what is the real story on the 686

dyna962007 · #1 04-18-2015, 08:02 PM

Let me ask a question.
Considering all of the years this handgun has been made and all of the dash configurations and the pre and post lock feature, what model has most of the benefits with the fewest of changes made that cheapen the gun?
I had always heard go with a no dash but it sounds like there were quite a few actual upgrades and nice changes made over the years.
But I've also heard of changes that cheapened the gun such as going with cast parts instead of machined parts etc
Im confining this to a full underlug model with minimum 6" barrel

G.A.Sea53 · #2 04-18-2015, 08:20 PM

IMHO the 686-4 was the pinacle of this model plus the choice
of having it in the 6-shot or the 7-shot capacity. It does not get
any better than this.

Pizza Bob · #3 04-18-2015, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna962007

what model has most of the benefits with the fewest of changes made that cheapen the gun?

You have started three separate threads and in all of them you allude to S&W "cheapening" their guns. You really should have qualified that with " in my opinion".

If you think that things like MIM components and ECM rifling have "cheapened" the guns, you are only half right. It HAS made them cheaper to produce. Your problem is that you seem to equate the use of new, more efficient technologies with cheapness, rather than improvement.

MIM components are more dimensionally stable, more precise and have smoother contact surfaces. ECM rifling, again, is more precise and, at one time, concerned the ATF because they thought it was so smooth and consistent you wouldn't be able to forensically differentiate one gun from another.

As for the lock, if you object to it on political grounds, you shouldn't be looking at a S&W in the first place.

If you object because you are afraid that it may malfunction, it takes all of 15 minutes to disable it without changing the external appearance whatsoever.

If you object to the lock on aesthetic grounds, remove it and plug the hole.

The guns being produced today are among the best ever. It seems that every succeeding generation lusts for guns from "back in the day". 20 years from now people will covet the firearms of today. I think you should get ahead of the curve.

Adios,

Pizza Bob

Brasky · #4 04-18-2015, 09:06 PM

686-3 FTW

Browns fan · #5 04-18-2015, 09:35 PM

agree the dash 3 is the best sq butt wood target grips flash chrome hammer trigger the the 4 is better why ? tapped 7 shot ?do you really need a 2.5 inch or 4 inch gun scoped a 6 inch I can see oh and also no wood target grips on the 4 except very very few early 4 s

grip frame · #6 04-19-2015, 02:27 AM

-3 and -4 are the winners of the 686 race.

mtelkhntr · #7 04-19-2015, 03:57 AM

Even though my 686 is a no dash, I think the best one is the one you find at a price that catches your eye and when you pick it up, you can't let go.

colt_saa · #8 04-19-2015, 07:03 AM

OP, sorry for the continued thread drift

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolymathPioneer

Wow slow down, your pizza's cold on this one Bob.

Fact check: MIM components are only as good as the machines that fabricate them.

I do not think Bob's Pizza is cold. He might have been stingy with the toppings

PolymathPioneer,
Wouldn't a hand made part only be as good as the hand that made it? And a forged part only as good as the foundry it came from?

No matter what process the part is made by, there are good parts and bad parts.

Now you are saying that a party other than your self says S&W MIM parts are no good and you are in agreement. BTW, I have never read any of Jerry's books including his section three and unless you are providing FREE copies to the Forum so that we can look at your reference material I probably will continue to not know what he wrote.

Now poor Bob only had one sentence in that long post of his that addressed the characteristics of a MIMed part.

Quote:

MIM components are more dimensionally stable, more precise and have smoother contact surfaces.

That is a correct statement.

I have worked countless thousands of S&W revolver actions over the last 3+ decades, MIM guns can have good actions in much less time and work than Forged guns.

Now if you want to say that for a PERFECT action you must start with over sized parts and hand fit each and every one, I would not disagree.

Now I do prefer forged hammers and triggers on my S&Ws, but that is because they are prettier than MIM

dyna962007,
My preference for 686s is anything -4 or later. This is when the 7 shot cylinder was introduced. That is the one thing that would get me to choose a L-frame over a K-frame for my mid size revolver. Otherwise I am sticking with the 27/327/627 family if my goal is durability.

