S&W views on their MIM parts

[buck460XVR]

This from the AR15.Com website........ AR15.com

I have read with much interest the many comments in this [Smith and Wesson] forum pertaining to MIM, MIM Parts and the use of same in a S&W product. So far I have come away with several impressions and they are, "people in general don't like/trust MIM parts", and, "no one has said why." I will take a stab at this issue and see where it goes.

As background to our decision to use MIM in some areas of our Mfg Process we took a long hard look at our "Life Time Service Policy". It was clear to us that any change in any of our products such as the use of MIM components had to show equivalent or better performance and durability to those components that were being replaced or the "Lifetime Service" would haunt us forever. The second consideration was to determine if the change was too radical a departure from S&W mainstream design.

For the performance and durability issues we decided that if MIM could be used for the fabrication of revolver hammers and triggers successfully this would truly be an "Acid Test". There is nothing more important to a revolvers feel than the all-important Single Action that is established between the hammer and the trigger. Mechanically few places in a revolver work harder than at the point where the hammer and trigger bear against each other. If these surfaces wear or lose their edge the "feel" is lost. Initial testing was on these two critical parts.

Over time we arrived at a point where our best shooters could not tell the difference between a revolver with the old-style hammer and trigger and the new MIM components. Special attention was given to their endurance when used in our very light magnum J-frames such as the early prototype 340 & 360 Sc's. None of our revolvers work their components harder than these small magnum revolvers. Throughout this testing MIM held strong and finally we determined that this change judged on the basis of durability and feel was a good one.

The second area of concern to S&W was our customer’s reaction to this departure from the traditional. Many heated, intense discussions resulted but in the end the decision was made to move ahead with MIM. The issue of cost was only one of the considerations in making this decision. Equally as important was the issue of part-to-part uniformity and the result of this of course is revolver-to-revolver consistency. We found that revolvers that used MIM hammers and triggers required almost no fitter intervention in those areas during final assembly and final inspection and trigger-pull monitor rejection rates dropped markedly on finished guns. From an internal process point of view it appeared a "Winner".

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.

Lets look for a moment at how we achieve dimensional precision when comparing these 2 processes. The old parts were each machined from either bar stock or a forging. Each cut and every resulting dimension was subject to machine variations, cutter wear, operator variations etc. If every operation was done exactly right each and every time and the cutter didn't let you down you would have produced a good part but sometimes this didn’t happen, resulting in a rejected gun and rework or in the worst case an unhappy customer. With MIM parts you must still machine to very high tolerances and your cutters have to be perfect and your machinist has to be highly qualified but all of this only has to come together one time. That time is when the injection mold is made. Typically a mold for this process costs S&W between $30,000.00 and $50,000.00; once it is perfect every part it makes mirrors this perfection and you have, in my view, a wonderful manufacturing process.

Hopefully this description will help us all better understand the MIM process. Please forgive the spelling errors and misplaced punctuation. I have no spell checker on this and the phone continues to ring!

Have a Great Weekend,

Herb [Belin,
Project Manager, Smith & Wesson]


Additional Point:

Currently S&W is paying about $1.20/Lb for stainless steel bar stock. Raw MIM stainless steel inject able material costs $10.00/Lb.

 

[19-3Ben]

Very interesting. I've never really had a problem with MIM material, but it's good to know that a) S&W has heard the customers, and b) this guy is addressing those concerns.

 

[RhinoDefense]

Glad someone in the know made this statement. Some people just don't understand the MIM process and it's not about being cheap. This won't change everyone's mind, but at least a few.

 

[18DAI]

That exact memo was on the S&W board back around 2003. Old propaganda....er....news.

Yeah, Herb Belin would tell the truth about cost cutting measu......er.....innovations.

 

[MrBorland]

Herb makes a good point regarding the single action trigger. If you've ever been inside a S&W, you'll see there's almost nothing to the SA sear (home gunsmiths are well-advised to leave it well enough alone), and one of the reasons for the renowned quality of their SA triggers. If MIM parts were as bad as many believe, I'd expect the SA trigger to be noticeably affected in both quality and durability. As far as I can tell, though, their SA trigger is as crisp as ever.

 

[Jim Watson]

Currently S&W is paying about $1.20/Lb for stainless steel bar stock. Raw MIM stainless steel inject able material costs $10.00/Lb.

Yes, but MIM is a net shape process, with losses only as the binder is vaporized. A pound of goo yields about 11-12 oz of parts.
Probably more chips than parts from barstock.

