MIM parts failure

[wproct]

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.

 

[A10]

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.

 

[Harrison]

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.

 

[shawn mccarver]

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.

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.

 

[wproct]

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

 

[scooter123]

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.

 

[DonD]

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

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

 

[DonD]

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.

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

 

[corgiS&W]

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

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.

 

[Hapworth]

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.

 

[highpower3006]

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.

 

[snubbiefan]

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.

 

[olds442guy]

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.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-re...398-m29-10-long-term-review-w-one-repair.html

 

[jaymoore]

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.

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.

 

[wrangler5]

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.

 

[wproct]

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

 

[les strat]

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

 

[jaymoore]

...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...

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.

 

[corgiS&W]

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..

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.

 

[corgiS&W]

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.

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.