J
Jose
So what?
Give me a single technical reason why properly done MIM is inferior in the applications S&W is using it.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
where S&W get the bad rep from
- Thread starter dnepro-mike
- Start date
Give me a single technical reason why properly done MIM is inferior in the applications S&W is using it.
J
Jose
Have you never seen parts machined from barstock or from forgings fail under conditions they should not have?
I sure have.
Your second paragraph is key and all the MIM haters who just parrot crap from the internet (not you obviously) would do well to study some metallurgy.
My brother-in-law bought a brand new Walther PPK - now made by S&W. He had to return it for a warranty repair right out of the box. This was 6 months ago. I used to have a S&W pistol - Model number 411. It frequently would fail to return to battery and the magazine safety would intermittently not work. That isn't such a big deal to me as I don't care for a magazine safety anyway - but still - it wasn't right. Rather than dealing with it I let it go for short change.
Those are my experiences. I tend to stay away from the brand. But my only experience is with their auto pistols.
When you look at used guns in places like FS they are always heavy on S&W. Maybe they are in such abundance, or maybe their owners just aren't in love with them.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,529
- Likes
- 33,559
Yes, but I have seen it more frequently from cast parts. No experience with MIM parts. I am not a metalurgist, but I trust the info I get from someone in the manufacturing end of things.
So, I guess there are two separate questions:
1. Is MIM sufficiently good for use in a quality handgun?
2. Which manufacturing technology would be the best one to choose if cost were no object, and you were willing to pay double for a small percentage in strength you will probably never utilize in any practical manner?
The answers to these two questions are not necessarily the same and, although I have an opinion, I do not make any claim my answer is expert or authorative.
Fleshwound
NES Member
I always thought S&W was a revolver company that dabbled in autos. Ive owned nothing but Sigs for years, but took the plunge on the first M&Ps that came out and never looked back. Great gun for the money, lifetime warranty as well. How can you go wrong?
crazymikie
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2009
- Messages
- 434
- Likes
- 43
My shield came from the factory with misaligned sights. With less than 50 rounds through it, the white dot insert popped out of the front sight.
My friend had a bodyguard 380 which broke three times with under 150 total ribs through it. He finally got a refund after being the run around for several weeks. All three failures were catastrophic, rendering the gun useless.
I find this unacceptable for a gun which had a sole purpose for edc.
My friend had a bodyguard 380 which broke three times with under 150 total ribs through it. He finally got a refund after being the run around for several weeks. All three failures were catastrophic, rendering the gun useless.
I find this unacceptable for a gun which had a sole purpose for edc.
To put an example to Rob's comments . . .
I have a S&W 39-2 that was made in the early 1970s. Viking Kitten was shooting it at an NES Shoot when the safety (a "barrel safety" that goes thru the back of the slide) sheared in two pieces!! This was made long before S&W went MIM and this gun was never abused. Stuff happens! S&W fixed it for me, since it was older than the lifetime warranty it cost me some money but it wasn't any big deal. Every company is looking to cut costs and overall I think that quality control suffers when they do this, but that is the life we live today. There is no "perfection" in spite of any advertising campaigns. What matters most (IMNSHO) is what a company is willing to do for you when you have a problem.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,529
- Likes
- 33,559
I had this happen with an Ed Brown cast safety on a 1911 as well.
But, I've also had the extractor hook snap off a 1911 machined from barstock extractor.
Anecdotal evidence is not proof (not does it necessarily mean your conclusion is wrong - I could use the same logic to prove machined parts are junk since I had one break).
A common example where a lower techology part is prone to breaking is the locking block in a Glock. I've seen these break on several occasions, however, when they do, they tend to break "in place" and the failure is not even noticed until a detail strip maintenance check. Curiously, Glock seems to know where they need to spend money on the stronger technologies, and where they can go with a cheaper process - which is probably why the firing pin is machined from bar stock and the cruciform sear plate stamped from plate steel rather than cast or MIM.
Last edited:
This is the problem- it's right there in your stipulation. It's pretty apparent that some manufacturers who use MIM get bad runs of parts. MIM either works great.... or it fails a lot. There was a time, for example, where every S&W 1911 produced during a wide time period had the plunger tubes fall off, probably because the tube was cast out
of MIM poorly.
-Mike
The HUD agreement has nothing to do with why that happened, they weren't even owned by the same people at that time the locks came in. I believe some company that made the stupid locks bought out S&W in whole or in part, and that's why the guns ended up with the gay locks.
