Why are NEW S&W considered inferior?
- Thread starter Deerinator
- Start date
629 shooter
New member
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.
Like I mentioned - show me documented evidence where the newer Smiths with MIM parts are proving to be less durable.
What kind of design changes did the automotive engineers have to do in order to manufacture engines using sintered rods? Anyway, I never worried about my old car's (97 Ford Contour with the 2.5 DOHC Duratec V6) lack of forged connecting rods. By the same token I am not worried that my 629 with MIM is doomed to catastrophic failure anytime soon.
Like I mentioned - show me documented evidence where the newer Smiths with MIM parts are proving to be less durable.
What kind of design changes did the automotive engineers have to do in order to manufacture engines using sintered rods? Anyway, I never worried about my old car's (97 Ford Contour with the 2.5 DOHC Duratec V6) lack of forged connecting rods. By the same token I am not worried that my 629 with MIM is doomed to catastrophic failure anytime soon.
Master Blaster
New member
When JMB designed the 1911 the year was 1907, metal technology, heat treating, alloys were 98 years behind where we are now. Forged steel was the best thing available in 1907. Technology has progressed considerably since then. Parts that were made in 1915 were subject to breakage even though they were forged steel because the process of making and heat treating forged steel was not perfected back then. My guess is that they broke more often than the new MIM parts do now, but I have no actual data to support that.
When Wilbur Wright designed and flew the first airplane the appropriate material was wood and cloth. Anyone here want to make a commercial airliner out of the same wood and cloth Wilbur used?????????
Jack Malloy
New member
All the evidence you want is available over on the Smith and Wesson Forum. In fact, a few weeks ago there was a thread on their from a guy in Argentina who had a lockwork part break on his brand new 629.
Or ask people with lots of experience how the investment cast or MIM slide stops perform compared to the older forged type.
Notice also that in 1911 and in 1960 an off the rack Colt Govt. model would fire 6000 rounds without jamming or a part breaking in Government tests.
Now look at the various forums about modern 1911s choking with less rounds than that because some cheapo manufacturer tried to replace the tensioned tool steel extractors with mod, high tech manufactured steel parts.
There is also a thread on one of the forums where somebody's brand new Ruger had a too soft transfer bar. Take a look around boys, the facts are there and they are documented.
S&W did not switch to MIM because it was an improvement any more than they switched to two peice barrels because they were improvements. It was just a way to manufacture what was once a good gun more cheaply.
Had MIM and investment casting been as common in Brownings day, the 1911 might have looked more like the Ruger P-85 design. Browning designed the gun to be manufactured using forged tool steel. Just like S&Ws revolvers were manufactured to be made with tool steel forged lockwork parts.
Or ask people with lots of experience how the investment cast or MIM slide stops perform compared to the older forged type.
Notice also that in 1911 and in 1960 an off the rack Colt Govt. model would fire 6000 rounds without jamming or a part breaking in Government tests.
Now look at the various forums about modern 1911s choking with less rounds than that because some cheapo manufacturer tried to replace the tensioned tool steel extractors with mod, high tech manufactured steel parts.
There is also a thread on one of the forums where somebody's brand new Ruger had a too soft transfer bar. Take a look around boys, the facts are there and they are documented.
S&W did not switch to MIM because it was an improvement any more than they switched to two peice barrels because they were improvements. It was just a way to manufacture what was once a good gun more cheaply.
Had MIM and investment casting been as common in Brownings day, the 1911 might have looked more like the Ruger P-85 design. Browning designed the gun to be manufactured using forged tool steel. Just like S&Ws revolvers were manufactured to be made with tool steel forged lockwork parts.
As per the connecting rods: None, save for a standard rebalancing. Oh, and they designed a new method of getting caps, they make them integral with the rod and *break* them off. Much more precise fitting them back together than the old way of casting with an oval and milling them back down to round.
that was my point; it's a MIM application for a part that was cast or forged steel originally and was a direct replacement.
that was my point; it's a MIM application for a part that was cast or forged steel originally and was a direct replacement.
Master Blaster
New member
GOVERNMENT TESTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!lets not even go there!!!!
My kimber custom classic target has about 8000+ rounds through it, its still as tight and as accurate as the day I bought it. It still looks new, No parts have broken, The extractor which is machined barstock (not mim as some asssert here) has never lost its tension.
But then I must just be lucky.
