The Ubiquitous S&W Model 10

[Driftwood Johnson]

I believe some of the paper work that
comes with Model 10s is headlined:

".38 Military & Police Revolver
Model No. 10"

I think one may call a Model 10 an
M&P if desired. And some refer
to "pre-Model 10" to designate
a pre-1957 manufacture.

Similarly, a .38 Combat Masterpiece
was designated a Model 15 but it
is still a Combat Masterpiece. And
a Model 67 which didn't exist until
1972 is also known as a Combat
Masterpiece.

Howdy

All of that is true. I have advertising circulars sent to dealers well after 1957 that list the revolver in question as ".38 Military and Police" and in smaller type "Model No. 10".

My point is that it was not until 1957 that S&W began stamping MOD 10 on the frame under the yoke. So the Model 10 could not exist until S&W began marking them that way. in 1957 S&W began marking all their revolvers this way, resulting in the various Model Numbers that are still used today.






Regarding Pre-Model 10: The most authoritative book I like to refer to in these matters is the Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson by Supica and Nahas. According to SCSW, the only revolver that can truly be called a Pre-Model 10 is the 38 Military and Police (Postwar) which was made from 1946 until 1957 when the model numbering system was initiated. A collector friend of mine likes to say there is no such thing as a Pre- Model 10, it is either a 38 M&P or it is a Model 10. Period. I could get really fussy and start calling out names such as 38 Military and Police, Model of 1905, 4th Change, which a great majority of these were. Made from 1915 until 1942 there were 758,296 of these made. But I am not quite that fussy. With me it is either a 38 M&P or a Model 10.

You may of course choose to refer to these revolvers any way you wish.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Pretty amazing production numbers for a gun whose parts are had fitted and not interchangeable.

Yup. In pre MIM days, everything was hand fitted. "Soft fitting" was done before the parts were hardened. Individual parts were fitted together with judicious filing and polishing by skilled craftsmen before the parts were hardended. After hardening and blueing the parts of each individual revolver were brought back together to be assembled a final time. That is why assembly numbers were stamped on frames, so the correct parts could be reassembled to the correct frame, That is not to say that some parts might not fit a different revolver, but a great effort was made to assemble each revolver with its proper parts.

Around 1950, when the 'new' Smith and Wesson factory was built on Roosevelt Avenue in Springfield MA, a series of photos were taken documenting all that went into making a S&W revolver. The series was titled 'Raw Steel to Smith and Wesson'. Here are just a few of the many photos. The first is an opening statement by S&W President Carl Hellstrom. Note what he says about how many separate operations and inspections were necessary to produce a revolver in 1950.






Just a couple of photos. A workman is filing parts during soft fitting.Note how many frames are lined up waiting to be worked on.





Preliminary fitting of side plates to frames. Again, not how many frames are waiting to have a side plate fitted to them.





I don't mean to belittle Metal Injection Molding (MIM) parts. Smith and Wesson has ALWAYS striven to drive the cost out of making their products. Any successful business does that. Eliminating costly processes and procedures is one way of doing that. I had a chat with a S&W engineer years ago regarding MIM parts. Part of the beauty of the MIM process is parts can be made that require little or no fitting, thus reducing the cost to manufacture.

I just happen to prefer the older stuff.

 

[UncleEd]

Driftwood,

Note I put quotes around "pre-Model 10"
to indicate it's not an official name.
Your collector friend says it's either
an M&P or a Model 10. Is not the
Model 10 a .38 M&P?

And yes for ease of understanding
the S&W nomenclature, I will call
them as I did.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

I am a collector too.

Most of us say it is either a 38 M&P or a Model 10.

 

[LEP]

Yup. In pre MIM days, everything was hand fitted. "Soft fitting" was done before the parts were hardened. Individual parts were fitted together with judicious filing and polishing by skilled craftsmen before the parts were hardended. After hardening and blueing the parts of each individual revolver were brought back together to be assembled a final time. That is why assembly numbers were stamped on frames, so the correct parts could be reassembled to the correct frame, That is not to say that some parts might not fit a different revolver, but a great effort was made to assemble each revolver with its proper parts.

