Why are NEW S&W considered inferior?

I think what it comes down to is the damned lock. In my opinion(read: opinion), the reason to have a revolver is for that idiot occasion where the stress makes you forget to turn the saftey off. Imagine trying to use your gun when you need it and having to use a key to unlock it :confused:
 
I've owned approx. 25 Smiths in my lifetime, beginning in the mid 60s with a 50s vintage Model 27, a gift from my dad, which I still possess. Some have been sold, others kept, all enjoyed to at least some degree. Of the new (post Y2K) production, I have two 500s, one 8 3/8" and one 4", and a Performance Center Model 627 8-shot. I like the new stuff every bit as well as any of the older ones I have owned, perhaps even more. No, I don't care for the integral locks, but have never had a malfunction because of them, at least not so far.
 
Actually there are 3 missing now.

One 38/44 heavy Duty prewar
One Pre-27 8 3/8"
One 38/44 Outdoorsman (Unfired! postwar)

Soon as I can get a chance! I am traveling again so no picts for a while.

Love the gun though! Thanks!
 
I can only say that recently In my search for a 3"M65 I was directed to the revolver counter at a local gun mart. There was a M65ls NIB and I asked to see it. It felt...funny.

The SS alloy is different than the older ones the two piece bbbl design is not what I'm looking for either. At least Dan Wesson will let you change your own bbls with the their two piece set up.

The stars are square cut now, presumably to save a step in the manufacturing process, There's jusr several small things that say "Bean Counter" to me. When it comes to a model I can find I'll stick to the older ones thank you.

That said, I really like my 340sc. It's just not the same quality as my M36 no dash.
 
>>> Many people... feel the current changes were done strictly to make the guns cheaper to manufacture.<<<

Thats because all the current changes were indeed done to manufacture the guns cheaper.
Lets be honest. Smith has had floating QC since the Bangor Punta days. They have had their highs and they have had their lows.....
Back then a good one was a good one and a bad one was a stinker.
Currently the best are ....mediocre. The worst should never have left the factory.....
What a dissapointment! Older fellas know what I am speaking about if you have an older one without the two peice barrell and lock and with the hammer mounted firing pin and hammer made of forged steel not investment cast crapola.
If you can find em, the best smiths are the ones that were made right after Bangor Punta sold the firm and before the Limeys ran it into the crapper.
Any stainless N frame made BEFORE the MIM internals (easily recognized with flash chromed hammers and triggers instead of case hardened) is from the companies top period of quality. Especially around the time they started revamping the N frames with the "internal endurance package."
I am leary of anything that came later when the firing pin was taken off the hammer face and put on the frame.....
The guns with key locks and the humps where a graceful scallop used to be and that ugly "frame Bolster" and the two piece barrels are poop. I'd rather have a ruger or taurus, or an ASTRA and I am an old school Smith revolver man.
 
I bet Elmer Keith is spinning in his grave right now....
I remember reading his description of visiting S&W back when they spared no expense on their guns. I wonder what he would think if he realized that accountants were killing the company now.
Lets be honest men, this cheapening of the product is nothing but horsecrap.
Ruger has not changed its methods of manufacture and its prices have remained pretty much the same. Its all about cutting corners at S&W these days. The sad thing is the near sighted pocket protector pricks dont understand that all these cost cutting measures are costing them money, because of all the guys like ME who buy used S&Ws instead of new ones.
They are losing out on a major share of the market- S&W collectors.


>>>There's jusr several small things that say "Bean Counter" to me. When it comes to a model I can find I'll stick to the older ones thank you.
<<<
 
MIM is a PC way of saying "investment cast" without admitting its investment cast. The metal is heated up and injected into a mold making a part that can be dropped in as it is pre-sized. This is cheaper than rough forging a part then milling away the excess.
Problem is that cast metal has nowhere near the tensile strenght as forged. Remember the space shuttle that blew up when some cheapskate substituted a cast bolt for an investment cast one??
Thats because the forged steel part has a compacted grain structure, and the investment cast part often has internal pourosity problems - IE the insides of the steel have little bubbles in them just like a loaf of bread does.
Thats why manufacturers who utilized casting for revolver frames generally made the parts much LARGER than makers who used to the older forged method. To avoid problems later.
Gunmakers knew years ago that investment cast parts are okay for some parts (frames, slides) but not others (Hammers, triggers, lockwork).
Kimber started using the term MIM to avoid the bad PR that went with the proper term, IC.
 
