S&W MIM parts & 2 piece barrels OH MY!

[cleetus03]

I have read a few threads on the forum this past week, regarding 2 piece barrels, and MIM parts assembled in newer s&w j frame snubs. This brings me to my question regarding the true effect either of these traits bring to the guns.

1st question: Are MIM parts truly inferior to genuine metal nowadays? MIM parts today, from what I have read are just as strong if not stronger then genuine metal. (i'm assuming genuine metal is steel?)

2nd question: What is this 2 piece barrel many talk about regarding newer s&w air weight snub noses? Why is it inferior to 1 piece barrel?

3rd question: There is the never ending discussions of "they don't make guns like they used to", meaning older guns were built like a tank, and could take a beating like a tank. So is there a common agreement among members regarding which revolvers particularly snub nose .38's today, are built like a true workhorse?

I appreciate all help and answers yall can provide me!

 

[18DAI]

My opinions:

1) Yes. It is a cost cutting measure. Even the most vociferous MIM fan will tell you that, "MIM parts have (insert your favorite percentage) the strength of forged.

2) The two piece barrel is another cost cutting measure. The S&W fanboys will immediatley point to the Dan Wesson two piece barrel and claim, "superior accuracy" . Well, the S&W two piece is not a Dan Wesson barrel, is it?

You should read Mas Ayoobs review of the two piece barrel model 619 and 620 in the 2006 Book of Handguns magazine. He got poor accuracy. Maybe it was due to the EDM rifling, who knows. Alex Hamilton wrote about them in American Handgunner last year as well. He was not impressed either. Seems you need a special tool to remove them, or tighten them, and S&W won't sell the tool to anyone. Check the gunboards, there have been quite a few two piece barrels with loose shrouds.

3) Yes, the Ruger SP101

 

[harmonic]

cleetus, you can call me hard headed, but I've read about too many issues with the new "innovative" Smith and Wesson revolvers. Barrels blowing off (two piece barrels), internal locking mechanisms failing and locking up the action. Such things as that.

If I were looking for a self defense piece, I'd either find an older Smith revolver, or go with a Ruger.

But that's just me. And a lot of new Smith owners will doubtless chime in and flame me. They'll say they've never had a problem.

Maybe not. But enough people have had a problem that I won't own such an one for concealed carry.

 

[JohnBT]

I haven't heard anything recently about the 2-pc barrels having problems, so I figured they corrected their errors. Maybe I don't get out as much as I used to. The following was from a few years ago. It certainly explains the rotten reputation.

JT
____________

This is from www.alphecca.com from the archives.

March 19, 2006
Smith & Wesson: Defective Revolvers!
Ya know... I had always held S&W up as the example of a great revolver. That's why I'm a bit alarmed when I read this:



Raleigh, N.C. -- Faced with problems ranging from misfires to barrels breaking off, the state has asked gun-maker Smith & Wesson to replace hundreds of revolvers carried by probation and corrections officers.

None of the revolvers have failed in the line of duty, and for now, the department is keeping the guns in service. In testing, about one in four revolvers didn't fire when the trigger was pulled. In some cases, the barrel of some models broke off when the gun was fired.

"In one sense, it's funny," said Dan Stieneke, the chief deputy correction secretary. "In another, it's alarming."

So far, the state Correction Department has asked Smith &Wesson to replace only 500 Model 64 revolvers bought in 2004, although there have also been problems with two other models. Officials could wind up asking Smith & Wesson to provide replacements for all 5,000 of the department's revolvers.

Last month, Smith & Wesson representatives got a live demonstration of the problems. During test firing of about 30 revolvers, four misfired. The barrel also broke off a different model when it was fired, something that has happened 14 times in practice firings since 2003.

"On the one hand, statistically (the revolvers' performance) is not bad, but it's just the safety issue," Stieneke said.

 

[Master Blaster]

yep barrels never fly off those ruger tanks.

 

[cleetus03]

I have the funds to buy a ccw revolver and was set on buying a Taurus 85ul. Well after the dozen or so threads describing it to be inferior to design & quality of a s&w j frame, I changed my mind.

Then I was set on purchasing a s&w 638 until talk of the newer model s&w guns being junk compared to the older ones. Junk meaning they now use MIM parts and have 2 piece barrels.

So, I wrote the thread to get accurate knowledge on why these parts compromise the long term service life of the gun.

