S & W and MIM Parts
- Thread starter Willieboy
- Start date
- Status
Mulliga
Member
Doesn't the Beretta Storm have a plastic hammer and plastic rails? Hasn't seemed to cause any widespread problems, at least from what I've read on THR.
RON in PA
Member
If I remember correctly when S&W started introducing the MIM hammer and trigger there was a letter posted on this web page from a Smith rep explaining why. One of their concerns was the life-time warrenty. They determined that the MIM parts were more reliable. They are also better from the point-of-view of parts interchangeability. The old way of putting together a Smith revolver was to have a well trained fitter trying different parts pulled from a bin until the best match was made. Not the fastest or most efficient way to manufacture.
My biggest complaint about current Smiths with MIM parts is their approximately one pound heavier trigger pull in DA (dont much care about SA). The triggers smooth considerabley over the first thousand shots, but the trigger pull is still not as light as it should be. The fit and finish of my post-2000 Smiths is just fine and the bluing of my 2001 model 10 is quit good. Yes the casehardening of the MIM parts isn't "purty".
Sometime the good-old-days are today.
My biggest complaint about current Smiths with MIM parts is their approximately one pound heavier trigger pull in DA (dont much care about SA). The triggers smooth considerabley over the first thousand shots, but the trigger pull is still not as light as it should be. The fit and finish of my post-2000 Smiths is just fine and the bluing of my 2001 model 10 is quit good. Yes the casehardening of the MIM parts isn't "purty".
Sometime the good-old-days are today.
RON in PA:
I’m not sure how they could do this. They could cycle a few revolvers for so many thousand times and see what broke or didn’t, but the fact is that the “old lockwork” they’d used for decades had a well established history, and it was a pretty good one. The “new lockwork” might be fine from git-go, but they had no long-term history. From the perspective of a lifetime warrantee the older parts might have been a better bet, but only time will tell.
Part of the reason for this may be that the new MIM hammers are lighter then the old ones. If you look and one you will see that metal is removed on each side and in effect you get an “H” shape cross-section. This was done to adapt the part to work with MIM processing. But the lighter weight reduces hammer momentum and firing pin strike unless you increase the mainspring tension.
True, but the real question is, “why won’t the new parts color like the old ones?” The answer is the difference in materials. The next question should be, “why don’t they flash chrome plate the new parts after hardening so they look better, especially on a stainless gun?” This is something they used to do with the “old lockwork” used in stainless revolvers (no, those hammers and triggers weren’t really stainless steel except for some early model 60’s).
And clearly sometimes they aren’t. Modern manufacturing methods and technologies are a mixed bag. The driving force behind much of them is to reduce production and labor costs. This is understandable and probably necessary. But I have had an opportunity to disassemble and examine literally hundreds of revolvers of different makes ranging from the 1850’s to this current day. In my opinion the newer materials may be better (although not a lot better then that used during the 20th century in many cases, and in particular that used during the past 50 years – there is a difference between that which was available, and that which was used. Gun companies tend to be very conservative.) But the fit, polish, and workmanship that we used to see has declined, especially from that seen between the two world wars.
I’m not sure how they could do this. They could cycle a few revolvers for so many thousand times and see what broke or didn’t, but the fact is that the “old lockwork” they’d used for decades had a well established history, and it was a pretty good one. The “new lockwork” might be fine from git-go, but they had no long-term history. From the perspective of a lifetime warrantee the older parts might have been a better bet, but only time will tell.
Now this is the real truth of the matter. The “new lockwork” could be assembled by a trained monkey, and the company would enjoy a substantial labor cost savings. Some of the savings might be passed on to the customer, which is good – but that doesn’t mean that the buyer was necessarily getting a better revolver, just one that was less expensive to make. Personally, I prefer one that was put together by a highly skilled and well-trained fitter.
Part of the reason for this may be that the new MIM hammers are lighter then the old ones. If you look and one you will see that metal is removed on each side and in effect you get an “H” shape cross-section. This was done to adapt the part to work with MIM processing. But the lighter weight reduces hammer momentum and firing pin strike unless you increase the mainspring tension.