-Mike
Well when the G23 locking block broke in mine, the gun was noticeably behaving strangely while shooting. Don't know how that part is made, but it does happen even to the "perfection" company!
J
Jose
MIM is not a casting. Not even close.
I'm always surprised to hear this. I absolutely love S&W 3rd gen SAs. I own a 39-2, a 3914 and a 5906 and they're the finest SAs I've ever owned. Accurate and reliable.
- Joined
- May 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18
- Likes
- 0
Saf-T-Hammer, an Arizona corporation, was the buyer of record, but it was just a shell company, previously known by a whole series of other names, including De Oro Mines and Lost Coast Ventures. At the time they supposedly spent $15 million to buy S&W, Saf-T-Hammer had just one part-time employee, a secretary, less than $50,000 in assets, and total lifetime sales of $0 (all from AZ filings). During the same time period, S&W's parent company rejected two separate offers in the $50 million range, in both cases saying the offers were too low.
I am glad that S&W has turned itself around around and has once again become a successful firearms company offering quality, innovative products at decent prices, but that "sale" was a sham, and it has never really been explained.
S&W
I have two M&P 45 and love them, One is my IDPA gun and has well over 8,000 round and not one issue with it. 2nd is a carry gun with about 1000 round thru it again no issue. So is their quailty issue with S&W as far as I am concerned no !
I have two M&P 45 and love them, One is my IDPA gun and has well over 8,000 round and not one issue with it. 2nd is a carry gun with about 1000 round thru it again no issue. So is their quailty issue with S&W as far as I am concerned no !
flintoid
Banned
There are more similarities than differences, if you knew what you were talking about. The biggest difference is the pressures involved with MIM. The same mechanical properties of metal forming apply to both: shrinkage, temperature, etc. The scale of these things just change from one to the other. And MIM's geometrical tolerance is tighter.
MIM is basically injection molding of metal. You even use the same hydraulic presses. So it can resemble sprue casting parts since you have a cavity of the mold, runners, and hell- you can even have a family mold, much like MIM.
There are even metal castings that use core/cavity type molds. Even closer to MIM.
Lost/expendable casting? Then there's big differences. This is probably what you are referring to?
edit: I do agree with you on your opinion about MIM usage in firearms. There are perfectly good applications that can benefit from it's usage. And if done right, the part will be good to go.
Last edited:
lowbuckbob
NES Member
I have owned S&Ws since the late 70's. The older ones had oustanding quality and still command decent prices. If I recall, the downfall of S&W began when the company was sold to Bangor Punta who streamlined some of the manufacturing processes and eliminated hand fitting. I think the new Smiths are good quality but the sitgma of the 80s and 90s has hung on. Just my opinion.
J
Jose
The similarities are superficial and relate mostly to the tooling.
The sintering process that MIM undergoes after injection and binder flashoff makes a HUGE difference in the density of the finished product.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2013
- Messages
- 270
- Likes
- 38
I own a 686+ and absoulutely love it. It was made in 2011 I have never had any problem with it, I bought it used 2 years ago it had a trigger job done to it before I owned it and the gun is so smooth and accurate I wish I could carry it everyday. I also bought a ppk brand new and have never had a problem with that gun either also super smooth and accurate. I told my self years ago I would never support s&W because of them caving to the clinton admin, but after using a buddies 686 I had to have one. I do how ever find their cheaper semis a bit unfinished ( gritty trigger pull and snappy recoil, and can't friggin stand the saftey on the trigger) but I guess you get what you pay for.
I have an SD40VE ($360 glock 17 knock off). 630 rounds through it so far, no major issues. It needed a metal guide rod around the 400 round mark, but besides that it's been flawless (Zero failures that weren't directly attributable to ammo). Its accurate, cheap, and showing no signs of wear (besides that guide rod, but that was a $30 fix).
That Guy
Banned
I love firearms discussions, particularly, "Why is brand X better than brand Y?" discussions.
It doesn't matter what brand, model or caliber you choose, there will be a giant group on one side claiming gun X is the greatest thing since man's discovery of fire and a giant group on the other side claiming gun X is so bad it has actually eaten a hole in the ozone.
It doesn't matter what brand, model or caliber you choose, there will be a giant group on one side claiming gun X is the greatest thing since man's discovery of fire and a giant group on the other side claiming gun X is so bad it has actually eaten a hole in the ozone.
Similar threads
