Watch this video clip from a manufacturer and supplier of MIM parts. At the two minute and eleven second mark you will see what certainly looks like a j-frame barrel. It is exactly like my 642 barrel. Maker (SW) and caliber are clearly visable. This can't be real, can it?

YouTube - Parmatech Corporation Attends MD&M East 2009, Booth 2060

I think you're right. But the company president rambled on about hi-tech medical products.

Just think of a loaded J-frame as preventive medicine.
Defensive use of it in time may keep you out of the hospital.

But it does look as if S&W is farming out manufacturing, and I don't like that one bit.

T-Star

it's just a matter of time for them to take the "cheapo" route, if they haven't already.

Don't matter to me how many MIM parts Smith uses on any of their guns, I won't buy a new one.

Well ,,it is what it is. Seeing the pre war pictures of the Smith and Wesson plant ,with the women wearing full skirts , and the men in bow ties should remind us, S&W has always been ,and will always be ,a business.
The 21st. century dictates that new technology be developed.

As long as the cylinder isn't m.i.m. I don't know that I wouldn't buy a new model 37 , IF it was my only choice.

But ,dinosaurs like me (us) like forged parts ,and so will continue to buy and collect pre-1995 revolvers.

__________________
NRA cert.instructor&R.S.O.

Can any of our resident gunsmiths identify the trigger in the shot immediately before the J frame barrel?

I'm not a resident gunsmith but it looks like a Ruger SP trigger to me.

According to a study funded by the AMPMA (American MIM Parts Manufacterer's Association), there is nothing wrong with MIM parts.

LOL imagine that

__________________
Isaiah 41:10

Dosen't S&W use a two piece barrel on that gun? If so, you are looking at the barrel shroud of the gun and not the barrel proper. To my understanding, the shroud is not really stressed to any significant degree, especially in comparison to the barrel. I'm not defending MIM, just an observation.

I read that too!! LOL!!!

__________________
Get off my lawn.

So, more repeatable close tolerance parts are a bad thing?

Good Lord, I've never seen such blind Neo-Luddite adherence to old manufacturing methods as with gun owners. There has to be some romanticism of the past or something. Isn't anyone just happy that there's an American company still manufacturing products 100% in house?

I love the old blue steel guns for what they are and they're great, but break out the pin gauges and guess what, my new stainless PC gun is more uniform. If I'm out in the field walking through tall dewy grass I'm not worried about rusting and pitting the finish, I wipe it off and keep going.

THAT is one wicked looking broadhead!!!!

I don't think it's a blind Neo-Luddite adherence, but more a true appreciation for quality craftsmanship and workmanship. Blue forged steel speaks volumes, and the men and women who were capable of manufacturing such guns were artists and craftsman. If tolerences were the main issue, we'd all be carrying plastic guns in kydex holsters. I understand that Smith and Wesson is a business, and needs to make money to stay in business. New manufacturing processes are not necessarily bad, but I'd still prefer to have my old 71 Buick Skylark with a 350 V-8 to a new electric prion. Yeah, I'm a dinosaur...and I'm ok with it. It's America.

__________________
Rough waters ahead.

I am the OP, and did not post this to degrade MIM parts. I was just very surprised that the process was used for barrels. Many of my guns have MIM triggers, hammers, safeties, etc. They have all worked fine. I really do like, though, the beautiful case-hardened triggers and hammers on my older blued Smiths. They can't seem to duplicate that with MIM.

Thank you for bringing up auto manufacturing. Guess how Ford and GM are building many connecting rods and cams these days? Injection molding. Compare that '71 Skylark with a recent Camaro. Take induction out of the equation so we're not hung up on carbs vs. fuel injection and the new engine will run harder for a longer period because of materials and tolerances. That's a good thing.

<edit>

Sorry for the hijack, we now return to your regularly scheduled program.

I agree completly. Maybe because im under 30, but i really apreciate what tech. has brought to s and w. My new smiths are a good deal nicer than my old ones in terms of fit and finish and consistancy. I could care less what type of steel my trigger is made of. So long as it works well and does not break

__________________
Marcas Registradas

And, According to ACORN, ACORN does nothing wrong.