Actually, the MIM process is a different form of "casting" than Ruger uses. MIM parts are created from a mix of powdered steel & a polymer, investment cast parts are created from melted steel without a polymer.
Investment casting is just fine for parts such as hammers & triggers, Ruger's been using them for decades. There are those of us who feel that MIM parts, though, are not created equal in impact functions. I have two Smiths with MIM firing pins, those will be replaced by extended C&S steel pins when I get around to it.
Denis
 
Any time you heat metal up and put it in a preshaped mold you are doing investment casting, which dates back to the early bronze age, when it was known as "Lost Wax Casting."
MIM, "Sintered metal" etc. all are just fancy names to avoid the fact you are investment casting.
Colt began this semantical nonsense back when they began using "sintered metal" hammers and triggers. They would heat metal shavings up and put em in a mold.
Kimber has added to the semantics with MIM....Sintered metal, metal injection moulding, no matter what they call it, its just investement casting.
A rose, as Shakespear once said, would smell just as sweet by any other name. Supposedly the same logic states the reverse would be just as true for canine droppings. It would smell just as bad no matter what you called it.
Ruger can get away with investment casting for two major reasons.
Number one, their guns were DESIGNED to be made that way. Thats why their parts are generally LARGER, which is the second reason.
If you design a part to be cast, and you make it oversize in the first place it can equal the strenght of a forged part.
The problem is when you start taking guns DESIGNED to have smaller, forged steel parts and replace them with cheap castings, IC, MIM SM or whatever you want to call it.
Ruger and Dan Wesson make some strong guns. But nobody accuses them of being svelte.
 
I was pointing out that MIM is a different form of casting, not done in the traditional investment casting way by merely introducing a melted metal into a mould. The MIM process starts out with the metal in a different form, with an additional non-metallic material in the mix, under heat and pressure the MIM conglomerate fuses, loses the polymer, and takes on the form of the part in the mould. It's a similar process, but there are significant differences, and the end result is not exactly the same in terms of their individual properties.
Sintered metal began as a powdered metal, the way Colt used it, for example, was not the same way Ruger does their castings.
It's not just a matter of fancy names to avoid anything. The designations describe specific methods and processes which are different, despite some similarities.
Denis
 
One of the cars I owned a few years back was equipped with an engine that used sintered metal connecting rods - according to the data I read. It was a a fairly high revving engine as well - 6800 rpm redline range if I recall correctly. Seems to me that this was a fairly stressful environment to use inferior production methods , but I never had any engine problems despite my leadfoot tactics.

Unless there has been some creditable long term durability testing performed comparing the traditional Smiths against those using MIM parts I am not going to lose sleep over the fact that my 629 may have the MIM parts.
 
Has S&W slipped in manufacturing quality/durability...maybe. How about, Springfield, Ruger, Colt, Taurus, Glock or Kimber...maybe. In this day and age you can pick any product from guns to pencils, and all have probably cut corners to save and make a profit. For me, I was trained and carried a S&W. I shoot them well and like the product and customer service.
 
Sintered metal parts are substantially different than investment casting. The connecting rods mentioned were probably only possible by using this method. Powdered metal is put in a mold, subjected to extreme pressure, which fuses the powdered pieces, both by the pressure and the heat produced by the pressure. Because the metals are never heated to a liquid state, combinations of metals (alloys) can be made that are impossible by conventional casting methods, as the dissimilar materials would not mix if liquid.
There have been some materials made with some pretty bizarre properties by this method. Additionally, it has the potential of producing a part that is very close to the desired end product, with little if any additional machining needed. It does have to be done properly, quality control is critical. Uneven mixes, pressures not long enough or of sufficient force, molds that don't allow pressure to be applied evenly, all kinds of variables can effect the quality of the end product. Many companies abandoned the process rather than sort out all the variables. Often it was done to cut costs, but by the time the process is sorted out, it ended up just as expensive. MIM processes have the same goals as sintering. The use of polymers in the mix is an attempt to control some of the variables that occurred in sintering.
I aint a metallurgist, but I read a lot.

Mikey
 
You all who are worried about MIM had better stop flying, because all of the jet engines being used in commercial aircraft for the last 20 years have been using mostly MIM parts.
 
You all who are worried about MIM had better stop flying, because all of the jet engines being used in commercial aircraft for the last 20 years have been using mostly MIM parts.
Click to expand...
Honeywell has developed a MIM flowbody for jet engines in 2002. Essentially a housing for a butterfly valve that handles hot engine gasses, this cylindrical flowbody weighs just under four pounds and has an inside diameter of 3.5 inches. It is not a moving part. I believe this is likely the largest MIM part in a jet engine. Unless I'm wrong, the rest are smaller, right?

Link

Hopefully those parts do not endure impact forces like a part in a gun does though.
 
Last edited:
Once again fellas,
There is a huge difference between using an investment cast, sintered or MIM part, in a product that it was DESIGNED for, and replacing a part designed to be machined from tool steel with one.
Thats why an investment cast slide stop won't last as long as a forged part in the 1911. The 1911 was designed to be forged, not investment cast.
Investment cast parts work okay in Ruger p-90s because they were DESIGNED to be manufactured that way.
 
No maybe I'm wrong but I recall reading that MIM is for small parts with a thickness under 3/8", becuase of the difficulty debinding thicker parts in a vacum furnace resulting in voids.
Engine blocks and thicker parts are always investment cast.

MIM is used to make the rotors which are a high heat high stress complex shaped thin sectioned part in every jet engine and in turbines, like those found in nuclear power plants, and generating stations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top