True, but the real question is, “why won’t the new parts color like the old ones?” The answer is the difference in materials. The next question should be, “why don’t they flash chrome plate the new parts after hardening so they look better, especially on a stainless gun?” This is something they used to do with the “old lockwork” used in stainless revolvers (no, those hammers and triggers weren’t really stainless steel except for some early model 60’s).
And clearly sometimes they aren’t. Modern manufacturing methods and technologies are a mixed bag. The driving force behind much of them is to reduce production and labor costs. This is understandable and probably necessary. But I have had an opportunity to disassemble and examine literally hundreds of revolvers of different makes ranging from the 1850’s to this current day. In my opinion the newer materials may be better (although not a lot better then that used during the 20th century in many cases, and in particular that used during the past 50 years – there is a difference between that which was available, and that which was used. Gun companies tend to be very conservative.) But the fit, polish, and workmanship that we used to see has declined, especially from that seen between the two world wars.
tension said:
Exactly. Reading this thread brought a smile to my face because it contains truths that reflect differing perspectives without leading to simple opinionated defensiveness.
I own examples of both newer and older S&W handguns. I appreciate the older guns for their workmanship and knowing that hands touched the guns as they were being built. I also own new guns that I am very happy with. My 22-4 feels great in the hand and has nice deep bluing -- it's a classy revolver (though I know it doesn't match the classics of old). My 325PD and SW1911SC are made with modern alloys (and wood and steel) and I am VERY impressed with their handling and performance.
Fuff is right -- we won't see the type of hands-on workmanship that was the norm in days passed. But quality guns are still being made in Springfield.
If you want that kind of fit and polish you have to pay for it. American skilled labor isn't cheap anymore.
If you want S&W to sell you a new revolver for $500-600 you will have to accept some cut corners.
It's that simple. Grump all you want about how things were made in the good old days, it's not going to change the economics of today's world.
I believe the binder burns off during the sintering process.
If you want S&W to sell you a new revolver for $500-600 you will have to accept some cut corners.
It's that simple. Grump all you want about how things were made in the good old days, it's not going to change the economics of today's world.
Old Fuff said:
I believe the binder burns off during the sintering process.
EddieCoyle
Member
There's an art to this. Forgetting the color for a second, the reason that parts were case hardened was to end up with a part that was wear resistant but not brittle. Case hardening hardened just the surface of the part (making it wear resistant) but left the interior of the part soft and tough (not brittle). It gave manufacturers the best of both worlds - tough parts that resisted breakage and wear. Gears and gun parts were ideal candidates for this process.
To case-harden steel, you start with a low-carbon, low-alloy steel. Normally, such steels will not harden with heat treating because the carbon content is too low. Carbon is introduced into the surface (only) of the part by packing the part in with some carbon-bearing material (in the old days they used a combination of charcoal, animal hide, and charred bone meal). The packed part was placed inside a (more or less) airtight container to help keep the process oxygen-free, and placed in a furnace.
When the whole mess was heated to the proper temperature and left for a while, carbon from the packing material migrated to the part, changing the surface of the part (to a depth of a few thousandths of an inch) into high carbon steel.
Here's where the hardening part comes in. Simply adding the carbon does not automatically harden the part. In order to make the high carbon portion of the part hard, it needs to be rapidly cooled. After the part has been in the furnace long enough for the surface to become high carbon, the part is suddenly quenched (cooled) - usually by dunking the part in a barrel of water.
The sudden cooling hardens only the high carbon portion of the part. The quench has no effect on the low carbon steel.
You end up with a part that is hard, wear-resistant, and somewhat brittle on the outside, but tough, resilient, and soft on the inside. That's why do-it-yourself trigger jobs on case-hardened parts can end up going very badly - it's too easy to grind/file right through the hardened portion exposing the soft steel beneath. Most case hardening leaves the part a sort of grey-ish color.
Color case hardening is slightly different. To get the pretty colors, there were some extra steps and changes to the process. First of all, the parts that were to be color case hardened were polished and cleaned prior to going into the furnace (just like when you chrome plate today, surface finish is key). Animal hides and bone (no charcoal) were usually used as the carbon-bearing packing. The quenching process was a bit different too. Manufacturers found that the colors were enhanced by adding nitrogen to the quenching bath (very early on they just added gunpowder until someone figured out that it was the potassium nitrate that brought out the color. I know a heat treater that adds ammonium nitrate to the quench with good results). They also found that the colors were improved by agitating the bath by bubbling air through it. Each manufacturer's process was sligthly different and probably a highly guarded secret.
