What kit is that?

Bull **** it's all about the money.

No it's all about staying competitive in your target market.

You're both right - those aren't contradictory statements, they are two sides of the same coin...

It's about reducing production costs IN ORDER to stay competitive in the current market and still make money - for the company and its shareholders.

You want to blame someone? Blame the Walmarts of the world (and their customers) for selling (and buying) lower quality disposable Chinese products so cheaply produced that American companies can't compete. The effects have rippled through all levels of our society - including the firearms industry.

The majority of people aren't willing to pay for top quality any more. They are content with mediocre "good enough" levels of quality at a cheap price. Unless a US manufacturer wants to become a producer of limited quantity "niche-market" or "boutique" products, they have to reduce their quality to this lower "just good enough" level in order to meet the public's price point expectations and keep their sales up.

Simple econ-101 principles at work guys.
Welcome to the one-world economy...

I'm not convinced people are content with mediocre but they are forced to live with it because salaries have not kept up to the cost of living.

Probably true as well - at least to some extent. But I think you will also have to concede that MOST people view 99% of what they buy as disposable. NOBODY fixes much of anything any more. Its cheaper to buy a new one. I mean, when was the last time you saw a TV repair shop?

Of course either way the fact remains that production costs have to be kept in line with market expectations on price point...

I'll concede that most electronics are viewed as disposable but that's because the cost to repair an older item is more expensive than getting a newer one with new features. Others areas such as appliances still have steady repair work.

Very true for high-end major appliances.

Small appliances, basic model major appliances, window air conditioners, etc. not as much - and getting less all the time.

Again, while we may not see eye to eye on all the causes, the fact that manufacturers have to cut costs to the meet the market's price point in order to stay in business is still just as valid either way.

Agreed.

I still keep my eye out for older Smiths, not really for MIM or lock concerns, but more because I like some of the models that are not made any more. They ones in good condition are hard to find as they get snatched up quickly - and I prefer to used guns in person. One of the reasons I like this forum is to see some of the nice examples others have found. I can live vicariously through them

Now who could argue with logic like that?

Very true. I father was a gear head and I grew up leaning how to blueprint and balance and engine. I raced sports cars in g class and so on. There is just no comparison.

Modern manufacturing is miles ahead of the 60s technology. The tolerances are tighter without hand fitting and parts seldom fail.

Look at the complexity of the 1911 vs an off the shelf quality handgun. The Old revolvers had misalignment of cylinders and all sorts of issues. Ask an armorer of the 70s to 80s for a good size dept.

Staying competitive and making guns with canted barrels and frames that crack from over tightened barrels are to different things. Making guns and pushing them out the door as fast as you can without giving them the once over is not being competitive. There's a fine line between being competitive and greed you decide I know I did.

Competitive market? With N Frames there is no one. Ruger discontinued most redhawks.

I've been told by a friend who works in a GM plant that with today's engine castings, you can run a finger around the cylinder head of a fresh casting and it's smooth . The 60s castings were so rough you'd slice up your finger.

I've said it so often I should put it in my signature line: lots of hand fitting means manufacturing tolerances suck.

You're damn right it's about money. If guns took the amount of labor as back in the good ol days, you couldn't afford or wouldn't buy them.

The .357 magnum debuted in 1935 for $60. Let's say they they cost $50 to build, and half of that was skilled labor ($25). The same amount of skilled labor today would cost over $1,300. 25% ($12.50) unskilled labor would run $500. Say the final 25% is plant, equipment, & raw materials. Although I'm sure plant, equipment and raw materials have far outpaced inflation, we'll use a simple CPI adjustment for the final $12.50 and it comes to $210..
So we're over $2,000 without considering costs that were insignificant of non-existent in 1935, like legal compliance (EPA, OSHA, ATF) and liability. We'll be VERY conservative and say $300. Now cost is $2,300. Apply the same 20% markup and the same gun costs $2,760 today,, or 5.5% of average household income.. And that's a very conservative estimate, How many of you would/could pay that for a pre-27?

For contrast, MSRP for the Model 27 classic is $1049..

Ya know, it might be worth comparing today's price for 100 shares of S&W stock with the price of one of the great old pistols we all lust after. Buy the stock, get a voice in what the company does. ( I don't have a safe full of "you suck" mint condition pre-whenever revolvers, but I do have some S&W stock I lucked into when it was eighty-seven cents per share...)