Just because a process reduces the cost of production, does not necessarily mean it cheapens the finished product.

manderson · #9 04-19-2015, 07:23 AM

Guess I'm getting old, but I don't understand all the hype over seven shots. I vote for the 686-3 six shooter.

Jdavis · #10 04-19-2015, 07:23 AM

The perception is that older things (S&W guns in this case) are better because they were made when there was the human element of caring and pride in their creation. It would not matter if the MIM or CNC components could be proven to be superior. Right or wrong, this is what drives the collector and antique markets and it isn't going to change.

Voyager28 · #11 04-19-2015, 07:47 AM

I'm not a gun smith nor am I an expert on all of the specific advantages of the various elements of a revolver. All I know is my personal experience. I have 3 686s in my safe; a 4" no dash, a 6" dash 3 and a 4" dash 6+. All three are excellent, accurate and reliable and I've never had an issue of any kind with any one of them after several thousands of rounds through each one.

As for my personal preference of the three that I own? I would lean towards the no dash and the dash 3 because I, personally, like square butt revolvers much better than round butt.

Sometimes we would do well to remind ourselves that, just because we personally don't like something, doesn't mean it is flawed.

Bob

silentflyer · #12 04-19-2015, 08:02 AM

I have a 686-4 6" and a 686-5 4", that I have run thousands of rounds through and never had a problem, ever time I go to the rage at least 1 of them makes the trip. At some point I hope to find a deal on a 8 3/8" to go with them. I would tell anyone if you find one you like regardless of the dash number, buy it.

ankona · #13 04-19-2015, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolymathPioneer

Wow slow down, your pizza's cold on this one Bob.

Fact check: MIM components are only as good as the machines that fabricate them. The machines used to create MIM components for high performance aircraft are of a quality that is far beyond the machines that gun company's use to create MIM components. Further, please review the fifth edition of Jerry Kuhnhausen's book "The S&W Revolvers, A Shop Manual", section three. Section three is a highly detailed and extensive comparison with high definition images of MIM parts compared to the pre-MIM handgun parts. My own experience revolver smithing and performance tuning S&W revolvers of both types confirms Kuhnhausn's section three analysis. Just as an example the MIM double action sear is ridiculously loose in its drop in pivot point in the MIM hammer compared to the pinned forged double action sear of the drop forged versions. This results in inconsistent high speed double action trigger pull, which is virtually impossible to eliminate due to the resulting MIM sear "wobble".

Jerry's book does bash MIM components with references to "early breakage & more prone to corrosion due to the increased porosity of MIM". His words & opinions not mine. Not sure when the 5th edition was originally written; most likely prior to 2006. Possibly S&W and other companies had a learning curve to hurdle with MIM components and also I'm confident that this process has been and will continue to improve as the technology to produce these components improves over time. I have some older pre- MIM Smith's and they are nice but was compelled to check out the "purported S&W lack of quality MIM current revolvers" so I went and purchased a brandy new 686 with 3 inch barrel with the ILS. It is a great gun. Trigger pull in DA is a little heavy but is smooth throughout and I can easily lighten that pull weight. Everything is put together quite well & the barrel is even on straight

. This was purchased sight unseen from a reputable gun company and there are no issues with the weapon. I like it so much I am now looking for a 640 Pro. I must have just got lucky

epj · #14 04-19-2015, 09:17 AM

I foolishly sold my M19 and bought a 686 when they first came out. Didn't really like the gun all that well. Just didn't flop my prop. Sold it and bought a stainless Python. Kept it for 20+ years. I now have a 686 + and a 627 Pro. The 627 is by far my favorite. Both are 4" guns. The 686 weighs almost exactly the same as the 627, but the balance is entirely different. The 686 is muzzle heavy. If the 686 were available in a standard barrel configuration I'd probably like it better. There was a 620? Model a few years ago that was basically just as described. However it had a two piece barrel and apparently some guns had problems. The ones that didn't have problems were reported to be superbly accurate.

DR505 · #15 04-19-2015, 09:36 AM

This is a good thread! Wish I had popcorn.

