The use of MIM parts - S&W's explanation

[HappyPuppy]

Old early GTOs would get their butts kicked by today's 2 liter turbocharged cars. That stuff is progress? I think not. Don

Very true. I father was a gear head and I grew up leaning how to blueprint and balance and engine. I raced sports cars in g class and so on. There is just no comparison.

Modern manufacturing is miles ahead of the 60s technology. The tolerances are tighter without hand fitting and parts seldom fail.

Look at the complexity of the 1911 vs an off the shelf quality handgun. The Old revolvers had misalignment of cylinders and all sorts of issues. Ask an armorer of the 70s to 80s for a good size dept.

 

[slabside2]

No it's all about staying competitive in your target market.

Staying competitive and making guns with canted barrels and frames that crack from over tightened barrels are to different things. Making guns and pushing them out the door as fast as you can without giving them the once over is not being competitive. There's a fine line between being competitive and greed you decide I know I did.

 

[BigBill]

Competitive market? With N Frames there is no one. Ruger discontinued most redhawks.

 

[jtcarm]

Very true. I father was a gear head and I grew up leaning how to blueprint and balance and engine. I raced sports cars in g class and so on. There is just no comparison.

Modern manufacturing is miles ahead of the 60s technology. The tolerances are tighter without hand fitting and parts seldom fail.

Look at the complexity of the 1911 vs an off the shelf quality handgun. The Old revolvers had misalignment of cylinders and all sorts of issues. Ask an armorer of the 70s to 80s for a good size dept.

I've been told by a friend who works in a GM plant that with today's engine castings, you can run a finger around the cylinder head of a fresh casting and it's smooth . The 60s castings were so rough you'd slice up your finger.

I've said it so often I should put it in my signature line: lots of hand fitting means manufacturing tolerances suck.

You're damn right it's about money. If guns took the amount of labor as back in the good ol days, you couldn't afford or wouldn't buy them.

The .357 magnum debuted in 1935 for $60. Let's say they they cost $50 to build, and half of that was skilled labor ($25). The same amount of skilled labor today would cost over $1,300. 25% ($12.50) unskilled labor would run $500. Say the final 25% is plant, equipment, & raw materials. Although I'm sure plant, equipment and raw materials have far outpaced inflation, we'll use a simple CPI adjustment for the final $12.50 and it comes to $210..
So we're over $2,000 without considering costs that were insignificant of non-existent in 1935, like legal compliance (EPA, OSHA, ATF) and liability. We'll be VERY conservative and say $300. Now cost is $2,300. Apply the same 20% markup and the same gun costs $2,760 today,, or 5.5% of average household income.. And that's a very conservative estimate, How many of you would/could pay that for a pre-27?

For contrast, MSRP for the Model 27 classic is $1049..

 

[rustythread]

Ya know, it might be worth comparing today's price for 100 shares of S&W stock with the price of one of the great old pistols we all lust after. Buy the stock, get a voice in what the company does. ( I don't have a safe full of "you suck" mint condition pre-whenever revolvers, but I do have some S&W stock I lucked into when it was eighty-seven cents per share...)

 

[fchretireddet]

Herb,
Thanks for the interesting and informative post concerning MIM parts and S&W's efforts to maintain quality control.
I have a 640-3 that I enjoy quite a bit and frequently use for my EDC. I recently bought a 686+ 3" that I am also am pleased to spend "not enough" range time with, and that I'm working into being my "other" EDC.
These S&W's are both "new ventures" after having carried Glocks (26, 19, and 17) as duty guns for several years.
I have no doubt that the Glocks can be kept in a sandbox, rinsed off in a rain barrel, and then be able to fire 1000+ rounds with no hicups; but
I also can't ignore the fascination with the quality of the revolvers, both old and new.
Thanks again,
R/S,
Frank

 

[OLDSTER]

MIM (metal injected molding)

A couple years ago, the discussion of MIM vs forged vs cast was discussed at length over on the Ruger forum. Numerous posts offered links to various web sites, metallurgical studies, etc., etc. One fella offered many case studies regarding the subject. The results were interesting; when it comes to manufacturing precision, tolerances, durability, economics, and design geometry, MIM parts are every bit the equal of forged, and superior to cast.

 

[frankcr]

Every time this subject comes up, I have to shake my head and smile at the dinosaurs comments.

I sure miss the cars of the 60's except for maybe having to replace points, condensers and plugs every time we turned around, tires which could not go over 20,000 miles and an expected life of less than or maybe even 100,00 miles if they did not rust out before that. I miss the squeal of drum brakes and how they faded if damp. The last modern vehicle we traded in had 150,000 miles with a good 50,000 more had we kept it with just normal maintenance, but it was obviously not made with excessive human labor.

If you prefer the old revolvers then buy them, just do not condemn the new materials which do not have to be individually fitted for good service. This may insult some, but it is called progress folks.

 

[steelslaver]

While I think S&W can and should do a better job on things like not canting barrels, I don't have a problem with mim parts. I have no reason to believe they are in any way inferior. As someone who forges I can tell you it has its own problems. Like cars less and less hand work does not mean less machine. Could Ed McGivern shoot a modern gun as well as the oldies? Ask Jerry M.

I bet some guys complained when they went from top beaks to hand ejectors. Who has had a problem because of a non recessed cylinder? Pinned barrels, I have a 1917 that I can turn the barrel several degrees in either direction with a nice straight pin and nothing wrong with the cut in the barrel threads. The pin is a nice touch, but doesn't really do anything. The side plates on my 3 and 4 screw guns stay on a well and as nice as on my 5 screw guns. I just got a triple lock, but lots of matches been won with guns that only have 2 and the vaulted Pythons only have one. I like my guns with LERKs, but don't really need them. Thinfs have changed a lot in the last appox 150 years with S&W and it is bad. Amazing you can still get a piece. of machinery like them for under $1000 bucks. In the early 1970s min was $.85 I was a stud derrick hand on oil rigs making $5 and a S&W was about $150.Now minimum wage is 10 time higher.I make almost $50 an hour when I chose to work, But a new smith isn't 10 times higher. Good job S&W

S&W still makes great guns, with great parts that work well.

