A Problem with a S&W 686 MIM

I use to sometimes wonder who actually buys those current production S&W revolvers. Then a thread like this one comes along. :)

New is not synonomous with better - or good.
 
I use to sometimes wonder who actually buys those current production S&W revolvers.
Click to expand...
People who spend more time actually using their guns, as opposed to those who just look for negative things to say about them.

LOL @ The Hillary Hole.
Click to expand...
It's not new, it's not accurate, and it's not very mature.
 
People can advocate MIM parts all they want, but I had MIM parts break on a model 60 and a 686. You can convince yourself they are just as good or "superior" but the fact is they are not. At the very least Smith & Wesson should offer non-MIM replacement parts at an extra cost, because lord knows myself and others would jump all over them.

The first MIM S&W I took apart I had a problem getting the hand spring back in also
Click to expand...

I detail strip my revolvers once a year, and I almost never touch the cylinder stop spring or hand spring. Too much of a hassle to get those suckers back in.
 
Last edited:
The original poster

I was making a personal opinion observation. The newest S&W I have is a Model 10 5" mfg in 1972. My opinion is as good as anyone elses. I do not like to dryfire a revolver that sounds like a penny being dropped into a tin can. That is my privilege. The same owner just bought a 627 S&W new and the muzzle of the barrel was crowned before the barrel was rifled. there were pieces of metal extending past the crown at the muzzle. There is no excuse for such worksmanship. I looked at the S&W Classic Model 14 at the Pheonix, AZ NRA Meeting and the fit and finish was poor in comparison with my 1970 mfg Model 14. No way I want any of their new offerings.

I will not buy any S&W revolver made after 1977. I have a Model 28 6" made in 1970 and it is a slick as an onion.

If you like the MIM action, so be it, I don't. Another note: If the torsion spring was pinned into the trigger the way they used to be, it would not have been bent in the first place and it would not have helped cause the damage to the hand. Also, it is a simple thing to assemble the MIM parts correctly and some people do not need to take any firearm apart.

Doug Bowser
 
Last edited:
Doug, you certainly have as much right to an opinion as anyone else. However, the way your initial post was presented suggested that the issues with the 686 in question stemmed from the use of MIM parts which, based on the information you've provided, simply was not the case. Posting about a completely unrelated issue (poor gunsmithing) and then attempting to use that issue as a platform to condemn MIM parts seems a bit like grasping at straws.
 
It is simple, The 1970's trigger would not have had a loose hand torsion spring to fall out of it. The spring would have been entrapped in the hammer by a pin and the hand would simply not have worked. It would have been a simple matter to reassemble the hand spring. I know my pard should not have forced the hammer back when it did not work properly but that is what some people do. If it doesn't work force it.

As I said , if you like what S&W and other firearms makers are doing with quality, by all means buy them. I will not.

Doug
 
I have to laugh at how many folks think mim is just fine. If it's so great and nearly identical to forged then why the change from a hammer firing pin to frame mounted?

I am not saying it is the root of all evil but all told I would rather have forged as would most I suspect if price and availability were the same.
 
I will not buy any S&W revolver made after 1977. I have a Model 28 6" made in 1970 and it is a slick as an onion.

If you like the MIM action, so be it, I don't
Click to expand...

I am not a fan of MIM as you can tell from my previous post, but isn't that a little extreme, why would you not buy a S&W made after 1977? They didn't start using MIM parts until the 90's.

I have to laugh at how many folks think mim is just fine. If it's so great and nearly identical to forged then why the change from a hammer firing pin to frame mounted?
Click to expand...

They also changed the hammer blocks from MIM back to forged. That was the first MIM part I had a breakage on, it was a 60-10 I believe, I no longer own the gun.
 
I wonder if after reading this thread I should get rid of my 686-5, which has mim parts in it. Until now, I had fired well over 1k rounds, closer to 2k, and it has never given me one problem. It has actually been my most favorite gun for a long time. It has an amazing trigger, smooth as butter, is dead on accurate, extremely reliable, and is incredible IMO. Now, due to this internet banter, I am thinking its no good, full of crapy parts that dont work. How could S&W put thier name on such a cheap, full of sub standard parts, piece of junk? Anyone who gets one of these should be ashamed.
So there are some parts in the gun that werent made the way they used to. My 686-5 is awesome. I couldnt be happier with its looks, reliability, quality of manufacture, or anything else. Close to 2k rounds downrange, and it still looks like new and performs even better. Complain all you want about mim stuff, in this gun it works just fine and I could care less. A true test of a guns worth is in its performance, and mine has been A+ since day one.
 
I do not like to dryfire a revolver that sounds like a penny being dropped into a tin can.
Click to expand...

I'm wonderin' in your Bubba friend or you still have somethin' wrong in there. I have just dry fired my 4 686s......a 686-1, a 686-4, a 686-5 and a 686-6. They all sound the same and none sound like a penny dropped into a tin can.

What changed in 1977? Moving the gas ring? The release of Star Wars? The Atari 2600? I'm confused here.
Click to expand...

I'm confused as to why after some Bubba breaks parts attempting to assemble a revolver without having a clue, it is suddenly then guns fault or the way the parts were manufactured.....even tho the parts themselves or the way they were manufactured had no bearing on how they broke, other than they fell into Bubba's hands. I have MIM parts in my Smiths, my Rugers and my Colts. None has yet failed in thousands of rounds....but I have had non-MIM parts fail in those same guns. That fact and the fact that those reputable manufacturers use them and in the case of S&W warrant then for as long as I live.......tends to make me giggle at those beating this same dead horse.
 
My Model 14 has had 90K+ rounds put trough it. All 2.7 gr Bullseye w/148 gr lead wadcutter bullets. It is still in time and very accurate. It is also very slick in the action and very reliable. I believe S&W started going down in quality in the late '70's. 1977 is an arbitrary date for me to look for S&W revolvers.

My last post on this subject. At least it resuted in some acivity on this subject,

Doug
 
Last edited:
With all the MIM-rage I see on Internet Message Boards, is there a cottage industry built around creating cast or forged alternatives to MIM parts?
 
I have to laugh at how many folks think mim is just fine. If it's so great and nearly identical to forged then why the change from a hammer firing pin to frame mounted?
Click to expand...

Here is the set-up for someone to tell us that MIM hammers aren't strong enough to mount the firing pin ("hammer nose"), so S&W just had to move the firing pin to the frame. :rolleyes:
 
It is simple, The 1970's trigger would not have had a loose hand torsion spring to fall out of it. The spring would have been entrapped in the hammer by a pin and the hand would simply not have worked. It would have been a simple matter to reassemble the hand spring. I know my pard should not have forced the hammer back when it did not work properly but that is what some people do. If it doesn't work force it.
Click to expand...

So, because the internals of the revolver weren't completely idiot-proof, MIM is no good? I'm sorry, but I've owned both old and new S&W revolvers and have pulled the sideplate on more than one of them and the lockwork of neither type is something that a person who doesn't know what he's doing has business messing with.

The fact of the matter remains that the revolver in question would never have had a problem if someone who knew what they were doing had been the one to disassemble it or if your buddy would have simply left well enough alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top