You can't polish MIM parts

[glocking26]

Until this happens to you after you dish out $$$$ you just won't understand. As the saying goes....they just don't make them like they used to. Yea they put out some lemons back then but god not like today. All I here is well we have the Internet now so more people here about the problems. I don't by it. Check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9McFq_GwXo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[Old Fuff]

Some people buy guns because of their function. Some people buy guns because of their appearance.

For the former, present S&W models provide superior performance and function. For the latter they should stick with inferior performing guns from the 60s and 70s.

Well again it's a matter of opinion, but I haven't seen any evidence that the current/recent crop of Smith & Wesson revolvers offer any superior performance over older ones. Of course how you define "superior performance" could make difference, and on both sides picking isolated examples doesn't count. I would suggest reliability and accuracy.

Neither older or newer guns have a reputation for questionable reliability, and if they're a wide difference in accuracy I'm not a good enough shot to tell. Machine rest tests at 50 yards anyone?

 

[rswartsell]

Thanks fletcher, I stand corrected. I don't play a metallurgist on TV either and that's probably a good thing.

 

[CraigC]

Machine rest tests at 50 yards anyone?

If anybody wants to buy me a new S&W I have a Ransom Rest, N-frame inserts and several older N-frames to test against.

I really wish I believed the new guns were better because I'd love to have several of the new "Classics". Particularly the fixed sight N-frames. I just can't bring myself to spend that much money on what I believe is an inferior firearm.

 

[Bubba613]

Apparently, Bubba has never handled a real Smith & Wesson, Colt, Winchester, etc.

'Tis the world that we live in.

Back up another 30 years and find a nice Smith & Wesson still in good shape that dates back to the 30s or 40s, and you can feel the difference just by pickin' it up. One of those things that can't be explained. It has to be experienced in order to be understood.

And you would be wrong. Just that comment makes me wonder if you've ever pulled the trigger on a pre-war Smith.
The pre-war Smiths had the "long action". No one would buy a revolver like that today to shoot. I owned a Colt Python bought new in the '80s. A Smith 686SSR will outshoot and outlast that Python any day. Yeah, it doesn't cost $1500 so obviously it can't be as good.

 

[savit260]

Just that comment makes me wonder if you've ever pulled the trigger on a pre-war Smith.
The pre-war Smiths had the "long action". No one would buy a revolver like that today to shoot. I owned a Colt Python bought new in the '80s. A Smith 686SSR will outshoot and outlast that Python any day. Yeah, it doesn't cost $1500 so obviously it can't be as good. ]

Some of us find that old long smooth trigger pull to be quite nice. Yeah, I've pulled a few triggers on vintage Smiths & Colts.. I kinda like 'em.

 

[Old Fuff]

The pre-war Smiths had the "long action". No one would buy a revolver like that today to shoot.

Beg to disagree... again.

"Long action" Smith & Wesson's were renowned for the smoothness of they're double-action trigger pull, and the single-action was equal or better then that found on any other make. The advantage over a later "short-action" design was that the position of the hammer stud on which the hammer rotated allowed the trigger to have more leverage.

Today, those who are particularly knowledgeable when it comes to trigger pulls sometimes seek them out - in particular N-frames that were made following World War Two and have a positive hammer block.

I admit that many (actually most) of today's "revolver combat gamers" shoot the newer guns, largely because of what they're backers are pushing. What they shoot is largely custom built, and/or internally modified.

 

[1911Tuner]

Just that comment makes me wonder if you've ever pulled the trigger on a pre-war Smith.

Several. That's the biggest reason that I like'em. The main drawback is that nice ones are too valuable to shoot very much. Shame.

No one would buy a revolver like that today to shoot.

And you'd be wrong. In my humble opinion, Smith's decision to drop the long action was a mistake. As Fuff noted, knowledgeable people pay a premium for a long-action N-Frame these days.

 

[MrBorland]

I admit that many (actually most) of today's "revolver combat gamers" shoot the newer guns, largely because of what they're backers are pushing.

Most of todays revolver "gamers" (I hate that term ) are shooting newer guns by choice, not because of sponsorship. Matter of fact, a scant few are even factory sponsored.

The top gamers don't give a silly whit about what most here care about. They shoot the snot out of their match guns, and they choose newer guns because their features (e.g. hammer-mounted firing pin, new style cylinder release, pinned front sight, etc.) make the gun more amenable to tuning, and because they're durable and they flat-out perform. Had this thread been posted on the BE revolver forum, they'd more than likely tell y'all in very clear terms to stop wasting their bandwidth and go shoot.

 

[Bubba613]

The top gamers don't give a silly whit about what most here care about. They shoot the snot out of their match guns, and they choose newer guns because their features (e.g. hammer-mounted firing pin, new style cylinder release, pinned front sight, etc.) make the gun more amenable to tuning, and because they're durable and they flat-out perform. Had this thread been posted on the BE revolver forum, they'd more than likely tell y'all in very clear terms to stop wasting their bandwidth and go shoot.

Well said.