 

[Stophel]

Of course it's about being cheap. It's all about being cheap.

"The issue of cost was only one of the considerations in making this decision. Equally as important was the issue of part-to-part uniformity and the result of this of course is revolver-to-revolver consistency. We found that revolvers that used MIM hammers and triggers required almost no fitter intervention in those areas during final assembly and final inspection and trigger-pull monitor rejection rates dropped markedly on finished guns." In other words, it's cheaper.

My problem with S&W's MIM parts is that they are super cheesy looking. They're absolutely hideous. APPARENTLY they are of sufficient strength, I haven't heard bad reports of them yet. It's just that they're pretty sad looking. Cut outs and depressions and mould marks...REALLY cheap and cheesy. Other gun and gun part manufacturers make MIM parts and they look (relatively) fine. S&W's MIM parts look like they're from a cheap pot metal cap gun.

And they sound really sad! When you dry fire an old S&W you get a very satisfying, solid "KLACK". The new ones... a strange, weak "chink".

Of course, the big problem with new S&W's is not the MIM parts, but the LOCK.

 

[ultramag44]

Stophel, tell us how you really feel! Sorry, couldn't resist!

I have bough 2 new S&W's, a Model 21 fix sighted .44 Special and a 625 Mountian Gun in .45 Colt. Both are mim, both have locks. Both are perfect!

Those of us old enough to recall the 'items' (politest term I can use) S&W turned out in the late 70's & early 80's, are very glad for mim!

It seems the predujice against mim is just that. It's like having a perfect wife,...but dang it..."She is a brunette!"

But, we are all subject to such folly. @ work they gave us WYSE computers. It works perfect, but I would prefer a DELL or HP. Why? Just 'cause!

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

I felt that the above is a well stated and important document in the basic understanding of MIM relative to older methods of manufacturing... It is however unfortunate that it was not edited a bit better to protect the integrity of the presentation.

It's all money, always is and always will be! I have no use for manufacturers who insult me by trying to get me to believe otherwise. It is their responsibility to save on costs relative to acceptable quality and performance in order to meet obligations throughout the fiscal chain.

Then: "It is unclear to me as to the reason for many of the negative feelings on the forum concerning MIM. " Really? I don't know whether to hope you do know and are lying or don't know and are out of touch with the traditionalist customer base. That statement should have been left out and hurts the rest of the document for me.

That all blurted - I generally have no problem with MIM and in fact appreciate it's place in firearms manufacturing, just don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

 

[18DAI]

Herb, your guns are overpriced for what they are. The lock makes them unsuitable for serious purpose.

If you want a second opinion, your guns are ugly too!

 

[Walkalong]

We found that revolvers that used MIM hammers and triggers required almost no fitter intervention in those areas during final assembly and final inspection and trigger-pull monitor rejection rates dropped markedly on finished guns. From an internal process point of view it appeared a "Winner".

The only S&W revolver I have with a MIM hammer and trigger is my 696-1. It has a superb SA & DA trigger. Very nice.

 

[Old Fuff]

The Old Fuff’s experience with newly purchased S&W revolvers goes back to the latter 1940’s forward, and extensive experience in general concerning earlier models goes back to the first ones made during the Civil War.

From my perspective the current crop is as functional as earlier ones, but during the past the driving force within the company was to build the very finest that could be made, and that far exceeded simply being functional.

Unfortunately the reality of 21st century manufacturing economics has made it necessary to accept compromises that in past decades would have been unthinkable. I do not fault S&W for this because they either had to accommodate reality or go out of the revolver business. I consider the former option to be the better.

But on a personal basis I prefer to buy earlier production where the product was more created by experienced, dedicated craftsmen, then that turned out by automated machinery. I consider solid steel parts made from steel alloy, with an over 100-year record of unfailing service, to be superior to lockwork made from steel particles held together by a binder. I drool over skilled hand polishing and the crisp look combined with quality bluing. I enjoy color-case hardened hammers and triggers that offer a rainbow of hues rather then a dull offering of mottled grays, which is a byproduct of MIM technology.

I find that checkered walnut or other fine hardwood stocks that are individually fitted to each frame to be more pleasing then molded black rubber.

While I understand why these features of the past are now gone, that doesn’t prevent me from enjoying them. At this stage of my life I can easily satisfy my limited needs by purchasing those guns that were made when “top quality was king,” rather then, “but what the heck, it still works O.K.”

To be blunt, I’m greedy – I want it all.

