What are your thoughts - 5906 or 659?

[FONT=&quot]Pulled from an old repost re: MIM (Metal Injection Molding) parts[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Here is an interesting item on MIM parts from a S&W manager, which I copied from this forum some time ago (it is at least eight years old, maybe older, but still pertains):[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

FAQ's: FAQ's for the 'original' letter.

I have read with much interest the many comments in this [Smith and Wesson] forum pertaining to MIM, MIM Parts and the use of same in a S&W product. So far I have come away with several impressions and they are, "people in general don't like/trust MIM parts", and, "no one has said why." I will take a stab at this issue and see where it goes.

As background to our decision to use MIM in some areas of our Mfg Process we took a long hard look at our "Life Time Service Policy". It was clear to us that any change in any of our products such as the use of MIM components had to show equivalent or better performance and durability to those components that were being replaced or the "Lifetime Service" would haunt us forever. The second consideration was to determine if the change was too radical a departure from S&W mainstream design.

For the performance and durability issues we decided that if MIM could be used for the fabrication of revolver hammers and triggers successfully this would truly be an "Acid Test". There is nothing more important to a revolver's feel than the all-important Single Action that is established between the hammer and the trigger. Mechanically few places in a revolver work harder than at the point where the hammer and trigger bear against each other. If these surfaces wear or lose their edge the "feel" is lost. Initial testing was on these two critical parts.

Over time we arrived at a point where our best shooters could not tell the difference between a revolver with the old-style hammer and trigger and the new MIM components. Special attention was given to their endurance when used in our very light magnum J-frames such as the early prototype 340 & 360 Sc's. None of our revolvers work their components harder than these small magnum revolvers. Throughout this testing MIM held strong and finally we determined that this change judged on the basis of durability and feel was a good one.

The second area of concern to S&W was our customer's reaction to this departure from the traditional. Many heated, intense discussions resulted but in the end the decision was made to move ahead with MIM. The issue of cost was only one of the considerations in making this decision. Equally as important was the issue of part-to-part uniformity and the result of this of course is revolver-to-revolver consistency. We found that revolvers that used MIM hammers and triggers required almost no fitter intervention in those areas during final assembly and final inspection and trigger-pull monitor rejection rates dropped markedly on finished guns. From an internal process point of view it appeared a "Winner".

Let's shift gears for a moment and talk about the MIM process. It is unclear to me as to the reason for many of the negative feelings on the forum concerning MIM. Typically when people complain and aren't specific in the reason why, the problem is often created by a departure from the "Traditional". Perhaps that is indeed what is bothering some people when they view MIM.

The term MIM stands for Metal Injection Molding. It holds some similarities to Plastic Injection Molding and many differences as well. To start we would take a finally divided metal powder. This could be stainless or carbon steel. Today even titanium is being used in some MIM fabrications. We would mix the metal powder and a thermoplastic binder (generally a wax) forming slurry of sorts when heated and inject this mix into a precision mold and finally form what is known as a "green part". This part is roughly 30% larger than the finished part it will become at the end of the process. Interestingly enough the green part at this stage can be snapped in two with simple finger pressure. The green parts are then placed in a sintering furnace filled with dry hydrogen gas and the temperature is brought almost to the melting point of the metal being used. Over time the wax in the green part is evaporated, the metal fuses and the part shrinks 30% to it's final correct dimensions. At this stage of the process the MIM part has developed 98 to 99%of the density of the older wrought materials and a metallurgy that is almost identical. Dimensionally it is finished and no machining is required. However the job is not yet done and the MIM parts are brought to our heat treat facility for hardening and in the case of hammers and triggers, case hardening. Depending on the particular metal alloy that was used at the start of the process we apply a heat treat process that is the same as would be used if the material were the older wrought style. Final hardness, case thickness and core hardness are for the most part identical to parts manufactured the older way.

Lets look for a moment at how we achieve dimensional precision when comparing these 2 processes. The old parts were each machined from either bar stock or a forging. Each cut and every resulting dimension was subject to machine variations, cutter wear, operator variations etc. If every operation was done exactly right each and every time and the cutter didn't let you down you would have produced a good part but sometimes this didn't happen, resulting in a rejected gun and rework or in the worst case an unhappy customer. With MIM parts you must still machine to very high tolerances and your cutters have to be perfect and your machinist has to be highly qualified but all of this only has to come together one time. That time is when the injection mold is made. Typically a mold for this process costs S&W between $30,000.00 and $50,000.00; once it is perfect every part it makes mirrors this perfection and you have, in my view, a wonderful manufacturing process.

