pre-MIM guns have backgrounds and experience that is substantial, and more then equal to that of they’re detractors.

So far as combat competition is concerned, I think it has had little affect concerning what people buy outside of their own group. Perhaps the same can be said about those that prefer the older guns. But market values seem to show that demand for them is increasing, and like “pre-1964 Winchesters,” they’re seems to be a divide between “pre-MIM” vs. “post-MIM” Smith & Wesson revolvers that does not support the latter.

1911Tuner
June 20, 2013, 11:33 AM
mim is here to stay. love it, or leave it.

And that's a fact.

I think the phrase is "one born every minute."

Lemme see if I've got this...

A mass-produced gun is equal or somehow superior to one that's carefully hand-fitted by a skilled artisan.

mmmkayyyy


For competition shooters price is no object in picking a firearm.

Noted, but it becomes a different ball of wax when the gun in question is collectible and can't be easily replaced, nor can it be readily serviced should spare parts become necessary.

It must be durable through thousands of rounds of practice and competition.

And the old guns aren't exactly fragile. There are a good many out there that have seen tens of thousands of rounds, and are still serviceable.

And why does it always come back to competition? Some of us...myself included...couldn't care less about competition. Competition and the tuned guns that the shooters run have about as much to do with the question as arguing over the top speed of a pickup truck vs a Super Stock drag car. Interesting, perhaps...but irrelevant.

MrBorland
June 20, 2013, 01:37 PM
And why does it always come back to competition?

The thread got highjacked into another "new Smiths blow chunks" thread well before any mention of competition, and I even tried to steer the thread back in my first post:
As far as I can tell, this thread's about putting enough shine on an MIM part to be pleasing to the eye...

And how well MIM parts perform, why they're used, their strengths & weaknesses, personal preference/bias, etc. have all been discussed ad nauseum in plenty of other threads.



Competition and the tuned guns that the shooters run have about as much to do with the question as arguing over the top speed of a pickup truck vs a Super Stock drag car. Interesting, perhaps...but irrelevant.

Open class ICORE & Bianchi revolvers aside, the great majority of the competition revolvers in use are a lot closer to the truck than the drag car. Smooth the action, maybe (or maybe not) a little spring lightening, chamfer the chambers, & install a FO front sight, and you've got a "gamer" gun. Rather than an all-out drag car, it's more akin to installing a harness, fuel cell & race tires on that otherwise stock pickup truck.

At any rate, I only mentioned competition to clarify a claim that competitive wheelgunners use newer guns only because their sponsor makes them, which further implies they'd certainly opt for an older one if given the choice.



Folks, I love the older guns as much as anyone, and go on record agreeing that their fit & finish is terrific, and I deeply appreciate the craftmanship that went into them. If I had the dinero, my safe would be full of them.

But it seems the newer guns are then categorically considered functionally junk by extension, which seems an imbalanced view to me. Current QC-issues notwithstanding, newer guns have functioned just fine for me, and I've not noticed functional differences between my vintage 5-screws and my MIM/IL guns, and I'd really hate to put nice vintage blued guns through the rigors that my shooters go through.

murf
June 20, 2013, 02:18 PM
bubba613,

in all the confusion over the demise of s&w i forgot to compliment you on the polish job. had to put my sunglasses on to type the last line.

murf

1911Tuner
June 20, 2013, 03:05 PM
But it seems the newer guns are then categorically considered functionally junk by extension, which seems an imbalanced view to me.

I never said they were junk. I said that they're not in the same class as the older revolvers when it comes down to workmanship and attention to detail...detail that sometimes isn't apparent until the sideplates come off...and then sometimes only to the trained eye. To the layman, there's little difference. To the toolmaker, the skilled hand shows.

Lay hands on a Purdey or Westley Richards double rifle and compare the break action to an off the rack double rifle or shotgun. You can almost feel every stroke of the stone that was used to fit it.

Bubba613
June 20, 2013, 03:43 PM
And why does it always come back to competition? Some of us...myself included...couldn't care less about competition. Competition and the tuned guns that the shooters run have about as much to do with the question as arguing over the top speed of a pickup truck vs a Super Stock drag car. Interesting, perhaps...but irrelevant.

Believe it or not, some people use guns to shoot with. True story.

Drail
June 20, 2013, 04:53 PM
Good one Bubba.

Owen
June 20, 2013, 05:08 PM
Quote:
Back up another 30 years and find a nice Smith & Wesson still in good shape that dates back to the 30s or 40s, and you can feel the difference just by pickin' it up.

I find that they have an aura that one can feel before even seeing it.


I wonder how much of this is the survivor fallacy. Only the best samples have made it this long, so everyone thinks that the what remains are typical of production back in the day, ignoring that some signifigant fraction has become unserviceable and disposed of.

PabloJ
June 20, 2013, 05:19 PM
As a shooter I would not care whether revolver has MIM parts or not. Having owned more then couple over last 20 years I can say is older ones were made to higher standard then the newer ones. There is no doubt about that.

Old Fuff
June 20, 2013, 05:24 PM
Believe it or not, some people use guns to shoot with.

Indeed so, but the number of those who are not combat game competitors far, far exceeds those who are.

Of course the same might be said about those who prefer the older over the newer, but if you are implying that they don't ever shoot what they have you're wrong.

Bubba613
June 20, 2013, 05:48 PM
Of course they shoot them. Some. But it is a matter of performance. And guns made today perform much better.
The analogy to cars is a very apt one. A Duesenberg is a gorgeous car, made by skilled craftsmen. To make a car like that today would take many many thousands of dollars. But no one would buy one to drive around in. From a performance perspective a mid range import or something will drive better faster, last longer, be more comfortable and cheaper to operate than the Duesy. Do people who own them drive them? Well, yeah. Sort of. But it isnt the kind of thing you take to work. Same with the old Smiths.

CraigC
June 20, 2013, 06:07 PM
And guns made today perform much better.
This is your silly opinion with nothing to support it. Period.

The car analogy is a poor one. The new car "will drive better faster, last longer, be more comfortable and cheaper to operate" because technology has improved vastly. New S&W's are the same basic design they were 100yrs ago. Cars are not. Old car technology is outdated. Hand-building is not. If you want the most accurate, longest lasting revolvers made today, you don't buy a new injection molded S&W. You buy a hand-built Freedom Arms, Korth, Manurhin or a hand-built custom. NONE of those guns use injection molded parts. Same for anything else.

But 'some' people have their mind made up and won't be swayed by the facts. :rolleyes:

MrBorland
June 20, 2013, 06:23 PM
I was thinking of a car analogy, too, but more like a modern Überauto, handbuilt by craftsmen in Stuttgart.

