I've only owned two S&W revolvers in my life: a combat masterpiece, circa 1976, and a newly purchased 1 7/8" Model 36 "Chief Special" both of which were traditional blue. So I'm by no means an expert. But I don't think a discussion of whether the MIM revolvers are better or worse than the forged revolvers is the point here. At least not for me.
Progress is fine. But if someone tells you that they are selling a fully restored 1969 Pontiac Firebird, you would expect to buy a fully restored 1969 Pontiac Firebird, with an all metal body on a steel chasis, not a replica made out of fiberglass or one with a "unibody" construction. Same with the classics.
In my opinion, what S&W did was false advertising, if not actual fraud. When I purchased the NIB Model 36, there was a forty year old Model 36 in like new condition beside it on another shelf, for half the price. Yeah, the lock was an issue, but all things considered, I opted for the new one because it was designated for .38 special +P, so I figured that the steel was better. Otherwise, I expected the same trigger, the same hammer, the same everything, albeit built with modern steel (as I assume that the fifty year old processes are nowhere to be found).
Instead, I got a revolver with an MIM hammer, the underside of which had an exposed seam, that quickly nicked the upper backstrap. Yeah, that can happen with a forged hammer. But I suspect it is par for the course with MIM. Again, that's not really the point.
To continue the analogies, if a person goes into a jewelry store expecting to purchase a solid gold watch and later finds out that it is only gold plated, they would have every right to complain. I paid for a reissued classic, presumably made with forged parts, not MIM parts. It was not inexpensive. And if you're willing to pay the price, S&W continues to sell revolvers with forged hammers. So there was no excuse. I feel that I ended up with a cheap knock off.