Hopefully this description will help us all better understand the MIM process. Please forgive the spelling errors and misplaced punctuation. I have no spell checker on this and the phone continues to ring!

Have a Great Weekend,

Herb [Belin, Project Manager, Smith & Wesson]


Additional Point:

Currently S&W is paying about $1.20/Lb for stainless steel bar stock. Raw MIM stainless steel inject able material costs $10.00/Lb.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]__________________
S&W Rover [/FONT]
 
FWIW - I'll take forged parts over MIM any day. I've had an MIM part snap in two on me. With some guns MIM are unavoidable, like the TSW series guns. .
So you are dropping this nugget that strongly suggests that you have had a S&W 3rd Gen MIM part snap on you. Now you didn't actually say that specifically, so let's hear about that particular part.

I knew a guy in my local organization that had a Para Ordnance 1911 slide snap in half on him. And I'm certain that in odd cases of lemon parts or lemon guns, things will break. I've never expected perfection from a small machine.

If you'll tell us now that you have had a S&W 3rd Gen MIM part snap on you, it will be the first occurrence of this that I have seen or read about, even on the danged old internet. I've been shooting S&W metal pistols since 1994 and I own dozens of them so I've got a little hands-on with them also and I'd like to hear examples of S&W 3rd Gen MIM part failure if you have these to share.
 
The problem with MIM isn't the process, but rather the execution. If done properly it results in a part that is adequate for most related tasks. When done poorly the opposite results. S&W has used MIM parts across the board since the 90s and I've never seen a part fail. On the other hand, I've seen lots of poorly made Mim parts from other companies fail right and left.

If you're afraid of MIM parts, don't ever again ride in a plane or an automobile. Those means of conveyance are littered with them and those parts are under greater stress than anything in a firearm.
 
So you are dropping this nugget that strongly suggests that you have had a S&W 3rd Gen MIM part snap on you. Now you didn't actually say that specifically, so let's hear about that particular part.

I knew a guy in my local organization that had a Para Ordnance 1911 slide snap in half on him. And I'm certain that in odd cases of lemon parts or lemon guns, things will break. I've never expected perfection from a small machine.

If you'll tell us now that you have had a S&W 3rd Gen MIM part snap on you, it will be the first occurrence of this that I have seen or read about, even on the danged old internet. I've been shooting S&W metal pistols since 1994 and I own dozens of them so I've got a little hands-on with them also and I'd like to hear examples of S&W 3rd Gen MIM part failure if you have these to share.

I didn't strongly suggest anything. You know what happens when you assume something.

The part that broke was a slide stop for a Kahr E9. Half of it went flying off somewhere while shooting at the range.
 
I didn't strongly suggest anything. You know what happens when you assume something.

The part that broke was a slide stop for a Kahr E9. Half of it went flying off somewhere while shooting at the range.


The Kahr E9 is not a Smith & Wesson product. I think it is unwise to judge all manufacturers based on experience with one firearm, especially an economy grade firearm.
 
The Kahr E9 is not a Smith & Wesson product. I think it is unwise to judge all manufacturers based on experience with one firearm, especially an economy grade firearm.

Just an FYI - The E9 uses the exact same slide stop as the K9. It can be had in black or silver. Not exactly an economy grade firearm.
 
Last edited:
Here's a K9 that's been rocking for nearly thirty years without issue.
154609667.wIg20XuE.003.JPG


The last part I replaced on a handgun due to failure was an old school tool steel forging. If I was going to make a blanket judgement on manufacturing methods based upon a sample of one I'd hate tool steel parts, something that doesn't strike me as sensible.
 
Last edited:
Some 5906 pistols are more special than others...

Actually you can say that several times over. ;)

S&W used the 5906 model designation for many pistols. Some were/are more 5906ish than others.

Dave Baird, that 5903 is sweet. Nice choice.