It's unquestionably a wonderful car, and does everything I need my daily driver to do, and in style. But I hate exposing it to the elements, the stones that get kicked up on the road, etc. And when it's time to fix something, it goes to the Überauto dealer, and I only get it back after they order the necessary unobtainium, and hand fit it. I love the car, but eventually it stays garaged while I drive my mass-produced BMW to work. I still see other Überautos on the road, admire them, and give 'em the thumbs-up, but know my Bimmer is a fine car, and that I made the right decision for me.

45_auto
June 20, 2013, 06:27 PM
You buy a hand-built Freedom Arms, Korth, Manurhin or a hand-built custom.

Exactly which parts do you believe are "hand-built" on a Freedom Arms, Korth, or Manurhin?

CraigC
June 20, 2013, 06:47 PM
Exactly which parts do you believe are "hand-built" on a Freedom Arms, Korth, or Manurhin?
I said the guns were hand-built. As in, not taken off a CNC machine and slapped together by an assembler with injection molded parts from a bin. This is the difference between the master craftsman like Hamilton Bowen and the guys that put guns together at S&W.

Bubba613
June 20, 2013, 08:06 PM
The car analogy is a poor one. The new car "will drive better faster, last longer, be more comfortable and cheaper to operate" because technology has improved vastly. New S&W's are the same basic design they were 100yrs ago. Cars are not. Old car technology is outdated. Hand-building is not. If you want the most accurate, longest lasting revolvers made today, you don't buy a new injection molded S&W. You buy a hand-built Freedom Arms, Korth, Manurhin or a hand-built custom. NONE of those guns use injection molded parts. Same for anything else.

If you think Smiths are exactly the same as they were 100 years ago I'd recommend strongly looking into how they are produced. The materials and methods used are nothing like what they were in the past.

I suppose you could buy a hand built car too. And it would be about as useful as a handbuilt Freedom Arms (are they really?). Something to take out every now and then to wow your friends. Not a serious firearm.

Old Fuff
June 20, 2013, 09:11 PM
Something (Freedom Arms) to take out every now and then to wow your friends. Not a serious firearm.

They are serious enough to shoot 3" groups and under at 100 yards. :what:

They have line-bored chambers, which even the best Smith & Wesson's don't. The difference is that each of the line-bored chambers will be absolutely concentric with the bore, and locked into alignment. This insures that one or more chambers won't throw a flyer.

Now if I was going to one of the combat games this wouldn't be much of consequence, but if shooting at an IHMSA (Intl. Handgun Metalic Shooting Association) Tournament where targets go out to 200 meters (over twice the length of 2 football fields) it might well make the difference between being a winner rather then an also-ran.

Which tool one picks had better be determined by what kind of shooting is called for, and Freedom Arms are built like a tank, made of the same stainless steel alloys that go into Smith & Wesson's and will last at least as long (and likely longer) then anything S&W is building. Their simple single-action design has fewer parts to go wrong. ;)

MrBorland
June 20, 2013, 09:25 PM
as useful as a handbuilt Freedom Arms (are they really?). Something to take out every now and then to wow your friends. Not a serious firearm

Oh, Lord. You're on your own, Bubba.

Serious is as serious does. I have no issues with using the right tool for the job.

1911Tuner
June 20, 2013, 09:38 PM
Believe it or not, some people use guns to shoot with.

And...Unless we compete we don't really shoot?

Seriously?

Wow.

This comes as something of a shock to me. I haven't competed since the early 80s, but I still seem to have burned through over a half million rounds of ammunition since I dropped out just through the pistols and revolvers...not counting rifles...by conservative estimate.

And a good bit of that was through pre-Bangor Punta Smiths, and they held up just fine.

Does that count as shooting? If not, please...tell me, do...what was it?

back40
June 20, 2013, 10:18 PM
Freedom Arms... Something to take out every now and then to wow your friends. Not a serious firearm.

this thread has been entertaining, but this comment takes the cake.:rolleyes:

CraigC
June 20, 2013, 10:23 PM
Not a serious firearm
I've decided that Bubba is just a comedian practicing his craft.

Jim K
June 20, 2013, 10:28 PM
That new fangled steel will never be any good for guns - heck, if you heat it too hot it gets brittle. Look at springs, always breaking, which proves steel is just no good for making guns. There is nothing better than good old fashioned wrought iron and if some fool wants it hard you can always case harden it.

"Old" Jim

skidder
June 20, 2013, 10:40 PM
And a good bit of that was through pre-Bangor Punta Smiths, and they held up just fine.

Id take a Bangor Punta Smith any-day over a current MIM Smith.

WOW, Skidder that is a bold statement. Bold and true. The crap getting shoved on today's "spray and pray" generation makes me wanna regurgitate :barf:.

Not only S&W, but any "high production" manufacturer. They raise the price and market their higher end product (similar to the base product of yesterday) under labels like "high performance" and "classic". People with little discernment see this and come running... tripping over their checkbooks.

Let me ask you a question. If the older Smiths aren't better than the current, than why does S&W put such a high price on their so called "classics"? I'll tell you why. Attention to detail is synonymous to "man hours". And anybody with half a noodle knows that an increase in man hours is an increase in production cost.

Yes, you can still get a functional revolver today, but you will never see the detail of old, unless you pay the extra for the "man hours".

CraigC
June 20, 2013, 11:10 PM
Id take a Bangor Punta Smith any-day over a current MIM Smith.
Amen brother!

oneounceload
June 21, 2013, 01:56 AM
Smith + Wesson went to MIM parts for one reson to cut cost.

As did auto makers, airplane makers and everyone else - so WHAT? Either the guns perform as designed and made or they don't - MIM failures are miniscule compared to the other short cuts taken - just ask owners of 870 Expresses how the rough chambers are doing. Cutting costs is necessary when the bulk of the buying public wants nothing but CHEAP, no matter what. Buy cheap, get cheap - then don't complain

Quality goods, no matter what they are, cost - plain and simple

If a company can use a new material or process to save $$$ and accomplish the same goal, then that is simply good business

murf
June 21, 2013, 03:36 AM
we could get another three pages out of this if we start talking about plastic vs. steel. i hear plastic polishes up nice, though.

murf

PabloJ
June 21, 2013, 04:56 AM
we could get another three pages out of this if we start talking about plastic vs. steel. i hear plastic polishes up nice, though.

murf
Actually I would not mind trying one of those made in CCCP top-break .357 revolvers with plastic frame.

Ash
June 21, 2013, 06:21 AM
Bubba jumped the shark.

It is true that modern tech allows revolvers to be assembled without as much hand fitting. It is also true that hand fitting was required of the older revolvers because technology did not allow for the more precise clearances required to assemble and time revolvers consistently. It is not true that the hand fitting resulted in an inferior firearm.

Folks want to use cars and competition as an example, but they cannot be. If you want to compare apples to apples, then what they drive in NASCAR must be the best cars on the road. How many miles does a race car drive before it replaces its engines? Should we all drive with slick tires because that is what the most competitive drivers - and according to Bubba only they would be real drivers - use?

