Shear, it is true that sintered metal was used by Colt in many of their later revolvers. The process they used was similar to current MIM and was essentially a predecessor thereof.
It is also true that Rugers and Rohms both have cast frames and are therefore similar.
It's all in the execution.
It's all in the execution, sure. However, we don't have
any hard numbers with which to judge that execution. All we have is anecdotal carping.
Colt discontinued its Mark III/IV/V series of revolvers in the late 90s, right as S&W was ramping up their MIM lockwork. These events coincided with people's newfound ability to complain about their guns (along with everything else) on the internet. Due to an accident of timing Colt's sintered lock work revolvers were able to escape internet scrutiny and be elevated to the near rabid level of posthumous sanctification often rewarded to discontinued guns. S&W's DA revolvers, produced in greater numbers than Colt's ever were, live on.
I work in a data driven field and bristle when I hear people trying to substitute anecdotes for data. There is simply no proof, none, that Colt's sintered lock work was any better than S&W's current MIM parts.
But, hell, if you want anecdotes, here's one: as I write this my beloved King Cobra is currently back at the factory to repair a timing issue. The problem: the sintered metal hand has worn. Because of the production method, the hand cannot be repaired. It must be replaced. The new part cannot be fitted, either. The factory has to go through a drawer full of King Cobra hands and find one that gibes with the rest of the lockwork.
Do I hate Colt's sintered parts based on this first hand experience? Hell no! I've had forged cylinder hands repaired/replaced for the same reason. Point being: the plural of "anecdote" ain't "data".
To the OP: you've got yourself a great gun. Enjoy it!