 

[1911Tuner]

The top gamers don't give a silly whit about what most here care about.

At this point, it might be worth noting that not everybody cares about the games. If those disciplines were the whole enchilada, everybody'd be carrying a Razorcat in speed rig.

I'll let Fuff relate the story about the first time that Charles Askins attended an action match as a spectator. He was there, and tells it better than I do.

Take it away, Fuff!

 

[rswartsell]

The term "long action" as has been admirably described here, refers to the "hammer arc" being "longer" or traversing a greater percentage of a circle when traveling from cock to ignition.

They do indeed produce an infinitesimally greater "lock time", but lock time is measured in close to nano-seconds. The idea being that the longer the time spent between releasing the hammer and completing its journey to ignition, the more window for inaccuracy due to the vagaries of human stability. We aren't talking flintlock "lock times" here folks. The discipline that would most likely object to a long action would be the dying art of the "bullseye" shooter and is predominantly an issue in single action operation for greatest precision.

Instead, the "action" shooting sports are currently in the forefront, resting firmly on double action operation. The smooth, controllable and otherworldly "linear" double action pull of the best of these revolvers I would think would be finding new fans among the "action" shooters. I can also understand that someone that is going to shoot 10,000 and up rounds per year training and competing isn't going to choose an 80 (or more) year old classic to withstand the punishment. That certainly doesn't support the idea that the old long actions are in any way inferior. Just older and more "collectable".

The hand craftsmanship involved and quality of materials involved in producing these old gems has certainly NOT been superseded in current production. That quite simply is a function of cost of production and I would think it a fool's errand to dispute.

I am at a bit of a loss to understand what exactly proponents of the "new norm" are claiming here. Can you be a bit more specific?

 

[1911Tuner]

They do indeed produce an infinitesimally greater "lock time", but lock time is measured in close to nano-seconds. We aren't talking flintlock "lock times" here folks.

Exactly...and the difference between the long and short actions isn't all that great to start with. What is different is the silky smoothness even before use burnishes things. 500 rounds into it, the difference is remarkable.

The smooth, controllable and otherworldly "linear" double action pull of the best of these revolvers I would think would be finding new fans among the "action" shooters.

I'd be willing to bet on it. Without exception, the reaction of first-timers with an old Smith & Wesson is: "Wow! That's slick!"

The hand craftsmanship involved and quality of materials involved in producing these old gems has certainly NOT been superseded in current production. That quite simply is a function of cost of production and I would think it a fool's errand to dispute.

This.

 

[CraigC]

And how many choices do gamers have? S&W's still have the fastest trigger return and the only other choice is Ruger. Shoot guns in games and you have to have spare parts available. Again, what other choice is there but newer S&W's?

 

[skidder]

I didn't care for my SP101 with MIM. You can see and feel the mold seam on both the hammer and trigger. The spurs are more slippery on my MIM hammer.

The top gamers don't give a silly whit about what most here care about. They shoot the snot out of their match guns, and they choose newer guns because their features (e.g. hammer-mounted firing pin, new style cylinder release, pinned front sight, etc.) make the gun more amenable to tuning, and because they're durable and they flat-out perform. Had this thread been posted on the BE revolver forum, they'd more than likely tell y'all in very clear terms to stop wasting their bandwidth and go shoot.

Well some of us hunters don't really give a hoot what the top gamers think is best for them. When I put my sights on a running Whitetail I prefer the most solid and adequate parts touching my thumb and finger. We don't often get a second shot.

 

[Billy Jack]

A little off subject, but my first thought on this subject......I bought some high dollar broad heads that apparently were MIM. They were gorgeous. But you could not put a decent cutting edge on them no matter how hard you tried. I recently noticed the company now offers the same broad head in carbon steel that take a "razor " edge.

 

[Bubba613]

The hand craftsmanship involved and quality of materials involved in producing these old gems has certainly NOT been superseded in current production. That quite simply is a function of cost of production and I would think it a fool's errand to dispute.

You could make the same point about cars. But "hand craftsmanship" does not yield a superior product. Today's cars last longer and run more efficiently than cars made in the 1930s. Similarly today's guns run better and last longer than guns made in the past. Quality of material is infinitely better. People are in thrall to the process with little regard for whether it yields a better product or not. It doesn't.

 

[1911Tuner]

You could make the same point about cars.

Straw man.

People are in thrall to the process with little regard for whether it yields a better product or not. It doesn't.

In that case, there are a lot of people who've paid through the nose for high end pistol and revolver smiths' attentions.

I'll have to beg to differ. I've handled and examined a lot of Smith & Wesson revolvers over the last 40 years...old, new, and in-between...and don't get me wrong. I love my 686s and 581s and especially my Model 58s and Model 10s...but there's really no comparison in the quality and workmanship. And, if we take arranged matches and split times out of the equation, I'd much prefer the silky long action of the older Smiths hands down, whether shooting for giggles or for blood. If only I could get replacement parts...but that's another story.

 

[Bubba613]

In that case, there are a lot of people who've paid through the nose for high end pistol and revolver smiths' attentions.

