An Engineer's take on S&W.

[G-Mac]

Crucible Powdered metals recently went bankrupt; a major supplier of the highest grades of composite carbide metals.

If you are referring to Crucible Industries, formerly Crucible Steel, in Syracuse, N.Y.....yes, they went bankrupt, then almost immediately reorganized and opened under the new name. Same people running it. This was maybe 3 or so years ago. A friend of mine works there as a machinist. He has been putting in 60 hour weeks as of late.

 

[G-Mac]

A Mechanical Engineering Degree is a B.S.M.E...

"Bull-****s Most Effectively".

 

[mbliss57]

This is very interesting. I work for Precision Cast Parts Corp. which started in the 1950s as an investment company (chain saws) but has grown to a Fortune 200 Company and owns both large forging Companies like Carlton Forge and Wyman Gordan as well as large Investment casting Companies (Precision Cast Parts) NYSE (PCP) Instead of firearms their sole customer is the aerospace industry. I am most familiar with the parts used the aircraft engines. It is interesting to hear people compare forgings vs investment casting as different process for the same purpose when just the opposite is true...at least in the jet engine industry. Forgings
are used in the cool structural sections of the engine but in the hot turbine sections they can only use "super alloys made in vacuum furnaces, casting directionally solidified and single crystal investments blades and vanes. They have high corrosion and heat/ fatigue resistance they cannot get from a forged part. Temps in excess of 2200F. These blades often have intricate cooling passages that allow them to endure these temps. This an application that a forging just cannot achieve as they are cast into the blade via a ceramic core.
So like your friend says..the use of the metal item will more dictate whether it should be forged or cast. Not which is better. They both are depending on the application. For making revolver parts...forging is king.

Edit: just a bit of trivia: the largest 50,000 Ton forging presses are owned by our company in Worcester, Ma and our competitor Alcoa owns the other just down the road here in Cleveland. These date back to the post war era late 1940 early 1950s. The Cleveland press was just rebuilt as it tore it's foundation apart from all the pounding.

 

[mbliss57]

If you are referring to Crucible Industries, formerly Crucible Steel, in Syracuse, N.Y.....yes, they went bankrupt, then almost immediately reorganized and opened under the new name. Same people running it. This was maybe 3 or so years ago. A friend of mine works there as a machinist. He has been putting in 60 hour weeks as of late.

Did they become part of Gray Syracuse?

 

[Doug M.]

Then reliability of proper manufacturing processes come into play.

Pick the best material, require a SPECIFIC heat treat, watch manufacturing find a lower cost way of doing that heat treat, the material choice becomes a failure. BTDT -

My BTDT actually involved 17-4 PH, manufacturing "thought" a shorter heat treat, with all the parts stacked in a pile, was adequate.

What did they think, we were killing the bacteria on the surface????

IMHO

*
Sad and telling points. I have seen more than a few events in professions more to my knowledge in which specs are determined by SMEs, and then either butchered before implementation, or after some period of time, by people who think they know enough, and that the product is still "good enough". Heck, I've seen such in something so pedestrian as trousers and exercise gear.

M29since14 said: "Nowadays, the way some people write about "training" you would imagine they go through 2500 rounds in a year or less." Oh yeah. That's easy. That's not even two "moderate intensity" (instructor's description) carbine courses of 3 days each. If I were still in active LE and had my druthers, a modest 50 rounds a week per platform would be 2500/year each. We shot over 2500 rounds of pistol just in my basic academy.

 

[M29since14]

Yes, thus the Airweight Chief is probably best considered a '60s-era weapon that is still doing its job very well, with a few limitations.

 

[shawn mccarver]

What he said is technically true, but remember: Rugers usually outlast Smiths. Maybe because they're beefier. And their designs are more modern.

And M-66's endure better than M-19's. Stainless alloys have their merit, especially if the gun is often carried in damp conditions.

T-Star

I would have to disagree entirely with the statement that "Rugers usually outlast Smiths."

In the H.P. White Labs testing, if I recall correctly, the supposedly stronger Blackhawk failed before the S&W Model 29. Probably forgings, but I cannot say for sure. The S&W Model 29 did not fail at 80,000 psi, while the Blackhawk cylinder failed at 60,000 psi. Both are way beyond SAAMI safe levels. People think Rugers are stronger because they are thicker. See ad below.