 

[Kendal Black]

I think my most reasonable interest in a firearms maker is what they make, not how. Is it efficient and safe? Suited to its purpose? Long lasting and easy to maintain?

Pre-MIM Smith? Yes
MIM Smith? Yes

ETA: Fuff is right in saying there is something different and agreeable in the look and feel of the old 'uns, but I feel well armed behind either sort.

 

[DTesch357]

When I first registered at one of the Smith and Wesson forums (the mean one, not the nice one) - I thought MIM stood for 'Made in Mexico'. It is funny when you read all those posts and threads with that viewpoint.

 

[Guillermo]

MIM parts are great for cost cutting.

Taurus and Smith revolvers are of the same marginal quality. But Taurus is at least cheap.

To buy a MIM gun at forged gun price is, in my never-so-humble-opinion, idiotic.

It is like buying Velveeta for Jarlsberg money.

But it is your money. Spend it how you want.

And do so with my thanks...it keeps you out of the used market.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Well I have a S&W 60 .357 with MIM parts.

I took it apart (as I've done to many a S&W) and actually I'm impressed.

It is a different gun than my older S&W revolvers. The design has been changed. And if there is zero fitting them I'm all for it. Would be nice if I order a hand or bolt such and the parts drop and not one bit of filling is needed to get it to work right.

And if the parts last as long, well what is the problem?

Deaf

 

[Jim K]

Some folks simply hate any change, and nothing anyone says will change their minds. The only problem is that their Model T Fords slow the traffic when they have to back up hills because they hate fuel pumps.

Jim

 

[Dr_B]

I don't care about a break with tradition. But MIM parts are just plain ugly. A revolver can be a beautiful thing and blotchy MIM triggers and hammers take away from that.

 

[Guillermo]

Nobody says MIM is better than forged.

The lack of ability to polish, inability to play well with other metals, lack of ability to hold plating and brittleness make them "good enough" for some folks.

You have to give the marketing weenies at Smith a pat on the back. They can sell their cheapened goods at premium prices.

Heck...if you could sell Spam at Filet prices...AND get some Kool-Aid drinkers to talk about how MIM (molded injected meat) is superior...you would deserve a raise.

 

[18DAI]

Well, forged parts are 100% the strength of forged parts!

It is quite evident that MANY people are VERY willing to settle for less. Fortunately I'm not one of them and have enough discretionary funds to avoid having to settle for cheaply made, ugly knock off revolvers, with triggers only a lawyer could love, bearing a famous trademark.

 

[Guillermo]

MANY people are VERY willing to settle for less

that is okay...but to pay MORE for less is nuts (shaking head)

If I can only afford Spam (MIM...mold injected meat) I will buy it...but not at Jamón Ibérico prices.

To proclaim MIM superiority is like being peed on while proclaiming that the golden shower is better than rain.

 

[cfullgraf]

Well, the best way to tell S&W that you don't like the current products is with you pocket book. Just do not buy them. If enough folks won't buy the current products but will buy the higher priced guns with forged pieces then S&W will bring the old lines back.

Trouble is, the public has already spoken by not buying the more expensive guns and S&W had to find a way to be competitive or go out of business.

It is too bad, but it is what it is.

 

[1911Tuner]

Contact and frictional wear isn't a problem with MIM parts. The stuff can be made as hard as the hinges on hell's gates. Impact is where MIM doesn't fare as well, especially if that impact also involves shear...like what a hammer goes through. Hardness isn't as much of a concern as toughness. Time will tell if Smith is using really good MIM for that.

 

[Old Fuff]

If enough folks won't buy the current products but will buy the higher priced guns with forged pieces then S&W will bring the old lines back.

That would be true if the only option was to buy new guns. However it isn't because you can often buy the older guns for the same or lower cost then the new ones. Fortunately not a whole lot of current buyers know this, or for that matter even care. For those that don't know the difference or care the new guns are fine, and I hope they go out and buy a lot of them - as apparently they are. There are relatively few that are seeking out the older revolvers, but they tend to have more then average knowledge and experience.

 

[Stophel]

Hey, I even have a couple of them (not getting any more). They're OK, but again, cheesy. Anything else I might want, I can find an old one. Well, usually....

They'll never get rid of the MIM parts, nor will they even bother to improve the appearance of them. Simply put, they sell. Few modern day gun buyers seem to care, but then, it should be obvious that the tastes of the average gun buyer tend to not be all that refined! They don't seem to care about the fugly hole in the side of the frame either. SO, I don't look for any improvements to come along any time soon.