Jim
 

Attachments

  • 7866B127-B107-454E-A7D0-A8AC514082C7.jpg
    7866B127-B107-454E-A7D0-A8AC514082C7.jpg
    44.5 KB · Views: 16
  • 3FA804B0-536B-4994-8CA1-3236CDD1F8BC.jpg
    3FA804B0-536B-4994-8CA1-3236CDD1F8BC.jpg
    29.7 KB · Views: 16
Thank you, Jim, I appreciate that. It wasn't advertised as a special order, but the added porting looks the same as other S&W special orders. I was mostly attracted to it from what I learned here; and, that it has the squared trigger guard and older rear sight which I think look retro, yet very futuristic in a way!
May I ask what your attachments are?
Dave
 
659/5906

Problem solved now that you have a 5903 you can get one of these all stainless 659 interim and have the best of both 659/5906:D
 

Attachments

  • 269C8B63-B7C0-49B3-9337-1349941C63F8.jpg
    269C8B63-B7C0-49B3-9337-1349941C63F8.jpg
    92.6 KB · Views: 32
  • F26D84C6-9111-4A1C-84A5-609B20B2BFC9.jpg
    F26D84C6-9111-4A1C-84A5-609B20B2BFC9.jpg
    77.1 KB · Views: 28
I think you'll find the 5903 to be a robust and reliable pistol. I actually like the factory S&W adjustable rear sight with the "wings". I've owned, probably more than my share, of 1st., 2nd., and 3rd. Gen S&Ws. I liked them all, but the absolutely most reliable have been the 3rd. Gen guns. To me, the the 3rd. Gen double stack guns are also much more ergonomic than the earlier 59s, 659s, etc. Still have a couple 5906s, two of the many 5906 variations mentioned.
 

Attachments

  • 5906s (10).JPG
    5906s (10).JPG
    126.6 KB · Views: 15
4T5GUY said:
5906 PPC9, (still searching for the correct de-cocker hint hint.)

Hint? PPC-9 has no decocker! :D

You are looking for a black single sided hammer block safety lever for a PC Limited pistol.

What's sad to me is that there certainly MUST be a box of these somewhere in Springfield but nobody that works there currently has half a clue where to look or what they are looking for.
 
5906 Shorty 9 and 5906 PPC9, (still searching for the correct de-cocker hint hint.)

Yep I like the arched grips on, (some of,) my full size 3rd Gens or at least that option.

Jim

Hint? PPC-9 has no decocker! :D

You are looking for a black single sided hammer block safety lever for a PC Limited pistol.

What's sad to me is that there certainly MUST be a box of these somewhere in Springfield but nobody that works there currently has half a clue where to look or what they are looking for.

Why not just use a black single side manual safety body?

Why would there be a difference?

John?
 
Late to the conversation (I've been sick and moving slowly.) My preference is for the Gen 2 frame with backstrap rather than the wrap around grips of the Gen 3. One can choose whichever internal Gen 2 or 3 parts suit them and they'll likely fit.
Most recently my favorite S&W 9mm is a Mod 639 with a Mod 915 slide added. Best of both worlds for my use and I like the retro two tone look that results. :D
I've shown it here in a slightly earlier stage with a Model 439 upper that achieved the same "look".
Froggie
 

Attachments

  • 3FB73EFD-CB24-4CF0-B613-1FFD707AF279.jpg
    3FB73EFD-CB24-4CF0-B613-1FFD707AF279.jpg
    85.1 KB · Views: 20
Why not just use a black single side manual safety body?

Why would there be a difference?

John?
On the PC Limited pistols, the hammer block safety has a larger, flatter paddle. It's kind of like the one found on the 745 but just a tad smaller in size.

The one he has works, the one you suggest would work also, but he's looking for "as shipped" or original.
 
I'm an optometrist. No, wait. I mean… I always try to think positively.

I've never seen this part available anywhere and I have never seen one installed anywhere outside of a Limited gun.

I think your best answer and possibly the only viable solution is going to be to find someone that really seeks an ambi (and has easy access to one) and is will to trade his left side PC lever to you.

Unfortunately I think it's a long shot that you find this part.
 
I wouldn't get too caught up with the MIM debate. MIM makes good sense for certain parts and the process has been figured out.
If QC is good, MIM parts can provide a long service life in the proper role.
S&W did a good job on QC during the 3rd Gen era, so I would not be too worried about it.

I would have to say 3rd Gen here.
5906 is ergonomically improved IMHO and the triggers are less...um...rough.
Not a big fan of the plastic grips, but they work and you have curved or straight back options.
Overall, really great pistols and they just go and go!
 