The problem with the internet as a statistical research tool, is that if 20,000
Custom classic targets are made and sold, you only hear about the three that had a problem, and you hear about them over and over and over, and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. The other 19,997 you never hear a word about. In 1915 or 1960 there was no error net, and no one kept track of how many parts broke, or how long they lasted, companies didnt do recalls on thousands of guns, to replace parts when a couple of pistols had a problem. You paid your money and you took your chances. If you had gone to the Colt factory in 1960 you would have seen machinists making parts and checking to see if they were within specs using a micrometer. If you had pulled 50 guns and measured and inspected all of the parts, tollerences would have varied a good bit from gun to gun and from part to part. That meant every gun had to be hand fit, when you hand fit every part it costs more to make, but you also have a greater potential for a failure due to errors made by the humans fitting the guns and making the parts. They used to have a big reject bin for out of spec parts, and it was FULL!!!!
Now a-days you would find CNC controlled machines, MIM parts, and less hand fitting. My guess is that if you pulled 50 guns and tested every part the tollerences would be nearly identical, and every gun would be much closer to the blueprint design, than in 1960.
I do know this though: a specific requirement for the 1911 was that the parts be interchangeable, and replaceable on the battlefield with no tools. In 1915 Army units issued a 1911 also had an armorer with spare parts. So obviously JMB and the folks in army ordinance must have thought that parts would break on 1911s. The fact that 40 years later in 1945 they still had armorers with parts, proves that parts did break, and did need to be replaced.
JMHO YMMV.
629 shooter
New member
All the evidence you want is available over on the Smith and Wesson Forum. In fact, a few weeks ago there was a thread on their from a guy in Argentina who had a lockwork part break on his brand new 629.
Or ask people with lots of experience how the investment cast or MIM slide stops perform compared to the older forged type.
Take a look around boys, the facts are there and they are documented.
Documentation? Internut Gun Forums? Well , by that reasoning I can head over to the Car&Driver forums and there will be many there who will insist that Honda makes the worse car out there. Do I buy it because it is on an Internet forum? Not hardly. I like Master Blaster's analogy:
The problem with the internet as a statistical research tool, is that if 20,000 Custom classic targets are made and sold, you only hear about the three that had a problem, and you hear about them over and over and over, and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. The other 19,997 you never hear a word about.
There are many traditionalist who have a problem when products are not manufactured the way they were in the "Good Ole' Days". Some proudcts , yes even guns , hold up very well even using "cheap" modern manufacturing methods. Have seen and owned Sigs with stamped steel slides and aluminum frames fired thousands of times and the mating parts show little or no wear. And ultra reliable and accurate.
I'll also take my modern car over the cars made in the 1910s or 1960s. My 2001 car has 113,000 miles on it and and runs as good as it ever has. In the first 100,000 miles the only engine maintenance I done was 4000 mile oil changes and 3 air filter changes. I changed the plugs early at 99,000 miles. I can turn the ignition key at zero degress and the car fires right up and I can back out of the garage and drive off immediately if I wanted to.
Or ask people with lots of experience how the investment cast or MIM slide stops perform compared to the older forged type.
Take a look around boys, the facts are there and they are documented.
Documentation? Internut Gun Forums? Well , by that reasoning I can head over to the Car&Driver forums and there will be many there who will insist that Honda makes the worse car out there. Do I buy it because it is on an Internet forum? Not hardly. I like Master Blaster's analogy:The problem with the internet as a statistical research tool, is that if 20,000 Custom classic targets are made and sold, you only hear about the three that had a problem, and you hear about them over and over and over, and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. The other 19,997 you never hear a word about.
There are many traditionalist who have a problem when products are not manufactured the way they were in the "Good Ole' Days". Some proudcts , yes even guns , hold up very well even using "cheap" modern manufacturing methods. Have seen and owned Sigs with stamped steel slides and aluminum frames fired thousands of times and the mating parts show little or no wear. And ultra reliable and accurate.
I'll also take my modern car over the cars made in the 1910s or 1960s. My 2001 car has 113,000 miles on it and and runs as good as it ever has. In the first 100,000 miles the only engine maintenance I done was 4000 mile oil changes and 3 air filter changes. I changed the plugs early at 99,000 miles. I can turn the ignition key at zero degress and the car fires right up and I can back out of the garage and drive off immediately if I wanted to.