You can still have parts color case hardened today. I work with a heat treater that will do it. There are even do-it-yourself kits that let you case harden with a torch. The reason you do not see as much of it today is that color case hardening is more expensive than other methods.
Case hardening became unnecessary when steels improved. Deep-hardening steels like A2 can be tempered and cryogenically treated to be even tougher and more wear resistant than a case hardened part. Some of the so-called "superalloys" are even more amazing. There are crucible powedered metal tool steels like CPM10V and CPM15V that are incredibly hard, tough enough to be used to make high-speed stamping dies, and so wear resistant that they will wear out a silicon carbide grinding wheel (diamond is the only thing that will cut it). None of them look as nice as a good color case hardened part though.
Well you've offered us an excellent, detailed and accurate description of the color-case hardening process which is very informative - and for that I thank you. 
But the fact remains that S&W can't seem to get a good job on MIM parts, and is apparently too cheap to flash-chrome them for better cosmetics.
That was the point I was trying to make...
But thanks again - and I really mean that.
But the fact remains that S&W can't seem to get a good job on MIM parts, and is apparently too cheap to flash-chrome them for better cosmetics.
That was the point I was trying to make...
But thanks again - and I really mean that.
S&WIowegan
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Messages
- 58
MIM vs. Forged
This is a very interesting thread. First let me say I'm OLD but I resist falling into fogey-dom strenuously. I love collecting old revolvers, especially Smiths, and I'm not really aesthetically taken with the newer Smith revolvers. BUT, that's a far cry from saying they're junk...they aren't!
Revolvers were made from forgings because that was the best method available to create the strength and durability needed. That's way different than saying nothing will be better than forgings ever! It is just simply wrong to insist that reducing costs of a product correlates directly with lower quality. Any working engineer will tell you the first product out of the factory is not necessarily the best. Manufacturing constantly works to improve quality and process AND lower costs. That is not an evil plot to screw customers and the workers. That's the kind of crap labor unions repeat ad nauseum as they watch jobs go elsewhere. Adapt or die is an ancient rule that is eternally true.
Fuff is right when he says the old revolvers were hand fit and finished. The reasons are several. One is labor was cheap......anybody out there longing to go back to the great depression??? Second is that they could not make the parts any more precise with the old machinery. Thus hand fitting was necessary. This in no way equates to better.....it's just the way it had to be at the time. Yes I have worked in factories and assembled steel tools. The final stage was always the two or three guys who took each piece and bent, banged, twisted and hammered it until it functioned and passed inspection. Believe me, they didn't do this to be good guys or make the tools beautiful.....they did it because they had to!!!
Surely even Fuff isn't going to claim that process is better than modern production machine tools with CAD/CAM producing virtually identical parts that drop in. Fuff seems to be saying that old revolvers are more reliable but I doubt the guys with broken Peacemakers due to poor springs thought so.
It seems to me it's easy to slip into grumpy old fogey hood and stop listening to anything but your own personal biases, but it ain't nearly as much fun as being willing to change, grow and learn with the times.
BOB.
This is a very interesting thread. First let me say I'm OLD but I resist falling into fogey-dom strenuously. I love collecting old revolvers, especially Smiths, and I'm not really aesthetically taken with the newer Smith revolvers. BUT, that's a far cry from saying they're junk...they aren't!
Revolvers were made from forgings because that was the best method available to create the strength and durability needed. That's way different than saying nothing will be better than forgings ever! It is just simply wrong to insist that reducing costs of a product correlates directly with lower quality. Any working engineer will tell you the first product out of the factory is not necessarily the best. Manufacturing constantly works to improve quality and process AND lower costs. That is not an evil plot to screw customers and the workers. That's the kind of crap labor unions repeat ad nauseum as they watch jobs go elsewhere. Adapt or die is an ancient rule that is eternally true.
Fuff is right when he says the old revolvers were hand fit and finished. The reasons are several. One is labor was cheap......anybody out there longing to go back to the great depression???