__________________
de minimus non curat lex

Herb,
Thanks for the interesting and informative post concerning MIM parts and S&W's efforts to maintain quality control.
I have a 640-3 that I enjoy quite a bit and frequently use for my EDC. I recently bought a 686+ 3" that I am also am pleased to spend "not enough" range time with, and that I'm working into being my "other" EDC.
These S&W's are both "new ventures" after having carried Glocks (26, 19, and 17) as duty guns for several years.
I have no doubt that the Glocks can be kept in a sandbox, rinsed off in a rain barrel, and then be able to fire 1000+ rounds with no hicups; but
I also can't ignore the fascination with the quality of the revolvers, both old and new.
Thanks again,
R/S,
Frank

A couple years ago, the discussion of MIM vs forged vs cast was discussed at length over on the Ruger forum. Numerous posts offered links to various web sites, metallurgical studies, etc., etc. One fella offered many case studies regarding the subject. The results were interesting; when it comes to manufacturing precision, tolerances, durability, economics, and design geometry, MIM parts are every bit the equal of forged, and superior to cast.

__________________
John

Every time this subject comes up, I have to shake my head and smile at the dinosaurs comments.

I sure miss the cars of the 60's except for maybe having to replace points, condensers and plugs every time we turned around, tires which could not go over 20,000 miles and an expected life of less than or maybe even 100,00 miles if they did not rust out before that. I miss the squeal of drum brakes and how they faded if damp. The last modern vehicle we traded in had 150,000 miles with a good 50,000 more had we kept it with just normal maintenance, but it was obviously not made with excessive human labor.

If you prefer the old revolvers then buy them, just do not condemn the new materials which do not have to be individually fitted for good service. This may insult some, but it is called progress folks.

While I think S&W can and should do a better job on things like not canting barrels, I don't have a problem with mim parts. I have no reason to believe they are in any way inferior. As someone who forges I can tell you it has its own problems. Like cars less and less hand work does not mean less machine. Could Ed McGivern shoot a modern gun as well as the oldies? Ask Jerry M.

I bet some guys complained when they went from top beaks to hand ejectors. Who has had a problem because of a non recessed cylinder? Pinned barrels, I have a 1917 that I can turn the barrel several degrees in either direction with a nice straight pin and nothing wrong with the cut in the barrel threads. The pin is a nice touch, but doesn't really do anything. The side plates on my 3 and 4 screw guns stay on a well and as nice as on my 5 screw guns. I just got a triple lock, but lots of matches been won with guns that only have 2 and the vaulted Pythons only have one. I like my guns with LERKs, but don't really need them. Thinfs have changed a lot in the last appox 150 years with S&W and it is bad. Amazing you can still get a piece. of machinery like them for under $1000 bucks. In the early 1970s min was $.85 I was a stud derrick hand on oil rigs making $5 and a S&W was about $150.Now minimum wage is 10 time higher.I make almost $50 an hour when I chose to work, But a new smith isn't 10 times higher. Good job S&W

S&W still makes great guns, with great parts that work well.

Yes, they could step it up on the QC dept.

The lock is just a joke that does nothing and I highly doubt that it has saved a single life or injury. First of all I bet at least 99 out of 100 never get engaged. Plus, I would never load a gun and trust the lock in the first place and neither would any other half way responsible gun owner.

I think the previous post hit the nail on the head. I have several of the new S&W revolvers and while I miss the old ways the new ones are great revolvers. Work on the QC harder and I think it will all be good.

Also I have never locked one of my new revolvers and never will.

I bought a 442-2 in 2013 with the ILS. No issues so far at about 600 rounds fired. If Smith would make a 3" K frame fixed sight .38+P rated lightweight revolver, I would buy one tomorrow. Make it bobbed hammer DAO without the lock and I would buy at least three.

Please write and tell Bill Wilson that. He apparently missed the memo. Wilson Combat uses master gun smiths, cutting edge tolerance CNC, but won't use MIM.

From their website: "All Wilson Combat® Bullet Proof® parts are CNC machined from solid steel billets and precisely engineered for an absolutely perfect fit-no cheap castings or inferior, imported injection molded parts will ever wear the Bullet Proof® name."

Why would that be?

Easy answer is that they are behind the times or probably do not have a large enough need to pay for setup of MIM.

Make a low number of parts and CMC is more economical, not better.

only their "bullet proof" line is billet... the other stuff they sell for half the price is MIM, look at one of the ambi safeties carefully and you will see it is not a fully machined part.