Yes, they could step it up on the QC dept.

The lock is just a joke that does nothing and I highly doubt that it has saved a single life or injury. First of all I bet at least 99 out of 100 never get engaged. Plus, I would never load a gun and trust the lock in the first place and neither would any other half way responsible gun owner.

 

[twodog max]

I think the previous post hit the nail on the head. I have several of the new S&W revolvers and while I miss the old ways the new ones are great revolvers. Work on the QC harder and I think it will all be good.

Also I have never locked one of my new revolvers and never will.

 

[Kframerbluvr]

I bought a 442-2 in 2013 with the ILS. No issues so far at about 600 rounds fired. If Smith would make a 3" K frame fixed sight .38+P rated lightweight revolver, I would buy one tomorrow. Make it bobbed hammer DAO without the lock and I would buy at least three.

 

[dwever]

A couple years ago, the discussion of MIM vs forged vs cast was discussed at length over on the Ruger forum. Numerous posts offered links to various web sites, metallurgical studies, etc., etc. One fella offered many case studies regarding the subject. The results were interesting; when it comes to manufacturing precision, tolerances, durability, economics, and design geometry, MIM parts are every bit the equal of forged, and superior to cast.

Please write and tell Bill Wilson that. He apparently missed the memo. Wilson Combat uses master gun smiths, cutting edge tolerance CNC, but won't use MIM.

From their website: "All Wilson Combat® Bullet Proof® parts are CNC machined from solid steel billets and precisely engineered for an absolutely perfect fit-no cheap castings or inferior, imported injection molded parts will ever wear the Bullet Proof® name."

Why would that be?

 

[frankcr]

Easy answer is that they are behind the times or probably do not have a large enough need to pay for setup of MIM.

Make a low number of parts and CMC is more economical, not better.

 

[68sixspeed]

Please write and tell Bill Wilson that. He apparently missed the memo. Wilson Combat uses master gun smiths, cutting edge tolerance CNC, but won't use MIM.

From their website: "All Wilson Combat® Bullet Proof® parts are CNC machined from solid steel billets and precisely engineered for an absolutely perfect fit-no cheap castings or inferior, imported injection molded parts will ever wear the Bullet Proof® name."

Why would that be?

only their "bullet proof" line is billet... the other stuff they sell for half the price is MIM, look at one of the ambi safeties carefully and you will see it is not a fully machined part.

 

[BigBill]

On my new s&w guns I lube them with moly and forget about it.

 

[rwsmith]

Once I asked straight up....

I asked if anybody had really experience any problems with MIM parts. The were a couple of dubious yeses that didn't sound convincing, but overwhelming to the nth degree that nobody had any real problem with them giving out. They work, well, and our problem is accepting something that isn't forged like it's been done all these years. I mean, the 'Ghost of the West' would come haunt us for buying a MIM gun.

 

[dwever]

only their "bullet proof" line is billet... the other stuff they sell for half the price is MIM, look at one of the ambi safeties carefully and you will see it is not a fully machined part.

Not precisely correct. It was the case in 2007 time-frame only some of the weapons were all bullet proof parts, But I believe all WC 1911's are now created only with the bullet proof parts based on their website's full statement I did not quote. My X-Tac and CQB Elite are exclusively bullet proof parts.

And the suggestion that they are behind the times or too cash poor to use MIM's ignores their heavy investment in CNC extreme tolerance machining which allows them to guarantee any and all of their full size 1911's to one inch accuracy at 25 yards. But that's not the point.

The point is that in a perfect world for me, Performance Center would mean that for a 627 UDR or 586 L-Comp they would get a street price of maybe $1,700. Because then we could see pure billet or whatever it is that provides a more optimum level of parts and manufacturing on the revolver platform, and they could in turn deliver with action, durability, and performance that would make Miculek proud.

After all, my carry revolvers are tools and not jewels (I'm agency qualified with the 586), and I would pay for an elite grade PC .357 carry gun if the additional manufacturing expenses were invested in utter reliability, longevity, fitting, and the resulting performance (and with guns made that well we could also cross our fingers and hope for the extinction of all the misguided but regularly spawning threads on here about how S&W PC QC is so terrible).

As it is, both my PC 586 L-Comp and 627 UDR went to TK Custom to get their action from pretty good to best which was about $450 total each because shipping both ways was more than the work. But like you if you carry, I want the best possible shooter, and I wouldn't mind getting that action and some higher end parts and fitting from the factory rather than the aftermarket. Then the Performance Center moniker could carry some additional well earned weight.

I do like my PC revolvers though, and they are my choice of non-uniformed carry (mandatory Glock uniformed carry). Anyway, that's just me.

 

[MXP]

Is it correct that PC guns does not use MIM trigger parts? why?

 

[Hapworth]

Is it correct that PC guns does not use MIM trigger parts? why?

PC guns held out with forged a few years after the production line switchover, but they're all using MIM triggers and hammers now.

 

[Blackbarry]

Unfortunately, this thread is confined to 1980+ revolvers and MIM parts. S&W is installing MIM parts in their semi-autos as well. I purchased a 1911SC for concealed carry. After ~200 rounds and while shooting +P Hornady TAP, CQ loads, the magazine release broke in 1/2 and the gun became 100% inoperable. Imagine you're in a SHTF situation and a gun part fails.... I replaced the release with an Ed Brown CNC milled part and sent the broken part to S&W. No reply......