I know the mim discussion will go on… BUT, I had a colt trooper mk lll that had sintered metal. if you will allow me, the mim of that day... I had it before I knew it was "bad". It taught me reloading, back when I thought the loading manuals were for reference and NOT a limit. It went through a bunch of factory loads. the 125 and 110 loads of that day were hot. the reloads I had were worse. I suppose if it weren't for the fact I moved back to the 158's and got tired of the noise, well, who knows... btw, it's still running and doing great. the kimber ll I have has not yet fallen apart, despite the mim and plastic (did I say, I hate plastic??). I am a geezer, moving to certified geezer and decry the stainless, the plastic and such but I was an early form of rebel 'cause I had a colt 45 with the lw frame that “would fall apart”. it's still running too. Oh, and yes, I have a several stainless that get carried during the cold, the rain, the ugly times ‘cause I'm too lazy and... I don't want to loose the deep blue of the older guns by my not stoping to clean…. You should have seen the first browning hi power that had stamped metal parts inside, if I weren’t hollering so loud then I would have cried. Now look at the insides of the plastic guns??? I am growing up as I grow old and accept that I cannot have that ‘60’s car or that ‘60’s gun “brand new”. Yes I know, but I won’t spend that much when I can get s & w m&p plastic (or 2009 chevy) to do what I “need”... sometime we gotta accept change

"I don't think it's a blind Neo-Luddite adherence, but more a true appreciation for quality craftsmanship and workmanship. Blue forged steel speaks volumes, and the men and women who were capable of manufacturing such guns were artists and craftsman. If tolerences were the main issue, we'd all be carrying plastic guns in kydex holsters. I understand that Smith and Wesson is a business, and needs to make money to stay in business. New manufacturing processes are not necessarily bad, but I'd still prefer to have my old 71 Buick Skylark with a 350 V-8 to a new electric prion. Yeah, I'm a dinosaur...and I'm ok with it. It's America."

"I agree completly. Maybe because im under 30, but i really apreciate what tech. has brought to s and w. My new smiths are a good deal nicer than my old ones in terms of fit and finish and consistancy. I could care less what type of steel my trigger is made of. So long as it works well and does not break."

I can agree with both these points of view. I lover the old Smiths because they are (often) things of beauty. They connect me with people, mostly long gone, who used the skills of a lifetime to make firearms which were the standard of the world. They put a little of themselves in each gun, because they had to. If they were on top of their form that day, you could see it in the finished product. If they hade been over to the beer joint until 0 dark thirty the night before, you could see that too. When you pick up that 1955 Target, or what ever, you are holding a little bit of their lives in your hand. The older I get, the more I think that counts for something.

The new guns are more uniform and are held, usually, to tighter tolerances. The materials are usually appropiate of the intended use. And the big thing for me: the manufacturing processes and the materials let Smith try designs and concepts that were not possible before. Some of these new concepts work, and some don't, but none of them would be possible if Smith tried to use the industrial process of fifty years ago. In fact, I don't think there would be a Smith&Wesson for us to worry about.

I forwarded the above link to a old friend of mine who makes more money than I'll ever see telling engineers and such "Yes this metal, made by this process, with this heat teatment, will work for what you want." or "No, you're out of your mind.", and asked him what he thought. If this thread is still open when he replies, I post it.

My story and I'm sticking to it.

So...is it the actual barrel or just the barrel shroud?

I'm not speaking from a nostalgic or emotional standpoint or anything like that...just pure form and function. Guns are way better now than they ever have been. There have been huge leaps and bounds in the 20 years i have been shooting both in design and manufacturing. Semi-autos no longer jam with regularity, stock rifles are far more accurate, knives hold an edge better, cars and trucks last far longer and people no longer die of polio. Dont get me wrong, i would have much rather grown up in the 30s, 40s, or 50s as this country was a much better place on the whole, but the old way of making things is...well...buggy whips. We want more for less...thats the American way...and thats a big reason why manufacturing is on its death bed in the country.

__________________
Marcas Registradas

It looks like a standard 642 (or similar j-frame) barrel. I think they still have one-piece barrels. At least my recent example does. Some of the scandium PD models might have barrel liners. The profile in the video matches the standard models, not the PD models.

How would the rifling be installed in a MIM barrel? Is it still done the old fashioned way or can it just be molded too?

Considering all the MIM parts these revolvers now have, I expect that soon the price of a new one will be only $300. All said and done, it is simply a cost cutting measure, right?

Dave Sinko

Yes. Done in tupperware bowls and toaster ovens by child labor.
Obviously.

If MIM parts are superior, and result in reduced manufacturing costs, coupled with enhanced reliability, shouldn't the savings be passed on to the consumer? The lower cost, enhanced reliability, and far superior tolerances would undoubtedly help to overcome our "anachronistic" views of MIM parts and all things modern. What does this have to do with children and tupperware?

