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

[Grey54956]

MIM is indeed a major cost savings.

While molds and injection systems are expensive, one must consider the cost of dies and presses used in forging. The MIM tooling may have a greatly increased tool and equipment life.

Outside of that, the MIM parts require much less machining to bring them to a finished product. Many details can be cast directly into the part, like serations, texture, clearances, etc. All in all, only contact and functional surfaces really need to be precisely machined. I am not sure about the heat treatment after machining.

Contrast this with a forging. The rough shape may be there, but there is a large amount of material to be removed. Any surface textures needs to be milled. Heat treatment must be done carefully so as to avoid warpage of the part.

The forgings may be stronger, but strength beyond what is necessary to function properly and reliably translates into excessive cost. If a hammer or other component requires a certain tensile strength, yield strength, and hardness to reliably last 100,000 rounds, then increasing the strength, hardness, or both may improve the life of the product in theory, but the practical effect is minimal. Most handguns will never see enough rounds to experience failure. Some will, but most will not.

This is the same reason why Craftsmen tools are no longer made out of spendy vanadium steel. The steel material used to be better, but for 99% of users, the material properties far exceeded the needs of the user. The excess cost made the product less competitive.

 

[harmonic]

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

That's absolutely false. Any barrel will lead.

I've been shooting Smith and Wesson revolvers for over 30 years and they don't lead any more than any other brand.

And leading is no problem for those of us in the know.



.

 

[Old Fuff]

The poor Old Fuff has near wore out his hands typing posts on this old vs. new argument over Smith & Wesson revolvers.

I have a small but maybe not consequential advantage in that I’ve used Smith & Wesson revolvers since the late 1940’s, and disassembled, examined and fixed uncounted numbers of them over the years that included examples that went back to the Civil War.

Since the company’s beginning in the mid-1860’s it has enjoyed a justified worldwide reputation for the highest possible quality that could be produced at the time. An examination of some of their revolvers made during the late 1800’s and the first half of the 20th century will show a level of precise workmanship that today’s more advanced machines don’t equal. However this required a level of hand craftsmanship that would be impossible to duplicate in a modern economy, and if it were the result would be priced beyond what the mass handgun market would accept. As a result the products that are offered today are what engineers like to call, “functional equivalent” but a far cry from what used to be. Perhaps it is like comparing a fine Swiss mechanical watch vs. a Timex digital. Both keep time, but they are so much different.

MIM lockwork is without question functional. But the tolerances and fit are not better then the older kind when the parts were assembled using a process called “selective fitting,” where two parts, such as the hammer and trigger were selected to get a tolerance stack that resulted in a near perfect fit. But doing that required skill, experience and time – and all three are not acceptable in modern gunbuilding because they all represent extra expense for the manufacturer.

The same can be said about the two-piece barrels. They are less expensive to make and assemble, and the shallow rifling is made using an EDM process that results in a very smooth bore, but with rifling that seems to work with jacketed bullets, but less well with softer lead – and unfortunately I still prefer lead bullets because they tend to cause less wear inside the bore. If a barrel has to be changed it is usually less expensive then the old kind, but it requires that the gun be returned to the factory.

On balance I prefer the craftsmanship that the older revolvers represent, and as an additional incentive I have been able to find them for a lower price then a new one would cost. But unfortunately for me, this is changing. It is getting harder and harder to steal them away from more knowledgeable owners. I do wish that Al Gore had never invented the Internet.

 

[wrc376]

Old Fuff +1

 

[MrBorland]

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.

What?!? Well, that's a new one. I also heard* S&W now installs microchips that let Obama know how many guns you own, how much ammo you have, where you live, and the code to your gun safe.

Jeez. Just shoot.




*A lie.

 

[BigBlock]

MrBorland, Smith's timing problems are well known. The cylinder lock just isn't very well designed, period.

 

[rscalzo]

&W now installs microchips that let Obama know how many guns you own

Dam!!! I KNEW IT......

 

[Hawk]

MrBorland, Smith's timing problems are well known. The cylinder lock just isn't very well designed, period.

OK, I'll bite. I'll admit to being uninformed about this well known issue but I can keep an open mind.

Where would one go to verify the claim?

I should probably make sure we're talking about the same thing.
A S&W locking bolt is the spring loaded gizmo that engages the ejector rod.
The cylinder stop is the part that holds the cylinder in place that comes up from the frame.
The hand is what I would have associated with timing issues - the whatsit that rotates the cylinder.
Right?