N.H. Yankee
New member
I have owned at least 20 S&W handguns and thats a conservative number, I never had a problem until recently. I bought a new SW99 full size in 45acp, I took the gun home abd took it apart to check things out and lube it. I went ot my range out back and fired about 50 rounds and came back to clean it and noticed some metal filings, I thought maybe I missed them first time I took it apart, I cleaned it and went back out and shot about 50 more. I then tore it down to find the same thing, then I noticed thew flat wound recoil spring was getting a flat spot on the top front and noticed a shiney spot on the barrel where it was rubbing. I called the gunshop and he said bring it back. The shop manager examined it and sent it to S&W, it returned with a letter saying replaced recoil spring. I took it home and guess what, same problem, I called the shop and he said to keep shooting it and check it, well after a few hundred rounds the spring was about 20% gone on the top front and I knew it was time for a return. The manager didnt have another SW99 in 45 so we checked a used 9mm model and it was OK, but as I pointed out the barrel is a smaller diameter and I think that was the problem. I have to say S&W didnt design this gun as it is a Walther design, but I dont think Walther ever made it in 45acp and S&W did. Walther may have known somthing S&W didnt, not enough room for a flat wound spring! I really liked the gun and wish S&W came out with a coil type recoil spring as perhaps that would have resolved the problem or maybe this was a fluke, I dont know how, it just seemed like a case of 10lbs in a 5lb bag.
Jack Malloy
New member
Comparing guns to cars is like comparing apples to television sets.
You can design a modern car to be made with modern technology.
You can design a modnern gun to be made with modern technology.
You can design a modern air plane to be made with modern technology.
But the evidence is clear. When you take a 1905 design gun and put in parts made the modern way, sometimes, you have problems.
There is a HUGE difference between a 2000 design aircraft part being designed to use investment casting and a 1905 firearm designed to be forged, milled and machined.
Thats just the way it is.
Notice that they never had these problems with either extractors or slide stops back in the forging day. Notice that the only major problem S&W had back in the days of making the parts the old way was fitting related or the occassional firing pin crystalizing.
You start swapping out a part DESIGNED to be forged with a part that is cast and the problems start. Remember the Space Shuttle?
The fact that some modern design gun or car or plane uses parts DESIGNED to be cast does not prove anything vis a vis their usage in older designs.
ALso remember that Colt did not even really heat treat their guns till between WWI and WWII.
The 1911 was designed to be a rugged gun with softer parts than we use today. It fires a low pressure cartridge too. When modern steel alloys began being used in the 40s and 50s the gun developed a tremendous rep for durability.
You can design a modern car to be made with modern technology.
You can design a modnern gun to be made with modern technology.
You can design a modern air plane to be made with modern technology.
But the evidence is clear. When you take a 1905 design gun and put in parts made the modern way, sometimes, you have problems.
There is a HUGE difference between a 2000 design aircraft part being designed to use investment casting and a 1905 firearm designed to be forged, milled and machined.
Thats just the way it is.
Notice that they never had these problems with either extractors or slide stops back in the forging day. Notice that the only major problem S&W had back in the days of making the parts the old way was fitting related or the occassional firing pin crystalizing.
You start swapping out a part DESIGNED to be forged with a part that is cast and the problems start. Remember the Space Shuttle?
The fact that some modern design gun or car or plane uses parts DESIGNED to be cast does not prove anything vis a vis their usage in older designs.
ALso remember that Colt did not even really heat treat their guns till between WWI and WWII.
The 1911 was designed to be a rugged gun with softer parts than we use today. It fires a low pressure cartridge too. When modern steel alloys began being used in the 40s and 50s the gun developed a tremendous rep for durability.
MIM? Good stuff, Maynard!
Kimber. Notice anything wrong with the picture?
Closer look:
Even closer:
Don't get me wrong, cast metals, when done properly, can be very good. How many Springfield M1A receivers do we hear about that failed? Yup, about that many.
But when done poorly, well, ask the owner of the above Kimber, he's over on THR...
Kimber. Notice anything wrong with the picture?
Closer look:
Even closer:
Don't get me wrong, cast metals, when done properly, can be very good. How many Springfield M1A receivers do we hear about that failed? Yup, about that many.
But when done poorly, well, ask the owner of the above Kimber, he's over on THR...
New Smith & Wessons have always been "not as good as the old ones".
This was said about the guns they made in the 1970's as opposed to the ones made in the 1950's-1960's, and said again of the guns made in the 1980's.
I'm sure the guns made 100 years from now will be terrible the the "junk" Smith is making now will be considered classics.
(I have a Smith from about 1932, and one from about 1979. They are different, but both are great firearms. )
Mark
This was said about the guns they made in the 1970's as opposed to the ones made in the 1950's-1960's, and said again of the guns made in the 1980's.
I'm sure the guns made 100 years from now will be terrible the the "junk" Smith is making now will be considered classics.
(I have a Smith from about 1932, and one from about 1979. They are different, but both are great firearms. )
Mark
Jack Malloy
New member
There is a huge difference though between periods of spotty quality control and an era where the company actually CHANGES the designs of the guns to make them cheaper.