__________________
Rough waters ahead.

No. Smith and Wesson's goal is not to save consumers money. Their only goal is to make as much money as possible. They will charge as much as people are willing to pay and not a penny less. Im ok with that as a capitalist myself. I think their new guns are a fair value. Their are less expensive brands out there, but i dont think they are worth their price.

__________________
Marcas Registradas

Did everyone else see the smith hammer at 3:14 and the handcuff lock key at 3:22???

MIM is not all bad, when used in the appropriate applications, it can be quite wonderful and consistent. As for cost cutting, Smith and Wesson has a brand image to uphold. That brand image is based on price and perceived quality. Lowering the retail cost of it's products would damage the brand.

I hardly think that the current production S&W's are a "value". Overpriced and overhyped, definitely.

The pre lock S&W's without MIM parts, or any of the other "innovations" are a true value. I just picked up a NIB 3" 65-3. I paid $495. THAT is a value. No MIM, a one piece barrel, no idiotic ugly lock, no tool marks, nice brushed stainless finish, and a sweet S&W trigger.

IMO there is very little the current company calling itself S&W could do to further "damage the brand".

Carry on! Regards 18DAI.

18DAI

My thoughts exactly...

Anyone hear of any failures with the mim 642 442 barrels? I can see the injection mark on the muzzle of my new 442 Pro Series that is visible on the unfinished barrels in the video above. I did not notice it when I purchased it last week, should have worn my glasses.

Zombie thread!

I appears to me that the ".38 S&W" might be the caliber.

WOW!!!

Both of my 642's have the same injection mark just under the muzzle!

***O??

Edmo

__________________
TRUTH: Don't delete my posts!

For those who don't like MIM parts, you're REALLY going to be upset in the future! In just a few years PRINTED steel, aluminum, plastic, and even HUMAN TISSUE "parts" will replace damn near every other form of production!
Just a year ago a human trachea was "fabricated" by "printing" the equivalent of a cartilagenous structure, bathing it with stem cells taken from the patient's own bone marrow, then "percolated" in a primordial bath until tissue overgrew the polymer structure and differentiated into tracheal cells...the patient's tracheal cells. This completely fabricated trachea was then implanted - replacing one that was almost fully obstructed by a large tumor that had destroyed the man's vocal cords. With the new trachea he was able to talk....he is not on rejection drugs...he now has a new trachea that is functionally all HIS...thanks to modern technology. I wonder how many who despise "new" technology would refuse to have THEIR life saved by its application?
Just a few weeks ago I'm sure we ALL read about the company in Texas that printed an ENTIRE 1911 save for the springs as a "proof of tech" example of where current PRINT fabrication is. Even Hershey's is getting into the act...they will soon be "printing" candy in shapes that could not be created any other way.
Even now a research MD is working on "printing" human kidneys and livers...complex organs in drastically short supply, but more, a PRINTED version means no rejection of tissue...the resultant organ is YOUR organ! His company has already demonstrated "printed" heart valves.
MIM is "OLD" technology...been around for many decades and requires complex development of forming equipment...bulk handling of metal, excessive heat input..specialized dies, etc. PRINTED components means high-energy lasers target just the right heat to cause tiny amounts of steel to be molecularly bonded, building up the item in a matter of minutes.

When the M-16 appeared all the "gun" people of that era despised it for being aluminum and plastic...but clearly the LAST LAUGH is on them...as it has been around now for over 50 years and everything "new" coming along is nothing very different than an external, cosmetic flavoring of the same core device.
When the Glock came along all the "gun" people despised it for being plastic..."cheap"...not durable compared to good old STEEL! Yet, the Glock has proven to have a LONGER service life with HIGHER rounds count than any other autoloading pistol! Glocks - with their puny "slide tabs" instead of rails, have proven to be STRONGER when it comes to handling top loads than their "all steel" counterparts...so much for that "cheap plastic" nonsense.

