S&W views on their MIM parts

I thought so...rectal rescue

Wash your hands.

Hygiene is important even for people that know so much about people that they know nothing about.

Gentlemen:

Why get personal?

Each of us can buy whatever we like, regardless of what it is. I strongly support those that prefer the current crop of Smith & Wesson's because it keeps the company going, and they stay out of my hair while I'm looking for what I like better. What I really don't want is more competition and demand for classical revolvers coming from those that are satisfied with what is being offered by the company now.

Ease off and go pet whatever your favorite is...

LOL!
Old fuff, Guillermo:

Just wondering if the two of you could refrain from stating you opinions in the next MIM thread?

Probably be a much shorter discussion.

Without you two there is much less "opinion"

Just saying........

I might take you up on that, but I notice that in affect only one side of the argument is supposed withdraw.

I personally try to stay on subject, and avoid any personal attacks. In my opinion there is no reason for getting emotional so long as everyone can buy whatever revolver they prefer. Do you find it to be objectionable that some champion older guns over newer ones? Without question you can shorten any discussion by presenting only one side...

And with that comment I will go away.

Carry on.

emotional?

LOL

I just love it when people don't separate that which they know from that which they don't. It is called "anti-critical thinking"

But hey, I look at the world and see morons everywhere. Sadly the gun world is not immune.


As the MIM parts, I am glad that the addlepatted buy them. It is to my benefit.

On this very thread I have repeatedly thanked them.

Just put a bunch of Winchester 110gr JHPs and some Speer 125gr Gold dot .357s through my S&W 60 (child lock and MIM parts.)

While breath taking it shot fine. The 110s were much more tolerable than the 125s!

Yes I have some 'pre-lock' S&Ws. In fact several. But I have a 642 child-lock and this new 60. Not a problem with them in any way.

They may not be collector pieces but they are good fighting guns.

Deaf

Every time I come across one of these old v. new style S&W revolver threads I sort of browse through it to see if anything new has been said ...

I'm sometimes a bit conflicted when it comes to the new versus old production, myself.

However, I can think of any number of late 60's-80's S&W revolvers that had simply awful fitting issues. The file work inside could be rough, and some parts couldn't be put any closer to the 'optimal' end of the tolerance range without replacement. I remember one former agency armorer chuckling when I was describing a rough fitting job inside a particular older S&W revolver someone had brought to me for repair, and he pretty much just chuckled and told me that what I was seeing for tolerance/fitting wasn't uncommon for many of the S&W revolvers of that vintage (meaning 70's-80's). He told me I was probably going to be seeing fewer problems with the newer guns than he had dealt with when working with the older guns.

Then again, I remember having a conversation with a former production worker who told me how S&W re-examined their old & new style revolver parts some years ago, looking to make the standard production guns better. He said they took a number of revolvers that had been worked by the PC, and then the engineers examined the parts, coming up with a tighter set of tolerances for production of parts for revolvers using both old production style & MIM parts.

There are some things I really like about both production periods, and some things I don't. I own and use both, and deal with whatever issues may arise as might be necessary.

I do like the warranty of the newer guns, though.

Folks ought to choose whatever suits them. Why not? I do.

MIM, in summary

Thaddeus hates new S&W
G hates new S&W
a lot of people who own 'em, like 'em a lot
some members (OldCav, Fuff, Keenan, MrB, fastbolt) may even attempt to inject the voice of reason, promptly ignored and/or insulted
sprinkle in a few more insults, mix well with a generous helping of wailing and gnashing of teeth

"are we there yet, daddy ?"

oh, wait, wait... weregunner owns 17 Taurus revolvers
yup, now we have finally arrived, thank goodness !
(ahh, 'closure', ain't it grand)
we really oughta' all get together and do this again real soon !

"it was good for me... was it good for you ?"

There is nothing wrong with MIM parts. If similar processes can be used for medical implants, where failure will be immediately more severe, then it should do fine for handguns.

The MIM parts have sufficient strength and hardness, and are dimensionally more accurate than bar stock parts. The dimensional performance of the process directly determines whether the resultant guns will function properly once assembled. Form should always follow function. A pretty gun that doesn't work is a paperweight. A MIM gun that works consistently is a useful tool.

Old guns have old metallurgy, where the mechanical properties of a material were difficult to achieve using the technology and science of the day.

Hand fitting is not a good manufacturing practice. It is by its nature a rework process, whereby finished parts must be refinished individually in order to be made to function. Hand fitting is an indictment of a manufacturing process's quality.