My preference in the 6" 686 line is the -3, and only because I don't want the top strap to have been drilled and tapped for scopes...I don't use them. I'm with EPJ as far as the 627 vs. 686 lines go, but I do have a wonderfully accurate 686-3 CH in 6" configuration.

All that being said, I wouldn't turn my nose up at any of them, and I still like them all, even if I prefer one over another.

S&W Fan · #16 04-19-2015, 10:09 AM

I have a 4" no dash my dad bought new in Sept. 1981 (I have the original receipt, box, etc). It did have issues with some magnum ammo and he sent it back, it has the "M" stamp and doesn't diminish the quality and reliability of this gun in anyway. It's had thousands of rounds through it, he had an action job done to it in either '81 or '82 and it still times/locks up perfectly.

I also have a 2.5" I bought a couple of months ago. It's also a no-dash but from November 1984 (confirmed Lew Horton model), I haven't shot it alot but with the Winchester Silvertip .357 mag ammo I haven't had any problems. Forgot to mention, no "M" stamp and no plans to return it for the mod. Wouldn't part with either for all the money in the world (they'll eventually go to my sons).

Like a few of the others here I wouldn't go past a -3 due to my preferences for the cosmetics of the guns. Purely a personal preference, frankly I think they're all pretty great guns.

H Richard · #17 04-19-2015, 01:17 PM

If anyone wants to complain about any of the 686/586 models, hold your comments until you personally wear one out. Now for some quite please, over the next 30-40 years.

ankona · #18 04-19-2015, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolymathPioneer

Here's the problem: All S&W revolvers that use the MIM hammer with the non pinned double action sear are of inferior mechanical quality because it is impossible to set the double action trigger return to have precise timing due to the double action sear wobble. A heavy double action trigger pull masks the problem but it is still there in each and every single one of those guns from S&W. The result of this is these revolvers can not be made to be 100% reliable for self-defense situations because the double action cycle can fail, period end of story full stop. The symptom of this timing issue is that during rapid double action fire the cylinder will turn properly but the hammer may not full cock and your left with a click and no bang. I can go into very excruciating detail on this with video demonstrating and showing the problem on all MIM hammer S&W revolvers with the floating double action sear.

Further, following extensive testing on virtually every single model of MIM hammer S&W revolver in production today, with the floating double action sear, S&W should have a voluntary free upgrade that offers a MIM hammer with a pinned MIM double action sear. Finally, I am absolutely,unequivocally certain S&W knows of this problem.

This double action sear MIM part design flaw can be minimized by adjusting ALL bearing surfaces in the double action trigger return cycle but unlike with the older pinned double action sear it can not be eliminated without widening tolerances that make the double action firing sequence completely unreliable.

The only solution around this is to not depend on these revolvers for self-defense or be happy since of course this is all rubish and it will never affect those who ignore this (rofl). I own several of these revolvers and have switched to Apex rigged M&P 40 for wilderness or home defense. In the past I have used 1911s but any that have the firing pin block safety are not suitable for self defense application and those that don't have the firing pin block safety should have many of the MIM parts replaced by after market parts. I once did this frequently but it's a lot of work and 1911s can be messed up by FTF magazine issues. I find that when properly tuned the M&P pistols have extreme reliability (notwithstanding the lame shepherds hook) and are capable of extreme accuracy when performance tuned.

VR

Larry Wood

I for one would love to see a detailed video demonstrating and showing the problem on all MIM hammer S&W revolvers with the floating double action sear.

I also found this statement somewhat perplexing:"In the past I have used 1911s but any that have the firing pin block safety are not suitable for self defense application and those that don't have the firing pin block safety should have many of the MIM parts replaced by after market parts. I once did this frequently but it's a lot of work and 1911s can be messed up by FTF magazine issues." Maybe someone should contact Colt and inform them. I have several series 70 & 80 1911's. Zero issues after many thoussands of rounds, many of which were rapid fire. Quite frankly it's pretty simple to remove the series 80 firing pin block parts and insert a spacer.

It seems that if this was an issue with S&W revolvers being unreliable for self defense that this would be pretty widespread by now considering the volume of new MIM component Smiths being used in competition and self defense.

Pizza Bob · #19 04-19-2015, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolymathPioneer

More specifically all L, N and X frame series revolvers with the floating DA action sear have this defect.