Around 1950, when the 'new' Smith and Wesson factory was built on Roosevelt Avenue in Springfield MA, a series of photos were taken documenting all that went into making a S&W revolver. The series was titled 'Raw Steel to Smith and Wesson'. Here are just a few of the many photos. The first is an opening statement by S&W President Carl Hellstrom. Note what he says about how many separate operations and inspections were necessary to produce a revolver in 1950.

View attachment 1058278




Just a couple of photos. A workman is filing parts during soft fitting.Note how many frames are lined up waiting to be worked on.
View attachment 1058279




Preliminary fitting of side plates to frames. Again, not how many frames are waiting to have a side plate fitted to them.

View attachment 1058280



I don't mean to belittle Metal Injection Molding (MIM) parts. Smith and Wesson has ALWAYS striven to drive the cost out of making their products. Any successful business does that. Eliminating costly processes and procedures is one way of doing that. I had a chat with a S&W engineer years ago regarding MIM parts. Part of the beauty of the MIM process is parts can be made that require little or no fitting, thus reducing the cost to manufacture.

I just happen to prefer the older stuff.

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

 

[PzGren]

The S&W M&P and later model 10 is the classic revolver. I prefer the heavy barrel version. I split the collection with the kids.

 

[AZAndy]

One thing I really love about the good ol' 10 (and M&P .38) is that you can get a collection together of all the big revisions, like the moving of the firing pin to the frame, in all the barrel lengths, without having to be a cost-is-no-object Serious Collector. Of course, you might have to put up with some... shall we say "cosmetic issues," like with this one,

M&P .38, shipped 1949

or this one,

6" Model 10-5, shipped 1964

and learn to embrace the ugly. Ugly guns need love too! They'll treat you right. When I shoot old K-Frames like these, I go into a trance-like state that doesn't end until my hand is black with Unique and I'm out of ammunition. I've lost a half a day that way.

 

[AZAndy]

I don't mean to belittle Metal Injection Molding (MIM) parts. Smith and Wesson has ALWAYS striven to drive the cost out of making their products. Any successful business does that. Eliminating costly processes and procedures is one way of doing that. I had a chat with a S&W engineer years ago regarding MIM parts. Part of the beauty of the MIM process is parts can be made that require little or no fitting, thus reducing the cost to manufacture.

I just happen to prefer the older stuff.

I'm with you on the older stuff, though when I select a revolver for carry, having something new-ish with MIM doesn't bother me any. Heck, I'm not even offended that much by the lock, which makes me something of a Philistine I guess.

Some of the most entertaining writing in the Kuhnhausen S&W shop manual is where he goes off on the switch to MIM parts, like
"...must have persuaded management mentalities that MIM components are acceptable substitutes for forged, machined from bar stock, and investment cast firearms components. Perhaps when pigs fly." The acerbic several pages that follow lead me to suspect that the author may have held MIM in very low regard.

 

[UncleEd]

AZAndy,

Some translate MIM to
"metal injection molding."

Others know it stands for
"machinists in misery."

 

[mcb]

As an engineer that has designed MIM manufactured parts I am going to rant a bit, sorry...

The gun industry was a very VERY early adopter of the MIM technology. It really is an excellent fit for the firearms industry but due to the industry adopting the technology very early in its maturity the firearms customers suffered with the industry as they worked through the early development problems of the MIM process. Thus many firearm owners have a bad opinion of MIM due to those early teething problems. But we really should make a distinction between guns/engineers using MIM from the 90's and early ought when the technology and engineerings were coming into their own and this current generation of MIM parts and engineers using the technology.

A modern MIM part that has be HIP'ed (hot isostatic pressing) is indistinguishable from a forging made with the same alloy steel. It would take an electron microscope and a really experienced metallurgist to have any chance of telling the two processes apart. The material properties (density, yield strength, fracture toughness etc) would be indistinguishable. The big different is MIM can capture features that cannot be forged. MIM parts almost always require little or no post-MIM machining to reach final shape. Forged parts almost always required fairly significant amounts of post-forging machining. The cost saving can be huge here.

MIM is now a mature process and it is used nearly everywhere in the firearms industry. There are very few firearm makers not using MIM. There are even S&W 380 bodyguards that have MIM barrels, with no post MIM machining, in them.

