Hi, I know that many Smith & Wesson revolver enthusiasts prefer pre-lock, pre-MIM revolvers. I recently purchased an anib model 60-12 revolver which is pre-lock, but has MIM parts, hammer, trigger, etc. I'm not intending to start another MIM versus forged parts debate, but would just appreciate hearing from folks that have actually had a MIM part failure, and what it consisted of. Just satisfying my curiousity. Thanks in advance for any responses.

I am not aware of any actual failures and do not have any first hand information about unintentional activation of the lock mechanism. Personnally (and in my case) I think most folks just prefer the older craftsmanship and quality of the pre-lock pre-mim firearms.

__________________
Even older, even crankier....

According to my pistolsmith, S&W had very rare failures of major forged revolver parts, and they have very rare failures of MIM major revolver parts. In other words six of one and a half dozen of the other. He thinks the MIM trigger/hammer assemblies are often smoother from the factory than some of the old forged assemblies. I have revolvers with both MIM and forged, none of them have broken yet, and I have an L frame and an N frame, MIM, that straight out of the box had the smoothest double actions I have felt. I detest the internal locks, as being a problematic solution to a non-problem. The MIM does not bother me.

Internal lock failures are really remote. MIM parts failure, at least at S&W, is even more rare. Shoot and enjoy. If you have a failure, let us all know.

Thanks alot for the feedback. Sounds as if MIM parts are not much of a concern as far as reliability is concerned.

In the 4 years since I've been visiting this forum I've seen just two total postings about an MIM part failing. In both cases the hammer spur had snapped off.

The first failure happened as a result of the revolver being dropped from bench height to a concrete pad at an outdoor shooting range. As luck would have it the revolver was dropped it such a way that the impact was directly on the hammer spur. FYI it was unloaded.

The second failure was believed by the poster as having been caused by his excessive use of dry fire practice without the protection of snap caps. If you listen carefully and compare it becomes quite apparent that when you dry fire a S&W revolver without a snap cap in place the hammer actually contacts the frame and rings like a bell. Do this many many many thousands of times and the repeated shocks can cause a through hardened part to fail at it's weakest point. In the case of the hammer that weak point is the hammer spur, there is a distinct stress riser an the bottom of the V formed by the pad and body of the hammer.

PS; in the thread of the post about the dropped revolver someone posted a picture of the same type of drop on a forged hammer. In the case of the forged hammer the spur bent down enough to totally prevent the use of the gun in either single or double action. Point is that some mistakes will result in permanent damage with either type or part. In the case of MIM this type of error actually allows you to still have a functional revolver, however you'll have to limit your shooting to couble action. With a forged gun your only option would be to pack up and go home.

They certainly aren't reliability concerns. They allow complex parts that are accurately repeatable w/o lots of human attention to be produced at lower cost. Quality and reduced costs keep businesses profitable. Don

I'm no gunsmith or firearms engineer, however I fail to see how the construction of the hammer affects how it strikes the main revolver body. Be it forged or MIM, the profile and shape are essentially identical so a forged or MIM hammer would strike the frame in the same way.

Neither of my .500 Mags sound any different when dry firing (I usually use snap caps by the way) than do my Ruger SP101 and GP101. Don

Google metal injection molding in aircraft. Here's one result showing a MIM turbine blade:

AFT :: Nimonic90, Hastalloy | Aerospace, Aircraft MIM Components

I think you'll find that the process is used for many critical parts, certainly enough to remove fears about hammer or trigger failure.

True, but just like forged and cast, not all MIM is equal -- it has to be done correctly and to high standards.

Personally I see it as there being two types of gun owner.

There are those that readily embrace the new technologies and want to have the latest and greatest products. These types are typified by AR15 and Glock owners. They tend to have lights, lasers, red dot sights and other do-dads on their guns. If they own a bolt action rifle it is sitting in a synthetic stock with a range finding, bullet drop compensating, red dot scope.