Second is that they could not make the parts any more precise with the old machinery. Thus hand fitting was necessary. This in no way equates to better.....it's just the way it had to be at the time. Yes I have worked in factories and assembled steel tools. The final stage was always the two or three guys who took each piece and bent, banged, twisted and hammered it until it functioned and passed inspection. Believe me, they didn't do this to be good guys or make the tools beautiful.....they did it because they had to!!!Surely even Fuff isn't going to claim that process is better than modern production machine tools with CAD/CAM producing virtually identical parts that drop in. Fuff seems to be saying that old revolvers are more reliable but I doubt the guys with broken Peacemakers due to poor springs thought so.
It seems to me it's easy to slip into grumpy old fogey hood and stop listening to anything but your own personal biases, but it ain't nearly as much fun as being willing to change, grow and learn with the times.
BOB.
pcf
Member
Good Old Days When Bangor Punta knew how to make revolvers
We will ignore that little phase were Smith & Wesson used stamped sheet metal parts. That was beginning of the end, the inhumanity, stamped sheet metal I can't think of a time in my life when someone wouldn't tell me that Smith's quality was in the tubes and it was all over.
I remember a time when Smith "Aficionados" wouldn't have pee'd on a BP revolver it was on fire. Current production will always be in the dumper until Smith comes out with a new abomination. Give it a couple more years and crush fit barrels will command a premium. I'm sure I'll see a day when "only 1 lock" will command a premium too
. MIM will get there.
We will ignore that little phase were Smith & Wesson used stamped sheet metal parts. That was beginning of the end, the inhumanity, stamped sheet metal
I can't think of a time in my life when someone wouldn't tell me that Smith's quality was in the tubes and it was all over.I remember a time when Smith "Aficionados" wouldn't have pee'd on a BP revolver it was on fire. Current production will always be in the dumper until Smith comes out with a new abomination. Give it a couple more years and crush fit barrels will command a premium. I'm sure I'll see a day when "only 1 lock" will command a premium too
. MIM will get there.JohnBT
Member
"if you had to drive across the country and had three days to do it"
Bugatti. 1001 hp. Zero to 200 mph in 14 seconds. $1,700,000.
MIM that.
John
Bugatti. 1001 hp. Zero to 200 mph in 14 seconds. $1,700,000.
MIM that.
John
EddieCoyle
Member
Old Fuff said:But the fact remains that S&W can't seem to get a good job on MIM parts, and is apparently too cheap to flash-chrome them for better cosmetics.
You're right. I can't recall seeing many nickel plated or chromed MIM parts other than "beauty" samples at trade shows. The surface finish on MIM parts is not great because they are not 100% dense. Perhaps the fact that they (probably) need additional prep work before plating makes doing so cost-prohibitive.
It would be interesting to get S&W's take on this.
All I can say is that I own a 6" barreled M&P 3rd Change that was manufactured in 1913. Whatever the reasons behind the manufacturing processes that model was considered to be a very average and affordable handgun in it's time. By todays standards it's almost a handmade handgun. It's a real piece of work. But I usually shoot it single action because I worry about the springs. I love that long action, and the gun is in very good condition, but I can't help seeing it as being more fragile. I own a Colt Official Police that was made in the early Fifties and I consider it to be more solid, but I still baby it as well. Both are great revolvers.
On the other hand I own a 686 that's only a few years old, a Ruger GP 100 and a Ruger SP 101.I shoot those models all the time and I frequently dry fire all three of them. No worries. Actually the SP101 is one of my Backups/CCW's and I trust it not only with my life but with others. The old guns are great, but I have to admit that I prefer newer ones for serious range time.
Just my two cents.
On the other hand I own a 686 that's only a few years old, a Ruger GP 100 and a Ruger SP 101.I shoot those models all the time and I frequently dry fire all three of them. No worries. Actually the SP101 is one of my Backups/CCW's and I trust it not only with my life but with others. The old guns are great, but I have to admit that I prefer newer ones for serious range time.
Just my two cents.
Springs
Checkman:
Dont worry about the springs. With the exception of the mainspring they are all coil, and made out of music wire. All of the coil springs can be easily and inexpensively replaced, but it's unlikely they'll need to be.
