S&W views on their MIM parts

[Guillermo]

170% seems like a premium to me.

Also, let's remember that MIM's main advantage is cutting labor costs.

GP100 $513 (Ruger has always positioned themselves below S&W and move their prices when Smith does. This indicates that Ruger's reactive pricing is a matter of market position. This suggests that the Ruger could be sold cheaper.)

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/70265

 

[Gato Montés]

Does Taurus use MIM parts in their revolvers, likened to the way S&W does? I've always assumed yes but I realize I don't know.

GP100 $513 (Ruger has always positioned themselves below S&W and move their prices when Smith does. This indicates that Ruger's reactive pricing is a matter of market position. This suggests that the Ruger could be sold cheaper.)

That is very much true, Ive watched the GP rise in price just a step behind the 686.

 

[fastbolt]

MIM hammers do represent both a cost savings, as well as more precision in less time and less machinist involvement.

It takes 7 machines to make a single old style hammer. A new style MIM hammer is faster to make, and can be made with more precision.

Of course, CNC allows for more efficient production, as well. An old style frame used to require 75 machining steps (w/o barrel), while the new style frames only require 3 steps and then they're off to heat treat.

Naturally, the initial investment in CNC equipment was substantial, as is ongoing investment in new equipment. Then again, the investment in MIM molds (which are owned by S&W) was quite substantial, as well. Another thing to consider is that the MIM houses making the parts are located in the states, and not in another country.

 

[HiVel1]

I had an S&W 44 mag revolver that the hammer snapped in half-also had a Kimber 45 auto that the slide stop snapped in half-these things just fell apart-no abuse from me. Both were replaced at some inconvienence to me and I immediately sold both guns at a loss.
I have heard that Taurus makes the Kimber MIM parts or at least some of them for their (high priced) guns. All I know is that I have had two guns that the parts BROKE -MIM?
As far as Taurus quality I will leave that to all the ex-Taurus users that I know. MIM-the jury is out as far as I am concerned.
Now we have the Melonite barrels from S&W-what is wrong with chrome bores? Well maybe here we go again. I was associated with acompany that spent most of their time and R&D on developng cheaper ways to make their products-simple greed driven practice(look what it did to GM). It caused us no end of lost business and ill will from customers plus usually forced us back to the proven methods and raw materials then having to re-sell angry customers.......they call this progress. Dont drink the Kool Aid unless the new stuff is PROVEN in use as well as in concept. Good luck all.

 

[HiVel1]

I understand Ruger uses MIM parts in their new production revolvers.
It must be incredibly less expensive to manufacture these small parts.

 

[Guillermo]

I understand Ruger uses MIM parts in their new production revolvers

in order to save labor costs, MIM is currently being used by every major handgun manufacturer of steel guns. Certainly every revolver.

 

[Gato Montés]

So if Taurus is also utilizing MIM in their revolvers with the added benefit of cheaper labor, how could S$W ever produce a product and sell at the same price?

EDIT; never mind, don't want to start that one...

 

[Jim K]

It might interest the "forged parts or nothing" folks to know that for some years the "forged" trigger and hammers in S&W revolvers have been blanked out of sheet steel, then machined.

It might also be of interest that in the period when forging was first introduced, it was considered inferior to both cast parts and those milled from stock, and that it was thought to be an innovative manufacturing method. A contemporary article on the Evans rifle pointed out that the frame was forged, saving much machine time and tools.

P.S. I have seen two S&W hammers with the spurs broken off and one Colt hammer that broke at the thin part, all at least 40 years before the introduction of MIM.

Jim

 

[cfullgraf]

It might also be of interest that in the period when forging was first introduced, it was considered inferior to both cast parts and those milled from stock, and that it was thought to be an innovative manufacturing method. A contemporary article on the Evans rifle pointed out that the frame was forged, saving much machine time and tools.


Jim

Good point.

 

[Waywatcher]

MIM or not, the recent new S&W revolvers I have handled were junk.

As in, brand new, but in need of factory repair.

I cocked the hammer on a Governor and the cylinder didn't lock-up at the next chamber. It needed to be advanced about 1mm.

My 442 that I bought shot 2 feet high and keyholed at 25 yards with multiple loads. I sent it back; they replaced the barrel and sent it to me. I get it back, now the cylinder scrapes on the new barrel. I got rid of that and will not get another S&W until I see vast improvement.

In my opinion and experience handling older S&Ws, they are coasting on their name and their current pieces are rubbish.

 

[HiVel1]

My New Smiths seem OK to me -Ruger too!

On the other hand , I have a new 10 mm Niteguard and a new Governor that are really good shooting revolvers. The Gov shoots all three loads well and the 10mm is a really nice shooter too (shoots 40 cal also)! Great triggers and so far no problems at all. Hope the love lasts.
Also have a new Ruger 22 revolver (SP101) that has MIM parts and it is a sweet shooter too. Did 2 spring changes and some very lite polishing to soften the pull-works great with a 3lb single action let off.
So far so good . I am pleased with my new revolvers.

 

[Guillermo]

they are coasting on their name and their current pieces are rubbish

That is surely true.
The last 3 Smith revolvers that I handled had factory defects (2 barrels, 1 crane).

But that is not because of MIM. That is because they have no QC and are a union shop.