I am not sure exactly what is meant by "outlast" or "endure better" in the post, but if you mean frames and major components damaged from long term firing, this is just plain wrong. If you mean that an S&W might need a tune up more frequently, perhaps, but I am not even sure I am prepared to concede that point.

Either way, I just disagree as do the laboratories. The one point I won't argue is that investment casting is a less costly method of manufacture.

 

[Rick_A]

I think a lot of that lore was born out of the "Ruger only" loads in 45 Colt due to all but New Model Blackhawk and Vaquero models having substantial cylinder wall thickness in that caliber.

 

[Rick_A]

Aside form the barrel over-torquing issue in some scandiums I've never seen or heard of an Airweight or Airlite frame cracking from fatigue in normal use.

 

[jaymoore]

It is tough to contribute your opinion in a thread such as this without stepping on someones toes.

Materials selection is a difficult process, in almost all cases more than properties MUST be considered.

Million dollar jet engines get more careful processes.

MIM is a fact of life to keeping a $600 (wholesale) revolver on the market, along with rubber grips.

IMHO

And on "million dollar engines"!
Guess which parts on this 10,000+ RPM rated compressor are cast? Hint: there's a bunch of 'em...

Go on about MIM all you want, but as far as I can tell from actually using them, they perform as well as the old school parts. And just about all the mfgs are using them. Usually without anyone noticing...

 

[SweetMK]

And on "million dollar engines"!
Guess which parts on this 10,000+ RPM rated compressor are cast? Hint: there's a bunch of 'em...

Go on about MIM all you want, but as far as I can tell from actually using them, they perform as well as the old school parts. And just about all the mfgs are using them. Usually without anyone noticing...

AHHH,,, but,,,,, those parts in the engine get carefully controlled processes to manufacture.

The members of s-w forum worry that the sintering of their MIM trigger is not perfect, and that the part could fail.

We all want OUR S&W to be perfect. I know I do.

Even with the knowledge gained from this thread, I will still have a passion for stainless steel S&W's,

Worn away bluing puts a on my face, freshly restored holster marks on a SS S&W makes me

 

[big&slow]

Great thread! Learn something every day.

 

[shocker]

Then Glock came along and rendered most of this discussion moot.

 

[gaucho1]

Wrong Name?

mim........................sounds wimpy and vaguely British to my ear.........


Maybe even the name of your favorite stuffed animal...........



How about something that sounds robust and non edible........................



....................how does FORGE sound..............?

 

[SweetMK]

Not enough pics in this thread!!

 

[CptCurl]

Ok, I'm not an engineer. Would someone please be kind enough to tell me what MIM technology is?

I don't know whether to love it or hate it, and my indifference is troubling me!

Thanks for this very interesting thread. I'm glad it got brought back.

Curl

 

[TheYoungblood]

Now I feel compelled to speak with someone locally I know that has worked with metals. Now I am curious about the service lives of my past and current guns before they cracked and broke on me...

Thanks for the posts !

 

[M29since14]

MIM is an acronym for metal injection molding, roughly. It is primarily used for small, lightweight parts of intricate or complicated design to save machining and finishing since it normally produces parts with fairly good accuracy and surface finish. As was said elsewhere, it is not a love/hate thing, per se. It is more a matter of what is the best process to produce a particular workpiece and is it cost effective. The love/hate thing is people talking about things from an emotional rather than a pragmatic view.

 

[Maximumbob54]

Say what you will about Ruger and invesment casting but darn near all the custom big bore heavy magnum stuff I see being custom made are all born Blackhawks and Redhawks and hardly any N frames. Still waiting for a .454, .480, or .475 N frame. And before anyone toots about the .460 and .500 those are on the X frame. Just like how the L frame washed away the K frame magnums I think S&W would do well with a L'ed up sized frame in the N frame without going all the way into the X frame madness. With the X frames the proved they can still be the big boy boss but they kind of went too far. Still a great thread to bring back into the light. I doubt I'm the only one that missed it.

 

[SweetMK]

Ok, I'm not an engineer. Would someone please be kind enough to tell me what MIM technology is?

I don't know whether to love it or hate it, and my indifference is troubling me!

Thanks for this very interesting thread. I'm glad it got brought back.

Curl

Go into the kitchen, get some corn starch. "Press" it into a shape with enough pressure so that it will not blow away.

Now, you got a shape, but, it is not very strong.

