Who makes the best revolvers now-a-days?
- Thread starter gspn
- Start date
- Status
Guillermo
member
The fact that the new revolvers with injection molded internal parts do not require a gunsmith to fix is an advantage. Otherwise, all of the cost cutting measures were for the benefit of the P&L statement...not to improve the revolvers.
ljnowell
Member
http://www.korthusa.com/start_en.htm
I have had the pleasure of shooting one. It was a very nice revolver.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Ruger's marketing has proven to be powerful stuff!
ColtPythonElite
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 10,462
Are tanks cast?
Guillermo
member
no
but they do have some injection molded parts...just like a new S&W revolver.
ColtPythonElite
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 10,462
So tanks are built like S&W's?
Guillermo
member
no...you can trust your life to a tank
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Aw, that's it?
As dear as the Korth's are, I expected them to materialize a beautiful woman onto your arm and a drink into your hand when fired...Oh well.
Seriously, though, don't the Korth's use some funky mechanism to release the cylinder? What did you think of the ergos on that?TCB
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I would love to be able to handle a Korth but they're too ugly for me to ever entertain the notion of buying one.
beag_nut
Member
Rugers have investment cast parts, NOT injection molded. There's a world of difference, partly being strength and accuracy-of-parts.
Nowadays, Rugers are the best, at least for twice the price.
Guillermo
member
The frames are cast, there are injection molded parts in the SP101 and GP100 as well as all of their autos
Guillermo
member
except for Dan Wesson (which is in VERY LIMITED production)...they all use injection molded parts
bikemutt
Member
I wonder if there's a chart or something showing actual failure rates for injection molded parts versus cast parts versus forged parts etc. Retail gun buyers are unlikely to be full time metallurgists.
Guillermo
member
FYI
Since molded parts are ready for use when they are popped out of the mold, and cast parts need finishing, you can count on the bean-counters to increase the percentage of injection molded parts.
Since molded parts are ready for use when they are popped out of the mold, and cast parts need finishing, you can count on the bean-counters to increase the percentage of injection molded parts.
Guillermo
member
I don't think that the manufacturers are going to give up their stats of shame.
Doc3402
Member
They may be ready for use, but they sure aren't as good as they could be. I have yet to see a S&W MIM part that didn't need to have at least a little bit of flash stoned off of it. I wish Ruger DA revolvers were more ergonomically pleasing to me. I would switch in a heartbeat.
The only new revolver I've ever bought was a Ruger Blackhawk. Fit and finish was o.k. but not nearly up to the standards of my older Colts.
Most of the new S&W's leave me cold.
I'd not hesitate to buy any double action Ruger provided I had a chance to look it over before purchase.
Can't speak to Korth because I've never held one, but they better be freakin' spectacular given the price.
Most of the new S&W's leave me cold.
I'd not hesitate to buy any double action Ruger provided I had a chance to look it over before purchase.
Can't speak to Korth because I've never held one, but they better be freakin' spectacular given the price.
OrangePwrx9
Member
I went to the local gun store to buy a new no-lock 642 they had in the case. When I inspected it I had to fight to get the cylinder open. It would open, but only on the 3rd or 4th try. LGS owner said it would wear in with time. Maybe they do this when they leave the lock off...a gun you can't load is "safer" after all.
Ended up buying a LNIB Chief's Special (model 37) from 1968 that was sitting next to it in the case. No problem opening that one's cylinder. Saved $100 too.
Takeaway: Look them over closely if you're buying new.
Ended up buying a LNIB Chief's Special (model 37) from 1968 that was sitting next to it in the case. No problem opening that one's cylinder. Saved $100 too.
Takeaway: Look them over closely if you're buying new.
Guillermo
member
LOL
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Howdy
Just to clarify things. Injection Molding usually means plastic parts. I don't think any of the parts inside the action of a modern S&W are plastic. S&W uses Metal Injection Molded (MIM) parts. Not the same thing.
Injection Molded parts are formed by injecting heated plastic resin into a mold under pressure. When the mold cools, the resin hardens into the shape of the mold, then it is popped out of the mold. But this is usually a process used for plastic parts.
Metal Injection Molding is a multi step process for forming metal parts with molding equipment. A slurry consisting of powdered metal suspended in a binder is heated and injected into a mold. When the part cools it is considered to be 'green'. The metal particles are held in position by the binder, but the part has no strength. The part is then treated with solvents and heat to remove a portion of the binder. At this stage the part is called 'brown'. It still has no strength. Then the part is heated to a temperature not quite high enough to melt the metal, but high enough to bind the surfaces of the metal particles together. The finished part then has almost the same strength as a conventionally machined part. As with conventional injection molding, there is some shrinkage from the green part to the finished part, so the part is molded oversize to allow for shrinkage. MIM is used because even with all those extra steps it is still more cost effective than machining forged parts.
