Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
lol!!!! +1
You can't polish MIM parts
- Thread starter Bubba613
- Start date
- Status
lol!!!! +1
glocking26
Member
All you guys waving your pom poms for the new improved Smith & Wesson's talk to me after you call S+W for your return shipping lable.
rswartsell
Member
'45 Auto,
Please examine this carefully.
1. Does this look like current Smith production?
2. Which parts in the picture are MIM?
3. What production method would deliver this pattern in specs on a consistent basis?
[/URL][/IMG]
If cost was truly "no object" you could use such a thing (perhaps modified to the same standards) as a "race gun" replacing any worn part at will.
4. Who has such resources without sponsorship from a more "commercial" brand?
This photo is from the Korth website and (I assume) is copyrighted against commercial reproduction, but is acceptable for credited "fair use" applications. We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
You do have to give Smith credit for the genius involved in delivering most of what is involved here on a "mass production", affordable, "drop in" (relatively) parts basis. That took some doing and current Smiths are highly acceptable for most purposes. They wouldn't be prospering if that were not so. That does not excuse making wildly uninformed claims as if you knew them as gospel. Or knighting the "almost" as "there".
Please examine this carefully.
1. Does this look like current Smith production?
2. Which parts in the picture are MIM?
3. What production method would deliver this pattern in specs on a consistent basis?
If cost was truly "no object" you could use such a thing (perhaps modified to the same standards) as a "race gun" replacing any worn part at will.
4. Who has such resources without sponsorship from a more "commercial" brand?
This photo is from the Korth website and (I assume) is copyrighted against commercial reproduction, but is acceptable for credited "fair use" applications. We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
You do have to give Smith credit for the genius involved in delivering most of what is involved here on a "mass production", affordable, "drop in" (relatively) parts basis. That took some doing and current Smiths are highly acceptable for most purposes. They wouldn't be prospering if that were not so. That does not excuse making wildly uninformed claims as if you knew them as gospel. Or knighting the "almost" as "there".
Last edited:
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,078
The FA revolvers are twice the cost of their similar Performance Center S&W counterparts. Korth's are more than that and make no revolvers larger than .357. The car analogy in this case is a good one. You want to compare a Porsche to a Ford. Of course there is no comparison....but neither is their price tag. Ruger fans for years have used the argument that altho the Ruger Revolvers fit/finish/trigger are no where what S&W's are, that because they perform the same duties for much less money they still are a good buy. When it comes to firearms, stayin' within ones budget and buyin' as much quality as one truly needs and can afford is generally as much concern to someone that want's to shoot the firearm as is how purdy she is. Getting a quality modern firearm, with a lifetime warranty for half as much(if not less) that will perform just as well within the parameters of the owner's needs is not really argumentative. It just makes too much sense. I'm sure everyone here would like to have a FA, or a Korth in their collection, just like we all would like to have a Porsche in our garage. To most, is is not in the cards. So we just continue to polish our "turds".
As for the long trigger, if folks grew up and learned on them, I'm sure they still prefer the feel of them and they work better for them than others. I grew up learnin' to hunt upland game with my grandpa's SxS's and I still prefer one for hunting. Most of my younger hunting buddies(oldest son included) grew up with O/U's and autos and prefer them. Not really a coincidence to me.
The continued snibblin' and fightin' over who makes the prettiest gun or which caliber is the most versatile/potent as opposed to embracing the fact we all enjoy the shooting sports really seems flagrantly ironic in a forum called "The High Road". I tried to stay outta this cat fight as long as I could, cause it's going to the same side of the gutter as similar threads where the same two or three folks are lookin' for an excuse to bash S&W/the MIM process. Same old ship....just another day.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
That's part of my point. The point being that Bubba is convinced that new S&W's that are assembled with MIM innards are better older S&W's with hand-fitted forged innards, yet no high end manufacturer uses MIM parts. They use forgings and they hand-fit them. So if the best firearms in the world use hand fitted forged parts (and no MIM parts) and older S&W's use hand-fitted forged parts, then how can a logical individual come to the conclusion that new S&W's assembled with MIM parts are better???