Shall I don football cleats because that is what real athletes wear? Ah, crap, wait, running shoes, no, wait, basketball shoes, no, wait, bike shoes, no, wait, ski boots...

I don't compete, so my foot wear needs are meaningless...I suppose I ought to go about bare-footed. My Keen's just aren't real boots because that is not what they wear in the Olympics, right?

Competitors use newer pistols because they wear parts out quickly and have to replace them. It is easier to replace parts on a new revolver than an older one. Sights also tend to be better. They don't use them because modern revolvers are the best revolvers, they use them because they are the best to keep running as parts replacement is easier. It isn't rocket science.

But, since Olympic competitors use single-shot 22lr's, then only real shooters, only serious shooters, shoot 22's, right?

evan price
June 21, 2013, 06:46 AM
@ skidder & Craigc:

Yes, and I have many times. While B-P era Smiths are not the 'desireable' ones like pre-1957 S&Ws, I have to say that so far every one of my Smiths from the 'dark days of Bangor-Punta' is quite acceptable and in my mind superior to the ones from the 'dark days of Tomkins'.

1911Tuner
June 21, 2013, 07:35 AM
Guess it's time to jump off this one.

But, for the record...

My first love was and is the revolver. I cut my teeth on long-action Smiths, and have owned, handled, and extensively fired old, new, and in-between examples since 1960, and can attest to the differences. To me, it's sad...almost tragic...that the up and coming crop of revolver fans may never have the opportunity to experience an old long-action Smith & Wesson. They're still around...many in excellent condition...but the smart collectors are keeping them out of sight for the most part, firing them only occasionally so as to preserve them in their present conditions for future generations and the lucky ones who will eventually wind up with them.

I lament their passing. I have to wonder what the thinking heads at Smith & Wesson were thinking...but the point is moot.

Cheers!

460Kodiak
June 21, 2013, 09:13 AM
quote:
Freedom arms... Something to take out every now and then to wow your friends. Not a serious firearm.

This thread has been entertaining, but this comment takes the cake.

lol!!!! +1

MartinS
June 21, 2013, 06:16 PM
Sure and iron does get sharp and it holds an edge but if you don't get the fire just right it'll break like Phoenician glass when it hits something hard You want a real battle bade, get bronze every time.

glocking26
June 21, 2013, 07:36 PM
All you guys waving your pom poms for the new improved Smith & Wesson's talk to me after you call S+W for your return shipping lable.;)

rswartsell
June 21, 2013, 07:36 PM
'45 Auto,

Please examine this carefully.

1. Does this look like current Smith production?
2. Which parts in the picture are MIM?
3. What production method would deliver this pattern in specs on a consistent basis?

http://i441.photobucket.com/albums/qq136/rswartsell/Korthcutaway3a.jpg (http://s441.photobucket.com/user/rswartsell/media/Korthcutaway3a.jpg.html)


If cost was truly "no object" you could use such a thing (perhaps modified to the same standards) as a "race gun" replacing any worn part at will.

4. Who has such resources without sponsorship from a more "commercial" brand?

This photo is from the Korth website and (I assume) is copyrighted against commercial reproduction, but is acceptable for credited "fair use" applications. We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

You do have to give Smith credit for the genius involved in delivering most of what is involved here on a "mass production", affordable, "drop in" (relatively) parts basis. That took some doing and current Smiths are highly acceptable for most purposes. They wouldn't be prospering if that were not so. That does not excuse making wildly uninformed claims as if you knew them as gospel. Or knighting the "almost" as "there".

Jaymo
June 22, 2013, 01:37 AM
We still talking about turd polishing here?

buck460XVR
June 22, 2013, 12:33 PM
The car analogy is a poor one. If you want the most accurate, longest lasting revolvers made today, you don't buy a new injection molded S&W. You buy a hand-built Freedom Arms, Korth, Manurhin or a hand-built custom. NONE of those guns use injection molded parts. Same for anything else.


The FA revolvers are twice the cost of their similar Performance Center S&W counterparts. Korth's are more than that and make no revolvers larger than .357. The car analogy in this case is a good one. You want to compare a Porsche to a Ford. Of course there is no comparison....but neither is their price tag. Ruger fans for years have used the argument that altho the Ruger Revolvers fit/finish/trigger are no where what S&W's are, that because they perform the same duties for much less money they still are a good buy. When it comes to firearms, stayin' within ones budget and buyin' as much quality as one truly needs and can afford is generally as much concern to someone that want's to shoot the firearm as is how purdy she is. Getting a quality modern firearm, with a lifetime warranty for half as much(if not less) that will perform just as well within the parameters of the owner's needs is not really argumentative. It just makes too much sense. I'm sure everyone here would like to have a FA, or a Korth in their collection, just like we all would like to have a Porsche in our garage. To most, is is not in the cards. So we just continue to polish our "turds".

As for the long trigger, if folks grew up and learned on them, I'm sure they still prefer the feel of them and they work better for them than others. I grew up learnin' to hunt upland game with my grandpa's SxS's and I still prefer one for hunting. Most of my younger hunting buddies(oldest son included) grew up with O/U's and autos and prefer them. Not really a coincidence to me.

The continued snibblin' and fightin' over who makes the prettiest gun or which caliber is the most versatile/potent as opposed to embracing the fact we all enjoy the shooting sports really seems flagrantly ironic in a forum called "The High Road". I tried to stay outta this cat fight as long as I could, cause it's going to the same side of the gutter as similar threads where the same two or three folks are lookin' for an excuse to bash S&W/the MIM process. Same old ship....just another day.

CraigC
June 22, 2013, 01:29 PM
The FA revolvers are twice the cost of their similar Performance Center S&W counterparts.
That's part of my point. The point being that Bubba is convinced that new S&W's that are assembled with MIM innards are better older S&W's with hand-fitted forged innards, yet no high end manufacturer uses MIM parts. They use forgings and they hand-fit them. So if the best firearms in the world use hand fitted forged parts (and no MIM parts) and older S&W's use hand-fitted forged parts, then how can a logical individual come to the conclusion that new S&W's assembled with MIM parts are better???

They are not better. They work reasonably well but like everything else made today, manufacturing costs are cut everywhere possible. People these days are more concerned with costs that quality. It's obvious everywhere you look.

No, the car analogy is a poor one. Automotive technology has improved exponentially. I'm pretty sure there was no computer controlled EFI, displacement on demand, electronic computerized ignitions that allows high compression compatible with pump gas that did not exist when Deusenbergs were on the road. By contrast, very little has changed about the way revolvers function and are manufactured.

Here's a halfway decent car analogy. A Mustang will get you from point A to point B but a hand-built Aston-Martin, Rolls-Royce or Bentley is irrefutably of higher quality. The fit & finish is vastly superior as are materials and craftsmanship.