On my new s&w guns I lube them with moly and forget about it.

I asked if anybody had really experience any problems with MIM parts. The were a couple of dubious yeses that didn't sound convincing, but overwhelming to the nth degree that nobody had any real problem with them giving out. They work, well, and our problem is accepting something that isn't forged like it's been done all these years. I mean, the 'Ghost of the West' would come haunt us for buying a MIM gun.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Not precisely correct. It was the case in 2007 time-frame only some of the weapons were all bullet proof parts, But I believe all WC 1911's are now created only with the bullet proof parts based on their website's full statement I did not quote. My X-Tac and CQB Elite are exclusively bullet proof parts.

And the suggestion that they are behind the times or too cash poor to use MIM's ignores their heavy investment in CNC extreme tolerance machining which allows them to guarantee any and all of their full size 1911's to one inch accuracy at 25 yards. But that's not the point.

The point is that in a perfect world for me, Performance Center would mean that for a 627 UDR or 586 L-Comp they would get a street price of maybe $1,700. Because then we could see pure billet or whatever it is that provides a more optimum level of parts and manufacturing on the revolver platform, and they could in turn deliver with action, durability, and performance that would make Miculek proud.

After all, my carry revolvers are tools and not jewels (I'm agency qualified with the 586), and I would pay for an elite grade PC .357 carry gun if the additional manufacturing expenses were invested in utter reliability, longevity, fitting, and the resulting performance (and with guns made that well we could also cross our fingers and hope for the extinction of all the misguided but regularly spawning threads on here about how S&W PC QC is so terrible).

As it is, both my PC 586 L-Comp and 627 UDR went to TK Custom to get their action from pretty good to best which was about $450 total each because shipping both ways was more than the work. But like you if you carry, I want the best possible shooter, and I wouldn't mind getting that action and some higher end parts and fitting from the factory rather than the aftermarket. Then the Performance Center moniker could carry some additional well earned weight.

I do like my PC revolvers though, and they are my choice of non-uniformed carry (mandatory Glock uniformed carry). Anyway, that's just me.

Is it correct that PC guns does not use MIM trigger parts? why?

PC guns held out with forged a few years after the production line switchover, but they're all using MIM triggers and hammers now.

Unfortunately, this thread is confined to 1980+ revolvers and MIM parts. S&W is installing MIM parts in their semi-autos as well. I purchased a 1911SC for concealed carry. After ~200 rounds and while shooting +P Hornady TAP, CQ loads, the magazine release broke in 1/2 and the gun became 100% inoperable. Imagine you're in a SHTF situation and a gun part fails.... I replaced the release with an Ed Brown CNC milled part and sent the broken part to S&W. No reply......

An alarming experience, certainly -- thank goodness it was at the range. Fortunately it reflects the exception, not the rule; MIM is proven across many industries and usages. If production isn't correct, any part can fail be it MIM, cast or forge.

My two cents; When a person or company says "Its not about the money"

Believe me its about the money!!

The Army took me to Germany from 1996 to 1999 in Hanau. I lived in Old Argonner Kasserne near the PX and gun store selling guns there (Outdoor Club or Sportsman Club). I took a hunting course to qualify for a roe deer and boar hunt later on if I got my vacation after 8 months.

The teacher of hunting in Germany to US Soldiers stationed in Hanau area took us through the complexity of hunting in Germany and how different it was from Kentucky or Alaska.

He also spent time on US Army property to sell guns from US and also from Germany or other places across the pond.

His complaint about MIM parts when he had to gunsmith was it was brittle and worthless to work on if it had to be sanded or ground. MIM was "cast" metal without the tolerance of real steel in steel mills with blocks of the stuff to use anywhere steel was needed. In gun barrels chrome moly is the ticket and in internal working parts that need some adjustment because of wear the MIM is a replacement while the milled steel stuff is easily used once again for more service--just get the gun into the hands of a tool man instead of a computerized replacement mold.

But I do have two SW 29-10s today that are actually more accurate and durable than the 1956 originally introduced by SW.





There's a picture of a stainless 629-1 mixed in the lot.

The two 29-10s are better than the originals for durability and accuracy. Fait accompli as far as I care.

MIM to me means modern and hopefully the company using MIM knows better what they are doing than the money market or opinion.

Do I like MIM?

No. I like the Colt Single Action Army in .44-40 instead:



I know it ain't Clint Eastwood but it was for real in the old west and I'm just an old westerner.