They are not better. They work reasonably well but like everything else made today, manufacturing costs are cut everywhere possible. People these days are more concerned with costs that quality. It's obvious everywhere you look.
No, the car analogy is a poor one. Automotive technology has improved exponentially. I'm pretty sure there was no computer controlled EFI, displacement on demand, electronic computerized ignitions that allows high compression compatible with pump gas that did not exist when Deusenbergs were on the road. By contrast, very little has changed about the way revolvers function and are manufactured.
Here's a halfway decent car analogy. A Mustang will get you from point A to point B but a hand-built Aston-Martin, Rolls-Royce or Bentley is irrefutably of higher quality. The fit & finish is vastly superior as are materials and craftsmanship.
You didn't try very hard. This thread was on its last legs and I had completely given up on it until you quoted me.
For the record, I'm not bashing MIM. You're just not going to convince me that the guns are better because everything I know and believe tells me the opposite. Some folks don't care about the difference, some do. Those that don't will never convince those that do otherwise.
CraigC said:
And I made a similar car analogy in my last post, coming to a "ok, fine, but so what?" conclusion.
Read my analogy again: In the real world, there's more to real-world car (and gun) ownership than top-end materials and craftsmanship, so there can be trade-offs. It's worth the trade-off to some, and not to others.
But somehow those in the 1st group seem to think those in the 2nd group claim their Mustang is as fine as their beloved Bentley, which apparently riles the beejeebers out of them. But maybe the 2nd group (Bubba notwithstanding) is just saying, "Of course it's not a Bentley, but so what? It gets me to work every day, it's reliable, it's fun and I'm a good driver to boot. I just choose to keep my Bentley in the garage."
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,078
Using the same reasoning tho, just because they once used hand-fitted parts, did not necessarily make them "the best firearms in the world". At that time, every firearm manufacturer used the exact same technology.......even the ones producing crap. It was all they had back then. Hand fitted parts does not equate to quality. It takes the quality and the skill of the handfitter/Smith to do that.
Better is a relative and in many cases a subjective term. Is there documentation anywhere showing that older S&Ws were more accurate, more reliable and needed less maintenance than newer ones? Could the older guns take more abuse than the newer guns? To many this would be the deciding factor as opposed to preference to looks/finish and assembly procedures. To many those are what defines performance and "better". To many, the option of shooting a firearm without fear of breaking it and not being able to find parts to "fix" it defines what is better. To many, having a firearm they can afford to own, as opposed to one they wish they could afford, makes it better. We all have our opinions, thank God they are not all the same, or what a boring world this would be.
I tried harder than you think Craig. This thread was 4 pages long and you had 9-10 posts in it before I chimed in. No where did I say my preference in revolvers was better than others. From experience I know I have no chance in 'ell of changin' your mind about anything. You have a right to your opinion and I respect that. I am not making condescending remarks to attempt to show others the superiority of my choices. I ask you do the same of others. While I agree that cost cutting and profit margin for shareholders has done little to improve the quality of any mass produced products in this country, I think S&W, Ruger, Colt and other major manufacturers that use the MIM process in the making of their firearms are still producing quality firearms. While paying many times over their asking price for a similar custom firearm may get me a prettier firearm or more braggin' rights, I still am not convinced that it will perform many times over for me in the scenarios I encounter.
As for the car analogy, MrBorland did a fine job of relating. Since this thread is on it's last leg anyway......I'll be done.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
deleted.....
Last edited:
Owen
Moderator Emeritus
ANd no high-end manufacturer will, because of the perception of MIM. It's a self-licking ice cream cone.
Also note that production levels have to be fairly high for MIM to be worthwhile. For companies like Korth that are only making a few hundred guns a year, at best, machined and hand fit parts are cheaper.
You seem to want to equate cost with quality. If someone produced revolvers where each one was made by one craftsman hammering out steel at a forge you would doubtless swear this was the ultimate revolver on the market.
