A Problem with a S&W 686 MIM

D

Doug Bowser

New member
I really like he older S&W revolvers. The newest one I have was made in 1975. A friend brought a S&W 686 .357 to me and it had been taken apart. This model has MIM hammer and trigger and the lock. He had removed the hand and hand torsion spring, reassembled it incorrectly and the torsion spring came out of the trigger. When he tried to cock the hammer, it bent the spring and the hand pins.I was afraid the hand might not be repairable and the side plate might be sprung. S&W kindly sent us 2 hand torsion springs and I straightened the hand pins and installed the new spring with no problem. A few squirts of TRI-FLOW oil and I assembled it. To my surprise the revolver functioned perfectly.

After handling a S&W MIM revolver, I know the bean counters won out. It sounds like a piece of tin when dryfired. Some of the parts inside are stampings on the MIM guns. It makes me appreciative of my 1970 made S&W Model 28-6".

Doug Bowser
 
And what do the MIM parts have to do with damage due to incorrect assembly? :confused:

There's no need to introduce a straw man just to justify an "I hate The Lock & MIM" rant.
 
Doug's point is an agreeable one - a product can look like one thing from the outside and another on the inside.
And that can be misleading.
For example:
One of the major car companies, who had a well earned reputation for making good cars, was also making engines for another company.
From the outside, the engines in their own models, and the ones made for the other company, looked identical.
But not so on the inside.
And the difference between the two, was disturbing.
 
Doug's point is an agreeable one - a product can look like one thing from the outside and another on the inside.
And that can be misleading.
For example:
One of the major car companies, who had a well earned reputation for making good cars, was also making engines for another company.
From the outside, the engines in their own models, and the ones made for the other company, looked identical.
But not so on the inside.
And the difference between the two, was disturbing.
__________________
Click to expand...
Care to share the source of your info on this car company? No facts here!
 
I own S&W revolvers with and without the lock. Can't really tell the difference. About all I can recommend is if it bothers you that much don't buy one.
 
MIM parts have been in used long enough now that it's a proven manufacturing process for fire arms. There are some small parts that should not be from a mold, but for many small parts it can be superior to other methods. The consistency in finish and size is unmatched.

The lock and Hillary hole is another story.
 
I didn't realize there were so many admirers for MIM parts. Quite surprised.

I do know most of the firearm changes/innovations of the last few years have been cost cutting measures in manufacturing.
 
I'm not an "admirer" of MIM parts. It's just that his rant was off-base. Poor assembly has nothing to do with the manufacturing process used to make the parts.

I still haven't seen any proof that modern MIM parts are any less durable than machined parts. It's just old prejudices hanging on. MIM has come a long way since "pot-steel"
 
I'm not an admirer, either, and Jo6pak said it as well I could.

I do know most of the firearm changes/innovations of the last few years have been cost cutting measures in manufacturing.
Click to expand...

So it's automatically assumed & suggested these cost-cutting measures automatically make a lesser quality gun? It's a non sequitur, and another common straw man argument too often used to justify rants.
 
Once the mold it set up it costs pennies to make polymer frames, so what?

If he would have assembled/disassembled any smith wrong he would have damaged stuff. My question is, after reassembling said smith and the action did not click like clockwork, why did he force it?
 
So, let me get this straight. Your friend fouled up the reassembly of his revolver, and after fixing his foul up, the gun now functions perfectly, but new S&W's still aren't worth the time of day because you think it sounds funny when dry fired?

Well, I suppose that if the sound of a dry fired gun is an important criteria to you then perhaps you should avoid MIM, but most of us don't give a rodent's posterior what the gun sounds like when dry fired as long as it works fine with real ammo. The lock/MIM bashers never cease to amaze me.
 
If you're referring to me, my post didn't bash or rant about MIM one bit.

It's just a firearms manufacturing reality now. Some certain parts can get by with being MIM and some can't. Simple as that.
 
If you're referring to me, my post didn't bash or rant about MIM one bit.
Click to expand...

Actually, I was referring a bit more to the OP. A firearm rendered inoperable by amateur gunsmithing that is fixed by replacing OE parts with more OE parts does not a convincing argument against MIM make. The gun in question's issues never had anything to do with MIM parts, yet the OP still tries to use it as an attempt to bash MIM.
 
Wow, tough crowd here today. Easy fella's its Sunday!
Click to expand...

Amen. By the way, if anyone thinks the OP's comments constitute a rant, then they haven't been reading FLF very long! I thought the OP very calmly presented his opinion on S&W MIM components.

I didn't realize there were so many admirers for MIM parts.
Click to expand...

Depends on the manufacturer. For alternate view, check Kimber and MIM parts. Interesting....

Regardless, I believe that many readers would agree that many firearms aren't built the way they used to be built. In some cases that's good news, in others, not so much.
 
MIM, MIM, MIM: RANT! SCREAM! YELL! ROLL AROUND ON THE FLOOR AND FROTH AT THE MOUTH! SWEAR TO NEVER BUY ANY GUN BUT LORCIN, EVER AGAIN!

Did I cover it all? I am pretty tired of the rants on MIM and "the locks". If there were a real problem with either, I would sympathize, but it seems to be just that some people have to have something to go plain batcrazy about, even if they have to lie about it.

Now, a confession. The first MIM S&W I took apart I had a problem getting the hand spring back in also. I didn't realize it was as simple as it is.

Jim
 
I am not going to get into the pros/cons of MIM, I will jump in and say that the OP referred to a mis-assembled Smith that functioned fine AFTER correct assembly and then the post turned to his dislike/opinion of MIM parts.
Like MIM or not, they are here to stay. Smith uses MIM not only to save costs, but because MIM is so precise, they could do away with the hand fitting of parts that took time and skill. While I love the skill they used to put into the action, if the parts didn't fit properly, you got it anyway. With MIM, they all fit with very little 'hand' fitting. Sorry, but MIM is the way almost all are going.
 
The so-called "bean counters" can only confirm what the designers and engineers create.

"Bean counting", or cost analysis brings to black and white, the hard and soft benefits of a manufacturing process. It allows management to make decisions based on non-biased data. A is A; 1 is 1.
  • A revolver hammer is forged into a rough shape by a process that is, by design, two millenia old. The hammer is then machined on a milling machine, lathe, and whatever other machines are required to get it to its final dimensions. In order the seat the part, and for it to work properly, a production worker then uses a file, sanding, and polishings to finish the part.
  • A revolver hammer is cast by creating a mold using modern, computer controlled equipment. The parts are cast very closely to their final dimensions, requiring less final fitting by the assembler. The parts have a known life, because of the science of manufacturing.
A one time there was a maxim in the world of manufacturing:
  • Better
  • Faster
  • Cheaper
Choose two.

Now, for the most part, manufactured products are now better, to the market faster, and less expensive than in the past. You now get all three.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top