You seem to have the same problem that the OP has in that you speak in absolutes, rather than expressing an opinion. The above quoted statement is libelous, and while it is doubtful that S&W would take you to task, it is actionable as it impugns their reputation and may cause monetary loss due to decreased sales.

Of course the best defense against a libel suit is the truth, so you may be called upon to prove this "defect" to S&W rather than to a group of forumites.

As a sample of one, I shoot my revolvers competitively (not well, but it's the thought that counts), including those with MIM components and with literally thousands of rounds down range have had no problem. What you say may be true, it may also be true that any problems caused by your so-called "defect" are statistically insignificant. If this were truly a problem I think we'd be hearing about it from more than one person on an Internet forum.

JMHO

Adios,

Pizza Bob

CAJUNLAWYER · #20 04-19-2015, 06:25 PM

THIS is going to be epic before it's over

Pizza Bob · #21 04-19-2015, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolymathPioneer

With respect to liable that's nonsense,

While you have made yourself liable, the offense is libel. Again, if this were as big a problem as you make it out to be we'd be hearing about it from more than one poster on an Internet forum.

BTW: I applaud you for any work you are doing with regard to curing/arresting glioblastomas. While the genetically modified polio virus looks promising in the (very) early trials thus far, cancer is something that must be attacked on multiple fronts.

Adios,

Pizza Bob<----no, I don't own a pizza parlor, just wish I did.

Warren Sear · #22 04-19-2015, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolymathPioneer

...(blah, blah, blah)...

I detect a pattern here...

ankona · #23 04-19-2015, 07:15 PM

Warren BS spray would work also. Apparently all Colt 1911's with series 80 parts are also defective. If nothing else this will be entertaining.

kbm6893 · #24 04-19-2015, 07:26 PM

I had a 686 no dash in 2.5" and 686-3 in 4". Sold them both and miss them both. As for which model I like the best, revolvers are six-shooters to me and I can't get into 7 shot revolvers. Have too many 6 shot speed loaders too

As for newer vs old, function same or not, I cannot get into MIM revolvers. I want firing pin on hammer and no black MIM hammer, trigger, or cylinder release. And the IL lock is not even an option. Not for political reasons. Just because it is too ugly.

Part of why I own a gun is pride in ownership, and the newer ones just don't hold up. Maybe they're tougher, but I haven't worn out my guns yet.

M3Stuart · #25 04-19-2015, 08:59 PM

I used to have a 6" 686-1.

It put holes in stuff.
It made holes galore.
So incredibly accurate,
You could hit Bangalore.
Though a bit barrel heavy, it was volcanic.
It was uncomfortable for long outings,
But I didn't panic.
I searched high and low.
Both on and offshore.
Now please stay with me,
Though my story doth bore.
The tale ended with "smileys".
When I traded up for a 4" dash four.

M3Stuart · #26 04-19-2015, 09:04 PM

All this talk of blastomas,
wobbly MIM parts
and cancerous pus.
Just reminded me that I forgot
To mention that my dash four is a 'plus'.

Warren Sear · #27 04-19-2015, 09:05 PM

You're a poet,
and didn't know it,
but your feet show it,
they're long fellows!

Ranger514 · #28 04-19-2015, 10:16 PM

Luvs my six-inch dash 4 plus. I wish I'd never sold my 4-inch dash 3. It was the best service revolver I ever owned.

ankona · #29 04-20-2015, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolymathPioneer

My final post here is that after three days of work I now understand how to remove this MIM defect. I sacrificed a DA MIM sear to understand how to push the tolerances of the entire DA cycle sequence and performance tune it. I then fit a fresh MIM DA sear to the action. So it is possible to fix contrary to what I originally posted. However it is very time consuming to do so. All things considered about six hours now that I understand what needs to be done to fix this factory timing issue. I have several other revolvers all which exhibit this problem and may or may not fix them too as I don't use them for self defense.

Adios

What no video; I am shocked. Your last post here? Too bad I already miss your articulate confabulations.

RaylanGivens · #30 04-20-2015, 08:26 AM

It seems we were just getting to know him, then he was gone. Oh, well.