The truth is less tidy. Today's Smiths are better in terms of function and durability. Despite some nostalgia voiced here for the allegedly "silky smooth pre war long action" (they sucked because few people shot DA) the shorter action with mim parts and modern steels simply perform better. Parts are produced to much tighter tolerances. The metal is higher quality.
Bubba613 said:
There's a grain of truth to this, but it's easy to extrapolate too far. To be sure, quality of the end product is in materials, and execution. Any widget can be hand built using only the best materials, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the widget will, in the end, be a better widget. If that weren't true, S&W could've/would've hired monkeys to do the hand fitting.
Furthermore, in building the widget, the maker, over time, may so refine the specs of each piece that they know if parts "A" and "B" are made with CNC machines to exact specs to begin with, little or no handfitting is needed, and the end product can be a fine piece. That said, CNC machines need calibration, and the onus is on the manufacturer to maintain that calibration and/or catch out-of-spec parts before they go into the widget, or catch the widget before it gets shipped. Therein lies the rub, it seems.
As far as metallurgy, here too, is a grain of truth can easily be extrapolated too far: I'm no metallurgist, but it's not inconceivable that the metal used in critical parts such as the frame, cylinder & barrel is stronger today than it was in the early 20th century. But the issue here are the MIM innards, which aren't likely as strong as their forged counterparts. Used correctly, they're strong enough, though and work fine.
Sure, my perfect revolver would have the features of newer guns, but contain all-forged innards. Whether they were hand-fitted or CNC machined is less important to me so long as they're perfectly in spec and the gun works as it should. Unfortunately, my perfect revolver doesn't exist, so I have to make a choice, and make my own adjustments if necessary. Guns aren't immutable, after all.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
CNC machines are no free lunch. They must be properly setup and the cutters must be replaced more often, the tighter you want your tolerances to be. Which costs money, a lot of money. USFA's and FA's aren't expensive for no reason. It's expensive to produce precise parts, even on a CNC.
If that were true, the new S&W's would be GRRRREAT!!!
You seem to have the need to believe that your choice is the best, even if it ain't.
This is your opinion and you can't prove it.
Another popular misconception.
I'm done with this.
Last edited:
Collector0311
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2011
- Messages
- 368
So this is all new to me, and I'm gonna throw a question into the argument and see who bites.
I've got a new 637pc (non-Wyatt)
Which parts that y'all are talking about are MIM?
And if you arguments aren't about frame and cylinder materials but guts, is there a manufacturer of forged replacement parts you can swap with your MIM parts?
If so, would you see a real difference, or would it take running identical weapons, with different internals, simultaneously, for the duration of their lives to settle this argument?
I've got a new 637pc (non-Wyatt)
Which parts that y'all are talking about are MIM?
And if you arguments aren't about frame and cylinder materials but guts, is there a manufacturer of forged replacement parts you can swap with your MIM parts?
If so, would you see a real difference, or would it take running identical weapons, with different internals, simultaneously, for the duration of their lives to settle this argument?
Sheesh, Craig, my very next sentence said as much. This picking and choosing of words is what keeps this fire needlessly stoked.
Collector0311 said:
This is one of the problems with these old/new threads. Your 637 is likely a fine gun, but you've read the thread, and now you're concerned and confused.
Collector0311 said:
Mainly the hammer, sear, trigger. You can tell if a trigger's MIM by looking at the back of it: If it's MIM, it'll be hollowed out.
Collector0311 said:
Pre-/post-MIM warriors jabber not just about MIM parts, but about fitting of other parts, such as barrel into the frame, sideplate, fit of the yoke, alignment of the cylinder to the barrel, etc...It'll go on ad infinitum.
If your 627 is a newer one, with frame-mounted firing pin, you can get a DAO forged hammer from Apex Tactical. It's pricey, but a nice piece. You'll need sundry parts, such as the old-style sear, and likely a gunsmith to fit it. You can buy and aftermarket forged trigger from Power Custom. S&W's Performance Center guns used to be made with forged internals, so I'm guessing you can likely get some of these PC parts as replacement. If your PC revo has a forged trigger, it likely already has other forged internals as well.