When I was a young man in my 20s, I would look at guns made by other makers that TRIED to copy S&W guns and changed things.
I remember people who were embarrassed by their Astras or Taurus or Rossi revolvers because they were not Smiths.
Some of these current generatoins of Smiths don't look any more like a real smith than those other guns did back then. I have seen older Astra revolvers and Taurus revolvers that actually IMPRESS ME MORE than the current generation of Substitue & Weasel products.
MIM parts, two peice barrels, etc.
These things are not just quality control issues.
These things are management flipping you the bird and ruining it's classic product line to sell you a poorly made weapon at the same price it cost to make it properly so they can line their CEO pockets with the savings difference.
When I was a young man in my 20s, I would look at guns made by other makers that TRIED to copy S&W guns and changed things.
I remember people who were embarrassed by their Astras or Taurus or Rossi revolvers because they were not Smiths.
Some of these current generatoins of Smiths don't look any more like a real smith than those other guns did back then. I have seen older Astra revolvers and Taurus revolvers that actually IMPRESS ME MORE than the current generation of Substitue & Weasel products.
MIM parts, two peice barrels, etc.
These things are not just quality control issues.
These things are management flipping you the bird and ruining it's classic product line to sell you a poorly made weapon at the same price it cost to make it properly so they can line their CEO pockets with the savings difference.
Master Blaster
New member
You know I just bought a 686 6", It looks and shoots great, and its every bit as good as the guns I own from the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's.
If you dont like smiths Jack dont buy them. manufacturing techniques and materials change over time, some changes are actually improvements, for example, the change from pins holding the star to machined ends that prevent the star from turning. The new design is much better.
If you dont like smiths Jack dont buy them. manufacturing techniques and materials change over time, some changes are actually improvements, for example, the change from pins holding the star to machined ends that prevent the star from turning. The new design is much better.
The problem is the internet lets you amplify problems, even after they have been resolved. A new maufacturing process is used and they find the metal was defective or too soft, an update corrects this problem and we go on. Now the internet lets this "fixed" problem perpetuate, and the few that had a problem, or heard of one, post over and over ad nauseum ripping the whole line. If one guy has a problem, he gets crazed and knocks the line of guns forever, and doesn't want another person to buy from that company as "his punishment". Its insane! Let it go, there would be no progress if we never tried to improve things. And if the companies can't make a profit, is it better for them to fold and then you have no S&W, or Colt, or Kimber, or whoever else you are trying to bury. Funny too how a lot of the "broken" stories be gin with: "I took my gun apart to check and lube it....." Maybe he screwed it up putting back together and mis-aligning something, but you'll never hear that, He's been doing it for years. I read on one forum a guy that never even fired his Kimber and wanted to return it because of what he read, and he is still not happy for some reason because of all the paranoia and neurosis his forum reading caused. Geez, you guys ride horse and buggy too because they "don't make em like they used too?" Its bad because legitimate complaints get clouded due to all of the obscuring BS that gets stirred. The complaints will do no good anyway because the Genie is out of the bottle on MIM, so its better to improve what exists rather then to spout internet facts that are vaporous. Go out and shoot the guns you have and enjoy them rather then worry if they are going to break.
I read on one forum a guy that never even fired his Kimber and wanted to return it because of what he read, and he is still not happy for some reason because of all the paranoia and neurosis his forum reading caused. Geez, you guys ride horse and buggy too because they "don't make em like they used too?" Its bad because legitimate complaints get clouded due to all of the obscuring BS that gets stirred. The complaints will do no good anyway because the Genie is out of the bottle on MIM, so its better to improve what exists rather then to spout internet facts that are vaporous. Go out and shoot the guns you have and enjoy them rather then worry if they are going to break. ForksLaPush
New member
New 431PD
I picked up a new 431PD today and it was smooth, accurate, and nicely finished. The lock didn't jump off and kick me in the shin every time I fired it, and the MIM trigger didn't fall apart. Arguments about the merits of MIMS don't really matter unless the parts in question can't do the job. How strong does a trigger have to be anyway? The fact that it was made this year rather than decades ago doesn't bother me a bit. This gun is not competing with mythical S&Ws of yesteryear. I am convinced that it is better than whatever knockoff Taurus or Rossi can come up with, and that years from now it will probably still be worth at least what I paid for it... like my model 43, they don't make 'em like that any more...