This is where S&W's cost savings come into play. The material cost of a part is often small compared to labor costs necessary to bring that part to a finished state. In a bar stock machining process, much of the material is removed as chips to hew the part from the larger bar. This is waste, and perhaps 50-90% of the bar stock ends up in the chip hopper at the rough cut stage. Then holes must be drilled, reamed, the part must be polished. This might involve multiple operators and multiple machines, excessive part movement and handling, additional tooling, and intermittent measurement. These all add to the cost. After the part is finished, a gun is assembled, by hand i.e. labor. The pieces must then be individually ground/polished to be made to function. This hand fitting incurs more labor time. If a part is over ground or over polished the part, and all of its previously incurred costs, must be scrapped and the process restarted. This is also waste. For a finely tuned gun, my guess would be that it would take several hours of labor for assembly, grinding, polishing, measurement, and other operations associated with hand fitting. At 15-25 dollars an hour, not including benefits, it would be considerable more expensive to hand fit a machined part, than to use a MIM process that makes the part to the correct dimensions in one go.

MIM represents an improvement in the manufacturing of a gun, because it produces parts of known quality and function with a higher degree of capability.

Hand fitting is not a good manufacturing practice. It is by its nature a rework process, whereby finished parts must be refinished individually in order to be made to function. Hand fitting is an indictment of a manufacturing process's quality.

Click to expand...

Excellent point!

But hey, I look at the world and see morons everywhere. Sadly the gun world is not immune.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more!

similar processes can be used for medical implants, where failure will be immediately more severe, then it should do fine for handguns.

Click to expand...

I consider death to pretty severe.

Hey Old Fool...you might want to reconsider putting Old Fuff on the "they are great" list. While he (like me) sees their benefit (cost) he does not pay a premium for them. (he has a Taurus and a Charter....no MIM Smiths)

I am glad that there are MIM revolvers. They have made it possible to make a high quality revolver at a very cheap price. I you are going to pay premium prices however...

The only major problem I ever had with a S&W revo was with one of their new ones,the BodyGuard38.Misfires,sometimes cylinder rotation and way off point of impact.Im not too keen on the MIM lockwork S&W is using,like a previous poster stated,Taurus quality at forged prices.
I think you can have both good and bad quality MIM parts.I have an early Kimber Series I Custom Classic that has been 100% reliable and very accurate shooter.I have been trying to shoot that 1911 to see how the MIM parts hold up.I still prefer forged or barstock.
My BodyGuard38 has left a bad taste in the mouth.S&W eventually replaced it with a new BG38.So far 100% reliablity but still shoots way high and left at close range(you will miss a head shot at 15 yards).My older J frames pre 1999,have acceptable levels of accuray and shoot POA.

How much does it cost S&W per revolver to add the Internal lock (making of parts, machining the frame, installing parts, etc.)?


How much does S&W save per revolver to use MIM parts?


And by the way, even with MIM parts, hand fitting is still required on every revolver.


Also, if MIM parts are better, why does the Performance center usually use forged parts in their revolvers?

taurus has been makeing MIM parts for other companies for years.

I have both new and old S&W's and the new ones as much better built and tested. If old guns are so great go back to Colt SSA, think that metal is nearly as good as modern metallurgy can produce???

it's all in your head to the "old is better" school of thought. It's good we can all buy what we want though.

if MIM parts are better, why does the Performance center usually use forged parts in their revolvers?

Click to expand...

I am still waiting for someone to answer SWaddict's query.

this is what stands out to me in the orginal OP thread about smith's statement....here is part of it and i will "bold" selected parts to mark concern....

Let's shift gears for a moment and talk about the MIM process. It is unclear to me as to the reason for many of the negative feelings on the forum concerning MIM. Typically when people complain and aren't specific in the reason why, the problem is often created by a departure from the "Traditional". Perhaps that is indeed what is bothering some people when they view MIM.

The term MIM stands for Metal Injection Molding. It holds some similarities to Plastic Injection Molding and many differences as well. To start we would take a finally divided metal powder. This could be stainless or carbon steel. Today even titanium is being used in some MIM fabrications. We would mix the metal powder and a thermoplastic binder (generally a wax) forming slurry of sorts when heated and inject this mix into a precision mold and finally form what is known as a “green part". This part is roughly 30% larger than the finished part it will become at the end of the process. Interestingly enough the green part at this stage can be snapped in two with simple finger pressure. The green parts are then placed in a sintering furnace filled with dry hydrogen gas and the temperature is brought almost to the melting point of the metal being used. Over time the wax in the green part is evaporated, the metal fuses and the part shrinks 30% to it's final correct dimensions. At this stage of the process the MIM part has developed 98 to 99%of the density of the older wrought materials and a metallurgy that is almost identical. Dimensionally it is finished and no machining is required. However the job is not yet done and the MIM parts are brought to our heat treat facility for hardening and in the case of hammers and triggers, case hardening. Depending on the particular metal alloy that was used at the start of the process we apply a heat treat process that is the same as would be used if the material were the older wrought style. Final hardness, case thickness and core hardness are for the most part identical to parts manufactured the older way.

