You can't polish MIM parts
- Thread starter Bubba613
- Start date
- Status
Owen
Moderator Emeritus
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.
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.
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.
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
Sixgun Nut
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 Old car technology is outdated.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.
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.
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
Member
craigc said:
Exactly which parts do you believe are "hand-built" on a Freedom Arms, Korth, or Manurhin?
Last edited:
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
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.
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.
They are serious enough to shoot 3" groups and under at 100 yards.
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.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
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?
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I've decided that Bubba is just a comedian practicing his craft.
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
"Old" Jim
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
. 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
Sixgun Nut
Amen brother!
oneounceload
member
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
Actually I would not mind trying one of those made in CCCP top-break .357 revolvers with plastic frame.
Ash
Member
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?
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
Member
@ 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'.
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
Moderator Emeritus
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!
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!
- Status