...not being a smartacre here - I know the terms are different from S&W to Colt and probably change again with Ruger so there's potential for confusion. I would have guessed the hand (in S&W speak) to be the culprit but, as noted, I'm willing to check out whatever resources you have.

 

[Old Fuff]

Yup, I'm waiting to be educated too...

 

[harmonic]

A S&W locking bolt is the spring loaded gizmo that engages the ejector rod.
The cylinder stop is the part that holds the cylinder in place that comes up from the frame.
The hand is what I would have associated with timing issues - the whatsit that rotates the cylinder.
Right?

You're correct. He's wrong.

And Smith revolvers aren't known for timing problems.

 

[Brian Dale]

It is getting harder and harder to steal them away from more knowledgeable owners.

Yet you keep posting wisdom out here for all to see. What are we going to do with you, Sir?

{Can't/won't "shush" the Fuff; I just gotta stay diligent in looking for the deals that still exist }

I also heard* ( *a lie) S&W now installs microchips...

I heard that it was the CIA*...

(* refer to MrB's footnote)

 

[madcratebuilder]

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.

That the way I understand it.

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.

Yes sir. New parts for old guns are MIM. I have replace several parts in 10-and per 10's with MIM. It has been a drop in fit every time. In the past some hand fitting would have been required.

MrBorland, Smith's timing problems are well known. The cylinder lock just isn't very well designed, period.

Your confusing S&W with Colt. I have a few antique S&W revolvers that lock just fine, not as tight as new, but very serviceable.

 

[Rodentman]

I don't know much about the technical aspects of handgun construction, but my 28-2 just "feels" different than the new S&W's. Something about it.....

 

[Old Fuff]

Yes and no...

In the case of earlier revolvers the parts were "fitted," if you can call it that, by exchanging parts, rather then grinding or filing them to get a fit. That's because the principal parts, such as the hammer and trigger were case hardened, and actually removing metal would strip off the hard surface. While this took more time, the fit could be closer that that obtained by using MIM parts where a hammer and trigger are simply dropped in with no further attempt to get a closer combination.

Of course at times when the pressure was on to turn out production some of this sellection of parts was allowed to slip a bit.

On the basis of slap-it-together-and-ship-it-out, gunbuilding MIM parts offer some advantages.

But for my personal use I'm not interested in owning that kind of revolver. If one is content with spending more money for a product that's a “functional equivalent” the newer guns will undoubtedly meet their requirements.

But unfortunately because of some blabbermouth individuals that keep posting this stuff on the Internet I'm finding fewer opportunities to steal.... no!, I mean buy...the kind of revolvers I prefer.

 

[MCgunner]

I'm not a fan of locks, but I have never heard of an MIM part failing. I think it was Mr. Fuff or some other curmudgeon on this board with knowledge beyond my own on these matters that said that smiths don't like MIM stuff because they can't buff it down as clean for as smooth an action as forged or cast parts. I can understand that.

I don't have a MIM part gun, but I've never heard of one breaking. I do have a M85UL (pre MIM) and it's been functioning well, still tight, still accurate, the barrel is still there after 13 years of carry and shooting. I'm sure I'll pass it on to my grandkids. I would expect a J frame to be similar in longevity if properly fed and cared for.

If you are THAT worried about it, there's always Korth for the "get what you pay for" crowd.

 

[earplug]

During the heyday of the wheel gun In law enforcment. Smith and Wesson was the best choice for shooting PPC. I don't recall ever reading a timing problem with a S&W.
In fact a change of barrels from a colt to a S&W was prefered due to the better lockwork of the S&W. I don't racall ever reading about a Colt being used for any serious DA shooting.
The Colt in my memory had a smaller bore for better accuracy with wadcutter bullets. The S&W was better suited for hotter loads.
That has been my experience with the three Colt Pythons I owned and traded away.

 

[Daizee]

but I have never heard of an MIM part failing

the MIM thumb safety on my well-used Kimber TLE-II split in half one day at the end of a match.

I called Kimber and they sent me a replacement free of charge with the admonishment that it would have to be fit by a gunsmith. Of course it dropped right in and passed the function test perfectly.

One experience does not a statistic make, but.... easier to fail, easier to fix? Maybe.

-Daizee