Also remember MIM is a process. If you MIM a part from 1018 steel you going to have a crappy 1018 part with the poor material properties of that alloy. If you MIM a part from S7 tool steel you will get the excellent shock resistance of S7 in your MIM'ed parts. Same for forgings. Forging a knife from 1018 you end up with a passable butter knife if you use 1095 or A2 tool steel you have the potential of a very good cutting edge.

rant over.

And to get closer to on topic here is my mid 1990's Model 10 Heavy barrel that I like very much.

 

[stonebuster]

My LGS had some NY DOC Model 10s a couple years ago so I bought a 10-10 & the gear that came with it for $336. I swear that service holster weighs as much as the gun so I found an old Bucheimer "Concealer" that holds it high and tight. After the first range trip with the 10-10 I bought the last Model 10 they had which was a 10-14(not the "Classic") heavy barrel with the dreaded lock. They both are great shooters and I enjoy them both. Thanks mcb for the education on "mim".

 

[PzGren]

As an engineer that has designed MIM manufactured parts I am going to rant a bit, sorry...

The gun industry was a very VERY early adopter of the MIM technology. It really is an excellent fit for the firearms industry but due to the industry adopting the technology very early in its maturity the firearms customers suffered with the industry as they worked through the early development problems of the MIM process. Thus many firearm owners have a bad opinion of MIM due to those early teething problems. But we really should make a distinction between guns/engineers using MIM from the 90's and early ought when the technology and engineerings were coming into their own and this current generation of MIM parts and engineers using the technology.

A modern MIM part that has be HIP'ed (hot isostatic pressing) is indistinguishable from a forging made with the same alloy steel. It would take an electron microscope and a really experienced metallurgist to have any chance of telling the two processes apart. The material properties (density, yield strength, fracture toughness etc) would be indistinguishable. The big different is MIM can capture features that cannot be forged. MIM parts almost always require little or no post-MIM machining to reach final shape. Forged parts almost always required fairly significant amounts of post-forging machining. The cost saving can be huge here.

MIM is now a mature process and it is used nearly everywhere in the firearms industry. There are very few firearm makers not using MIM. There are even S&W 380 bodyguards that have MIM barrels, with no post MIM machining, in them.

Also remember MIM is a process. If you MIM a part from 1018 steel you going to have a crappy 1018 part with the poor material properties of that alloy. If you MIM a part from S7 tool steel you will get the excellent shock resistance of S7 in your MIM'ed parts. Same for forgings. Forging a knife from 1018 you end up with a passable butter knife if you use 1095 or A2 tool steel you have the potential of a very good cutting edge.

rant over.....

Thanks for explaining this.

 

[Zahn]

Yes, mcb, thank you for that. My search for my own Smith .38 revolver just widened.

 

[Old Dog]

Who doesn't love the classic Model 10?

And it wasn't so much the move to MIM that bothered me about the newer S&W revolvers, it was some of the design changes and modifications (I know it's petty, but I like the shape of the old cylinder release better), including the concession to the lawyers (The Lock), funky underlugs on the Pro models, and especially the departure from the old finishes -- no more "real" bluing, matte/brushed stainless instead of polished, the heinous coating on the Airweights, etc....

MIM is now a mature process and it is used nearly everywhere in the firearms industry.

As well as every other manufacturing industry. I never hear people complaining about the use of MIM in their new $70,000 truck or SUV. Heck, NASA uses it in satellites and spacecraft. Whodathunkit?

I found an old Bucheimer "Concealer" that holds it high and tight.

I had that same holster I bought 35 years ago at an old police supply store in San Diego, the classic detective rig. Wish I'd kept it.

 

[JCooperfan1911]

AFAIC no S&W collection is complete w/o a Model 10. A great shooter.View attachment 1058068

Preferably one without a lock.

 

[.455_Hunter]

As an engineer that has designed MIM manufactured parts I am going to rant a bit, sorry...

The gun industry was a very VERY early adopter of the MIM technology. It really is an excellent fit for the firearms industry but due to the industry adopting the technology very early in its maturity the firearms customers suffered with the industry as they worked through the early development problems of the MIM process. Thus many firearm owners have a bad opinion of MIM due to those early teething problems. But we really should make a distinction between guns/engineers using MIM from the 90's and early ought when the technology and engineerings were coming into their own and this current generation of MIM parts and engineers using the technology.

