[Mark IV Series 80]

How much more (over the price of a new MIM revolver) would you be willing to pay (if you had a choice) for a new S&W revolver with no MIM parts and no lock?

[VictorLouis]

No lock? Hmm, I might be tempted to pay more for that, particularly as some of these latest models are the first of their kind. Hence, no hoping to pick them up 'pre-lock' on the used market.:rolleyes:

[Frenchy]

My 686-5 works just fine with the MIM parts. I don't care for them esthetically, but fit and function is no problem. I could do with out the lock (if it had one).

[Shane]

I think the current MSRP on S&W's is already too high. I be darned if I'd even pay more for non-MIM parts. Now, if S&W no longer used MIM WITHOUT raising prices further, then I'd buy another S&W.

[J Miller]

Hmmm, how to answer this one?

First; I have no idea of what new Smith& Wessons are going for now. There are so few dealers around here as it is, and they have virtually no S&W's in stock to look at.

Second; S&W doesn't make anything I want. I have no use for the 7 and 8 shot .357's. They don't make the 25-5, or the 27, or the 28, any more, and they make almost no blued revolvers.
I have never liked their autos because of the magazine disconnector.

Third; I hate that stupid key safety. I don't even want to buy a gun with that on it.

So I guess the MIM parts don't influence me that much.

I guess that untill S&W makes something I want, I really can't answer the question.

(As for the MIM parts being ugly, well, I like the looks of Rugers DA revovers. You can't get much more ugly than that.)

[Ala Dan]

Greeting's All,

While I voted for $20 bucks more, I really haven't
had a problem with the MIM part's in my S&W 629-5 or
686-5! But, $20 more would be worth it; provided that
the company returned to using the color case-hardened
trigger's and hammer's.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

[EJ]

They're just fancy Rugers now-- Really sad--

[PlayTheAces]

Well. Hmmmm. I guess nothing. I'm not aware of any problems with the MIM stuff, and if you clean the black gunk off it and use a little polish it doesn't look too bad. And that wierd little hole's a non-issue for me.

But unless they come out with blued six shooters again, I'm not really interested either way. They just aren't making anything I want right now.

[Standing Wolf]

If Smith & Wesson wants my dollars, it will rescind the agreement it signed with the Snopes Clinton-Liar Gore régime.

[10-Ring]

From what I understand, the Performance Center guns don't have MIM parts & to get one you're looking at about $350 premium (686 v. 627).
As for the lock...no big deal really...just unlock it & forget it. They are ugly tho :what:

[Guy B. Meredith]

I'm not sure about the 627 but the 686+ and M66 have MIM parts and the M66 has the lock. The 627 and 686+ have gone through somewhere up towards 30,000 rounds altogether, the M66 a couple thousand rounds and show no problems so I'll not worry about MIM. I don't even know the lock is on the M66 until one of you jokers remind me.

[Shane]

From what I understand, the Performance Center guns don't have MIM parts & to get one you're looking at about $350 premium (686 v. 627).
As for the lock...no big deal really...just unlock it & forget it.



Some posters worry that the lock could fail at an inopportune time.

[Guy B. Meredith]

The lock is very unlikely to fail, particularly if you never use it. I don't. Gun locks are worthless except for the first few minutes they are out of the owner's control so I don't use it. For the really paranoid it can be removed or securly glued in place. Absolutely no problems.

Oh, yeah--the lock makes them legal to purchase in California without owning a state approved safe.

[EJ]

It really isn't a question of durability--
It is asthetics--
If I want an assembly line revolver with weird writing//locks// snap in parts in stainless only with no polish // fitting or other hand work--
I'll buy a Ruger--
Or I guess now -- S&W is the same thing--
Ruger is a good firearm--but it wasn't--until recently -- in the same class as a Smith--:(

And as for the lock--- Ya -- right -- Glue it in place--
That's exactly my point-- I don't want a firearm that can be mentioned in the same sentence as GLUE--
Firearms are functional works of art or comparatively crude tools--

I am looking for the former-- which I can additionally use as a tool--

[Robert inOregon]

Ruger needs patronage too.

[Kahr carrier]

I wouldnt pay more for a new S&W . I like the older ones better with the firing pin in the Hammer.:) :neener:

[ruger357]

I also had a 686 and a 60 with mim parts. Never had a problem with either one.

[jar]

Shane

Although I don't own a handgun with the built in lock I have had a chance to pull a few apart. Looking at the mechanism I can't see a way that it could fail and make the gun unusable as long as it's unlocked to start with.

[M1911]

Some posters worry that the lock could fail at an inopportune time. I do not see how that could happen. When the device is unlocked, nothing in the lock mechanism moves nor touches the action parts. So there's nothing to wear out. Turn it off, throw the key back in the box, and stop worrying about it.

[rugerfreak]

With a lifetime warrenty on both my Smiths-----if a MIM part fails---go ahead and fix it Smith.

[Kentucky Rifle]

I don't know how much it costs, but if you want new non-MIM parts, S&W will install them for you.

KR