The mainspring is slightly thicker then those used today, but any of the aftermarket springs as well as those made by S&W will fit. If you want to preserve the original mainspring simply get a new one from Brownells (www.brownells.com) and put it in. No fitting or adjustment will be required.
Abuse might ruin the gun, but shooting it - even double action - won't hurt it a bit. Ed McGivern obviously did, you can too...
Checkman:
Dont worry about the springs. With the exception of the mainspring they are all coil, and made out of music wire. All of the coil springs can be easily and inexpensively replaced, but it's unlikely they'll need to be.
The mainspring is slightly thicker then those used today, but any of the aftermarket springs as well as those made by S&W will fit. If you want to preserve the original mainspring simply get a new one from Brownells (www.brownells.com) and put it in. No fitting or adjustment will be required.
Abuse might ruin the gun, but shooting it - even double action - won't hurt it a bit. Ed McGivern obviously did, you can too...
S&WIowegan:
I can see that your experience with S&W revolvers is limited to more recent times...
Back around the late 1890’s and early 1900’s the management got upset because the cylinder stop notches in the cylinders would peen out and no longer lock the cylinder like it should. The only solution then, as now, was to replace the cylinder if the condition got too bad. So they did something about it. First, they milled the stop notches. Then they cut a second, narrow notch next to it. A hardened steel shim was press-fit into this second notch and then the shim was polished flush with the cylinder. The fit was so precise that even today you won’t notice the shim unless you use a magnifying glass. All of this did away with most if not all of the notch peening problem, and you will find old, well worn top-break .32 and .38 revolvers from this period that lock up as tight or tighter then what’s coming out of the factory today.
About the same time American target shooters using S&W No. 3 New Model Russian revolvers, took on their European counterparts who had the best single-shot pistols that could be made. The matches consisted of 50 shots at 50 yards, slow fire.
The Americans won, and it was acknowledged that S&W was the only maker in the world that could turn out a revolver that could outshoot a single shot target gun.
If you happen to handle a .44 Triple Lock, look at the third lock that’s inletted into the yoke. This was done so precisely, that it appears that the two are one part, and the only way you can tell that this isn’t so, is because the yoke is either blued or nickel plated, while the lock is color case-hardened.
As for hand fitting, they didn't do as much of that as you might think. The key lockwork parts were case hardened, and removing metal would quickly ruin them. Colt however, made guns in an entirely different way, and did a lot of hand fitting.
All of this was done using the "primitive machinery" of the time…
But the folks that ran those machines were darn good.
I can see that your experience with S&W revolvers is limited to more recent times...
Back around the late 1890’s and early 1900’s the management got upset because the cylinder stop notches in the cylinders would peen out and no longer lock the cylinder like it should. The only solution then, as now, was to replace the cylinder if the condition got too bad. So they did something about it. First, they milled the stop notches. Then they cut a second, narrow notch next to it. A hardened steel shim was press-fit into this second notch and then the shim was polished flush with the cylinder. The fit was so precise that even today you won’t notice the shim unless you use a magnifying glass. All of this did away with most if not all of the notch peening problem, and you will find old, well worn top-break .32 and .38 revolvers from this period that lock up as tight or tighter then what’s coming out of the factory today.
About the same time American target shooters using S&W No. 3 New Model Russian revolvers, took on their European counterparts who had the best single-shot pistols that could be made. The matches consisted of 50 shots at 50 yards, slow fire.
The Americans won, and it was acknowledged that S&W was the only maker in the world that could turn out a revolver that could outshoot a single shot target gun.
If you happen to handle a .44 Triple Lock, look at the third lock that’s inletted into the yoke. This was done so precisely, that it appears that the two are one part, and the only way you can tell that this isn’t so, is because the yoke is either blued or nickel plated, while the lock is color case-hardened.
As for hand fitting, they didn't do as much of that as you might think. The key lockwork parts were case hardened, and removing metal would quickly ruin them. Colt however, made guns in an entirely different way, and did a lot of hand fitting.
All of this was done using the "primitive machinery" of the time…
But the folks that ran those machines were darn good.
EddieCoyle
Member
Old Fuff said:But the folks that ran those machines were darn good.