Maybe or maybe not even the latter. So long as the action's smooth, it's got good sights, and the gun is accurate, you'll not likely notice any difference. When the rubber hits the road, newer guns can be all this. It'd likely benefit from a good action job (without replacing MIM parts), but it's a rare gun, new or old, that can't benefit from that anyway.
At this point, I'll take a cue from others, and say goodbye. Cheers, all.
The Old Fuff is always ready to bite - which is the reason he's sometimes bitten.
I didn't bother to look it up, but the basic revolver is a J-frame snubby with an exposed hammer you can cock with your thumb. The frame is made of aluminum, the cylinder and barrel from stainless steel, and only the lockwork and some related parts (such as the cylinder release thumbpiece) are MIM (Metal Injected Molded).
No. But one company does make a lockwork kit for J-frame revolvers that have fully enclosed hammers and are double-action-only. If you want to spend the money you could have the lockwork rebuilt using older "real steel"
parts with the exception of the hammer. This is because the MIM hammer is designed to work with Smith & Wesson's internal lock, and the older hammers weren't and couldn't be easily modified too do so. On your particular revolver I wouldn't spend the money. On the small J-frame the difference probably wouldn't be a whole lot. To the degree they're is doesn't depend on making a part swap as much as it does how those parts are assembled. These days at S&W somebody picks out parts at random and puts them into the frame. If everything seems to be working they put a sideplate on, and it's good too go. If they're is any individual fitting it's very limited and unintended. Close tolerances is supposed to make this possible. In actually life it usually does, but not always. If you bought a Performance Center gun you paid for better-then-average, and I hope you got it.
Unless you fire a lot of Thunder-Boomer/Man Stomper/Super Tactical amunition in it I would expect it to maybe outlive you, but I'd also say the same thing about an older pre-MIM revolver.
The real issue (at least so far as I'm concerned) is the fit & finish and attention to detail is better on the older guns. Cost-cutting changes may or may not affect fuction, but they seldom reflect a finer product.
Last edited:
Collector0311
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2011
- Messages
- 368
Back of the trigger has a recess, compared to the cylinder and barrel, obviously looks like a different style of material.
No concerns here, just trying to learn.
Absolutely in love with the fit, finish, and performance of this Smith.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I wasn't trying to pick a fight with that comment. Just extrapolating on your point.
No surprise, and since it has an internal lock (above the cylinder release thumbpiece) it also has a MIM hammer.
If you're satisfied nothing else matters. Most current buyers are. It is those with experience that goes back to the end of World War Two - or further - that see any difference.
While it's true that most users - then and now - mostly use the single-action mode when shooting hand-ejector revolvers that have both single-action and double-action options, those that prior to 1946 did "trigger fire" much prefered the S&W long action.
But because the majority - and in particular, bullseye target shooters - thumb-cocked - about 1939-40 Smith & Wsson decided to redesign their lockwork to get a shorter cocking stroke, and in doing so had to do the same with the double-action. World War Two got in the way, but in 1946 they introduced a new "short-action," and it was quickly noticed it didn't have the same smooth double-action that some fans were used to.
Fast forward to now: Recently Ruger introduced a little small-frame, inclosed hammer, snubby. Before long the Internet was filled with chatter about how good the trigger pull was on this double-action-only revolver, and how it substantually outclassed similar Smith & Wesson's.
So the Old Fuff looked into this to see why, and discovered that the old S&W long action had been reproduced by a different maker.
What goes around comes around - or so they say.
One authority on the subject of double-action trigger pulls was a Border Patrolman named Bill Jordan. He wasn't a combat game competitor, but he did have a lot of experience when it came to the real thing.
One of his favorites was on old S&W .38 Military & Police of World War One give-or-take vintage. It had belonged to an Uncle who'd lived a very interesting life, and when Bill got it he'd had the the original 5" barrel replaced with a 4" H.B. normally found on a much later Model 10. He often used it when giving fast-draw demonstrations because it had "The best double-action trigger pull of any revolver I've ever owned."