I don't want to know how they are good enough to be used. I want to buy a gun with the best quality in parts and design used.

I get the jist of MIM parts. (comparable to forged but much cheaper to produce) But What the hell does a 2 piece barrel mean? And why is it even used if it compromises accuracy and other shooting traits?

Oh and am I getting this right? From everything I have read, a Ruger sp101 seems to have absolutely no discrepancy when quality parts and durability are discussed. (although it is not an air weight revolver.)

Thank you again for all help and facts given!

 

[cleetus03]

lol, so basically when purchasing a s&w air weight j frame, not only do you have to worry about a lock failing, or poor quality MIM parts, but there is the potential for the 2-pc barrel to separate, and blow apart. I think I have my questions answered.

Oh and just to make sure aren't these the same traits which condemn the Taurus 85ul?

 

[harmonic]

yep barrels never fly off those ruger tanks.

I remember that thread. The owner initially posted it on the Firing Line.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=310125

That particular gun was part of a lot that had that problem. That problem was limited to that lot of guns.

What happened was that Ruger coated the barrel threads with their lubricant which allows them to torque the barrel to spec. Then the lubricant dries, essentially "locking" the barrel in place.

But in that particular lot, they applied the lubricant on Friday. It dried over the weekend. Then on Monday they screwed on the barrels. But there was no lubricant.

They overtorqued the barrels, weakening the steel where the barrel meets the threads. That's the point at which the barrels failed.

It was isolated to that lot and Ruger fixed the problem.

 

[harmonic]

Oh and just to make sure aren't these the same traits which condemn the Taurus 85ul?

I've never own Taurus but have read enough negative press about their guns and their customer service that I probably will never own one.

Why not just buy a Ruger SP101? It weighs 25 ounces.

If you really want a Smith, the 442 has no internal lock and doesn't look to have a two piece barrel. But I'm just looking at the ad.

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...ted=tech&isFirearm=Y&parent_category_rn=15704

Plus it only weighs 15 ounces.

 

[Hawk]

There's MIM and then there's MIM. S&W's implementation strikes me as better than average. I define "average" as "just copy parts designed in 1908 without regard for the process".

Though S&W may have dodged the pitfalls some 1911-derivative manufacturers fell in, their MIM parts are reputed to not take "tuning" as well as the conventional parts. This would seem not to be contradicted by S&W itself as they still use forged parts in many of their products, most notably Performance Center offerings. Still, in the specific case of S&W the MIM doesn't appear to compromise anything apart from "tunability".

The two-piece barrel is supposed to be a production expedient that allows the gap to be set at .004 consistently without the attention to detail that a one piece would require. At least that's what Clint Smith said in a gimme DVD I have. How this works out in real life I don't know.

I gather that the one piece barrels are crush fit, the two piece are kinda crush fit and neither is user servicable.

To complicate the issue, S&W is also shipping Lothar-Walther barrels on some models - I don't know if the L-W product is one piece, two piece or what but it surely isn't EDM.

I don't think you have to worry about a Lothar-Walther turning up on a "J" frame but I've been surprised before. Also, I believe the "J"s with forged hammer / triggers are sparse. I believe the 67 "K" is the closest to a "J" with forged parts should this be an issue for you.
67

 

[Deer Hunter]

It's not enough to worry about.

Just buy the gun, practice, and carry it.

Getting caught up in a number-fight is dumb. Yeah, MIM maybe weaker, but enough to really matter? Will you be pushing full fledged magnums every day out of your J-frame snub at polar bears on your way to work?

If not, then don't worry about it. Enjoy the gun.

 

[ArmedBear]

Why not just buy a Ruger SP101? It weighs 25 ounces.

Well, yeah. It weighs 25 ounces.

If you want a 15 oz. gun, a 25 oz. gun doesn't exactly fit your spec, does it?

Besides, Rugers are investment cast! Ooooh! Can't have that...

Of course, some of the better defensive semiautos are plastic, and the 870 shotgun has used MIM and plastic parts for a good long while, with no particular reliability problems reported... (and Remington ain't the best gunmaker in the world, either.)

You can forge garbage, or you can mold great parts. It depends on the engineering behind the parts, not just the production method.

 

[cleetus03]

Reading your posts, I see it's basically just theoretical cons to s&w's new parts compromising the gun. I appreciate all the answers, especially HAWK'S post.