Amen. I cut my teeth in a machine shop summers during my teenage years. One guy that worked part time the shop was a WWI vet that had been a machinist all his life. That man could do the impossible with an old Bridgeport (no digital readout for him) and high-speed steel tooling. He hated carbide because he couldn't get it sharp enough.
Sadly, due to the virtual disappearance of apprenticeship programs, we're unlikey to turn out many more like him.
There is nothing wrong with MIM.
Overall, the forgings might have better mechanical properties, but for the intended purpose, MIM is sufficient. Forged lockwork is probably just overkill and added cost.
We say that they don't build them like they used to, which is true. But then again, we have come an awful long way. We shoot more chamberings, we shoot more powerful loads, accuracy in general is improving all the time. There is the possibility that the good ol' days might not actually be better than the present.
Overall, the forgings might have better mechanical properties, but for the intended purpose, MIM is sufficient. Forged lockwork is probably just overkill and added cost.
We say that they don't build them like they used to, which is true. But then again, we have come an awful long way. We shoot more chamberings, we shoot more powerful loads, accuracy in general is improving all the time. There is the possibility that the good ol' days might not actually be better than the present.
Old Fuff
Old Fuff,
Thanks for the info. I honestly didn't know that. I guess I have a tendency to baby the "old" handguns. I notice that I tend to treat them like they're made of glass. I imagine that if one of the old timers could see me handling one of my "vintage" wheelies they'd ask me what the heck is wrong with the guns, me or both.
It's strictly the handguns that I treat like that. I own a Chile Steyr Model 1912 Mauser (Steyr's licensed version of the 1898 Mauser) a Lithgow Lee Enfield MKIII* (mfd. 1918) and a Lee Enfield No. 4 I/II (mfd. 1947). I shoot all three of those rifles several times a year and I have no problem taking them out of the safe, field stripping them, cleaning them and just handling them. They haven't fallen apart and I really don't see it happening either. Go figure.
Anyway thanks for the info. I think I'll give Brownells a call. Nothing but the best for my safequeens.
Old Fuff,
Thanks for the info. I honestly didn't know that. I guess I have a tendency to baby the "old" handguns. I notice that I tend to treat them like they're made of glass. I imagine that if one of the old timers could see me handling one of my "vintage" wheelies they'd ask me what the heck is wrong with the guns, me or both.
It's strictly the handguns that I treat like that. I own a Chile Steyr Model 1912 Mauser (Steyr's licensed version of the 1898 Mauser) a Lithgow Lee Enfield MKIII* (mfd. 1918) and a Lee Enfield No. 4 I/II (mfd. 1947). I shoot all three of those rifles several times a year and I have no problem taking them out of the safe, field stripping them, cleaning them and just handling them. They haven't fallen apart and I really don't see it happening either. Go figure.
Anyway thanks for the info. I think I'll give Brownells a call. Nothing but the best for my safequeens.
Over the years during which the .38 Military & Police (Model 1905 Hand Ejector) - later known as the model 10 was made, few changes were made to the lockwork springs. As a consequence they are neither hard to find, or particularly expensive. This isn't so true concerning older Colt's though, and mainsprings can be difficult to find, and expensive when you do. However, a current Python mainspring, which is still available, should work in a 1950's era Official Police. So this might be a good time to purchase a spare (Brownells' again.) The few other springs in the system are all coils, and nothing to worry about.
As its name implies, the Smith & Wesson Military & Police was intended to be used as a military or law enforcement sidearm. From the time of its introduction (1899) until present the role it played was no less harsh then today. Any firearm that has been actively used by both services for so many years, with so few modifications should not be thought of as fragile or delicate.
Military rifles of all ages were made to work in harsh environments and survive abuse. One should care for them, but it's unlikely you'll wear one out. Do be careful of surplus ammunition that might have corrosive primers.
As its name implies, the Smith & Wesson Military & Police was intended to be used as a military or law enforcement sidearm. From the time of its introduction (1899) until present the role it played was no less harsh then today. Any firearm that has been actively used by both services for so many years, with so few modifications should not be thought of as fragile or delicate.
Military rifles of all ages were made to work in harsh environments and survive abuse. One should care for them, but it's unlikely you'll wear one out. Do be careful of surplus ammunition that might have corrosive primers.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