And he had owned a considerable number of them.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Interesting and good to know. And Ruger will get the accolades for this "innovation" because there are so few old, long action Smiths in circulation that only those who remember them will understand.
In addition to Bill Jordan, another real pistolero who used them to good effect was one Delf A."Jelly" Bryce, who killed 19 men in real gunfights over his career. So dangerous and fearfully effective was Bryce, that he was usually called in for only the most desperate outlaws. Bryce's rules of the game were simple. Surrender or die.
It was said that he carried an aura of death with him, and that very often, his mere presence on the scene caused several hardened criminals to immediately surrender in spite of vowing not to be taken alive. Even the ones who'd never heard of him seemed to sense that death had come to call. Among his contemporaries, it became known as "The Bryce Effect."
And let's not forget exhibition shooter Ed McGivern, who taught us how to do it "Fast and Fancy."
We who know'em understand. Them that don't...won't...until they shoot one a few times.
rswartsell
Member
No doubt this thread got sidetracked from the original intent. That does not mean that it can't carry water for some of the best intentions and results of forums such as this and THR in particular.
As in any crowded room there are numerous voices being raised at any time and numerous strong opinions (informed and otherwise) behind them.
Disparate good, informed opinions based on respectable experience and perception can be simultaneously true. My only intent here was to rebut the uninformed opinion that the "old" Smiths were junk by comparison to new, space age technology and constantly higher expectations. Not the reverse. This viewpoint (long actions are junk for current application) exposes a lack of "context" and intimate knowledge of the "long action" and possibly other "classic" firearms that I could perhaps shed a little light on by age and hands on experience. I am sure the same is true of some others here (Old Fuff and 1911 Tuner just to name a few, not meant to be exhaustive).
You don't profit by the use of these forums by "winning" the rhetorical jousting near as much as you do by picking up the nuggets from the old hands (possibly younger than you, but experienced where you are not). Each man has his day to be "wrong" in turn, the wise will always profit no matter the turn of events.
Choose what is correct for your purposes and have good reasons for doing so. Your reasons will always benefit by being better informed. Being as informed as you can will always suffer by making your sole focus "winning" with what you know now. Not a good way to gain new information.
I believe that the "golden age" of American revolvers began shortly after heat treating steel became established and ended with the advent of production cost cutting starting say about 1969, this for the reasons already stated here. Listen to why I think so and you will not be compelled to agree with me, but perhaps pick up something you did not know. I in turn will always bear the need to also learn from you. Initially,..... I thought MIM was a complete sell out and junk. My opinion has changed quite a bit by paying attention to what is shared in places like this.
As in any crowded room there are numerous voices being raised at any time and numerous strong opinions (informed and otherwise) behind them.
Disparate good, informed opinions based on respectable experience and perception can be simultaneously true. My only intent here was to rebut the uninformed opinion that the "old" Smiths were junk by comparison to new, space age technology and constantly higher expectations. Not the reverse. This viewpoint (long actions are junk for current application) exposes a lack of "context" and intimate knowledge of the "long action" and possibly other "classic" firearms that I could perhaps shed a little light on by age and hands on experience. I am sure the same is true of some others here (Old Fuff and 1911 Tuner just to name a few, not meant to be exhaustive).
You don't profit by the use of these forums by "winning" the rhetorical jousting near as much as you do by picking up the nuggets from the old hands (possibly younger than you, but experienced where you are not). Each man has his day to be "wrong" in turn, the wise will always profit no matter the turn of events.
Choose what is correct for your purposes and have good reasons for doing so. Your reasons will always benefit by being better informed. Being as informed as you can will always suffer by making your sole focus "winning" with what you know now. Not a good way to gain new information.
I believe that the "golden age" of American revolvers began shortly after heat treating steel became established and ended with the advent of production cost cutting starting say about 1969, this for the reasons already stated here. Listen to why I think so and you will not be compelled to agree with me, but perhaps pick up something you did not know. I in turn will always bear the need to also learn from you. Initially,..... I thought MIM was a complete sell out and junk. My opinion has changed quite a bit by paying attention to what is shared in places like this.
Last edited:
- Status