Then there are the more traditional minded types that tend to gravitate towards revolvers and lever action (or bolt action) rifles because they feel that they don't need no stinkin' extra $%#& on their guns. If it was made a certain way a hundred years ago, it is still the way it should be made today. These are people (and I am one of them) that if they MUST own a semi auto firearm, it will be a Government Model 1911 and a M1 Garand. After all if it was good enough for Dad or Granddad in the Big One it's good enough for them.

Change comes slow to us and sometimes rather grudgingly.

Not having a model 1911 is almost like not having a 22.

But...alas...I understand Colt has played with MIM parts as well in the 1911's. As long as they did not install any in the 1950 models....I'm good-to-go.

I'm not drifting the thread....just pointing out that MIM components turn up everywhere, so you just have to suck-it-up. I guess if they are good enough for a jet-liner....I can live with it.

I had the hand that rotates the cylinder break on my 29-10. It is a MIM part, but I do not blame the failure on the fact that it was MIM. I did a review on what happened with some pictures in another thread if you are interested.

M29-10 Long Term Review (w/ one repair)

I may be a third type. I like both traditional and modern but see no utility in hanging the kitchen sink on a firearm unless there's an actual need.

For instances:

Favorite deer rifle


Favorite squirrel rifle


And handguns?

From



To


How it's made isn't important. How it functions is. I suspect the muzzleloading pistol may outlast that scandium thing in the longrun, but that probably won't be known for decades.

If it's any indication, the IPSC revolver shooters seem to prefer the MIM parts in some cases, like cylinder bolts/locks. Fairly common discussion with the Brian Enos forumers.

They say that if Chippendale had had access to plywood, he would have used it, at least in the innards of his furniture. It is a better product for many purposes than solid wood, and would have allowed faster and more repeatable production at lower cost in labor. Using it would simply have been good business.

Nothing I've read about MIM suggests to me that it produces parts that are in any way inferior in durability to forged parts. And clearly S&W thinks the process produces superior consistency at lower overall cost, as it gives parts that need virtually no hand fitting to get the same fit and "feel" as the old forged parts give after some hand work. As a publicly-held company in business to make a profit, S&W essentially had a duty to switch to MIM, where feasible, if failing to do so would have reduced their profits (either by reducing market share if they had to raise prices to cover increased production costs, or by reducing profit margins if they kept prices lower and absorbed the increasing labor costs.)

Every change in a product risks alienating a segment of your customer base. When you really step in it (New Coke comes most readily to mind) adverse customer reaction can be strong enough to force a return to the old ways. But I'd guess that the number of new sales that S&W loses to curmudgeons like us, who prefer things done the old way, is essentially microscopic in their overall business operation. So if we want forged parts, we're just going to have to look for old guns.

Lot's of interesting input. Hope you keep it coming.

I have Smiths with both. The forged sure as heck looks better!

__________________
686, 629, 15-22 MOE FDE

The other thought in this particular case is that Coke manipulated the market intentionally. Basically "New" Coke was never intended to be the real replacement, merely a "placeholder" until the supply of old Coke was gone, so no direct comparison between gen I and III was practical. Coke "Classic" was the real goal all along. Cheaper ingredients, not quite as tasty as the "old", but better than it's supposed successor. Essentially, a grand "slight of hand" trick. (Now you CAN compare I and III. Find some of the Mexican import Coca Cola. GOOOD stuff!)

Not likely the case with MIM. Merely the company trying to keep prices competitive and reasonable enough that sales won't fall off the cliff. Colt failed to modernize effectively (they did a terrible job at the end, no?) in the DA revolver market. So no Colt DA for the longest time.

I've read a similar remark about the Shakers. The point is that plywood is isotropic in behavior due to the cross plies; drawer bottoms can be glued in to increase the strength of the drawer itself, whereas a solid wood bottom must be left free to expand across its grain so it won't cause the joints to fail. Nut, as a handtool woodworker I still use solid wood over plywood, much like those who prefer forged over MIM parts.

This may well be true, but I knew a man who worked as an assistant to the president of Coca Cola at the time, and he said that in every consumer test, New Coke was preferred over Pepsi Cola [the real target at the time], except for one instance where the samples were accidentally switched. But I do agree that the "old Coke" was better than either of the others, unless you were a dedicated Pepsi fan.