Click to expand...

i am not a rocket scientist, i am not an engineer............the items in "bold" tend to not create warm and fuzzy feelings.

these concerns are about MY ignorance on the subject. powdered metal and thermoplastic flies right over my head and does not particulary sound stout or "right".........sounds down right unsanitary and unhealthy if you know what i mean.....

sintering.....mercy, there was a lot of bad talk years back about sintered gun parts.....

but again, smith is trying to explain this process to this ignorrant person and not doing a very good job of it..........all of the positives in the article have been canceled by word association with the perceived negatives.

then, there is the wonderful world of the internet. rumors abound, and people feel compeled to take sides. Some examples start getting thrown out back and forth pro and con and soon enough the waters get muddy.
Talk of gunsmiths who claim you can not "work" an MIM gun, polish/mill the surface too deeply and you are into soft metal......and claims to the contrary.

Taurus uses MIM?.......i could not care less
Ruger is now using MIM?......now that gets my attention

MIM is apparently here to stay. The real problem today in my opinion is not the parts process, but the quality control......be it parts or finish or screwing the barrel on straight.

and just sheer speculation here, but this revolver guy was a hold out for a long time against autos in general and plastic autos in particular........revolvers were trusted to be reliable, stout, and made of real steel and not plastic or powdered metal...............but they did eventually drag me kicking and screaming into the current century.....

my next revolver will probably be an airweight smith 638 with a hillary hole.........it will be less expensive than a pre-mim "hole-less" model on the used market. All this debate has done is drive the prices of used smiths up to the point that i might as well just get a new one.

However, I can think of any number of late 60's-80's S&W revolvers that had simply awful fitting issues.

Click to expand...

Yeah , I'll have to say that the overall fit and finish of my 1981 vintage 66-1 is not as good as my 1994 686-4 or my later MIM equipped 66-5.

It would be one thing if the newer Smith revolvers did not shoot. In regards to pure out of the box accuracy I'd put my MIM equipped Smiths against those made in any era.

I'm not saying the revolvers shoot well because of MIM but those so equipped sure are not hurt by it. All the Smiths I have manufactured in the CNC era have been exceptional shooters.

Talk of gunsmiths who claim you can not "work" an MIM gun, polish/mill the surface too deeply and you are into soft metal......and claims to the contrary

Click to expand...

The way that every gun manufacturer that I know of constriuct MIM, including S&W, the parts are the same hardness all the way through.

You CAN (as they do in turbine engines) use a multi-step process by which you put a hard surface over a softer, more flexible center. (giving the piece harness and flexibility. ALso why it is silly to compare the two.)

The reason some gunsmiths won't work on them is because they don't polish (they do "burnish...so dry firing can help an MIM action)

MIM is apparently here to stay. The real problem today in my opinion is not the parts process, but the quality control......be it parts or finish or screwing the barrel on straight

Click to expand...

Yes, yes and yes.

MIM is here to stay. Labor costs, especially in the union states, make MIM much cheaper. And as you can tell, most people don't care.

And let us reiterate. MIM makes it possible to build a very good, cheap revolver.
Selling a cheaply made revolver at premium prices is a good gig if you can get it.

if MIM parts are better, why does the Performance center usually use forged parts in their revolvers?

Click to expand...

Still waiting

"if MIM parts are better, why does the Performance center usually use forged parts in their revolvers?"


Marketing gimmickry.

Some people have bought into the idea that "retro" is superior, and they are willing to pay big bucks for it.

Another brilliant marketing coup by S&W.

gd

^^^
LOL

I am glad that there are MIM revolvers. They have made it possible to make a high quality revolver at a very cheap price. I you are going to pay premium prices however...

Click to expand...

Just a query, what WOULD be an honest fair asking price for, let's say, a brand new 686 6 shot? IYO?

Some people have bought into the idea that "retro" is superior, and they are willing to pay big bucks for it.

Another brilliant marketing coup by S&W.

Click to expand...

Don't know if you're serious or not, but that's probably at least a big part of it. If not the retro flair, then the idea that my special gun is made with special parts. Give people pride and a reason to look down on the regular affair, all while paying for it of course.

what WOULD be an honest fair asking price for, let's say, a brand new 686 6 shot? IYO?

Click to expand...

That is a fair question.

Looks like the Brazilians can retail one for about $385.
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/manufacturers_id/85/products_id/31456


$655 for the Smith
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/39_72/products_id/26252

I would take the Smith over the Taurus anyday.
$270 for a better gun and much better customer service is worth every penny.
Of course guilermo; you and your bosses at Taurus will certainly disagree.

The Brazilians also have the benefit of Brazilian labor, and while not an expert on labor costs I can pretty much safely assume is cheaper, not to mention any other regulatory costs that come with production in a first world vs second(?) world nation.

Which of course has to be a consideration.

I'd say put the 686 in the mid 500 range. Basically the cost of the Ruger equivalent.