I tried to stay outta this cat fight as long as I could, cause it's going to the same side of the gutter as similar threads where the same two or three folks are lookin' for an excuse to bash S&W/the MIM process.
You didn't try very hard. This thread was on its last legs and I had completely given up on it until you quoted me.

For the record, I'm not bashing MIM. You're just not going to convince me that the guns are better because everything I know and believe tells me the opposite. Some folks don't care about the difference, some do. Those that don't will never convince those that do otherwise.

MrBorland
June 22, 2013, 01:55 PM
A Mustang will get you from point A to point B but a hand-built Aston-Martin, Rolls-Royce or Bentley is irrefutably of higher quality. The fit & finish is vastly superior as are materials and craftsmanship.

And I made a similar car analogy in my last post, coming to a "ok, fine, but so what?" conclusion.

Read my analogy again: In the real world, there's more to real-world car (and gun) ownership than top-end materials and craftsmanship, so there can be trade-offs. It's worth the trade-off to some, and not to others.

But somehow those in the 1st group seem to think those in the 2nd group claim their Mustang is as fine as their beloved Bentley, which apparently riles the beejeebers out of them. But maybe the 2nd group (Bubba notwithstanding) is just saying, "Of course it's not a Bentley, but so what? It gets me to work every day, it's reliable, it's fun and I'm a good driver to boot. I just choose to keep my Bentley in the garage." :cool:

buck460XVR
June 22, 2013, 03:13 PM
That's part of my point. The point being that Bubba is convinced that new S&W's that are assembled with MIM innards are better older S&W's with hand-fitted forged innards, yet no high end manufacturer uses MIM parts. They use forgings and they hand-fit them. So if the best firearms in the world use hand fitted forged parts (and no MIM parts) and older S&W's use hand-fitted forged parts, then how can a logical individual come to the conclusion that new S&W's assembled with MIM parts are better???

Using the same reasoning tho, just because they once used hand-fitted parts, did not necessarily make them "the best firearms in the world". At that time, every firearm manufacturer used the exact same technology.......even the ones producing crap. It was all they had back then. Hand fitted parts does not equate to quality. It takes the quality and the skill of the handfitter/Smith to do that.


They are not better.

Better is a relative and in many cases a subjective term. Is there documentation anywhere showing that older S&Ws were more accurate, more reliable and needed less maintenance than newer ones? Could the older guns take more abuse than the newer guns? To many this would be the deciding factor as opposed to preference to looks/finish and assembly procedures. To many those are what defines performance and "better". To many, the option of shooting a firearm without fear of breaking it and not being able to find parts to "fix" it defines what is better. To many, having a firearm they can afford to own, as opposed to one they wish they could afford, makes it better. We all have our opinions, thank God they are not all the same, or what a boring world this would be.





You didn't try very hard. This thread was on its last legs and I had completely given up on it until you quoted me.

For the record, I'm not bashing MIM. You're just not going to convince me that the guns are better because everything I know and believe tells me the opposite. Some folks don't care about the difference, some do. Those that don't will never convince those that do otherwise.

I tried harder than you think Craig. This thread was 4 pages long and you had 9-10 posts in it before I chimed in. No where did I say my preference in revolvers was better than others. From experience I know I have no chance in 'ell of changin' your mind about anything. You have a right to your opinion and I respect that. I am not making condescending remarks to attempt to show others the superiority of my choices. I ask you do the same of others. While I agree that cost cutting and profit margin for shareholders has done little to improve the quality of any mass produced products in this country, I think S&W, Ruger, Colt and other major manufacturers that use the MIM process in the making of their firearms are still producing quality firearms. While paying many times over their asking price for a similar custom firearm may get me a prettier firearm or more braggin' rights, I still am not convinced that it will perform many times over for me in the scenarios I encounter.

As for the car analogy, MrBorland did a fine job of relating. Since this thread is on it's last leg anyway......I'll be done.

CraigC
June 22, 2013, 04:21 PM
deleted.....

Owen
June 22, 2013, 08:19 PM
yet no high end manufacturer uses MIM parts

ANd no high-end manufacturer will, because of the perception of MIM. It's a self-licking ice cream cone.

Also note that production levels have to be fairly high for MIM to be worthwhile. For companies like Korth that are only making a few hundred guns a year, at best, machined and hand fit parts are cheaper.

Bubba613
June 23, 2013, 09:14 AM
That's part of my point. The point being that Bubba is convinced that new S&W's that are assembled with MIM innards are better older S&W's with hand-fitted forged innards, yet no high end manufacturer uses MIM parts. They use forgings and they hand-fit them. So if the best firearms in the world use hand fitted forged parts (and no MIM parts) and older S&W's use hand-fitted forged parts, then how can a logical individual come to the conclusion that new S&W's assembled with MIM parts are better???

You seem to want to equate cost with quality. If someone produced revolvers where each one was made by one craftsman hammering out steel at a forge you would doubtless swear this was the ultimate revolver on the market.
The truth is less tidy. Today's Smiths are better in terms of function and durability. Despite some nostalgia voiced here for the allegedly "silky smooth pre war long action" (they sucked because few people shot DA) the shorter action with mim parts and modern steels simply perform better. Parts are produced to much tighter tolerances. The metal is higher quality.

MrBorland
June 23, 2013, 09:51 AM
You seem to want to equate cost with quality....The truth is less tidy.

There's a grain of truth to this, but it's easy to extrapolate too far. To be sure, quality of the end product is in materials, and execution. Any widget can be hand built using only the best materials, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the widget will, in the end, be a better widget. If that weren't true, S&W could've/would've hired monkeys to do the hand fitting.

Furthermore, in building the widget, the maker, over time, may so refine the specs of each piece that they know if parts "A" and "B" are made with CNC machines to exact specs to begin with, little or no handfitting is needed, and the end product can be a fine piece. That said, CNC machines need calibration, and the onus is on the manufacturer to maintain that calibration and/or catch out-of-spec parts before they go into the widget, or catch the widget before it gets shipped. Therein lies the rub, it seems.

As far as metallurgy, here too, is a grain of truth can easily be extrapolated too far: I'm no metallurgist, but it's not inconceivable that the metal used in critical parts such as the frame, cylinder & barrel is stronger today than it was in the early 20th century. But the issue here are the MIM innards, which aren't likely as strong as their forged counterparts. Used correctly, they're strong enough, though and work fine.

Sure, my perfect revolver would have the features of newer guns, but contain all-forged innards. Whether they were hand-fitted or CNC machined is less important to me so long as they're perfectly in spec and the gun works as it should. Unfortunately, my perfect revolver doesn't exist, so I have to make a choice, and make my own adjustments if necessary. Guns aren't immutable, after all. ;)

CraigC
June 23, 2013, 09:56 AM
made with CNC machines to exact specs to begin with, little or no handfitting is needed, and the end product can be just as fine.
CNC machines are no free lunch. They must be properly setup and the cutters must be replaced more often, the tighter you want your tolerances to be. Which costs money, a lot of money. USFA's and FA's aren't expensive for no reason. It's expensive to produce precise parts, even on a CNC.