On the car subject...I grew up in the 60's and 70's and remember WELL how much time was spent keeping those *** junkers running! POINTS ignition...WEAK and unreliable, requiring near constant readjustment and a spark so poor the plugs required near constant resetting...cleaning, and replacement. Carburators made so shoddily that within 20K miles of "new" the seals all leaked...manifold gaskets leaked...floats leaked and floated...manual "timing" that had to frequently checked and REset. "May-pops" for tires...blowouts were COMMON due to poor design, WORSE manufacturing quality control, and lack of TECHNOLOGICAL knowledge of how to make tires that hold up. Rusted out panels... dull paint on cars only a few years old - or less, non-existent mileage...clunky, out-of-spec drivetrains, transmissions that were lightyears out of "bluprint" with leaking seals, mechanical servos, slipping torque converters...interior components that bleached out within a few months...lots of good old american STEEL interiors that guaranteed a BRAIN INJURY in a crash...seat belts only appeared after being mandated and even then, poorly designed passenger compartments, non-reinforced, "hand-welded" structures...weak, "body-on-frame" designs that were heavy yet did nothing to enhance strength and survivability....oh yeah...the GOOD OLE' DAYS! They sure don't build 'em like they used too do they!
No...they build them BETTER...LIGHT YEARS BETTER and they do it by application of modern technology...now a new car is still virtually new even five years later...or more. "Tune ups" are a thing of the past...spark plugs last for over 100K miles...ignition systems that provide 3x the spark energy, fuel injection...no more flooded, leaky carbs...significantly improved fuel economy, and HIGHER horsepower! The average crossover SUV today has MORE horsepower, better gearing, and accelerates faster than did the vaunted 1970 Corvette LT-1! Tires that actually provide traction...don't blow out very often...even when holed by a nail you don't even know it by other than a slow leak. Far safer...can cruise at higher speeds, still get better mileage, and the paint stays shiny...mufflers go for the expected life of the car...loads of airbags, energy absorbing structures designed to SAVE YOUR LIFE...not catapult you into a steel dash, a steel wheel, a steel wheel post, a STEEL roof and a massive windshield! Restraint designed to actually WORK...Oh, and modern cars are LESS EXPENSIVE based on adjusted dollars due to superior manufacturing TECHNOLOGY!
In fact, modern GUNS are less expensive than they used to be for the same reason! I paid over $400 for a Randall 1911C back in 1984...I'm about to pick up a new RIA 1911 for a piddling $329....30 years later...paying LESS for an almost identical "type" of gun!
Back in 1984 the cost to build your own AR-15 was virtually the same as today...except that means today's builds are CHEAPER!

As for all this nonsense about the quality of the old guns...they couldn't have built the .460 and .500 magnum in 1970...because they lacked the ability to use computer design, computer simulation, and computer manufacturing to produce EXACT parts that contain 65,000 pounds per square inch of pressure...anyone who knows guns and examines a modern Smith .460 or .500 has to marvel at the "little things" they did to make these guns work...UNHEARD OF...UNDREAMED OF in 1975! Anyone ever stop to think that there is such a thing as TOO CLOSE tolerances for certain aspects of a gun's function? A precisely designed firing pin and firing pin hole is crucial to containing massive magnum pressres, yet except for the specific points of needed contact, the crane-to-frame interface is BETTER served by have some gap! A major weakness of any revolver with a hairline crank-to-frame mating is a tiny grain of unburned powder or powder residue can cause the failure to lock the cylinder into place and so the hammer cannot actuate. The "tighter" the clearances around the forcing cone the HIGHER the pressures exerted during firing...a .001" here and there can dramatically reduce high-speed gas cutting...meaning a LONGER life...
It hurts a lot of "feelers" to hear the AR-15 is SUPERIOR to the vaunted M1 Garand and the half-baked retread version that became the M-14...The Garand was "The finest battle implement ever devised" in 1936...huge, HEAVY, LONG, poor quality castings that were universally out of spec, WOOD furniture that rots under combat conditions. Long, barrel with piston situated way at the front working AGAINST accuracy...a puny 8 round capacity of an overly huge cartridge that worked AGAINST the Infantryman's purpose. An "en bloc" clip that was the cat's meow back then but was fumble-prone to load, and could actually injure the USER if not perfected! The M-14...same gun just freshened up...rottable wood...same accuracy robbing piston system, detachable box yes that still glomed onto the notion of an overly powerful cartridge that limited the individual's ability to carry enough ammo. Plenty "jam prone" in it's own right...in FACT, had the M-1 been pressed into service along the same time-frame as was the "prototype" M-16 it would have been a dismal failure! But the Army LOVED it...so they ignore it's faults.
Both require time consuming, "expert" fitment...headspacing is time-consuming and INDIVIDUALIZED meaning NON-Standard! Barrels requiring massive torque...each part requiring "expensive" time-conuming expertise to assemble into something that MIGHT function, but will probably require more refinement to get it just right.
Meanwhile, the M-16 family is LIGHT YEARS better...factory fitted barrel extensions that mate with virtually ANY bolt...low-torque barrelling...EASY, no "expertise" required. LIGHT weight..."plastic" furniture that does NOT rot and holds up just fine. The best ergononomics of ANY modern rifle bar none...which is why the design is COPIED BY ALL who seek to claim they've "improved it" when all they've done is COPY it with a few custom doo-dads! But then again, they CAN do that because the gun is fully MODULAR thanks to being designed by an actual engineer who started clean sheet and not by copying the *** that came before it. The M-14 had a service life of barely a decade...and despite all the intentional sabotage of the M-16, it survived...survived deliberate procurment of out-of-spec magazines, troops told NOT to clean it...even the A2 redesign with the addition of an excessively thick barrel, unecessary 800 meter sight, and ridiculous burst feature couldn't kill it. Chopping the barrels ever shorter then blaming it for lacking power...yet it motors on, PROOF of it's superior basic engineering and design to the point where today there is a HUGE popular interest in owning a civilian version...so much so that S&W copied the design...so too did HK, and Sig, and a billion "custom" makers...
All the traditionlists love to harp about the inferiority of "ZAMAK" firearms...a Zinc-aluminum alloy that turns out to mighty tough and durable, yes, a bit heavy due to the Zinc but plenty adequate for the application while saving money.