The process Ruger uses for their cast parts is Investment Casting. Do not confuse Investment Cast parts with conventional Die Cast metal parts. Investment Cast parts are much stronger, than conventional die casting. Investment Casting is similar to the old Lost Wax process used by jewelers for centuries. A wax positive of the part is made and nested on an armature with many other similar parts. Then the wax parts are coated with a ceramic slurry. This creates a mold for multiple parts. Molten metal is poured into the mold and the wax melts and runs out, hence the name Lost Wax. The parts are then broken out of the mold, the mold is sacrificial. Ruger uses high strength alloys for their Investment Cast parts, and after they are broken out of he mold they are heat treated for strength. Ruger DOES NOT make cylinders or barrels from Investment Castings, these are still machined from solid stock. They do make frames and most of the internal parts of their guns from Investment Castings. Some of the Investment Cast parts will have some secondary machining done to dress critical fit areas. Look at where the barrel screws into the frame of a Ruger and you will usually see milling marks left behind from truing up the face where the barrel butts up.
I am a traditionalist, and I like guns made the old fashioned way. But even my oldest three screw Rugers have Investment Cast parts in them. And they have coil springs instead of the traditional flat springs. I have no problem with Investment Molded parts or coil springs in Rugers. I only own one S&W with MIM parts, a model 617. All my other Smiths predate MIM, most of them by many years.
But you know, I'll bet when Colt first started mass producing revolvers in the mid 19th Century there were a lot of traditionalists sitting around griping about the 'good old days' when all guns were made one at a time from scratch. Colt was revolutionary (along with several other 19th Century gunmakers like Winchester, S&W and a few others) in that they embraced the methods developed by the Industrial Revolution to mass produce firearms. Other countries, Great Britain being among them, did not and continued to produce firearms and other products using highly skilled craftsmen. The 'American System' as it was called, clobbered all foreign competition in everything from firearms to watchmaking. The result was affordable, quality, mass produced products.
Progress marches on. If you want to stay stuck in the past, then by all means gripe about modern technology. The bottom line is, if guns were made 'the old fashioned way' today, meaning a lot of hand fitting of forged and machined parts, they would be out of the price range of most of us today. That's why Rugers are so much more affordable then Colts. Investment Casting has driven the cost out of parts that used to be machined from forgings.
And there is certainly something to be said for modern processes. When I go Cowboy Shooting, I shoot a pair of 2nd Gen Colts. But a pair of Rugers goes along for the ride as backups to every match. Twice, over the years, I have had a failure in one of my Colts, usually a broken spring, and I have had to fall back on my Rugers. The simple fact is, even though Colt is still producing the SAA almost the same way as they did over 100 years ago, the manufacturing processes are outdated. Machining the bolt of a Colt is a multi-step process. Part of Bill Ruger's genius was driving the cost out by replacing it with a simple stamped part, that probably only costs pennies to produce.
Sorry to be so blabby, but this is a pet peeve of mine. If you want to buy old guns, and I certainly buy lots of them, my oldest S&W was made in 1870, be sure you understand why you are buying old guns. Is it because you genuinely believe they are better, or do you just like old stuff?
Just to clarify things. Injection Molding usually means plastic parts. I don't think any of the parts inside the action of a modern S&W are plastic. S&W uses Metal Injection Molded (MIM) parts. Not the same thing.
Injection Molded parts are formed by injecting heated plastic resin into a mold under pressure. When the mold cools, the resin hardens into the shape of the mold, then it is popped out of the mold. But this is usually a process used for plastic parts.
Metal Injection Molding is a multi step process for forming metal parts with molding equipment. A slurry consisting of powdered metal suspended in a binder is heated and injected into a mold. When the part cools it is considered to be 'green'. The metal particles are held in position by the binder, but the part has no strength. The part is then treated with solvents and heat to remove a portion of the binder. At this stage the part is called 'brown'. It still has no strength. Then the part is heated to a temperature not quite high enough to melt the metal, but high enough to bind the surfaces of the metal particles together. The finished part then has almost the same strength as a conventionally machined part. As with conventional injection molding, there is some shrinkage from the green part to the finished part, so the part is molded oversize to allow for shrinkage. MIM is used because even with all those extra steps it is still more cost effective than machining forged parts.