You seem to want to equate cost with quality.
If that were true, the new S&W's would be GRRRREAT!!! :rolleyes:

You seem to have the need to believe that your choice is the best, even if it ain't.


Today's Smiths are better in terms of function and durability.
This is your opinion and you can't prove it.


The metal is higher quality.
Another popular misconception.


I'm done with this.

Collector0311
June 23, 2013, 10:20 AM
So this is all new to me, and I'm gonna throw a question into the argument and see who bites.
I've got a new 637pc (non-Wyatt)
Which parts that y'all are talking about are MIM?
And if you arguments aren't about frame and cylinder materials but guts, is there a manufacturer of forged replacement parts you can swap with your MIM parts?
If so, would you see a real difference, or would it take running identical weapons, with different internals, simultaneously, for the duration of their lives to settle this argument?

MrBorland
June 23, 2013, 11:11 AM
made with CNC machines to exact specs to begin with, little or no handfitting is needed, and the end product can be just as fine.

CNC machines are no free lunch. They must be properly setup and the cutters must be replaced more often, the tighter you want your tolerances to be.

Sheesh, Craig, my very next sentence said as much. This picking and choosing of words is what keeps this fire needlessly stoked. :(


So this is all new to me, and I'm gonna throw a question into the argument and see who bites.
I've got a new 637pc (non-Wyatt)

This is one of the problems with these old/new threads. Your 637 is likely a fine gun, but you've read the thread, and now you're concerned and confused. :(

Which parts that y'all are talking about are MIM?

Mainly the hammer, sear, trigger. You can tell if a trigger's MIM by looking at the back of it: If it's MIM, it'll be hollowed out.

And if you arguments aren't about frame and cylinder materials but guts, is there a manufacturer of forged replacement parts you can swap with your MIM parts?

Pre-/post-MIM warriors jabber not just about MIM parts, but about fitting of other parts, such as barrel into the frame, sideplate, fit of the yoke, alignment of the cylinder to the barrel, etc...It'll go on ad infinitum.

If your 627 is a newer one, with frame-mounted firing pin, you can get a DAO forged hammer from Apex Tactical. It's pricey, but a nice piece. You'll need sundry parts, such as the old-style sear, and likely a gunsmith to fit it. You can buy and aftermarket forged trigger from Power Custom. S&W's Performance Center guns used to be made with forged internals, so I'm guessing you can likely get some of these PC parts as replacement. If your PC revo has a forged trigger, it likely already has other forged internals as well.


If so, would you see a real difference, or would it take running identical weapons, with different internals, simultaneously, for the duration of their lives to settle this argument?

Maybe or maybe not even the latter. So long as the action's smooth, it's got good sights, and the gun is accurate, you'll not likely notice any difference. When the rubber hits the road, newer guns can be all this. It'd likely benefit from a good action job (without replacing MIM parts), but it's a rare gun, new or old, that can't benefit from that anyway.

At this point, I'll take a cue from others, and say goodbye. Cheers, all.

Old Fuff
June 23, 2013, 11:33 AM
So this is all new to me, and I'm gonna throw a question into the argument and see who bites.

The Old Fuff is always ready to bite - which is the reason he's sometimes bitten. :D

I've got a new 637pc (non-Wyatt)
Which parts that y'all are talking about are MIM?

I didn't bother to look it up, but the basic revolver is a J-frame snubby with an exposed hammer you can cock with your thumb. The frame is made of aluminum, the cylinder and barrel from stainless steel, and only the lockwork and some related parts (such as the cylinder release thumbpiece) are MIM (Metal Injected Molded).

And if you arguments aren't about frame and cylinder materials but guts, is there a manufacturer of forged replacement parts you can swap with your MIM parts?

No. But one company does make a lockwork kit for J-frame revolvers that have fully enclosed hammers and are double-action-only. If you want to spend the money you could have the lockwork rebuilt using older "real steel" ;) parts with the exception of the hammer. This is because the MIM hammer is designed to work with Smith & Wesson's internal lock, and the older hammers weren't and couldn't be easily modified too do so. On your particular revolver I wouldn't spend the money.

If so, would you see a real difference, or would it take running identical weapons, with different internals, simultaneously, for the duration of their lives to settle this argument?

On the small J-frame the difference probably wouldn't be a whole lot. To the degree they're is doesn't depend on making a part swap as much as it does how those parts are assembled. These days at S&W somebody picks out parts at random and puts them into the frame. If everything seems to be working they put a sideplate on, and it's good too go. If they're is any individual fitting it's very limited and unintended. Close tolerances is supposed to make this possible. In actually life it usually does, but not always. If you bought a Performance Center gun you paid for better-then-average, and I hope you got it.

Unless you fire a lot of Thunder-Boomer/Man Stomper/Super Tactical amunition in it I would expect it to maybe outlive you, but I'd also say the same thing about an older pre-MIM revolver.

The real issue (at least so far as I'm concerned) is the fit & finish and attention to detail is better on the older guns. Cost-cutting changes may or may not affect fuction, but they seldom reflect a finer product.

Collector0311
June 23, 2013, 11:40 AM
185576

Back of the trigger has a recess, compared to the cylinder and barrel, obviously looks like a different style of material.
No concerns here, just trying to learn.
Absolutely in love with the fit, finish, and performance of this Smith.

CraigC
June 23, 2013, 11:56 AM
This picking and choosing of words is what keeps this fire needlessly stoked.
I wasn't trying to pick a fight with that comment. Just extrapolating on your point.

Old Fuff
June 23, 2013, 11:57 AM
Back of the trigger has a recess, compared to the cylinder and barrel, obviously looks like a different style of material.

No surprise, and since it has an internal lock (above the cylinder release thumbpiece) it also has a MIM hammer.

No concerns here, just trying to learn. Absolutely in love with the fit, finish, and performance of this Smith.

If you're satisfied nothing else matters. Most current buyers are. It is those with experience that goes back to the end of World War Two - or further - that see any difference.

Old Fuff
June 23, 2013, 12:35 PM
Despite some nostalgia voiced here for the allegedly "silky smooth pre war long action" (they sucked because few people shot DA) the shorter action with mim parts and modern steels simply perform better.

While it's true that most users - then and now - mostly use the single-action mode when shooting hand-ejector revolvers that have both single-action and double-action options, those that prior to 1946 did "trigger fire" much prefered the S&W long action.

But because the majority - and in particular, bullseye target shooters - thumb-cocked - about 1939-40 Smith & Wsson decided to redesign their lockwork to get a shorter cocking stroke, and in doing so had to do the same with the double-action. World War Two got in the way, but in 1946 they introduced a new "short-action," and it was quickly noticed it didn't have the same smooth double-action that some fans were used to.