Don, read a bit more carefully. I didn't say there was any difference in the construction in term of the hammer hitting the frame, what I stated was that through hardened parts are prone to failure when exposed to repeated shocks. MIM parts are through hardened, forged parts are case hardened with a hard outer casing and softer core.

I'll also point out that if you pay attention you'll note a DIFFERENCE in the sound of the hammer fall when dry firing without a snap can and dry firing WITH a snap cap. Listen closely enough and you can hear the steel ring as the hammer contacts the frame when a snap cap isn't used.

No quibble with that. Don

Its all about perceived reliability. Is a pre 64 model 12 Winchester the best made pump shotgun ever produced? Perhaps, but the perception of an all machined firearm makes it more valuable IMO. As I progress through my "golden years" I am more concerned about heirloom quality than I am about almost everything else. Is a MIM parted gun as reliable as one totally machined? That is not up to me to decide but machining is more desirable to me. Everything being manufactured these days has an eye towards thrift in the process. Of course machining is more expensive but probably an equally reliable piece can be made by casting.

MIM parts don't matter to me and I believe are quite reliable. However I buy the older smiths for (1) political as I won't buy a new one with a lock and (2) I really like recessed cylinders.

So revolvers that I like are in finite supply and I buy what I can buy before the price increases.

This is my MIM hammer after a tragic dremel accident.




After thousands upon thousands of cycles.... it's still in one piece, although substantially lighter. If it hasn't broken yet... nothing will break in the future. Several TiN and colbalt bits died in its making before I wised up and used the tungsten carbide big guns. I don't bother with snap caps either.

I've had MIM Smith revolvers off and on for the last 11 years. I have never had a failed MIM or ILS.

My (made last May) 686+ is the finest Smith I've ever owned.

In the realm of collectors of expensive revolvers there will be none with MIM parts from the few thousand dollar ones through those with 5 digit prices. This probably is not indictive of the reliability of the MIM revolvers.

After watching someone use Coke to clean battery terminals that were corroded, I long ago swore off all brands for drinking. It did a great job of cleaning them BTW.
In other news, I accept MIM, rather they were milled, but can live with them.

Wonder if S&W figured out most buyers keep their guns locked in a safe and rarely allow them to see the light of day, thereby concluding MIM potential failure is of no concern...?

__________________
S&W factory revolver armorer

Exactly, how many firearms of all types are used to any degree?
Law Enforcement & Military training and civilians that are involved in some shooting competitions and games. The great bulk of firearms don’t get shot that much by owners for SD, HD or hunting purposes. I come from a civilization where almost every guy had a Shotgun, deer rifle, 22 rifle and some kind of night stand pistol. Now less people are hunting and in some places it’s a hassle to find a place to shoot. The new generation doesn’t have any idea what a quality firearm is, so selling MIM and plastics is no big deal. Soon firearms will come bubble packed.

I've got a 625-8 with MIM and a lock. It's about 10 years old and has >2K rounds thru it. No issues yet. S&W does MIM very well, probably better than anyone. I'm actually surprised this keeps popping up as a consideration.

__________________
That's just somebody talkin.

Nice of example of the web being unnecessary as the forces are carried by the caps (spar terminology). I presume Smith leaves the web there for enough inertial mass to have reliable strikes over the range of primer hardnesses out there. Or it's more difficult to mold without the web, or both. But it's still a good example of having metal where you need it and not where it's not.

Any time parts can be made to close tolerances economically I'm all for it. Hand working parts to fit sucks, been there, done that.

I wonder where you found a red dot with bullet drop compensation in it? Most red dots are in the range of 2-3X and are seldom found on bolt actions. Don

The MIM controversy...

My son is an engineer. Years ago I asked him about any real concerns about the process and/or the parts produced by it. He said that nowadays it's very solid and no one should have any concerns. That said, he mentioned that there were early failures in MIM parts in a number of industries, not just firearms manufacturing. That's nearly always the case when a new technology arrives on the scene. Teething problems are to be expected. But now, MIM is a mature process and one that works well.