I think the phrase is "one born every minute."

For competition shooters price is no object in picking a firearm. The gun must perform. It must be durable through thousands of rounds of practice and competition.
ANd what do we find? Do we find dozens of top shooters using pre war Hand Ejectors with the allegedly "silky smooth" long action? Or do we find them using the latest from the factory 686s etc?

 

[murf]

glad smith & wesson is pandering to someone. might as well be the racegun crowd. the "game" back in the ira paine days was 100 shots at 50 yards on an eight inch bull. s&w pandered to that crowd, too. the 44 russian out of the model 3 won all the prizes.

hand craftsmanship is just not an option anymore. mim is here to stay. love it, or leave it.

murf

 

[Old Fuff]

In the overall picture of revolver users, combat competitors (I’ll avoid the use of the word “gamer”) make up a tiny fraction of the total, and those who are considered to be professionals are even fewer. What they chose to use, or not, are of little concern to the rest of us. Should they decide to use current production revolvers I (and many others) will be delighted because to a small degree they make what we prefer more available.

Clearly, what the competitors seem to believe is not what others do, which can be shown by the constant, never ending increase in the prices paid for the older guns, that ordinary used revolvers with MIM parts don’t seem to match. Some who have posted here blame this on ignorence, but I submit that some of those who have come to the defense of the pre-MIM guns have backgrounds and experience that is substantial, and more then equal to that of they’re detractors.

So far as combat competition is concerned, I think it has had little affect concerning what people buy outside of their own group. Perhaps the same can be said about those that prefer the older guns. But market values seem to show that demand for them is increasing, and like “pre-1964 Winchesters,” they’re seems to be a divide between “pre-MIM” vs. “post-MIM” Smith & Wesson revolvers that does not support the latter.

 

[1911Tuner]

mim is here to stay. love it, or leave it.

And that's a fact.

I think the phrase is "one born every minute."

Lemme see if I've got this...

A mass-produced gun is equal or somehow superior to one that's carefully hand-fitted by a skilled artisan.

mmmkayyyy

For competition shooters price is no object in picking a firearm.

Noted, but it becomes a different ball of wax when the gun in question is collectible and can't be easily replaced, nor can it be readily serviced should spare parts become necessary.

It must be durable through thousands of rounds of practice and competition.

And the old guns aren't exactly fragile. There are a good many out there that have seen tens of thousands of rounds, and are still serviceable.

And why does it always come back to competition? Some of us...myself included...couldn't care less about competition. Competition and the tuned guns that the shooters run have about as much to do with the question as arguing over the top speed of a pickup truck vs a Super Stock drag car. Interesting, perhaps...but irrelevant.

 

[MrBorland]

And why does it always come back to competition?

The thread got highjacked into another "new Smiths blow chunks" thread well before any mention of competition, and I even tried to steer the thread back in my first post:

As far as I can tell, this thread's about putting enough shine on an MIM part to be pleasing to the eye...

And how well MIM parts perform, why they're used, their strengths & weaknesses, personal preference/bias, etc. have all been discussed ad nauseum in plenty of other threads.

Competition and the tuned guns that the shooters run have about as much to do with the question as arguing over the top speed of a pickup truck vs a Super Stock drag car. Interesting, perhaps...but irrelevant.

Open class ICORE & Bianchi revolvers aside, the great majority of the competition revolvers in use are a lot closer to the truck than the drag car. Smooth the action, maybe (or maybe not) a little spring lightening, chamfer the chambers, & install a FO front sight, and you've got a "gamer" gun. Rather than an all-out drag car, it's more akin to installing a harness, fuel cell & race tires on that otherwise stock pickup truck.

At any rate, I only mentioned competition to clarify a claim that competitive wheelgunners use newer guns only because their sponsor makes them, which further implies they'd certainly opt for an older one if given the choice.



Folks, I love the older guns as much as anyone, and go on record agreeing that their fit & finish is terrific, and I deeply appreciate the craftmanship that went into them. If I had the dinero, my safe would be full of them.

But it seems the newer guns are then categorically considered functionally junk by extension, which seems an imbalanced view to me. Current QC-issues notwithstanding, newer guns have functioned just fine for me, and I've not noticed functional differences between my vintage 5-screws and my MIM/IL guns, and I'd really hate to put nice vintage blued guns through the rigors that my shooters go through.

 

[murf]

bubba613,

in all the confusion over the demise of s&w i forgot to compliment you on the polish job. had to put my sunglasses on to type the last line.

murf

 

[1911Tuner]

But it seems the newer guns are then categorically considered functionally junk by extension, which seems an imbalanced view to me.

I never said they were junk. I said that they're not in the same class as the older revolvers when it comes down to workmanship and attention to detail...detail that sometimes isn't apparent until the sideplates come off...and then sometimes only to the trained eye. To the layman, there's little difference. To the toolmaker, the skilled hand shows.

Lay hands on a Purdey or Westley Richards double rifle and compare the break action to an off the rack double rifle or shotgun. You can almost feel every stroke of the stone that was used to fit it.