I'll keep my old guns, and keep watching them appreciate for now.
The Xframe works great though, have to admit

One thing we don't see discussed much is the problem of availability of forged replacement parts. Some parts are already hard to find for pre-MIM guns. Extractors, hammers, triggers, hands, cylinder stops and more. In a decade or less, keeping these old guns working will be a challenge. S&W increasingly no longer supports older guns. And don't necessarily believe all the hype on these wonderful old pre-MIM guns. If you shoot them a lot, you'll be wearing out some parts.

Newer MIM guns will be much easier to find parts for well into the future. I believe as we gain experience and round counts, these MIM guns will prove equally and likely more durable than the old guns. I am shooting my old pre-MIM guns less, partly out of concern for the long term parts problem.

I am shooting several newer S&W MIM revolvers that are proving to be, on average, more accurate than their older versions. It's not just the MIM parts. CNC machining, accurate cylinder throating and good timing may have something to do with it, too.

I for one would pay for guns with the best of new and old. But it is not going to happen. I'm just hoping S&W introduces a replacement for my now worn 14-3. MIM parts, lock and so-so blueing, or even stainless, I'd buy a new one right quick.

Moly eliminates all wear. TS-moly.

here is a mim hammer from my 460xvr, gun has less than 100 rounds thru it mostly 45 lc. needless to say it back at smith. i do not believe a forged or machined from billet part would have failed like this. second picture is gouged hammer block bar. i believe it is a stamping. i am considering upgrading to the chrome trigger and hammer, but if it is just a mim part that has been flashed chromed it seems that it would be money not well spent. i have also been told that once the chrome wears thru you are back to mim in the sear area? i asked to be contacted after evaluation by S&W service. does anyone know if the chrome hammer- trigger upgrade is from forged parts?

Attached Images

	100_5295.jpg (39.1 KB, 122 views)
	100_5126.jpg (45.2 KB, 128 views)

You are correct in your assumption that a forged part would not have done this, but chances are a replaced part with an inspection to see if there is something else mechanically wrong with the gun to cause the initial problem will solve the problem and you'll never experience it again. If there is a mechanical issue, a forged part may well have created other problems. I seriously doubt that any parts other than MIM are available.

MIM has been in production for several years and the number of problems from it have been very small in number. The only concern I have with the process is time. Time is something manufacturers can't test for. I collect 1:24 model die cast cars. Many cars made years ago are experiencing what is termed 'paint rash', where the paint is bubbling from reaction to the cast metal beneath it. In severe cases, cars are literally crumbling away. This is something that took years to discover. I hope that MIM parts don't do something 20, 50 or even 100 years from now.

__________________
So many S&W's, so few funds!!

I would love to have seen that part first hand,,, in the gun.

Yes, MIM can be blamed, but, there may have been other issues.

I have my degree in metallurgy, so I look at these issues from a different perspective.
(Virginia Tech, Materials Science Engineering,,, as it was called in 1979!! )

Chiming in on my smith purchases:

1. 617:
cylinder chamber: waiting on my cylinder reamer due to a miss click at brownel's. I ordered a
barrel not a cylinder reamer but, I can only get around 50 rds max through it before complete
lock up. Hell, I can feel 2 holes (with a clean gun) that stick.
Hand: looks completely outta speck but the "skilled" fitter had to file
wayyy more than he should have. Just went ahead and bought a new
one. Adjustable rear site apeture wobbles inside mount. Alot...not
alittle bit
Hammer blocks: take a closer look these days, seems like every
hammer block looks like complete garbage. 617 hammerblock has
pits, dimples, went ahead and ordered another one instead.

2. 620: yeah, dont get me started,
Repost 2 piece barrel came apart (pics)

3. 586 Classic: Everything seems good to go. looks great, feels great

4. 686+: Everything seems good, feels good, goes bang. solid build

5. 60-10: Probably should be excluded due to being a no lock, older variation. All is good to go on that one so far. Was not bought BNIB

So I am at a 3/5 success rate. 60%!. Done with new products put out by S/W.

*Guess that was more of a rant on Q/C of S/W, not a bust on MIM parts

I agree with this statement and don't understand why more people don't do it.

If you don't like the stuff S&W is currently producing, buy something else. Buy from another manufacturer, or the most logical thing, buy an older one from when they were made with pride.

I would personally buy a Colt. Yeah they don't make them anymore, but they sure are easy to find and you will see what quality is.