 

[batmann]

I'm getting the popcorn ready! These posts never fail to get a lot of responses.

 

[MrBorland]

I appreciate all the answers, especially HAWK'S post.

Hawk's a reader of Cunningham's blog, so it's possible this link already has his imprimatur. As usual, it's a pretty good read, and you might find it interesting.

http://grantcunningham.com/blog_files/2ca22a8b4cae7a2da440a1f09f72d8bf-86.html

At one point, I was torn between buying a vintage K-38 or a brand spanking new Model 14 "Classic" with the lock and MIM parts. Out of curiosity, I emailed Cunningham to get his take; to which he replied that while the new guns don't have the fit and finish of the old models, they shoot just fine and generally seem to be accurate as they ever were.

 

[Hawk]

I'm getting the popcorn ready! These posts never fail to get a lot of responses.

I dunno, you might be disappointed this time - the 2 piece barrel and MIM aren't as contentious as some other things that might be brought up.

Clearly, the MIM can't be "100% of what the conventional part offers" as S&W still uses forged when you throw sufficient money at them, so there must be something there - just what and how much is up for grabs.

And, if the complaint is "changes made for the sake of production expediency", S&W seems to cheerfully claim "guilty as charged" in the case of 2 piece barrel. The counterclaim is a barrel cylinder gap that's in spec but no better than could have been achieved with a bit more labor.

...hard to get any traction for an argument over that sort of stuff.


There's another thread running comparing Colt quirks to S&W quirks with no claim of superiority for either side - what's the world coming to?

 

[Benzene]

Not ust a matter of durability!

"You should read Mas Ayoobs review of the two piece barrel model 619 and 620 in the 2006 Book of Handguns magazine. He got poor accuracy," someone pointed out so usefully! Then there is the LOCK thing on the S&W.

 

[earplug]

We can buy parts for a new MIM S&W if needed

If you modify your S&W or don't want to return it to S&W for work, the new parts are available from several gunsmith supply firms.
Ruger parts are hard to get, Colt is hard to get.
S&W warranty is still one of the best.

 

[ArmedBear]

On the one hand, people complain about cost savings in production guns.

Then, they don't want to buy a $2000 revolver that has all the great stuff they say they want.

Go figure.

 

[FullEffect1911]

I'm gonna just go ahead and say it, I think the two piece barrel design is an improvement over the more traditional crush fit design. Would you rather something just held by threads or held by threads and a flange? Just about all designs have hiccups in their infancy so it is up to you if you want to discount early failures or not. Couple that with the fact that the 2-piece isn't user serviceable because of specific tool needs and it really rubs some people the wrong way.

I own a S&W 620 and has been nothing short of outstanding.

I have yet to see or really even hear about a problem with any S&W revolver and its MIM parts.

With all that said Ruger makes an excellent revolver too. My SP101, blackhawk, super blackhawk and my old redhawks were/are all excellent. My old Gp100 had to go in for problems which were corrected by Ruger.

Any mechanical device can have problems, but with S&W and Ruger it is not the norm.

 

[MrBorland]

I don't want to know how they are good enough to be used. I want to buy a gun with the best quality in parts and design used.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood MIM parts reduce manufacturing costs not because they're "cheap" in the quality sense, but because MIM parts can be made to more precisely right up front via machine, whereas the forged part has to be fitted.

Replace a forged part in your gun, and you'll likely have to hand fit it, or pay a 'smith to do the fitting. Replace an MIM part, and it's more of a drop-in. Same story at the factory.

Even if I misunderstood MIM, I agree with others who've mentioned that most even here would complain mightily at the cost of revolvers if they were still hand-fitted.

So, to the OP - what's "best"? I agree with ArmedBear - don't sweat the minutiae. As others here, as well as Cunningham, suggested, the new guns are fine, and are quality guns. IMO, just buy the one that fits your needs, feels best in your hand and is the most enjoyable to shoot...then turn your focus to shooting the snot out of it and making it an extension of your hand.

 

[Hawk]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood MIM parts reduce manufacturing costs not because they're "cheap" in the quality sense, but because MIM parts can be made to more precisely right up front via machine, whereas the forged part has to be fitted.

I believe you're pretty much spot on. MIM, between the slurry and the mold is breathtakingly expensive and doesn't make economic sense apart from its ability to eliminate or reduce downstream secondary costs such as final fitting, heat treating and the like.