Hillbilly77 · #31 04-20-2015, 09:35 AM

First, I'll address MIM. MIM didn't cheapen up the guns. I read here that MIM actually costs S&W more money. They use it because it works. Sure, it's ugly...... But, it works.

Now, I'll answer the OP's question:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna962007

what is the real story on the 686

The story of the 686 is this:
In the early 1980's, S&W built the 586. They looked at it and realized that they had just built the perfect revolver.
Then, some drunk guy (at least I assume he was drunk) decided to ugly it up, and made one out of stainless.

Voyager28 · #32 04-20-2015, 09:43 AM

I think 686s are so terrible that, during the life of this thread, I pick up my 4th one just this week end. It is a 6" Dash 4. So, that evens my count with Model 19s at 4 of each.

It is my opinion, and just my opinion, that S&W Model 19s and Model 686s are the best shooting revolvers ever produced by mankind.

Bob

Tadeus67 · #33 04-20-2015, 09:47 AM

From my experience, and I should say that I am very fond of the J, K and N frames; the L frame represents the perfect medium size revolver.

CAJUNLAWYER · #34 04-20-2015, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaylanGivens

It seems we were just getting to know him, then he was gone. Oh, well.

the good die young.

RaylanGivens · #35 04-20-2015, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAJUNLAWYER

the good die young.

I will process his leaving, get support from friends, and possibly journal my feelings of grief and loss. And, yes I will welcome him back, if he so chooses.

Texas Star · #36 04-20-2015, 04:41 PM

Succinctly, a M-686-3. I don't want holes drilled in the top strap, and I don't want a 7-shot version that I think is more likely to go out -of- time. I prefer the older cylinder release, too. And the traditional firing pin on the hammer.

I also want a four-inch barrel. That's just the most effective in balance and in not being too awfully nose-heavy. They should have made more 686's like the Mountain Gun or whatever they called those with normal (not full-lugged) barrels.

I sold my M-686 because it just seemed too nose heavy and not as well balanced as my Ruger GP-100. I also think the Ruger has the more durable action, with less likelihood that it'll need re-timing. And I like their crane lock.

Today, it costs fairly serious money for a man on a fixed income to have a gunsmith re-time a revolver, and I don't know of anyone local that I'd trust to do the job really right, who won't take maybe a year to get to the gun. And shipping to a factory takes time and money, too. And raises the possibility of loss or theft!

Jerry Kuhnhausen is a well known gunsmith and his shop manuals are considered the standard of their kind. I wouldn't take lightly what he says about S&W actions.

That said, if I had the loose cash, I'd probably look for a M-686-3 with four-inch barrel and keep it. It's an excellent revolver that'll take more .357 loads without loosening up or cracking the barrel throat that a K-frame .357 may do.

But if the gun is a basic 686 with the M mark or a later one through -3, I'd consider it a done deal if I had the money and the gun checked out perfectly. I'd even accept MINOR scuffs if I could polish them out by hand with Simichrome, etc.

BTW, I retained my M-66-3, which is easier to conceal and lighter to wear for long periods of time, day-in, day-out.
If not shot primarily with full .357 ammo and if the forcing cone is kept clean and free of residue, the K-frame .357's are excellent guns, very handy. But if lead residue builds up in the forcing cone, I think that contributes to the possibility of barrel throat cracking at that thin spot on the bottom of the barrel. Keep it clean!

Good luck in your quest for a really nice M-686, of whatever dash configuration.

Dennis The B · #37 04-20-2015, 04:58 PM

That the L framed 586 and 686 models bear a striking resemblance to Colt's Python, is no coincidence.

It's been covered in thousands, yea tens of thousands of internet blogs, magazine articles, books, etc., that the S&W K frame had weaknesses when it came to shooting lightweight (i.e. 110gr-130gr) .357 Magnum loads. The litany of "shortcomings", premature throat erosion, end shake, flame cutting, are well-documented.

To correct this problem, the L frame was designed and came into production. It's similar in size to the Colt I frame, maybe a tad larger, and it certainly fits the bill for a durable magnum revolver; all the benefits (same grip frame size as the K, etc.), without any of the shortcomings. Surely a plus for S&W and the market.