They do the same thing with metal, except, they heat it until the molecules of metal bond together.

The temperature approaches the melting point.

WOOT! Instant parts!!

Sintering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DWalt]

You have described sintering, not MIM. Sintering is as described, where usually a mixture of powdered metals is compacted in a mold to form a shape. Depending upon the desired properties, it may or may not be heated after compaction to bind the particles together more tightly. Part designs are typically fairly simple shapes.

MIM is very similar to injection molding of plastics, but using powdered metal and a binder instead of plastic - it's forced into an intricate mold under high pressure. The mold may produce a very complex part.

 

[SweetMK]

You have described sintering, not MIM. Sintering is as described, where usually a mixture of powdered metals is compacted in a mold to form a shape. Depending upon the desired properties, it may or may not be heated after compaction to bind the particles together more tightly. Part designs are typically fairly simple shapes.

MIM is very similar to injection molding of plastics, but using powdered metal and a binder instead of plastic - it's forced into an intricate mold under high pressure. The mold may produce a very complex part.

I doubt there is a S&W MIM part that is not sintered.

 

[mbliss57]

I am an engineer.. sintering is the process of heating a material ( metal or ceramic) to the point where its not melting but the very very tiny particles are fusing together. The correct term in the engineering/ Physical chemistry world is "solid state diffusion"..the particles fuse together without ever actually melting. This can be done with heat , pressure or the combination of both. This is not new technology. It has been around in the ceramic world for a hundred years and in metals for decades. The MIM part is a solid state diffused metal part. It is not as strong as a forged part or a cast part. But it is strong enough to do duty work in many applications where it is cheap and easy to manufacture and the failure rate is very low. Hammers or triggers on a gun for instance are a work of art when made of all forged case hardened steel. But the MIM parts will "Usually" last as long as the forged parts because they are NOT stressed like a cylinder or a barrel. Are they as strong as a forged trigger? NO.
My only analogy I can come up with is the steel used in the cars from the 1950's vs the plastic used today on a car. Is it as strong as the steel bumpers of the 1950's? NO. is is adequate for the job it performs. Yes. Does it cost less? YES. Do we all demand that our cars are still made of all steel? Yes if you still look for only 1950/60 vintage cars. No if we look for newer cars.
Then with technology and science advances why do we insist our guns still be made from forged steel? Answer..Because we like them that way, they are stronger and we can afford to buy them...as older or possibly a new custom or PC guns anyway. But the new guns are made with new technology. LEOs use them daily to put their lives on the lines with them. (Now I am rambling into the polymer argument..) My point is the old revolvers of the 50/60s are like the old classic cars from a build/ strength standpoint. They don't make them like that anymore. But they sure are awesome firearms/cars. But the MIM and cast parts are here to stay. You/ we don't have to buy them but they do the necessary job.

EDIT: This link explains the MIM process in a pretty basic way. When/if you read it the reduction of porosity by heat/pressure or both without melting the materials is called sintering. The word PIM is the generic Powder injection molding. The specific MIM is Metal injection Molding.. as in the article.

http://www.pim-international.com/aboutpim/binders

 

[SweetMK]

I would bet the forged parts of the "first" versions of S&W's to use them, were not manufactured with that technology with strength in mind.

The forging technology was probably applied because it was a cost reduction from previous technology.

The forging process was a NNS advance, Near Net Shape.

Over time, many NNS processes were implemented, some successful, some less

sand casting
forging
investment casting
MIM
plastics
whatever

We could demand machined billet parts, but, we each would own far fewer guns.
AND the end result may not be as good.

Engineers just love to tinker.

 

[Oyeboteb]

I would bet the forged parts of the "first" versions of S&W's to use them, were not manufactured with that technology with strength in mind.

The forging technology was probably applied because it was a cost reduction from previous technology.

The forging process was a NNS advance, Near Net Shape.

Over time, many NNS processes were implemented, some successful, some less

sand casting
forging
investment casting
MIM
plastics
whatever

We could demand machined billet parts, but, we each would own far fewer guns.
AND the end result may not be as good.

Engineers just love to tinker.

No...

Forged Frames, Barrels, internal Parts, were Forged, because that was the most effective method of obtaining the properties/strength/toughness and shapes desired.

Some parts were also Case Hardened once 'finished' ( such as the Hammers and Triggers of the general run of early through mid 20th Century S&W Revolvers, and, the Frames of the Colt SAA Revolvers ).

