MIM Barrel? Look at This

Status
Not open for further replies.
Register to hide this ad
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.
 
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.
 
According to a study funded by the AMPMA (American MIM Parts Manufacterer's Association), there is nothing wrong with MIM parts.
 
Last edited:
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

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.
 
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.
 
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 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 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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top