As the result of what I'm sure were the discussions in smoke-filled rooms among accountants and other sordid finance types, (

) the decision was made to cheapen the apparent paragon of revolver evolution. Surely, an accountant who happened to read about MIM parts in the latest issue of "Financial Manager", knew better than metallurgists and engineers the need to switch to something other than forged steel. It didn't make a whit of difference that revolvers were struggling in a market now flooded with "Wonder Nines" with strange names such as "Grock", or "Glick", or whatever. How does one compete with the semiauto, especially with a gun concept founded in 1836?

By their very nature, revolvers are the most complex of both generally accepted types of handguns. And forged parts used to be part of an original casting process.

In the end, its about how much quality goes into the design, engineering and manufacturing process.

PS - I love my 686, 686-3, and my 586-4. Great revolvers, all. And I'm not giving up up my L frame look alikes, my three Pythons.

rwsmith · #38 04-20-2015, 05:11 PM

I got a -1. It apparently doesn't need the 'M' upgrade. I find it perfect in every way except the 6" barrel IS nose heavy. The trigger is stupendous. I'd say any gun before 1997 is good. -3 and - 4 seem to be tops. I don't mind the balance, but if I had any reason to have the gun besides the target range I'd get a shorter barrel. Which is one reason shorter barrels are a premium.

Helderberg · #39 04-20-2015, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pizza Bob

You have started three separate threads and in all of them you allude to S&W "cheapening" their guns. You really should have qualified that with " in my opinion".

If you think that things like MIM components and ECM rifling have "cheapened" the guns, you are only half right. It HAS made them cheaper to produce. Your problem is that you seem to equate the use of new, more efficient technologies with cheapness, rather than improvement.

MIM components are more dimensionally stable, more precise and have smoother contact surfaces. ECM rifling, again, is more precise and, at one time, concerned the ATF because they thought it was so smooth and consistent you wouldn't be able to forensically differentiate one gun from another.

As for the lock, if you object to it on political grounds, you shouldn't be looking at a S&W in the first place.

If you object because you are afraid that it may malfunction, it takes all of 15 minutes to disable it without changing the external appearance whatsoever.

If you object to the lock on aesthetic grounds, remove it and plug the hole.

The guns being produced today are among the best ever. It seems that every succeeding generation lusts for guns from "back in the day". 20 years from now people will covet the firearms of today. I think you should get ahead of the curve.

Adios,

Pizza Bob

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. Finally !!!!!
Frank.

jimbo728 · #40 04-21-2015, 04:40 AM

Love my 686-2 4". Almost shoots as well as my 6" no dash 586. That one is showing FC wear but is still a tack driver.
Jim

Gunhacker · #41 04-21-2015, 05:19 AM

I just don't get it... how in the world does Jerry Miculek manage to put up with his inferior MIM equipped S&W revolvers all of these years and yet still do the things that he does while shooting them DA?

A miracle I tell you... or the devils work

To the OP's question... I have owned a 686 no-dash, a -1 and -3... they've all worked fine for me, but I do have a preference for the -3... only because of it's 2.5 inch barrel.

kbm6893 · #42 04-21-2015, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunhacker

I just don't get it... how in the world does Jerry Miculek manage to put up with his inferior MIM equipped S&W revolvers all of these years and yet still do the things that he does while shooting them DA?

A miracle I tell you... or the devils work

To the OP's question... I have owned a 686 no-dash, a -1 and -3... they've all worked fine for me, but I do have a preference for the -3... only because of it's 2.5 inch barrel.

Jerry's revolvers are hardly factory stock, and I am sure any issues that might come up are sent to the head of the line at the performance center. And since Jerry is paid big money by S&w, he sure isn't going to publicly state any issues he might have had with one.

As I said, I don't think the newer revolvers are junk. I just prefer the classic looks of the older ones. And I seem to remember a thread that had a pic of Jerry shooting his revolver. A close up of the gun clearly showed a plug installed in the keyhole.

Rhetorician · #43 04-21-2015, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pizza Bob

If you think that things like MIM components and ECM rifling have "cheapened" the guns, you are only half right. It HAS made them cheaper to produce. Your problem is that you seem to equate the use of new, more efficient technologies with cheapness, rather than improvement.