Those wonderful M-1's (civilian M-14) keep going UP UP UP in price while the M-16 family keeps coming DOWN DOWN DOWN...why? Because the M-1 is OLD tech requring far too much handling of parts to complete thus driving costs through the roof. The AR-15 requires virtually NO "precision fitment" of parts...there are VERY FEW points where machining has been performed after the part was initially manufactured...resulting in low labor cost and ease of both assembly and maintenance.

And as for all the hooey about how "formed metal" parts will never measure up to the strength of forged...a bit of metalurgical education is in order. When you start "building" steel up from the molecular level you actually ENHANCE the ability to modify it for specific applications.
Oh...and here is another example of how "they build 'em BETTER than they used too..." SWORDS...the common bullhead certainly presumes the authentic, original, 17th century "Nihonto" is superior in every way to ANYTHING made today...yet as with most things...they're wrong!
All the hoopla surrounding the way swords were made being about a superior process is REAL because they LACKED the ability to do what can be done today! They had to find iron in the form of "black sand" which they threw into a fire and heated to melting...and since they used charcoal to heat, what do you know...CARBON was introduced onto the surface and someone noticed it created a "carburized" surface...so then someone else thought...hmmm...maybe if I hammer sections that have carbon-coated surfaces together I can introduce the benefits of surface hardness throughout the "iron"...and thus "steel" appeared by being hammered and folded to "blend" carbon into the iron to create the alloy we know as steel. (I'm sure someone back then was carping about how that new-fangled steel was total **** compared to good 'ole iron because it took time to figure out how to harden and temper the new-fangled alloy, but once they did....pure iron was OUT!)
Then, they figured out that if they coated the bulk of the blade with clay when they hardened it the clay-coated section would be somewhat softer yet the edge would be quite hard. Those old Nihonto (Katana) weren't hardened and tempered to a "spring" steel...a folded blade can't be. The were the BEST that could be made by that technology, but then comes a dude named Bessemer who figured out how to make HUGE amounts of steel with precise alloying capability. Today, precisely alloyed, SUPER HIGH quality steel of a KNOWN carbon content is CHEAP and easy to make. A modern sword made from a single "block" of 1095, or 9260 steel is LIGHT YEARS BETTER than anything made in Japan in the 17th century. A modern "monosteel" blade can cut harder without breaking...is "spring tempered" meaning they can be bent nearly 90 degrees without breaking yet spring back to "true." Due to the superior, even distribution of carbon atoms within the iron matrix, they can be hardened to create a superior cutting edge, yet tempered to retain a "softer," malleable spine/core that can absorb the shock of blade-on-blade combat. Yet...one can purchase a sword superior to ANYTHING from ancient Japan for just a few hundred bucks...actually for less than a hundred bucks when we're only talking the quality of the steel and not all the "atistic" **** that goes into a top drawer Katana. A modern steel sword makes anything that ever came out of Toldedo Spain look like dog excrement yet back in their day, Spanish steel was the bomb!
Look at Tig welds...heat control so precise even under radiological examination the weld area is indistinguishable from the base area! We've all heard about how "rewelded" receivers are junk...not to be trusted (M1/M14) yet if they are Tig welded properly they are equal too or STRONGER than their parent metal! That is MODERN TECHNOLOGY in action!