Fast forward to now: Recently Ruger introduced a little small-frame, inclosed hammer, snubby. Before long the Internet was filled with chatter about how good the trigger pull was on this double-action-only revolver, and how it substantually outclassed similar Smith & Wesson's.

So the Old Fuff looked into this to see why, and discovered that the old S&W long action had been reproduced by a different maker. :eek:

What goes around comes around - or so they say. ;)

One authority on the subject of double-action trigger pulls was a Border Patrolman named Bill Jordan. He wasn't a combat game competitor, but he did have a lot of experience when it came to the real thing.

One of his favorites was on old S&W .38 Military & Police of World War One give-or-take vintage. It had belonged to an Uncle who'd lived a very interesting life, and when Bill got it he'd had the the original 5" barrel replaced with a 4" H.B. normally found on a much later Model 10. He often used it when giving fast-draw demonstrations because it had "The best double-action trigger pull of any revolver I've ever owned."

And he had owned a considerable number of them.

1911Tuner
June 24, 2013, 01:54 PM
Fast forward to now: Recently Ruger introduced a little small-frame, inclosed hammer, snubby. Before long the Internet was filled with chatter about how good the trigger pull was on this double-action-only revolver, and how it substantually outclassed similar Smith & Wesson's.

So the Old Fuff looked into this to see why, and discovered that the old S&W long action had been reproduced by a different maker.

Interesting and good to know. And Ruger will get the accolades for this "innovation" because there are so few old, long action Smiths in circulation that only those who remember them will understand.

In addition to Bill Jordan, another real pistolero who used them to good effect was one Delf A."Jelly" Bryce, who killed 19 men in real gunfights over his career. So dangerous and fearfully effective was Bryce, that he was usually called in for only the most desperate outlaws. Bryce's rules of the game were simple. Surrender or die.

It was said that he carried an aura of death with him, and that very often, his mere presence on the scene caused several hardened criminals to immediately surrender in spite of vowing not to be taken alive. Even the ones who'd never heard of him seemed to sense that death had come to call. Among his contemporaries, it became known as "The Bryce Effect."

And let's not forget exhibition shooter Ed McGivern, who taught us how to do it "Fast and Fancy."

We who know'em understand. Them that don't...won't...until they shoot one a few times.

Bubba613
June 24, 2013, 07:48 PM
We who know'em understand. Them that don't...won't...until they shoot one a few times.
:rolleyes:

Old Fuff
June 24, 2013, 07:55 PM
Now Bubba...

You go play with your toys, and let us do the same with ours, and everybody will be happy. ;) Just be careful you don't shoot yourself in the foot. :evil:

rswartsell
June 24, 2013, 08:06 PM
No doubt this thread got sidetracked from the original intent. That does not mean that it can't carry water for some of the best intentions and results of forums such as this and THR in particular.

As in any crowded room there are numerous voices being raised at any time and numerous strong opinions (informed and otherwise) behind them.

Disparate good, informed opinions based on respectable experience and perception can be simultaneously true. My only intent here was to rebut the uninformed opinion that the "old" Smiths were junk by comparison to new, space age technology and constantly higher expectations. Not the reverse. This viewpoint (long actions are junk for current application) exposes a lack of "context" and intimate knowledge of the "long action" and possibly other "classic" firearms that I could perhaps shed a little light on by age and hands on experience. I am sure the same is true of some others here (Old Fuff and 1911 Tuner just to name a few, not meant to be exhaustive).

You don't profit by the use of these forums by "winning" the rhetorical jousting near as much as you do by picking up the nuggets from the old hands (possibly younger than you, but experienced where you are not). Each man has his day to be "wrong" in turn, the wise will always profit no matter the turn of events.

Choose what is correct for your purposes and have good reasons for doing so. Your reasons will always benefit by being better informed. Being as informed as you can will always suffer by making your sole focus "winning" with what you know now. Not a good way to gain new information.

I believe that the "golden age" of American revolvers began shortly after heat treating steel became established and ended with the advent of production cost cutting starting say about 1969, this for the reasons already stated here. Listen to why I think so and you will not be compelled to agree with me, but perhaps pick up something you did not know. I in turn will always bear the need to also learn from you. Initially,..... I thought MIM was a complete sell out and junk. My opinion has changed quite a bit by paying attention to what is shared in places like this.

1911Tuner
June 25, 2013, 07:06 AM
Well said, rwartsell. It seems that in this age of the common man, all too often experience is trumped by belief.

"If THIS gun performed perfectly for ME, then THIS gun is the best gun ever made and if THAT gun didn't...it's junk."

And no amount of reasoning will convince "him" otherwise.

As for MIM, of course it can be polished. It's metal. Any metal can be polished...even lead. The question is: "To what end?"

And good MIM can be very good, while bad MIM is worse than junk. The problem is that one can't usually tell the difference between good MIM and bad MIM by visual inspection. On the upside...if it's bad...it generally shows up pretty quickly. If an MIM part lasts for 500 cycles, it'll probably last for 50,000.

As many have noted, the widespread use of MIM is about cost of production and keeping prices low enough to sell more guns...not about making a better gun. If experience has taught us nothing else, it's that making a part or a whole gun cheaper rarely results in a superior product...and "good enough" doesn't mean that it's optimum.

It just means that it's been made more affordable to the common man who drives a common van, whose dog doesn't have a pedigree.

The GOOD thing about MIM is that as long as the process is strictly followed...and the material is consistent...every part that pops out of the mold is dimensionally and functionally the same from the first one to the last.

Finally, not every part of a gun is suited for MIM or investment casting. This is why we don't see MIM or cast barrels and cylinders, among other parts. If the engineers could have found a way to successfully make these things using the MIM or investment cast process, you can bet the farm that they would have by now.

Bubba613
June 25, 2013, 11:01 AM
Well said, rwartsell. It seems that in this age of the common man, all too often experience is trumped by belief.

"If THIS gun performed perfectly for ME, then THIS gun is the best gun ever made and if THAT gun didn't...it's junk."

And no amount of reasoning will convince "him" otherwise.

Irony is ironic.

I'll have to beg to differ. I've handled and examined a lot of Smith & Wesson revolvers over the last 40 years...old, new, and in-between...and don't get me wrong. I love my 686s and 581s and especially my Model 58s and Model 10s...but there's really no comparison in the quality and workmanship. And, if we take arranged matches and split times out of the equation, I'd much prefer the silky long action of the older Smiths hands down, whether shooting for giggles or for blood. If only I could get replacement parts...but that's another story.

Walkalong
June 25, 2013, 11:26 AM
The old Smiths and Colts were masterpieces of American craftsmanship in a revolver. It was a time when labor was cheap, money was scarce, and everyone was trying to make a better, longer lasting product, whether it was guns or appliances.