On the PC Limited pistols, the hammer block safety has a larger, flatter paddle. It's kind of like the one found on the 745 but just a tad smaller in size.

The one he has works, the one you suggest would work also, but he's looking for "as shipped" or original.

I've gifted all my black single side ones to members here. (I know not the best move but...)

As "Sevens" stated, I want to replace the ambi with the correct one.

Jim

I'm an optometrist. No, wait. I mean… I always try to think positively.

I've never seen this part available anywhere and I have never seen one installed anywhere outside of a Limited gun.

I think your best answer and possibly the only viable solution is going to be to find someone that really seeks an ambi (and has easy access to one) and is will to trade his left side PC lever to you.

Unfortunately I think it's a long shot that you find this part.

OK.

After I asked my question, I wondered if the paddle was different.

Because I couldn't imagine why the manual safety body would be machined differently.

I would think finding the "unique" parts for PC models could be an exercise in frustration.

I dealt with Harley-Davidson for over 40 years.

They've had some really dedicated people working for them.

But after a few years, when a model/design has been replaced, service knowledge and spare parts can dwindle fast.

And that dwindling is accelerated on the limited production models.

Don't get me wrong, I'll always appreciate that they sent me and my family to Hawaii for over a week, gratis.

(Of course, Kawasaki sent me twice! :cool:)

Limited edition stuff, (like PC pistols) can be a satisfying facet of collecting, but can be fraught with impediments to serviceability.

John
 
I would think finding the "unique" parts for PC models could be an exercise in frustration.

Well actually I've got one coming and it will be here by Friday. Problem is someone decided to polish it somewhat. Its better than the ambi I'm not happy with. I've been watching it for a long time but thought I'd find one with a better finish. It'll give me something to work with for now. I have other parts that I'd like to eventually have "re-blackened" anyway.

That will be a not too far away topic I'll post the question about.

Jim
 

Attachments

  • 92892FC9-8EC8-461B-85B4-2499B267C575.jpg
    92892FC9-8EC8-461B-85B4-2499B267C575.jpg
    67.1 KB · Views: 18
Yes, it's only the contour of the paddle that is different than the 2/3rd Gen left side decock lever, the cylindrical part inside the cylinder is normal as you'd expect.

That picture makes it difficult to tell exactly what you have en route, but I'll be interested to see a picture of it in place.

If I were tasked with fabricating a replacement, I believe I would start with the 745 safety (if I could source one) and carefully cut it down to size.
 
As to the original thread topic, I think the 5906 is the better choice and agree with those who suggest that later TSW variants are probably the best examples of 5906 - barring the Performance Center editions.

Congrats to the OP on selecting a 5903 (which IMO is superior to both other models). As a recent 5903 owner, I am very impressed with the accuracy, lightweight and smooth MIM trigger. The 5903 I have is a beater LE trade in, that I purchased to use at the range for training newbs. It excells at that purpose. But it is such a fine nine, that I find myself carrying it occasionally. Great pistol!

I have been around here for a minute or two ;) and recall Herb Belin posting that MIM defense. And I won't bother commenting on that again. But I will point out that I have experienced a broken S&W MIM part. A MIM mag catch on an LE Special order 4516. Snapped like the cheap pot metal it was. :) I replaced it with a forged 4566 mag catch and have not had any further trouble. I have posted here about it several times.

Anyways, yea, MIM if "done right" doesn't cause problems. Emphasis on "IF" ;) And as my friend Fastbolt points out, a MIM trigger and hammer generally are a very smooth trigger pull, without any tweaking. But forged parts are 100% the strength of.......forged parts. ;) Regards 18DAI
 
To me, the Model 5903/5904 is the best iteration of the S&W "duty size" 9mm 3rd Gen guns. It is everything just right with the gun. The aluminum frames are strong but light. I'd even say that the Model 915 is a good choice too except for the lack of Novak rear sight. But that can be fixed.

It is a good rival to what in my opinion is the best DA/SA 9mm out there, the Beretta 92FS. I have a pile of 'em and I love them. But the 5903 SSV and 6906 are better compact guns than what Beretta can produce and honestly, if I had a pile of 5903s before I had a pile of Berettas. I'd have never gotten the Berettas.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top