The point is...we are immersed in technology. Technology is what has made this world...what keeps this world funtioning. And yes, technology has made our lives BETTER...across all areas including the manufacture of firearms. It will be TECHNOLOGY that will allow future generations of firearms enthusiasts to retain THEIR 2nd Amdt rights by being able to upload a file and then "print" a gun that is fully functional rendering future legislation designed to thwart private possession ridiculously moot!

I am not bashing MIM or modern manufacturing. My favorite pistol is my Glock 26. My 685-5 was the first with MIM internals.

I am just surprised about the use of MIM for barrels. (and my missing the mold mark when I bought it)

The 442 is a tool. I don't have the "feelings" for it that I did for the 686, which is a good thing as it will get a lot of use and not sit in the safe.

Again, wondering if any failures of the MIM barrels have ever been noted? Just curious.

With all the greatness of this new technology, S&W should promote their MIM barrels as a product advancement when marketing their firearms.

I guess the consumer isn't ready for that little nugget of info...

Edmo

__________________
TRUTH: Don't delete my posts!

Bottom line, if they were made like the guns of old people would be complaining about how expensive they are.

What matters to me is the final product and despite the occasional complaint, S&W is still doing it best.

What is up with all the ressurected threads lately? Since there's no new whining we bringing up old whining?

Kilibreaux - harsh but true.

Some examples of technology frozen in time are FAA certificated aircraft piston engines. Forged cranks, forged rods, nitrided steel, sand castings, tolerances in the mils, lubricated with 50w oil. The good old days in spades. Except a new engine of say 300 hp costs like a very nice luxury car; an overhaul like a nice new Impala. About the worst performance per $ I can think of.

Absolutely, and the big bore revolvers to be sure and probably most of S&W’s product line is made of higher strength steels built to tighter tolerances than in the past but the lust for the old and rejection of the new continues.

Gee, we could have 1960 Chevy Impalas instead of world class 2014 C7 Corvettes. Pathetic brakes, rotten suspensions, bias belt tires, awful mileage, very slow by comparison acceleration and horrible emissions. Oh, but they don’t dent as easily, I forgot. Don

No whining. Surprised, yes. Curious about how it's holding up, yes.

Absolutely on the mark. The typical light plane piston engine is a dinosaur by comparison with today’s car engines. Output per cubic inch of displacement is pathetic and if I’m not mistaken, the rules require an aviation and powerplants mechanic to do real work on them, now that’s expensive.

Very few of the old consumer products perform better than the new products. Don

Was on the telephone with S&W asking about the 442 Pro series finish so I also asked bout the mim barrel. The barrel comes in as a blank and is finished/machined for forcing cone, threads, EJ rod pin housing, and rifling..... he said it goes through 3 or 4 stations and 5 or 6 operations in the finishing process. The barrels have been found to be very accurate and without any issues.

Makes me curious about the new Ruger revolver barrels as they look really similar with the markings.

Has anyone ever had a 442 / 642 barrel fail? I've never heard of one being blown up or shot out. I personally don't are if it's MIM or not as long as it works.

I looked for a connection between Parmatech and Ruger. Couldn't find one, but.... Pine Tree Castings is a division of Ruger. And Parmatech's Calif. address is on Pine View Drive. Coincidence????

How does any one here KNOW that a MIM barrel would not be far superior to a regular barrel. Some rifling went from cut to button and got an improvement. If they kept doing the good old fashioned way non of us would have magnum rounds. Somebody show me some real proof that MIN is inferior.

The best steel money can by is CPM steel which is not smelted and poured in any of the traditional methods. It is more like high grade damascus. Many fine particles heated and pressed together.

If your don't like MIM, injection molding and the like you had best stay away from modern jets.

There was a time when some of Ruger's castings were done by Callaway Golf - this from a good friend who worked at Callaway at the time. She didn't know exactly what parts they made, just that Ruger was one of their casting customers.

As for S&W outsourcing parts production - well, for high tech parts that seems to be the way industry works these days. Everybody can't do every kind of high tech in house, so get it done by the best guys and use it in your own product. And if S&W's going to outsource, I'd guess that the only industry that's more concerned with product liability than gun makers is the medical devices industry, which should translate into a little more comfort on the QC side of things.

Well, that's certainly a relief!

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

I believe J frame barrels have been MIM for a long time.