A modern MIM part that has be HIP'ed (hot isostatic pressing) is indistinguishable from a forging made with the same alloy steel. It would take an electron microscope and a really experienced metallurgist to have any chance of telling the two processes apart. The material properties (density, yield strength, fracture toughness etc) would be indistinguishable. The big different is MIM can capture features that cannot be forged. MIM parts almost always require little or no post-MIM machining to reach final shape. Forged parts almost always required fairly significant amounts of post-forging machining. The cost saving can be huge here.

MIM is now a mature process and it is used nearly everywhere in the firearms industry. There are very few firearm makers not using MIM. There are even S&W 380 bodyguards that have MIM barrels, with no post MIM machining, in them.

Also remember MIM is a process. If you MIM a part from 1018 steel you going to have a crappy 1018 part with the poor material properties of that alloy. If you MIM a part from S7 tool steel you will get the excellent shock resistance of S7 in your MIM'ed parts. Same for forgings. Forging a knife from 1018 you end up with a passable butter knife if you use 1095 or A2 tool steel you have the potential of a very good cutting edge.

rant over.

And to get closer to on topic here is my mid 1990's Model 10 Heavy barrel that I like very much.

I have found my pre-lock MIM S&Ws to be top quality.

 

[Blkhrt13]

You guys are not helping my model 10 craving at all. I mean it’s not like it was much of a push. I missed my first shot. Found a 4 inch cut down to three. It was a bit beat. But I had just put something else on hold. I will find another.

 

[WVsig]

I only have this one. 1946 IIRC box is not correct but was a good spot to take a pic on.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

As an engineer that has designed MIM manufactured parts I am going to rant a bit, sorry...

The gun industry was a very VERY early adopter of the MIM technology. It really is an excellent fit for the firearms industry but due to the industry adopting the technology very early in its maturity the firearms customers suffered with the industry as they worked through the early development problems of the MIM process. Thus many firearm owners have a bad opinion of MIM due to those early teething problems. But we really should make a distinction between guns/engineers using MIM from the 90's and early ought when the technology and engineerings were coming into their own and this current generation of MIM parts and engineers using the technology.

A modern MIM part that has be HIP'ed (hot isostatic pressing) is indistinguishable from a forging made with the same alloy steel. It would take an electron microscope and a really experienced metallurgist to have any chance of telling the two processes apart. The material properties (density, yield strength, fracture toughness etc) would be indistinguishable. The big different is MIM can capture features that cannot be forged. MIM parts almost always require little or no post-MIM machining to reach final shape. Forged parts almost always required fairly significant amounts of post-forging machining. The cost saving can be huge here.

MIM is now a mature process and it is used nearly everywhere in the firearms industry. There are very few firearm makers not using MIM. There are even S&W 380 bodyguards that have MIM barrels, with no post MIM machining, in them.

Also remember MIM is a process. If you MIM a part from 1018 steel you going to have a crappy 1018 part with the poor material properties of that alloy. If you MIM a part from S7 tool steel you will get the excellent shock resistance of S7 in your MIM'ed parts. Same for forgings. Forging a knife from 1018 you end up with a passable butter knife if you use 1095 or A2 tool steel you have the potential of a very good cutting edge.

rant over.

And to get closer to on topic here is my mid 1990's Model 10 Heavy barrel that I like very much.

They may have material properties as good as forged (now), but they still LOOK molded, melted, cheap......just wrong.

Does this matter in a polystriker service automatic? No, not really.

Does it matter in a modern revolver which is being purchased for aesthetics and pride of ownership? Yep. Thanks but no thanks for me.

 

[kBob]

If we are talking about the M&P and not just the Model 10…. are we gonna talk about the .32-20 and the few .32 S&W Long?

-kBob

 

[mcb]

They may have material properties as good as forged (now), but they still LOOK molded, melted, cheap......just wrong.

Does this matter in a polystriker service automatic? No, not really.

Does it matter in a modern revolver which is being purchased for aesthetics and pride of ownership? Yep. Thanks but no thanks for me.

