CraigC
Sixgun Nut
So tell me again why we should be paying more for a S&W than we do for a Ruger??? What exactly are we getting for the money?
Bad Rugers with MIM parts?
- Thread starter JellyJar
- Start date
- Status
Guillermo
member
Actually Craig, the question is why are we paying more for Taurus than we are Smith & Wesson?
There are amazingly few differences between the two revolvers.
There are amazingly few differences between the two revolvers.
S&W is apparently filling the same market, as the vast majority of their guns have contained MIM parts for years. I have several "special edition S&W's" that have MIM parts in them. My understanding is that SIG is now using them, and Colt and Glock are as well.
I would assume Korth isn't, but most other companies are.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Elegance is why I pay more for an older S&W than any Ruger DA. Elegance which is not present in the newer guns.
Guillermo
member
Elmer,
"high end" and "expensive" are not synonymous
"high end" and "expensive" are not synonymous
lobo9er
Member
does anyone know the fail rate of MIM parts compared to their counter parts? Especially those parts that are appropriate for mim parts?
Guillermo
member
if you can get gun companies to tell you of their failures you have surely completed your Jedi training
lobo9er
Member
so I guess theres no way of knowing if those parts hold up as well and will forever be gun forum topic. Anyone here have failures of their MIM parts? crumbles, breaks, or chips?
Or heres a good one does anyone have two identical guns but one with MIM and one with out? It would be interesting to have independent THR testing of such parts. I doubt when it comes down to it anyone really cares enough unless discussing on the inter webs though
Or heres a good one does anyone have two identical guns but one with MIM and one with out? It would be interesting to have independent THR testing of such parts. I doubt when it comes down to it anyone really cares enough unless discussing on the inter webs though
JohnBT
Member
"So tell me again why we should be paying more for a S&W than we do for a Ruger??? "
Surely you know that different companies have different built in costs such as rent or taxes in their location, payroll, advertising and all the stuff that every company pays for. Don't you???
Like companies in other industries, and universities as well, they charge what the market will bear. If they're selling all they make they need to charge more and if they can't sell all they make the excess ends up at one of XYZ Sales liquidation companies. It's all a balancing act to make the most money.
More than likely you're just trying to jerk me around with a dumb question you already know the answer to.
John
Surely you know that different companies have different built in costs such as rent or taxes in their location, payroll, advertising and all the stuff that every company pays for. Don't you???
Like companies in other industries, and universities as well, they charge what the market will bear. If they're selling all they make they need to charge more and if they can't sell all they make the excess ends up at one of XYZ Sales liquidation companies. It's all a balancing act to make the most money.
More than likely you're just trying to jerk me around with a dumb question you already know the answer to.
John
JohnBT
Member
"so I guess theres no way of knowing if those parts hold up as well"
I can only tell you the trends I've seen on line since I started posting back in the last century. There have been MIM small parts failures, but just here and there, and usually early on in the gun's life.
I have old S&Ws. The oldest one was my great-uncle's 1884 .38 break top, his carry gun. I have Pythons, I have a P-210 and I have a '99 Kimber with over 25k rounds through it. Do I wish every gun was made as well as my surplus Swiss Army Pistol? Yes. Can I pay that much for every gun? No.
I have some .32 and .38 IJ's and H&R's that have come to me for free through friends and family. Using forged steel didn't do them much good.
John
I can only tell you the trends I've seen on line since I started posting back in the last century.
There have been MIM small parts failures, but just here and there, and usually early on in the gun's life. I have old S&Ws. The oldest one was my great-uncle's 1884 .38 break top, his carry gun. I have Pythons, I have a P-210 and I have a '99 Kimber with over 25k rounds through it. Do I wish every gun was made as well as my surplus Swiss Army Pistol? Yes. Can I pay that much for every gun? No.
I have some .32 and .38 IJ's and H&R's that have come to me for free through friends and family. Using forged steel didn't do them much good.
John
Guillermo
member
I totally agree
That is why it is just fine for bargain gun manufacturers to cut corners.
lobo9er
Member
Heres where we can go around in circles FOR....EV...ERR. If a part holds up as good and cost less, is it cutting corners, or being more productive. If you can show there is NO MIM part that is AS GOOD as its counter part which you can't. we are going to go round and round. Like john said he has guns made of all forged steel that are none the better for it. I will continually contend MIM has its place in Quality guns. Products that will hold up and work properly just as long as ones with out. You can use words like bargain, and terms like cost cutting, but it doesn't change that there are quality guns being produced with MIM parts.
lobo9er
Member
Im not sure what caliber that smith is but I'm guessing its not going to digest as many Buffalo Bore hot rounds as a new RUGER DA. with out having issues. so which is better? The one that can take more abuse or the one that is more "Elegant". Answer: depends on the end user. Also here is an example of paying more being perceived "better". You hold elegance higher than toughness and it is showed by willingness to spend extra for it. Not wrong or bad is getting off topic, sorry about that.
Fishslayer
Member
I was of the understanding that Ruger had been using MIM for quite awhile so this thread is an education. I like Ruger bottom feeders but prefer older S&W for wheelguns. Even with MIM parts if I had to buy a brand new revolver (shudder) I would still take the Ruger.
I don't eschew the new S&W because MIM is better or worse. IMHO I get a lot more for my money (including resale value) buying used prelock revolvers. MIM is only one of the cost cutting measures that has led to the "older is better" mentality.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
It's a .44Spl and it will digest as many 1200fps Keith loads I want to feed it. I really couldn't care less how tough a new Ruger DA is because that is a game I do not wish to play. Been there, done that, don't want the T-shirt. I do not care at all for Ruger DA's and only own the one I have because it is a .480. So yes, I do place elegance above brute strength when it comes to DA's because I perceive it as more important but it is not the only reason why I choose older S&W's over Ruger DA's. I have little or no use for the .357 cartridge and thus, GP's and Sixes need not apply. The Redhawk is really too much beef for the .44Mag and .45Colt, with the loads I would use a DA for. An N-frame is much more svelte, handles much "better" and accepts FAR more comfortable grips with a much "better" action. Not to even mention far "better" machining, fit & finish. That 6½" model 24 is a full 10oz lighter than a 7½" Redhawk.
If I want to shoot heavy loads, I have Ruger SA's for that and I wouldn't be much of a shooter if I depended on Buffalo Bore.
I also do not equate "better" with stronger. A Ruger is stronger than a USFA but that does not make it "better".
Yep!
Without question, MIM technology is being used by most firearms manufacturers, and in the future this trend will increase. This is not necessarily bad, but can be so if the drive to lower costs causes it to be used in making parts where the process isn't a good fit.
Current S&W hammers are made the way they are because of the addition of an internal safety requires slots on the left side of the hammer that would be very costly to make unless some sort of molded or casting method was used to produce them. On conventional style hammers with a thumb-cocking spur you get cosmetic issues because the hardning process doesn't produce "oil slick" colors that at one time the company was so proud of they tried (unsuccessfully) to cover with a patent. In terms of function this doesn't matter, but it does reflect a loss of elegance. For some this matters and for others it doesn't.
It is probable that MIM part failures in both Smith & Wesson and Ruger revolvers will be rare, but unlike older parts they have replaced they have no established history.
Ruger I think, is being very careful in selecting exactly what parts they will switch from investment casting to MIM. Smith & Wesson perhaps less so in changing parts that were either made from bar stock or forgings. How acceptable these changes are is not so much about function and reliability as it is perception concerning a loss of previous quality. Put simply, some will not pay more for less, unless they have no choice. Fortunately for those individuals there still is a choice.
Current S&W hammers are made the way they are because of the addition of an internal safety requires slots on the left side of the hammer that would be very costly to make unless some sort of molded or casting method was used to produce them. On conventional style hammers with a thumb-cocking spur you get cosmetic issues because the hardning process doesn't produce "oil slick" colors that at one time the company was so proud of they tried (unsuccessfully) to cover with a patent. In terms of function this doesn't matter, but it does reflect a loss of elegance. For some this matters and for others it doesn't.
It is probable that MIM part failures in both Smith & Wesson and Ruger revolvers will be rare, but unlike older parts they have replaced they have no established history.
Ruger I think, is being very careful in selecting exactly what parts they will switch from investment casting to MIM. Smith & Wesson perhaps less so in changing parts that were either made from bar stock or forgings. How acceptable these changes are is not so much about function and reliability as it is perception concerning a loss of previous quality. Put simply, some will not pay more for less, unless they have no choice. Fortunately for those individuals there still is a choice.
Guillermo
member
I can and I have...repeatedly
MIM is more brittle
is near impossible to polish (it can be burnished)
does not interact well with other metals
does not take plating well
So they are JUST as good if you like brittle parts that can't be polished, don't slide nicely against other metals, doesn't reliably hold plating.
Guillermo
member
metal injection molding
lobo9er
Member
right for you, not for another. point I was making.
for you no for me yes. see what I'm saying? There is no universal better, for anything.
I like my super red hawk thats beefed up far beyond what a 44 mag needs. It has far less felt recoil than my friends S&W. And the frame can handle 454 casual. so for me I am describing what I think is better. Just because you like your SA for heavy stuff doesn't make it universal. I prefer hunting with my DA I practice shooting DA I think a DA revolver is a better platform. But thats just me.
JR47
Member
Elegance, and other terms are personal opinions. It's kind of funny, as the older S&W handguns are actually the survivors of the runs. The others, those that weren't perhaps quite as nice, have long since joined the scrap heap. Ever wonder why a gun produced in the tens of thousands becomes rare? Possibly because most of them were problems from the start?
The use of MIM appears to bother most people simply because it's new, and different. MIM has been in use now for a couple of decades, and we're still talking about it as an unknown quantity? Please.
Cast, and now molded, parts made it possible to have intricate shapes, and cuts in shapes, without multiple machining steps, and the possibility of parts failure if everything isn't perfect during that machining.
I will have to mention that a LOT of people were apparently unaware that their guns contained MIM parts. Doesn't seem to have made any appreciable difference in their use of the gun.
The use of MIM appears to bother most people simply because it's new, and different. MIM has been in use now for a couple of decades, and we're still talking about it as an unknown quantity? Please.
Cast, and now molded, parts made it possible to have intricate shapes, and cuts in shapes, without multiple machining steps, and the possibility of parts failure if everything isn't perfect during that machining.
I will have to mention that a LOT of people were apparently unaware that their guns contained MIM parts. Doesn't seem to have made any appreciable difference in their use of the gun.
Good point. Many think the SRH is ugly because it is less than "traditional" in appearance. Yet this look serves a valid purpose. A forged barrel, reinforced frame/barrel design, scope mount strength, crane lock, and just down right beefier than most. People may not choose this revolver on appearance, but for a particular application it may be the best option.
(by the way... I don't think it's ugly, but "unique" in its own light. In fact it has an intimidating appearance. Kinda like a Bradley next to an M1 Abrams).
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I've never done anything but explain the reasoning behind MY choices. It is purely an individual choice. However, the fact remains that forged parts will always be stronger than MIM parts. Period. End of discussion. Not up for debate, or shouldn't be. What may be up for debate is whether or not MIM parts are "good enough". As has been stated, MIM parts are not the only thing contributing to the poor value of current S&W's.
lobo9er
Member
I'm glad we now know what is debatable
well to your point if the parts hold up as well and fail at similar rate as forged parts than I guess the debate is over because they do. so maybe when utilized correctly not only are they "good enough" they might be "as good." you've sited one article from 2006.
so theres no part that a MIM hardness wouldn't get in the way in its ability to function as well as a milled,machined,forged part? I say Agree to disagree. Unless you have up to date tech data you haven't proved anything. I think its funny the links I provided were links to technical data and were referred to as "crap I found on the internet" Dont get me wrong though I am enjoying the conversation.
Last edited:
- Status