I do not know about 19th Century S&W Revolver Frames, but, I suspect the Colt SAA and Percussion era Frames were Wrought Iron, and probably many Revolver Barrels were also.

The Springfield 'Trap Door' .45-70, if memory serve, had a Wrought Iron Barrel...as did most everything else Rifle wise, till the advent of Smokeless Propellants occasioned a change to various special Steels.

The methods were not elected because they were less expensive than Casting - Casting would not achieve the desired working properties.

For that matter, most any so called 'billet' is merely the perfunctory CNC Machining of Standard Stock Bar or Rod or whatever, which had been more or less Forged to begin with if via a Rolling Mill...with the difference being, that an intentional Forging of a certain shape item is done to be petty close to shape, while Machining something from Rod or Bar is indifferent to the Forging structures ( if any remain) internally.

All else being equal as for the material one starts out with, a properly made machined Forging will always be a superior item than anything indifferently milled out of 'billet'.

 

[SweetMK]

No...

All else being equal as for the material one starts out with, a properly made machined Forging will always be a superior item than anything indifferently milled out of 'billet'.

My response is a guess, as neither of us have the details at to why a manufacturing process was selected at any time in S&W history.

Your response, as is mine, are guesses, the staff that selected forging as a process at S&W are all pushing up daisies.

I agree with your details and knowledge as to why one material is better than the other, but,,,,,,,,,,,, again we are guessing as to why any material and process is selected.

I doubt the inspection techniques were available to fully understand what S&W was doing to parts when forging was starting to be used.

Heck, understanding why hydrogen embrittled steel was being studied in universities in the mid 1970's. (I was there)

Metallurgy as a science rather than an art was in it's infancy in the 1960's.

S&W made the forgings as an art, for cost savings. (My opinion)

Heck, if the guns NEEDED forged triggers and hammers, we would not see the success of MIM.

Many machinists could make a machined trigger successfully.
Many do, and are successful enough to make money.

Machining is a much lower cost technique for low volume manufacturing as compared to forging.

The opposite was true when S&W was high volume making triggers.

As usual this is JMHO, and educated guess.

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

I would have to disagree entirely with the statement that "Rugers usually outlast Smiths."

In the H.P. White Labs testing, if I recall correctly, the supposedly stronger Blackhawk failed before the S&W Model 29. Probably forgings, but I cannot say for sure. The S&W Model 29 did not fail at 80,000 psi, while the Blackhawk cylinder failed at 60,000 psi. Both are way beyond SAAMI safe levels. People think Rugers are stronger because they are thicker. See ad below.

I am not sure exactly what is meant by "outlast" or "endure better" in the post, but if you mean frames and major components damaged from long term firing, this is just plain wrong. If you mean that an S&W might need a tune up more frequently, perhaps, but I am not even sure I am prepared to concede that point.

Either way, I just disagree as do the laboratories. The one point I won't argue is that investment casting is a less costly method of manufacture.

I normally agree with your posts, but here I don't.

Brian Pearce wrote the information in the following paragraph in his excellent article in Handloader #217 "Understanding the .45 Colt". HP White labratories tested the Super Blackhawk in 44 magnum, and it took 80K CUP to destroy it. The Blackhawk in 45 Colt took over 60K CUP to destroy it. At the time the tests were conducted the 44 magnum was still listed by SAAMI at 43,500 CUP.


I have looked for it, but I have yet to find or see any data from HP White (or anywhere else) that shows the M-29 will surpass the Blackhawk in pressure tests, especially regarding the cylinder itself.

The Blackhawk will easily outlast the 29 without needing any major tune-up work. Silhouette shooters proved that time and again a long time ago, and not just with the 300 grain loads everyone worries so much about. The fact that the 29 could not stand up to constant use with full power ammo, and that shooters were starting to spend their cash on other brands was the total reason for the endurance package being introduced.

 

[Comrad]

I'm glad you broached the subject.

 

[jfp357]

As a young (very young) man I worked at S&W in Springfield,Ma. I watched the broaching operation many times. The most experienced machine operators did the work. I am NOW impressed with the process I watched, after reading this forum.

 

[Rick_A]

Then Glock came along and rendered most of this discussion moot.

Well, when Glock starts making double action revolvers that may become relevant here.