These days we have gone the other route, where everyone is trying to make things as cheaply as possible to outsell the other guy, money is plentiful (I'll buy a new "one" if this one craps out), but labor is expensive (MIM).

I truly love the older guns, and wish I could afford a truckload of them, but I also have a 696-1 with a MIM hammer and trigger (At least), and it is a wonderful gun with a superb DA that makes it easy to shoot well. I love it.

Times have changed, and things are different. We may never see the glory days of the American revolver again, but that doesn't mean the new guns are crap, they are not, just different. They lack that aura of quality and craftsmanship the old guns have. :)

Old Fuff
June 25, 2013, 11:29 AM
Obviously Bubba613 thinks the current generation of S&W revolvers are the best ever, and his faith is unshaken.

Tuner, myself and others disagree, and we aren't going to change our minds either.

What all this means is that different folks see things from different perspectives. But so what!!!

Bubba can buy anything he wants from the company's current offerings, and others with different views can shop around for whatever they like.

Those following the thread can decide which of us (or none of us) have the best background, knowledge and experience. Then go forward to get whatever they think is best for them. None of us can enforce our judgments on others, and shouldn't be able to.

Meanwhile Smith & Wesson as well as other manufacturers are going to keep making (and hopefully selling) guns, and our opinions are unlikely to change the directions they are going. But this doesn't mean that all of us (unlike Bubba) have to follow along.

So what we have here is a tempest in a teapot.

Which is not to say that I don't enjoy what's going on. Part of the fun is taking the Bubba's of the world on, and from the other side I suspect he feels the same way.

1911Tuner
June 25, 2013, 01:58 PM
Irony is ironic.

Either you missed the point...or you think this signifies a victory somehow...or you just like to argue.

It was all about perspective. Like music. My generation says that today's music blows. When we were young, our parents said the same thing.

As to the new guns "outperforming" the old ones...that depends a lot on what the gun is used for. Without exception, everyone in my sphere of influence who I've offered a back to back comparison has been a little amazed at the difference in the double action triggers...and they made no mention of lock times or split times or speed shooting. They were simply caught off guard by the difference, having been accustomed to the newer short actions, and it takes a skilled revolver smith's attentions to match the old ones...and that's just the simple truth.

Can the same smith get the same results with newer sintered parts? I don't know. I haven't tried, other than installing a Wolff spring kit in a new design Smith 686 for a guy about 6 years ago...and all that did was lighten it up some. Being that it was pretty smooth as it was...and that Smith's lockwork tends to improve with use...I did no other work on the gun, so I can't really say.

I have done some pretty good action work on short-action Smiths, and they still never quite matched the pre-war .44 Hand Ejector that I held onto for years after my uncle killed himself with it. His son eventually asked me for the gun, and I reluctantly gave it up.

19-3Ben
June 25, 2013, 02:39 PM
Any widget can be hand built using only the best materials, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the widget will, in the end, be a better widget. If that weren't true, S&W could've/would've hired monkeys to do the hand fitting.

Nah, Century Arms already had the primate job pool cornered for firearms assembly! :D

Sorry. Couldn't help it. I now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

Thaddeus Jones
June 25, 2013, 02:52 PM
I was not going to post in this thread. Then I read 1911 Tuners excellent post.

I have no use for MIM. I just wanted to note that evidently S&W HAS been able to produce a MIM gun barrel.

The so-called "bodyguard", a 380 semi auto mouse gun, now comes with a MIM barrel. The ugly seam clearly visible on the top. Leave it to S&W.

The good news I guess, is that you can probably polish off the ugly seam. ;)

I wonder what the frag pattern is from a failed MIM barrel? :what: :)

1911Tuner
June 25, 2013, 03:58 PM
I wonder what the frag pattern is from a failed MIM barrel?

It'll likely just split along the seam.

Leave it to S&W.

I guess we'll see how it works out.

Jim Watson
June 25, 2013, 04:45 PM
The problem is, if you are shooting a long action Smith with milled parts, selectively assembled by an experienced employee, you are using an antique. Bill Jordan said he kept another long action gun as a parts donor for his smooth shooting old gun.

The only long action S&W I ever had was a First Model Hand Ejector .455 rather roughly converted to .45 Colt. My main recollection is not its traditional smoothness, but its heavy action due to the stout mainspring meant to fire in adverse conditions and its hard recoil with the narrow service stocks that the collectors so admire now.

Look at the competition.
S&W modernized, like it or not, Colt didn't. And now where are the Colts?
About the time S&W quit making the long action, but were still turning out the revolvers my generation considers the market standard, Chic Gaylord was praising the Colt Official Police for its quality and strength and recommending the Police Positive Special over the dinky Smith five-shooters.
But Colt couldn't make the turn in 1969 and went downhill until out of the business.

1911Tuner
June 25, 2013, 07:04 PM
Can't rely on military issue Smiths as representative, Jim. The gawdawful heavy mainsprings were installed in 1917 Smiths and Colts to compensate for the springiness of the half-moon clips. If yours was a lend lease revolver, it probably had the standard spring.

Jim Watson
June 25, 2013, 10:53 PM
Don't need no stinkin moon clips for .455 Webley.
Maybe the Brits used hard primers, a friend's Webley-Green is as well made as any Smith or Colt but has a very stout mainspring, too.

I'm going to talk to FLG about putting sights on a police trade in Smith M&P. If I can capture his interest for an unusual project, he will do it at experimental rates and not run the cost up to where I had just as well get a Combat Masterpiece.

1911Tuner
June 26, 2013, 05:54 AM
Don't need no stinkin moon clips for .455 Webley.

No, but if it was the same revolver rechambered for .455 they may not have bothered changing mainsprings.

Maybe the Brits used hard primers.

That could be it.

45_auto
June 26, 2013, 08:41 AM
'45 Auto,

Please examine this carefully.

1. Does this look like current Smith production?
2. Which parts in the picture are MIM?
3. What production method would deliver this pattern in specs on a consistent basis?




If cost was truly "no object" you could use such a thing (perhaps modified to the same standards) as a "race gun" replacing any worn part at will.

4. Who has such resources without sponsorship from a more "commercial" brand?

1) No, internals are all wrong.

2) No way to tell from your picture.

3) Most revolver parts are milling operations, and your pic looks pretty typical. Can be done by anyone with a mill if drawing tolerances are held tightly enough. Unfortunately, close tolerances = high cost. It's generally cheaper for items with low production quantities to make the parts slightly oversize, then have someone hand-fit them together and hope they get it right. Get a good person having a good day, and you can produce something equal to machine-made with tight tolerances. Get a not-so-good person or a good person having a not-so-good day, and you get a bad assembly. Hand-built means HUGE quality variations.