The process Ruger uses for their cast parts is Investment Casting. Do not confuse Investment Cast parts with conventional Die Cast metal parts. Investment Cast parts are much stronger, than conventional die casting. Investment Casting is similar to the old Lost Wax process used by jewelers for centuries. A wax positive of the part is made and nested on an armature with many other similar parts. Then the wax parts are coated with a ceramic slurry. This creates a mold for multiple parts. Molten metal is poured into the mold and the wax melts and runs out, hence the name Lost Wax. The parts are then broken out of the mold, the mold is sacrificial. Ruger uses high strength alloys for their Investment Cast parts, and after they are broken out of he mold they are heat treated for strength. Ruger DOES NOT make cylinders or barrels from Investment Castings, these are still machined from solid stock. They do make frames and most of the internal parts of their guns from Investment Castings. Some of the Investment Cast parts will have some secondary machining done to dress critical fit areas. Look at where the barrel screws into the frame of a Ruger and you will usually see milling marks left behind from truing up the face where the barrel butts up.
I am a traditionalist, and I like guns made the old fashioned way. But even my oldest three screw Rugers have Investment Cast parts in them. And they have coil springs instead of the traditional flat springs. I have no problem with Investment Molded parts or coil springs in Rugers. I only own one S&W with MIM parts, a model 617. All my other Smiths predate MIM, most of them by many years.
But you know, I'll bet when Colt first started mass producing revolvers in the mid 19th Century there were a lot of traditionalists sitting around griping about the 'good old days' when all guns were made one at a time from scratch. Colt was revolutionary (along with several other 19th Century gunmakers like Winchester, S&W and a few others) in that they embraced the methods developed by the Industrial Revolution to mass produce firearms. Other countries, Great Britain being among them, did not and continued to produce firearms and other products using highly skilled craftsmen. The 'American System' as it was called, clobbered all foreign competition in everything from firearms to watchmaking. The result was affordable, quality, mass produced products.
Progress marches on. If you want to stay stuck in the past, then by all means gripe about modern technology. The bottom line is, if guns were made 'the old fashioned way' today, meaning a lot of hand fitting of forged and machined parts, they would be out of the price range of most of us today. That's why Rugers are so much more affordable then Colts. Investment Casting has driven the cost out of parts that used to be machined from forgings.
And there is certainly something to be said for modern processes. When I go Cowboy Shooting, I shoot a pair of 2nd Gen Colts. But a pair of Rugers goes along for the ride as backups to every match. Twice, over the years, I have had a failure in one of my Colts, usually a broken spring, and I have had to fall back on my Rugers. The simple fact is, even though Colt is still producing the SAA almost the same way as they did over 100 years ago, the manufacturing processes are outdated. Machining the bolt of a Colt is a multi-step process. Part of Bill Ruger's genius was driving the cost out by replacing it with a simple stamped part, that probably only costs pennies to produce.
Sorry to be so blabby, but this is a pet peeve of mine. If you want to buy old guns, and I certainly buy lots of them, my oldest S&W was made in 1870, be sure you understand why you are buying old guns. Is it because you genuinely believe they are better, or do you just like old stuff?
Guillermo
member
Driftwood,
Great post.
A couple of points of clarification. (you probably know this, so the clarification is for next reader)
The MIM part is more expensive to make, but they save money in labor over a forged part.
The shrinkage is not always consistent. Even with tightly controlling heating (and stable media) Smith and Wesson is having problems creating parts within .001".
Before Colt guys get too pious, the King Cobra, DSII and I think (not positive) Magnum Carry had sintered metal parts...a process that is very similar to MIM. In fact it is the predecessor.
Great post.
A couple of points of clarification. (you probably know this, so the clarification is for next reader)
The MIM part is more expensive to make, but they save money in labor over a forged part.
The shrinkage is not always consistent. Even with tightly controlling heating (and stable media) Smith and Wesson is having problems creating parts within .001".
Before Colt guys get too pious, the King Cobra, DSII and I think (not positive) Magnum Carry had sintered metal parts...a process that is very similar to MIM. In fact it is the predecessor.
Great post driftwood.
It is kind of funny how folks don't bat an eye at buying the latest mobile device or in general, technology........where processes and changes are far greater from generation to generation than in the gun world.
I don't know much, but the general consensus seems to be that S&W and Ruger are making the best mainstream revolvers today.
It is kind of funny how folks don't bat an eye at buying the latest mobile device or in general, technology........where processes and changes are far greater from generation to generation than in the gun world.
I don't know much, but the general consensus seems to be that S&W and Ruger are making the best mainstream revolvers today.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
