I am a little confused by your statement. "Skilled workers", as per definition is a worker who has some specialized training and has a title such as, "Machinist", "Millwright", or "Mechanical Engineer", and in most cases have a title that includes the words: "Journeyman". No such "skilled worker" has ever assembled a product in any factory that I have ever worked in (Whitehall Industries, Ludington MI, Oloffsson Manufaturing, Lansing MI, Ossur Prosthetics, Albion MI), has ever titled an assembler as a skilled worker and paid them as such. Assemblers have, to the best of my knowledge, been considered "unskilled" hourly labor. However, if you have actually worked at Smith & Wesson and have some specific knowledge that I am unaware of, I would like to hear about it.
Or have you just made an assumption? Ask'en for a friend.
No, I have never worked for Smith and Wesson. Maybe I made a bit of an assumption.
I worked in various manufacturing companies for a long time, and it was always clear to me that workers who had worked longer, and also had attained higher skill levels than other workers, were paid better than workers with lower skill levels. Job titles were usually something like Assembler 1, or Assembler 2, Assembler 3, or something along that line.
I also know that the way S&W revolvers used to be assembled in their heyday, it was a more labor intensive process than it is today, and trimming extra labor out is a good way for a company to drive down their cost of manufacturing.
I spent a number of years as a mechanical designer and know clever part designs when I see them.
Let's compare the hammer assembly in a typical S&W revolver made before and after MIM (Metal Injection Molding) technology came along. In the following two photos, the hammer assembly on the left is from a Model 17-3, made in 1975, the MIM hammer assembly on the right is from a Model 617-6, made in 2003. These are analogous assemblies, both are from K frame 22 Rimfire revolvers.
The first thing that strikes me about the two assemblies is the traditional one is held together by press fit pins, the MIM assembly is not pinned together, the parts are held together by their geometry, without requiring pins to hold them together. Pinning parts together requires a little bit more talent and skill than simply assembling them on the bench. To assemble the parts with pins, the worker needs to know how to drive in press fit pins. Not rocket science, but assembling parts that 'drop in' on the bench without extra tools is simpler and quicker than assembling parts held together with press fit pins. As we all know, time is money.
In any company I ever worked for, you needed to inventory parts. If parts went together as subassemblies, you also needed to inventory those subassemblies. When you kitted up parts for assembly, subassemblies would be kitted rather than the individual parts needed to make the subassembly. It appears to me that the parts for the MIM hammer assembly could be taken directly from their parts bins and assembled while the revolver is being built, no pre-building of a subassembly is necessary, another cost savings for the company. No subassembly to inventory and take up space in the storeroom.
The double action sear in the MIM assembly (the part protruding from the front of the hammer) is able to rotate to do its job because of its geometry and the geometry of the section of the hammer that houses it. It does its job of rotating without needing a pin to keep it centered, and it can be dropped into place after compressing the spring. That is a very clever part.
What about all those pockets on the part? The curved geometry at the top of the part is what actuates the flag on the internal lock to activate and inactivate the lock. The other pockets are simply to reduce the amount of material needed to make the part, another cost savings. Part of the beauty or MIM technology is it is very similar to the injection molding process used to make plastic parts. Complex geometries can be machined into the molds for the parts, much cheaper than machining similar geometries onto parts with traditional methods.
Let's look at a much simpler part, the rebound slide. This time the MIM part is on the left, the traditional part is on the right. The pin protruding from the traditional part is what activates the modern hammer block. The pin is a separate part, pressed into a hole in the body of the rebound slide. The MIM part is all one piece, after it pops out of the mold and goes through the necessary curing it is complete, no further operations are required. The traditional part requires multiple machining steps to complete its shape.
So, you might ask why after singing the praises of MIM technology I prefer the old fashioned way of making S&W revolvers. MIM technology has advanced so far that most of the parts are ready to be assembled without custom fitting. In 'the old days', parts were 'soft fitted' together before hardening and final assembly. This was extremely labor intensive and added to the cost of making the revolver. However, in my humble opinion, the trigger pull of a revolver assembled with MIM technology cannot duplicate the smoothness of the trigger pull of parts that have been hand fitted. That is why I prefer the old guns.
And let's not forget, all that time saved with clever design means it takes less time to make a revolver than it did in the old days, and that means fewer workers are required. We will never go back to the 'good old days' of manufacturing, and I am not saying we should, but I am guessing that there are fewer manufacturing jobs in most factories today, because of the advance of technologies such as Metal Injection Molding.