But when I mentioned the fitting of conventional parts, the Old Fuff came to my rescue thus:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5129024&postcount=118

Most of the time the first hammer/trigger combination that was put in a revolver worked well enough to satisfy a fussy and demanding assembler. But if it didn't he'd do something about it. "Almost" wasn't good enough if a minute or so of changing out a part would make it perfect. But those extra minutes could add up, and now that sort of thing isn’t tolerated. Today's assemblers aren't sloppy, but they put the parts in and the gun goes on without any additional attention - unless something is very wrong. This seldom happens because the MIM parts have close enough tolerances to satisfy all but the most demanding - and besides, most buyers don't have enough experience with older revolvers to know the difference.

I should make clear that I am referring to the double-action pull. S&W single action pulls have been very good since git-go, but we see these pleading posts and threads, “I bought my wife (girl friend or whatever) a new (name whatever model) and she can just barely pull the trigger. Can’t I polish it, change the springs, or do something?”

Concerning interchangeability of parts. Back during the World War One period S&W bragged that the Army completely disassembled some Smith & Wesson and Colt 1917 revolvers in separate batches, mixed up the parts, and then reassembled the revolvers. They may have not been perfect, but they worked. The Colt’s flunked this test. I have no doubt that today’s MIM constructed revolvers could do equally as well. But there is more to it then this.
...

The surprise (to me) was the "most of the time" part. I'm not Fuff so to avoid putting words in his mouth I'll take "most" to mean anything from 51% of the time to 99%.

The result is the same but I somehow had it in my head that the forged product was hand fitted "all" or "most" of the time when it, in fact, usually dropped in just fine.

Still, whatever amount of fitting was (sometimes) required with forged was eliminated with the inception of MIM.

As to why the forged stuff remains in the PC product?
I don't really know.

I'd bet against an appeal to the traditionalist: anybody buying a slab-sided, ball-detent, compensated, PVD, 8 round, moon-clipped, locked revolver gave up on traditional early on in the purchase decision.

That leaves conjecture that the forged stuff may allow for the degree of tuning they're aiming for with less work (hence lower cost) than MIM.
...or something else that I'm missing altogether.

But we're agreed: it's much like angels dancing on pins - as far as the OP and many of the rest of us are concerned it's the difference between 18 year and 20 year single malt - not worth getting in a wad over and indiscernable to all but true experts.

 

[MrBorland]

it's much like angels dancing on pins

precisely the metaphor I was trying to squeeze in somehow.

MIM...doesn't make economic sense apart from its ability to eliminate or reduce downstream secondary costs such as final fitting..

When I read between Old Fuff's lines...

Most of the time the first hammer/trigger combination that was put in a revolver worked well enough to satisfy a fussy and demanding assembler. But if it didn't he'd do something about it. "Almost" wasn't good enough if a minute or so of changing out a part would make it perfect. But those extra minutes could add up, and now that sort of thing isn’t tolerated.

...it seems to me that while the extra minutes may be an issue, a bigger one may have been the salary of those talented fitters. Adjusted for inflation, I'm betting quite a bit of money is saved there, too. Part of the hidden costs of manufacturing.

At any rate, like many here, I have both old and new. They all shoot fine, but none are above improvement, either (and the same can likely be said about Rugers and Colts). And though I'm trying hard to get there, it's unlikely I'll ever be able to shoot better than even the least of them.

 

[BigBlock]

Cleetus, let me put it like this. Smiths are good for keeping in your pocket for the extreme rare occassion that you might have to shoot somebody. On the other hand, they are NOT well suited to being a "range gun" or any gun that you fire frequently. Smiths will wear out, and will go out of time faster than other brands.

Rugers are the kind of gun you take with you in the woods, you can't break it no matter how hard you try, and the recoil is usually soft. They are very heavy though. These are the kind of guns you buy to actually shoot.

Taurus is more or less a foreign copy of S&W, everything bad about Smith goes double for them. Except they price their revolvers accordingly, not ridiculously.

One thing is ABSOLUTELY TRUE, the Smith and Wesson you buy today is NOTHING like the Smith and Wesson your dad or your granddad bought 30+ years ago.

 

[ArmedBear]

the Smith and Wesson you buy today is NOTHING like the Smith and Wesson your dad or your granddad bought 30+ years ago.

Yeah. You can shoot the newer one without leading up the barrel.