__________________
With S&W, you're holding history in your hand

That is the best reply I have ever seen!!!

There are some folks that say that a 1911 can only be in 45ACP, fullsize and made by Colt before 1992, otherwise it is not a 1911. The same goes for MIM parts, the Internal lock, strikers, and a multitude of other individual pet peeves. My observation is that the new guns are just as well designed as the old ones, but slightly more likely to need adjustment after purchase as we collectively are unwilling to pay for the price to get it right the first time. If we did not have different opinions this hobby would not be as much fun. Happy safe shooting to all here.

Major zombie thread, and for a MIM debate...

__________________
Pickpocket

Yeah, I started this thing and I can't believe that it is still alive!

I have several S&W revolvers with mim parts and the dreaded lock. While overall quality of the guns is not what it is on older guns I've had no failures of mim or the lock. A couple have quite a few rounds thru them, a 625JM with several thousand rounds and a 686 with a few thousand. Both went back on warranty but not because of MIM or the lock. Both problems were just poor workmanship. If one of their new revolvers suits you don't reject it because of MIM or the lock.

I had a 329PD that the lock activated by itself on recoil. The lock found a new home in the closest lake. No more issues with that.

I thoroughly enjoy threads such as this. I am a certified "Old Fart" and have been seriously shooting since I was 14. I joined a VERY active gun club and helped build it from scratch (both the range and membership). We were very fortunate, over the years to have world class shooters in many disciplines. Point is, I have seen MUCH in the shooting world and was trained as a machinist. I have done much "gunsmithing" over the years and have known some of the best gunsmiths, ever!

I have to confess that every time I hear how much better the older Smith's were I get a "giggle". I have been a Smith fan since I was a teenager. I have owned some of the finest Smith's ever made (and still do). The reason I "giggle", is I had a fellow club member "serious shooter" and VERY good friend, who purchased a new S&W Model 60. They had only been out a year or two (introduced in 1965, I believe). Out of the box, the Model 60 did not have enough headspace to allow the cylinder to be closed on FACTORY .38 Specials. So much for all firearms to be shot before the gun is shipped. S&W was notified, they paid for shipping back to the factory and within a couple of weeks had rectified the problem. My buddy had the revolver for many, many years without issue, after that. Hence, me smiling at "how much better the old guns were made".

Except when the company was owned "off shore" back in the day, S&W has done, for the most part, an excellent job. Guns are mechanical devices and occasionally, there are defects (both in materials and workmanship). One of my all time favorite revolvers is my 625-8 JM Special. I have shot it thousands of times (5000-7500 rounds per year for several years) without issue. I have personally examined and shot several others that were as well made as mine. I measured the cylinder throats on at least three and they were all PERFECT .4525" throats. Mine shoot well under an inch off a rest at 25 yards with my home cast bullets. Early Smith's often had greatly oversize cylinder throats and gave serious accuracy problems.

I also have some great early Smith's that are still shooting match quality after tens of thousands of shots.

Now, understand, I am a SHOOTER, not a collector, and my lifelong emphasis has been performance, not pretty. I so have some "Pretty" revolvers, too, you understand. But PERFORMANCE is my thing.

FWIW
Dale53

Most new car engines have MIM connecting rods, and have had for YEARS! I don't believe any firearm ( except maybe for a mini-gun) would have the stresses put on it that a gasoline engine connecting rod has to endure.

I am a vintage revolver guy, and like color cased forged stuff, blue steel and walnut.

This thread reminds me of an 80's story when I was living in Connecticut. The long and the short of the story is a Hartford cop was wrestling with a bad guy, and somehow the perp, managed to get the guy's Colt revolver away from him. The perp aimed the gun at the cop, and went to pull the trigger, and the forged trigger broke off. The cop was able to regain control of the situation, but the broken trigger saved his life.

__________________
Pete
I ain't no fortunate son

Probably started by a S&W employee...

__________________
Pickpocket