Or better yet, since this is the S&W site, buy an older P&R Smith. They are readily available for darn near same price as a new counterpart. By no means is anyone stuck or obligated to buy a new production.

I don't like the new manufacturing techniques anymore than the next guy. I am one of those "never evers". What do I do? Exactly what I mention above, and buy vintage.

yes, i believe a author was asking for an actual mim failure so here is one i can speak first hand of. something caused the hammed to chip out like it did. due to the gouging on the hammer block bar it should be the first thing suspected, or vise-a-versa. this damaged occurred at first live fire session of the revolver owner. it should be noted, this is the second time back to s&w. the first return was due to cosmetic defects on the barrel shroud and ejector rod. i commented to a friend i was considering keeping the revolver with the defects as is, because the trigger was so nice. i had not live fired the gun at that point, but dry firing with snap caps the 460xvr was right there with my 629-4. i told my buddy i hope they don't mess up this trigger, that is where i made my first mistake. when the gun returned smith did such a excellent job with the cosmetic issues i sent an at-a-boy to customer service. i did notice however during practice fire with snap caps the trigger had lost something. after the first range session the previous pictures tell the story of what was lost.

back in the 70's i can remember going into a die cast plant. next to the die cast machine there was a molten pot of aluminum and zinc. the machine clamp would close the multi cavity mold and the machine operator would scoop a lattel of the zinc-aluminum concoction from the molten pot and pour it into a shot cylinder, the cylinder would slam forward. not long after the mold would open and out came the for-runner of a mim part, or if your into die cast cars, a miniature car.

during the same period i also recall being in a powder metal plant. there a machine had a vertical single cavity mold filled with powder then a male half to the cavity would close and under very high pressure the powder was compressed and turned into metal. after that i believe it went to a oven for heating process. this is more likely the start of mim. if i am not mistaken carbide inserts are manufactured in a process like this.

i will advise what smith tells me the cause of failure is, that is if they share that information with me. otherwise hoorah for 629-4 still going and going, no mim there.

Attached Images

	100_4797.jpg (91.8 KB, 78 views)
	100_5089.jpg (90.4 KB, 73 views)

i get ipac point that no one is forcing people to buy S&W firearms. however i have recently purchased 3 new S&W revolvers. i have taken transfer of 2 the third was sent back for another it was too messed up to accept. maybe they want out of the metal gun business, i dont know it just seems like qc on the revolver side is lacking. i am having a hard time accepting that my fellow american workers are at fault here. perhaps it unreasonable quota's from the company, morale, or some other problem. whatever it is smith needs to sort it out. here is a quote from their website.

Globally recognized manufacturer of quality firearms for enthusiasts, hunters, collectors and professionals; since 1852, dedicated to the tradition of quality, reliability, performance and innovation.

seems to me if you are going to talk the talk you should walk the walk.

I appreciate Herbs response. As a mechanical engineer, the explanation of S&W’s decision to make triggers and hammers from MIM makes sense. It employs the same logic that companies make when trying to improve their manufacturability.
For most the issue with MIM is the looks. I believe that for those that see their firearm as a tool, they are getting a better and more consistent product with MIM. For many though, firearms are pieces of artwork and want a better looking trigger and hammer to match the beauty of the rest of the gun. I love S&W revolvers regardless of the triggerand hammer process. But I get the gripe!

I've got no dog in the MIM parts argument, but why can't you guys (who apparently DO read this forum) dump the lock?

Oh, right, S&W only makes unreliable junk, none of those revolvers are any good, right?

I've had 4 Model 500s, all fine guns with excellent triggers, two keepers remain. I have a S&W M&P9 2.0, three trips to the range with a wide variety of ammo, 250 flawless rounds downrange. Don

Good old Herb Belin. Back in 2003 I was looking hard to get one of the brand new Model 500s. Wasn't having any luck. Called S&W and surprisingly, got him on the phone, why the telephone routing let it go to him I don't know but it did.

I explained what was happening, he listened and said that if I couldn't find one soon, call him and he'd get one for me. Excellent customer service right? Found one about a week later. Don

I have no issues with MIM from a purely materials or mechanical perspective. I don't care for the IL.

From a historical perspective, I enjoy shooting S&Ws I know were built by real craftsmen.

It's a similar argument for a 1965 Mustang vs. a 2018. The latter is more modern and consistent, the former has soul.

__________________
Psalm 27:2