Really cracks me up when people point out how a Korth has to be hand-fitted to install the ball bearings. How do you think those ball bearings were made? Every single one of them has MUCH closer tolerances than any gun part. You really think some guy at the ball bearing factory sits there with a file and a stone working the balls and races until they meet roundness and concentricity standards? The same machine processes that produce ball bearings to high tolerances that no human can achieve (ABEC 1 inner ring concentricity is .000295", ABEC 9 is .000047") could produce the rest of the parts for handguns to the same standards if there were any market for it.

4) You've obviously never competed at higher levels of any type of competition. Material costs are a minimal consideration. If a $10,000 revolver would help someone win a national competition, they would be shooting it in a heartbeat. Golf clubs, tennis rackets, bicycles, guns, cars, boats, airplanes, whatever, if people compete with it then someone is going to buy the championship if possible.

We build literally hundreds of these every day, with tolerances and material specs that make your Korth look like something made by a caveman (people don't like to fall out of the air).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v682/46auto/Forum%20Posts%202/Gun%20Forum%20Pics/BR71501_zpsfa699be1.jpg

If anyone was serious about building the "best" revolver, they would be using modern super-alloys and construction methods. However, when "good enough" is indistinguishable from "best", there is no point in doing it any "better".

Jim Watson
June 26, 2013, 10:34 AM
No, but if it was the same revolver rechambered for .455 they may not have bothered changing mainsprings.

Almost the reverse. The British contracts were mostly in 1915 - For them it was the '14-'17 War, they were fighting a lot longer than we were. The half moon clip was a 1917 design rushed into production very quickly when we were engaged and needed more handguns. Very handy in a trench, you know.

And this particular gun was a First Model Hand Ejector, otherwise known in song and story as the Triple Lock, the acme of American revolver manufacture.

I wonder if there was MIM-style weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth when S&W quit putting reinforcing plates into the cylinder stop notches and left out the chafing bushings in the hammer. Not to mention the horrors of abandoning the third locking point. There have always been economy measures.

1911Tuner
June 26, 2013, 11:00 AM
And this particular gun was a First Model Hand Ejector, otherwise known in song and story as the Triple Lock, the acme of American revolver manufacture.

True that. Hard primers, maybe?

Not to mention the horrors of abandoning the third locking point. There have always been economy measures.

The 3rd locking point was later deemed unnecessary. Any time that a step can be eliminated without compromising the strength, durability, or function...it usually will be eventually.

I've heard rumor...not sure how accurate...that the 3rd locking point on the yoke/crane was eliminated because a piece of lint or dirt in the mechanism could possibly cause the cylinder to fail to fully enter the frame and lock in place.

Maybe Old Fuff can set the record straight.

1911Tuner
June 26, 2013, 11:28 AM
Back to the MIM question...

Nobody claimed that it was outright junk or that it wasn't good enough for the task. It obviously is, or it wouldn't still be with us.

The part that doesn't sit quite right with me is that it's essentially turned what was once a matter of skill and attention to detail in the final fitting into a drop-in assembly process. While that's been the method for building most autoloaders since WW2...for revolvers, it just...I dunno...seems wrong somehow. Maybe I've just got a soft spot for revolvers and they way they used to be built...but it's hard not to appreciate the skilled hand that went into those...and whether or not anybody else can see and feel a difference...I can. I'm willin' to bet that the Old Fuff can, as well.

rswartsell
June 26, 2013, 07:39 PM
45 auto,

Let me start by saying that as fellow Pelican staters, I'm hoping we become at least "cyber friends". But I'll play, as long as we are mutually respectful and enjoying ourselves while benefiting from the sharing. If you flat out want a "whose is bigger" pissing contest, OK by me but you'll need to find another dance partner.

To clarify what I meant, the reply was to

Exactly which parts do you believe are "hand-built" on a Freedom Arms, Korth, or Manurhin?

To clarify further,

1) No, internals are all wrong.

The intent here was that Smith & Wesson is FULLY capable of drawing up this (or similar) pattern. They are not attempting to because of what they have decided to produce. Price point, production methods and acceptable specs are FAR different.

3) Most revolver parts are milling operations, and your pic looks pretty typical. Can be done by anyone with a mill if drawing tolerances are held tightly enough. Unfortunately, close tolerances = high cost. It's generally cheaper for items with low production quantities to make the parts slightly oversize, then have someone hand-fit them together and hope they get it right. Get a good person having a good day, and you can produce something equal to machine-made with tight tolerances. Get a not-so-good person or a good person having a not-so-good day, and you get a bad assembly. Hand-built means HUGE quality variations.


My point, mostly. I think it dead obvious however that no-one is going to get 4K and north of that for a revolver with HUGE quality variations. If you think that vintage long actions or their contemporary Colts exhibit such, then we are too far out of agreement to hope to reconcile it here. I actually believe the larger quality variations are happening now with the mass production examples.

Really cracks me up when people point out how a Korth has to be hand-fitted to install the ball bearings. How do you think those ball bearings were made?

I'm always glad to provide amusement intentional or not, but what in the name of Mary does ball bearing production (or jet engine for that matter) have to do with the topic at hand?

4) You've obviously never competed at higher levels of any type of competition. Material costs are a minimal consideration. If a $10,000 revolver would help someone win a national competition, they would be shooting it in a heartbeat. Golf clubs, tennis rackets, bicycles, guns, cars, boats, airplanes, whatever, if people compete with it then someone is going to buy the championship if possible.


Well, again my point was to illustrate the problem for people (the vast majority of us, maybe you too?) who DO NOT have sponsorships. Without them the 10 large is just a bit out of reach. Regarding competition? Well, lets see here;
1. Little league baseball, HS baseball, military intra-mural baseball
2. HS wrestling
3. HS marching band (laugh if you want, remember that providing entertainment thing?), and the US Air Force Drum and Bugle Corps.
4. YMCA level boxing and a short stint on the Ft. Rucker Al intra-mural team (got my head handed to me by members of MY team, never competed intra-mural in the military).
5. More to the point approx. 60 "bullseye" matches, military intra-mural and civilian local, no national level at all.
6. and apparently, here today with you.

A quick inventory reveals that you are absolutely correct, no major league baseball, national tournaments or world championships. It also reveals I have burned a bunch of electrons at a guy who has not given his bona-fides when trying to "impeach the witness".

It is I believe sir, your serve.

P.S. Some careful thought puts the bullseye matches at more like high forties (doing poorly in some sure made it seem like sixty). I do have a few trophy's made in a shop behind the local bowling alley stuffed in a box somewhere, does that count?

P.P.S. Damn, guess that high forties includes some bowling pin matches too, that's really not going to trip your trigger in the respect column though is it?

P.P.P.S. Oh Hell! I forgot to add that in the '80s to ealy '90s I was the tri-cities (Hamilton, Fairfield and Ross, Ohio) undefeated Trivial Pursuit Champion (alright! finally on the board!).

If you enjoyed reading about "You can't polish MIM parts" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!