Before I lead everyone astray not all MIM parts get HIP'ed, in fact only a modest percentage does. But that process exists and the new generation of engineers that have "grown-up" with MIM know when that extra process/cost is needed and when less costly MIM processes are sufficient. And the powdered metallurgy (the raw metal injected into the molds) has come so far in the last two decades that the material properties of the resulting parts are far more dependent on the alloy chosen than the MIM process.

As for aesthetics I would offer this picture:

Top to Bottom: M29, 610, 625, 627, Model 10

Can you pick out the MIM triggers and hammers? I can but it takes a close look and some research on my part to know for sure which was which.

I like all of these revolver and they have all been used a lot, some a whole lot in competition. I can proudly tell interesting stories of hunting and competition about all of them. The fact that some of them have forged parts and some MIM parts never crosses my mind except when I run across these threads. Of all these revolvers the one with the best single action and double action trigger (by a fair margin) is one of the ones with a MIM Trigger and Hammer. In single action that MIM trigger/hammer is better than than basically all of my other firearms including a Rem 700 with a fairly high end Timney trigger in it.

 

[JCooperfan1911]

As an engineer that has designed MIM manufactured parts I am going to rant a bit, sorry...

The gun industry was a very VERY early adopter of the MIM technology. It really is an excellent fit for the firearms industry but due to the industry adopting the technology very early in its maturity the firearms customers suffered with the industry as they worked through the early development problems of the MIM process. Thus many firearm owners have a bad opinion of MIM due to those early teething problems. But we really should make a distinction between guns/engineers using MIM from the 90's and early ought when the technology and engineerings were coming into their own and this current generation of MIM parts and engineers using the technology.

A modern MIM part that has be HIP'ed (hot isostatic pressing) is indistinguishable from a forging made with the same alloy steel. It would take an electron microscope and a really experienced metallurgist to have any chance of telling the two processes apart. The material properties (density, yield strength, fracture toughness etc) would be indistinguishable. The big different is MIM can capture features that cannot be forged. MIM parts almost always require little or no post-MIM machining to reach final shape. Forged parts almost always required fairly significant amounts of post-forging machining. The cost saving can be huge here.

MIM is now a mature process and it is used nearly everywhere in the firearms industry. There are very few firearm makers not using MIM. There are even S&W 380 bodyguards that have MIM barrels, with no post MIM machining, in them.

Also remember MIM is a process. If you MIM a part from 1018 steel you going to have a crappy 1018 part with the poor material properties of that alloy. If you MIM a part from S7 tool steel you will get the excellent shock resistance of S7 in your MIM'ed parts. Same for forgings. Forging a knife from 1018 you end up with a passable butter knife if you use 1095 or A2 tool steel you have the potential of a very good cutting edge.

rant over.

And to get closer to on topic here is my mid 1990's Model 10 Heavy barrel that I like very much.

What speedloader holder is that?

 

[Hondo 60]

an M10 does seem to have some magical property of shoot-ability

Couldn't agree more!
my 10-5
The gun that built S&W

 

[NeroM]

My current M10 (M25 as well) have production dates within the recent 5 years - so they have MIM parts. They feel and function great ! If I am honest with myself and objective - close my eyes cycle/shoot these along side "storried" pre MIM units - aside from any grip differences - I truly cannot tell the difference.
It is the hole I HATE - so called safety thing has not been a problem for me, I probably even forget about it. It is the philosophical issue of the presence of the hole. If my M10 wasn't such a sweet gun, I wouldn't have one with hole.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Again

So as not to cause thread drift I am not posting comparative photos of traditional forged and machined parts vs MIM parts in this thread.

However, anyone who is interested can see the photo essay I did comparing MIM parts to traditional parts a number of years ago. The administrators were kind enough to include it in the Reference Library of Revolver Wisdom a few years ago.

This post is a snapshot in time comparing the parts of a Model 17-3 manufactured in 1975 to a Model 617-6 made in 2003.

I would be very interested to hear any comments mcb has to make regarding changes that have occurred with MIM parts since that revolver was made in 2003.

I hope this link works.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...o-a-revolver-made-with-machined-parts.769929/