I picked up a new 431PD today and it was smooth, accurate, and nicely finished. The lock didn't jump off and kick me in the shin every time I fired it, and the MIM trigger didn't fall apart. Arguments about the merits of MIMS don't really matter unless the parts in question can't do the job. How strong does a trigger have to be anyway? The fact that it was made this year rather than decades ago doesn't bother me a bit. This gun is not competing with mythical S&Ws of yesteryear. I am convinced that it is better than whatever knockoff Taurus or Rossi can come up with, and that years from now it will probably still be worth at least what I paid for it... like my model 43, they don't make 'em like that any more...
Jack Malloy
New member
Oh, but I do like Smiths. Thing is, smith is not making them anymore.
These abortions with their cheap MIM hammers, frame mounted firing pins, two peice barrels and Peoples RepubliK of Kalifornia key locks prone to tying up the guns are not real Smith and Wessons to me.
I just wish S&W would stop cutting the corners costwise to line exec pockets and go back to making the classic guns which MADE THAT COMPANY again, instead of foisting off ugly hump backed shoddily made junk on the consumers. Frame bolsters a hump under the hammer where a graceful scallop should be and a cheesy barrel shroud don't impress me much.
I can remember when the REAL S&W afficianodos laughed at modestly manufactured guns that utilized investement casting and aluminum barrel shrouds.
The new extractor star is no better than the old one. I never had a problem with the old one in tens of thousands of rounds fired..... So please, explain to me how cheapening the product by cutting corners is an improvement? I must be dumber than I look.
These abortions with their cheap MIM hammers, frame mounted firing pins, two peice barrels and Peoples RepubliK of Kalifornia key locks prone to tying up the guns are not real Smith and Wessons to me.
I just wish S&W would stop cutting the corners costwise to line exec pockets and go back to making the classic guns which MADE THAT COMPANY again, instead of foisting off ugly hump backed shoddily made junk on the consumers. Frame bolsters a hump under the hammer where a graceful scallop should be and a cheesy barrel shroud don't impress me much.
I can remember when the REAL S&W afficianodos laughed at modestly manufactured guns that utilized investement casting and aluminum barrel shrouds.
The new extractor star is no better than the old one. I never had a problem with the old one in tens of thousands of rounds fired..... So please, explain to me how cheapening the product by cutting corners is an improvement? I must be dumber than I look.
Post WW2: Smith stops blending the rear sight into the top strap. Cost cutting
1956: Delete top sideplate screw. Cost cutting
1962 or thereabouts: Delete trigger guard screw. Cost cutting
80s: Start downsizing line of blued guns. SS sells. Our lamentations here notwithstanding.
1982: Discontinue P&R in magnum revolvers. Cost cutting
1998: MIM parts introduced. Lose serrated backstraps. Cost cutting
2005: Two piece barrels: Cost cutting.
As you can see, cost cutting is not exclusive to the present firm. They've been at it since most of us were just beers in our Dads' hands.
As for the trend towards uber alloys and funky guns: I think the CCW wave that swept over the US (but skipped my state) is driving this unobtainium exoti-gun market. The unusual gun appearances are probably a partial answer for competing against used guns. Who will buy a (for example) new Model 29 @ today's prices if you can get a used one that looks just like it for less money?
I also have this pet theory that S&W R&D are comprised of accomplished collectors who want to drive up the value of their collections. So they don't resurrect the classics in exactly the way we want them
I have it on good authority that S&W employees peruse these boards (and are smart enough not to say anything).
And there is definitely nothing wrong with today's Smiths
I am sure that even the most jaded among you will say they are nice
1956: Delete top sideplate screw. Cost cutting
1962 or thereabouts: Delete trigger guard screw. Cost cutting
80s: Start downsizing line of blued guns. SS sells. Our lamentations here notwithstanding.
1982: Discontinue P&R in magnum revolvers. Cost cutting
1998: MIM parts introduced. Lose serrated backstraps. Cost cutting
2005: Two piece barrels: Cost cutting.
As you can see, cost cutting is not exclusive to the present firm. They've been at it since most of us were just beers in our Dads' hands.
As for the trend towards uber alloys and funky guns: I think the CCW wave that swept over the US (but skipped my state) is driving this unobtainium exoti-gun market. The unusual gun appearances are probably a partial answer for competing against used guns. Who will buy a (for example) new Model 29 @ today's prices if you can get a used one that looks just like it for less money?
I also have this pet theory that S&W R&D are comprised of accomplished collectors who want to drive up the value of their collections. So they don't resurrect the classics in exactly the way we want them
I have it on good authority that S&W employees peruse these boards (and are smart enough not to say anything).
And there is definitely nothing wrong with today's Smiths
I am sure that even the most jaded among you will say they are nice
perception
New member
I like my smith, but what are those^^^^? I love those two.