MIM introduction

[Green Frog]

I've just done a quick search through SCSW and this forum and am still left with a question. How does one go about finding out which dash numbers are pre- and which are post implementation of MIM into the various models, or is that particular change buried within a single dash number? I've been spending most of my gun time in single shot rifles for about the last 20 years and feel kind of like Rip Van Winkle here.

TIA ~ Froggie

 

[HAM]

Hope you get some answers to your question. I have wondered about this subject too and never could find reliable answers.

HAM

 

[mtime7]

well the easy way is just stick with p & r guns.. Or you could ask about a specific model, or do the smart thing and get a copy of the Standard Catalogue of the Smith and Wesson and look it up.

 

[Dale53]

Froggie;
If you run onto a specific revolver which you cannot see in person, you can write me and I'll look it up in the Standard Catalogue for you.

Frankly, I have several revolvers with MIM parts and ignore that. There are advantages to both and attitudes towards them seem to be polarizing (I personally couldn't care less - I like my Smith's with OR without them).

FWIW
Dale53

 

[stantheman86]

I'll dig out my SC of S&W tomorrow, it's about my bedtime here at close to 1am, but I know the introduction of MIM is in there.

IIRC it started with MIM thumpieces and then MIM bolts and hands. My 10-10 from the mid 90's has a MIM thumpiece and bolt, but forged hand and hammer/trigger. They kind of phased it in, it wasn't like overnight all the guns went to MIM.

The 10-11 I think was the first Model 10 to go to all MIM, and then the 10-14 was basically the same gun with the IL. I collect 10's and 64's, don't know much about other models.

I think MIM parts are fine, they supposedly last longer then forged but aren't as "hard" if that makes any sense. You also can't stone or file them as once you break the top hardened layer it will wear out faster.

The parts aren't as "pretty" especially the triggers with that nasty looking void on the back of it, but they work fine. I have 3 MIM guns, a 64-7 in particular that has seen many rounds and still tight.

 

[skeete]

I think it depends on the particular firearm you are talking about. In the case of the SW 629's, the last non MIM 629 was the 629-3. The 629-4 has no lock but has the MIM hammer and trigger.
This subject has been beaten to death and there are three different points of view; those who could care less, those who think MIM is superior and those who would not buy a MIM firearm which includes me and my mechanical engineering degree.

 

[ol timer]

There really is no hard fast rule. Even within a revision of a particular model such as a M617-1 or M696 no dash, among many others, you will see some guns with MIM parts and some without. Same can be said of P&R. I own a few Magnums that have recessed charge holes and non-pinned barrels.

The best answer you'll get will be a ball park figure that will never cover the entire model run within a particular revision.

 

[Green Frog]

There really is no hard fast rule. Even within a revision of a particular model such as a M617-1 or M696 no dash, among many others, you will see some guns with MIM parts and some without. Same can be said of P&R. I own a few Magnums that have recessed charge holes and non-pinned barrels.

The best answer you'll get will be a ball park figure that will never cover the entire model run within a particular revision.

Thanks to all who answered. To those who mentioned SCSW, you will note in my initial posting that I did a slightly more than cursory search of that source and came up dry... I just bought a brand new (I assume latest update) 3rd edition. If one of you finds something specific in there, I would love to hear about it.

Regards,
Froggie

 

[mark454]

I think it depends on the particular firearm you are talking about. In the case of the SW 629's, the last non MIM 629 was the 629-3. The 629-4 has no lock but has the MIM hammer and trigger.
This subject has been beaten to death and there are three different points of view; those who could care less, those who think MIM is superior and those who would not buy a MIM firearm which includes me and my mechanical engineering degree.

Not exactly. MIM on the 629 started in 1997 with the 629-5.
Personally, MIM doesn't bother me but I don't collect (I accumulate and shoot).
Mark

 

[stantheman86]

As a shooter I see nothing wrong with MIM, I mean with the Colt Mk.III series, they went to Sintered parts and people who drink deeply from the Colt Kool-Aid still suck these up.

Lots of PPC, bowling pin match, etc. shooters have 10's and 10's of thousands of rounds through 686+'s and they don't seem to develop any issues that the non-MIM guns don't.

I know for a fact the info is in the SC of S&W, at least in my edition, because I have the info for the Model 10 nearly memorized I've read it so much and it breaks down when S&W phased in the MIM thumpiece, then the bolt stop, etc. I will look it up and post back here.