MIM components are more dimensionally stable, more precise and have smoother contact surfaces. ECM rifling, again, is more precise and, at one time, concerned the ATF because they thought it was so smooth and consistent you wouldn't be able to forensically differentiate one gun from another.

Pizza Bob

Pizza Bob,

For those of us who are not in the know, can you explain "MIM" and "ECM?"

Thanks,

rd

CAJUNLAWYER · #44 04-21-2015, 06:58 AM

So if the hammer on my revolvers has the little pointy thing on it, it's not MIM and I don't have to worry about all this-right??
Also all my MIM revolvers are J frames-so I'm good to go on them right??

ankona · #45 04-21-2015, 07:28 AM

Cajunlawyer you have nothing to worrry about irregardless of whether your revos are of all forged components or have some MIM components. No need to fret over the ridiculous ranting of one misguided individual no matter how articulate those rants may be. Quite frankly he has run himself around in a circle trying to dig himself out of the hole that continues to be dug.
rd do a google search on MIM & ECM rifling and you can gather all the info you need.

Pizza Bob · #46 04-21-2015, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhetorician

Pizza Bob,

For those of us who are not in the know, can you explain "MIM" and "ECM?"

Thanks,

rd

MIM is Metal Injection Molding
ECM is Electro-Chemical Machining

You can Google either term for a complete explanation.

Adios,

Pizza Bob

Gunhacker · #47 04-21-2015, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbm6893

Jerry's revolvers are hardly factory stock, and I am sure any issues that might come up are sent to the head of the line at the performance center. And since Jerry is paid big money by S&w, he sure isn't going to publicly state any issues he might have had with one.

As I said, I don't think the newer revolvers are junk. I just prefer the classic looks of the older ones. And I seem to remember a thread that had a pic of Jerry shooting his revolver. A close up of the gun clearly showed a plug installed in the keyhole.

Hardly stock, true enough there... but my point was not that they are "box stock", but that they do have MIM parts, which he is seems to be doing fine with and they seem to be standing up to the rigors of competition. Plugging the IL (Clinton hole) is all together another issue/topic.

In his "Trigger Job" DVD, he talks about MIM and also his philosophy/methodology of tuning a revolver for competition.

It is mostly a bunch of small tweaks that combine together to make his revolvers "fast" and to ensure reliable ignition of his "tuned" handloads.

I'm with you... I don't care for the looks on many of the contemporary guns, especially Performance Center revolvers... I only have 2 of the "newer generation" revolvers, but not due to MIM.

It's an interesting dichotomy that exists when it comes to S&W revolvers and 3rd Gen pistols... people are constantly seeking 3rd Gen pistols out, praising them for their merits of reliability and accuracy... and from what I see in the Semi-auto pistol forum, there seems to be no adamant dislikes of MIM other than they are black (instead of flashed chrome) and some don't like the contrast with the SS frames/slides, but on revolvers it's an almost instant/visceral MIM = ICK!!

BAM-BAM · #48 04-21-2015, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunhacker

It's an interesting dichotomy that exists when it comes to S&W revolvers and 3rd Gen pistols... people are constantly seeking 3rd Gen pistols out, praising them for their merits of reliability and accuracy... and from what I see in the Semi-auto pistol forum, there seems to be no adamant dislikes of MIM other than they are black (instead of flashed chrome) and some don't like the contrast with the SS frames/slides, but on revolvers it's an almost instant/visceral MIM = ICK!!

My newest 3rd Gen pistol a DPA5906 dates to 1997..........and IIRC my only revolver with without a firing pin on the hammer is my 60-10....... so I think I'm safe and can sleep at night..............

Hey Cajun.......want to go get a drink? This thread has made me........want to go read some judicial opinions to unwind

Come on ......... It's 5 o'clock somewhere!!!!!

Meet you halfway........ Key West OK with you??????

JohnAC · #49 04-21-2015, 01:39 PM

2 pages and not one photo. This place is slipping!

686-3

Warren Sear · #50 04-21-2015, 06:42 PM

Another photo: