Does the new internal lock change the trigger pull in any way on S&W's latest revolvers or have an effect over time on the trigger? Could I remove it or do I need to send it to a smith to have it removed, if I felt like it? I noticed the S&W 686 in .38 Super is finally available but I'd like to answer this question prior to purchasing the gun.
S&W Internal Lock question
- Thread starter Dacos
- Start date
- Status
Robert inOregon
Member
Does the new internal lock change the trigger pull in any way on S&W's latest revolvers or have an effect over time on the trigger? NO.
Could I remove it or do I need to send it to a smith to have it removed, if I felt like it? NO.
I noticed the S&W 686 in .38 Super is finally available but I'd like to answer this question prior to purchasing the gun. Distributor is already sold out, so what is on the street is what there is. Don't wait too long.
Could I remove it or do I need to send it to a smith to have it removed, if I felt like it? NO.
I noticed the S&W 686 in .38 Super is finally available but I'd like to answer this question prior to purchasing the gun. Distributor is already sold out, so what is on the street is what there is. Don't wait too long.
Dacos: When the internal lock is unlocked, it does not contact any moving parts. So it does not effect the trigger pull nor does it in any way cause wear on the action parts (nor do the action parts cause wear on the internal lock). Unlock the thing, toss the key into the box, put the gun in your safe and stop worrying about it.
kalibear45
Member
I think its more of a cosmetic nuisance than anything. I personally do not like the "-6" models because of the internal lock - that and the MIM parts that now come with it...
Robert inOregon
Member
Guns from the Performance Center only come with forged parts.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
I had no idea!
J Miller
Member
Sam C
Member
screw the smith pc locking device
I refuse to buy a new S&W. First it was suck up to Klinton then install a liberal pc locking device. Screw Smith & Wesson!!! I'm now a Ruger fan. Sam
I refuse to buy a new S&W. First it was suck up to Klinton then install a liberal pc locking device. Screw Smith & Wesson!!! I'm now a Ruger fan. Sam
Last edited:
J Miller
Member
Sam C,
Welcome to The High Road. Join in and have some fun.
Hey, I feel the same way about S&W you do, I just happened to have that pic in my files and decided to share it.
As I looked at it, I realized that is an excellent pic of the MIM hammer too. Looks like a cheep piece of...........well junk.
But I don't argue with the other members here. Takes too much effort, and causes too many hard feelings.
There are many good used S&W's out there, and besides S&W does not make even one gun I want.
Too Bad....
Welcome to The High Road. Join in and have some fun.
Hey, I feel the same way about S&W you do, I just happened to have that pic in my files and decided to share it.
As I looked at it, I realized that is an excellent pic of the MIM hammer too. Looks like a cheep piece of...........well junk.
But I don't argue with the other members here. Takes too much effort, and causes too many hard feelings.
There are many good used S&W's out there, and besides S&W does not make even one gun I want.
Too Bad....
Robert inOregon
Member
Actually the picture is the inside of a Performance Center gun. Parts are forged!
Sam C
Member
J Miller,
Thanks for the reply. I wasn't trying to be argumentative, that's why I inserted the smiley face.
I was just trying to make the point that we should support company's that produce what we want and need, not what the Lefties demand. IMHO, when gun makers cave in to the anti's, it emboldens them to demand more and more. Don't forget, in the end, the left isn't working for responsable gun ownership but rather for total disarment of our citizens.
Sorry if I came off to strong but the integral locking system just smacks of capitulation. Sam
Thanks for the reply. I wasn't trying to be argumentative, that's why I inserted the smiley face.
I was just trying to make the point that we should support company's that produce what we want and need, not what the Lefties demand. IMHO, when gun makers cave in to the anti's, it emboldens them to demand more and more. Don't forget, in the end, the left isn't working for responsable gun ownership but rather for total disarment of our citizens.
Sorry if I came off to strong but the integral locking system just smacks of capitulation. Sam
Last edited:
Mark IV Series 80
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 207
Originally posted by Robert inOregon:
I am no expert, but in J Miller's photo, it looks like porosity on the surface of the new S&W hammer. I would not expect to see porosity in a forged part.
Also, if that hammer is not MIM, then why did they press in a carbon-steel bushing at the pivot point?
If MIM is so great, why do they make the Performance Center revolvers with forged parts?
Hello Robert,
I am no expert, but in J Miller's photo, it looks like porosity on the surface of the new S&W hammer. I would not expect to see porosity in a forged part.
Also, if that hammer is not MIM, then why did they press in a carbon-steel bushing at the pivot point?
If MIM is so great, why do they make the Performance Center revolvers with forged parts?
Robert inOregon
Member
That is where the ignorance of MIM starts. There is NO visible porosity of a MIM part! Its a cost savings product that will give most users a lifetime of satisfaction. The company does not chrome MIM parts like in the photo (bead satin) and MIM hammers are also skeletonized. MIM also has molding marks like those you would see in a molded plastic part. Mr. Miller took this picture from another forum. The original author of this photo said it was from the inside of a Performance Center gun.
Forged parts are aesthetically cleaner than MIM and the parts give a "custom look" that S&W is trying to portray with the Performance Center line. MIM parts also cannot accommodate options such as a trigger stop, which is a Performance Center staple.
Sir Galahad
member
Yeah, Sam, Ruger is SOOO much better with their help in banning high cap mags.
MIM parts are in LOTS of firearms. It's just people use it with S&W as another reason to hate Smiths. Can anyone provide documented sources that show a statistical rate of failure of MIM firearms parts? Not anecdotal failures, I mean actual documentation of the number of failures versus the number of parts made. Oh, who needs that! People just KNOW they're not good, right?
MIM parts are in LOTS of firearms. It's just people use it with S&W as another reason to hate Smiths. Can anyone provide documented sources that show a statistical rate of failure of MIM firearms parts? Not anecdotal failures, I mean actual documentation of the number of failures versus the number of parts made. Oh, who needs that! People just KNOW they're not good, right?
Sam C
Member
Sir Galahad,
Point well taken. At some point we need to let manufacturers know what we want and what we will not tolerate. We should at least try. Sam
Point well taken. At some point we need to let manufacturers know what we want and what we will not tolerate. We should at least try. Sam
bountyhunter
member
"That is where the ignorance of MIM starts. There is NO visible porosity of a MIM part! Its a cost savings product that will give most users a lifetime of satisfaction."
With all due respect, that hinges on the semantic definition of "porosity". The new MIM parts SW uses have a very lumpy and grainy surface not seen on machined parts. The newer MIM parts I've seen look worse than the ones I saw back in 2000. They show more surface "lumps" which is indicative of not having a completely uniform size of the metal powder or not having a homogenous mixture of metal powder and polymer binders. The ones I've seen on my new guns are not well made parts. So far, they work. They are also very ugly.
With all due respect, that hinges on the semantic definition of "porosity". The new MIM parts SW uses have a very lumpy and grainy surface not seen on machined parts. The newer MIM parts I've seen look worse than the ones I saw back in 2000. They show more surface "lumps" which is indicative of not having a completely uniform size of the metal powder or not having a homogenous mixture of metal powder and polymer binders. The ones I've seen on my new guns are not well made parts. So far, they work. They are also very ugly.
Poohgyrr
Member
Since last Fall, I've spent most of my S&W drooling time looking at .44 Specials and N frame .357's....
So I finally looked at something with one of those new internal locks, and thought I was looking at some ugly scratches..... My first thought was yuck, and then is it worth it to try and get a discount on this damage ???
After a much closer look, I saw a keylock and an arrow...... Still think it is ugly, but the 4" 686+ still looks pretty good too. It sure isn't a 3.5" N frame, but it's not an old Rossi either.
So I finally looked at something with one of those new internal locks, and thought I was looking at some ugly scratches..... My first thought was yuck, and then is it worth it to try and get a discount on this damage ???
After a much closer look, I saw a keylock and an arrow...... Still think it is ugly, but the 4" 686+ still looks pretty good too. It sure isn't a 3.5" N frame, but it's not an old Rossi either.
Ruger? The company whose chairman sent a letter to each and every congress-critter proposing a 15 round magazine ban?
Or how about HK, whose USP has an integrated lock. Taurus revolvers have an integrated lock too, don't they? So do Remington shotguns (and rifles?) these days. I'm sure there's others.
Owen
Moderator Emeritus
Before surface treatments, MIM usually looks better than machined parts. MIM has no toll marks. The porosity people are referring too, is most likely an artifact of steel shot blast, of glass beading. The key to idenrifying a mim part is they will always be skeletonized, to prevents sinks.
For some reason, S&W insists on Color case hardening the parts, which creates an ugly finish. If they just case hardened and glass beaded them, they parts would look a lot better
For some reason, S&W insists on Color case hardening the parts, which creates an ugly finish. If they just case hardened and glass beaded them, they parts would look a lot better
J Miller
Member
Robert in Oregon is correct. I did take the pic from another thread somewhere. At the time I had never seen the inner workings of the S&W lock and so I put the pic in my files.
I was not attempting to take credit for it. And I apologize if it apears that I was.
Since the subject of the lock came up, and I had the pic I posted it.
I mistakenly assumed the hammer was a MIM part. I have seen forged S&W hammers for eons. Also many plated ones. But I have never seen one with that kind of surface texture.
If that is a plating, what is it?
I will be out and about in the near future revolver shopping. I'll have to see if any gunshops around here have any of the new S&W's. Maybe the dealer will allow me to photograph one with MIM parts for reference.
Robert, since you seem to have more info about the newer S&W's than I do, do you have any clear photos of MIM parts?
bountyhunter
member
"Before surface treatments, MIM usually looks better than machined parts. "
I've seen some MIM parts that looked good, even some on my SW guns: my 1999 model 66 has a beautiful hammer and trigger, as far as surface finish goes. At the time, I couldn't see why anybody would not like MIM parts. It's the two new ones that have the hideous looking hammers and triggers that have the lumpy surfaces. I didn't mean to imply it's a NECESSITY that MIM parts are all poorly made (mixture not well controlled), just that they are really ugly when they are made that way (and, I suspect, may have internal voids or weak seams).
I've seen some MIM parts that looked good, even some on my SW guns: my 1999 model 66 has a beautiful hammer and trigger, as far as surface finish goes. At the time, I couldn't see why anybody would not like MIM parts. It's the two new ones that have the hideous looking hammers and triggers that have the lumpy surfaces. I didn't mean to imply it's a NECESSITY that MIM parts are all poorly made (mixture not well controlled), just that they are really ugly when they are made that way (and, I suspect, may have internal voids or weak seams).
Robert inOregon
Member
J Miller
Member
Robert, thanks for the pic.
Very interesting pic too. This is the first I have seen of actual S&W MIM parts.
Why in the world do they "hollow" out the parts? It seems to me that this would lighten the parts to such an extent that it would require much more spring pressure to get the same impact force at the fireing pin.
And, well forgive my opinion, but it just looks cheep! Like something you'd see in an RG or something.
Very interesting pic too. This is the first I have seen of actual S&W MIM parts.
Why in the world do they "hollow" out the parts? It seems to me that this would lighten the parts to such an extent that it would require much more spring pressure to get the same impact force at the fireing pin.
And, well forgive my opinion, but it just looks cheep! Like something you'd see in an RG or something.
V
VictorLouis
Guest
AFAIK, the MIM part was always this way. You may have seen some hybrid or transitional guns with a forged trigger(solid) and MIM on the rebound-slide and hammer. Not unusual with S&Ws.
For the same reason that a steel 'I'-beam is stronger than an equilvalent size, square solid beam. The skeletonizing provides more rigidity. To compensate for the lighter weight, the notch cut for the base of the mainspring at the bottom of the grip-frame has been moved forward. This has the geometric effect of increasing the mainspring tension.
- Status