 

[Green Frog]

I notice the "guide" on the left side of the frame goes from a single stud to a sort of raised ridge (forgive my slaughter of proper terminology) sometime about the change to MIM frames. Is this a feature that can separate the forged from the "MIM-ed" at a glance? I know that internals won't necessarily follow this, but it could be a start(?) I can get past the use of MIM for internals, but for some reason (call me retro) I want to know the frame was born of a single piece of steel, not powder. JMHO, YMMV!

Froggie

 

[Bendutro]

This subject has been beaten to death and there are three different points of view; those who could care less, those who think MIM is superior and those who would not buy a MIM firearm which includes me and my mechanical engineering degree.

What does your inflated sense of accomplishment think?

 

[AKsRule]

So - as a general rule of thumb - can we assume that a Smith made BEFORE 1990 does not contain MIM ?

 

[ol timer]

I notice the "guide" on the left side of the frame goes from a single stud to a sort of raised ridge (forgive my slaughter of proper terminology) sometime about the change to MIM frames. Is this a feature that can separate the forged from the "MIM-ed" at a glance? I know that internals won't necessarily follow this, but it could be a start(?) I can get past the use of MIM for internals, but for some reason (call me retro) I want to know the frame was born of a single piece of steel, not powder. JMHO, YMMV!

Froggie

I don't believe the frames were ever MIM. Even if it were strong enough to equal forged, the part would be too large.

The "guide" is called the frame lug.

The small external parts are easy to identify as MIM. The thumb latch is the new shape, the hammer does not have a hammer nose (rimfires do not follow this rule) and the triggers have a hollow back.

 

[Green Frog]

I don't believe the frames were ever MIM. Even if it were strong enough to equal forged, the part would be too large.

The "guide" is called the frame lug.

The small external parts are easy to identify as MIM. The thumb latch is the new shape, the hammer does not have a hammer nose (rimfires do not follow this rule) and the triggers have a hollow back.

Looking inside the current frames, there appear to be casting marks... maybe I'm wrong, but the older ones with the obviously machined interiors look very different from the later ones with these rough inside surfaces, and at least one source said they had gone to cast like Ruger. Was my source all wet?

Please remember, I've been out of the loop for a long time and am trying to catch up with what I missed, not trying to stir debate or kick sleeping dogs, etc.

Just call me
"Rip Van Froggie"

 

[stantheman86]

The frames are not MIM on any S&W. The roughness you see inside the frame is S&W cutting man-hours and not polishing up the parts of the frame not normally seen, leaving rough forging marks. Not a big deal, just that new S&W's have much less "hand work" then the old ones.

The above posts did a good job ID'ing the look of MIM parts. I use Model 10's as an example, the 10-11 seems to be the first "transitional" S&W I have seen, with no IL, but the internals are MIM.

According to the SC of S&W, in 1997 the late 10-10's had MIM thumpiece and trigger, but still had the hammer mounted firing pin, forged hammer and "old style" frame. Interesting there was a "mix" with the MIM trigger and forged hammer.

The 10-11 was the first Model 10 to go completely MIM in 2002, with the "new style" frame with floating firing pin.

Not my 10-11, I don't have one (yet), but do have a 10-14 which is the same gun just with an IL and the different shape of the frame near the hammer to accomodate the IL. I also have a 10-10 from the mid 90's with a MIM bolt stop, but no other MIM parts. It seems S&W started with the bolt stop and then moved on to MIM triggers when forged ones were depleted. So, IMO the 10-10 is the last "traditional" Model 10, with hammer mounted firing pin, only 1 MIM part on the very late ones along with changing to the "square" pinless extractor (earlier 10-10's I have seen have no MIM bolt stop and a pinned extractor).

Put me in the "couldn't care less" category then, this is my 10-14 and it shoots great despite being loaded with "inferior" MIM parts and an IL.......I don't have 5 degrees and a PhD in metallurgy so I must not know any better

I have a bunch of the older 10's and 64's, I collect the numbered 10's, I don't get into the 1900's-50's M&P's, at least not yet, so I guess my focus is on 1960's-present S&W's. My 10-14 shoots as well as any Model 10 I have, it works well and I expect it to do so for a very long time.

I am a Ruger fan as well as a Smith nut, so I have no problem with a good revolver that's a little "rough around the edges"

 

[Dave T]

I've never owned one of the later Smiths with these parts but yesterday I got a chance to handle and dry fire a Model 10 with MIM hammer and trigger. Although the trigger pull was pretty good...the thing rang like a small bell with every fall of the hammer. Since I come from the old school that thinks dry firing is an excellent way to learn trigger control, that sound would drive me nuts. Good thing I'm one of the old foggies and won't buy one of the IL/MIM guns. (LOL)

Dave