S&W Using MIM Barrels in Bodyguards!!!!

[birch]

I just bought a Smith Bodyguard .380 to use as my primary concealed carry pistol. I made this decision after trying to carry every pistol/revolver known to man. Anything other than a thin little pocket gun felt like I was carrying a brick. I originally bought a Sig 238, but my wife liked it so much that it didnt remain in my pocket for too long.

I decided on the bodyguard because it had a safety, a last round hold open feature, and allowed double strikes without racking the slide.

Soooo, I began the 100 round break in, and had a failure to feed in my second magazine. I didnt get too worried, but decided that I would do a throat and chamber polish before I wasted any more ammo. I started to do a detailed strip and noticed a small ridge on the barrel hood. My first thought, although it was hard to digest, was that this was in fact a mold break line, and this was a MIM barrel! I called S and W and sure enough, they said that the new bodyguard .380s are being manufactured with a new and state of the art engineering process called MIM. She began to go into details, but I interrupted her and asked if there were any more of the old style barrels that I could exchange with the state of the art barrel that I had bought. She told me that there were no "old" style barrels left. She said that if the pistol was malfunctioning, she would send a shipping label to me and I could mail the gun back to Smith for an inspection.

If I get one more FTF or stovepipe, it will go back.

I was just wondering if anyone on here has done an inspection to see if Smith is using MIM on other barrels besided the bodyguard. If they are, I plan on sending a nice little letter to Smith and Wesson describing exactly how I feel about their state of the art technology. I can understand using MIM on close tolerance parts like sears and hammers, but I cannot believe they think it is a good idea to cut corners on barrels.

If there was a failure of a barrel while firing, wouldnt the MIM act as a grenade and fracture in many places? I hope someone with a better engineering mind will chime in here. I don't have a degree in metalurgy, but from everything I have read about MIM, the metal is like a very tight matrix of molecules--more like a crystal than a hodge podge of molecular chains like a forging.

Is smith using MIM on other model barrels?

[EMC45]

MIMed barrels?!?!?!? That sounds bad.

[birch]

Yup, if I could figure out how to post pictures, you still would not believe it.

There is a distinct line on top of the barrel shroud that looks like pure hell. If I were Smith and Wesson designers, I would at the very least direct workers to polish the mold part flush. I can't say for sure, but I would guess that the slide will have a nice little groove where the slide rides up over the hood. This might even lead to poor ejection eventually. I cant imagine why that ridge would not add a considerable amount of friction between the slide and barrel hood being that it is focused on a small area and not spread out over a much greater area.

It would also be interesting to know how much money Smith saved per unit by MIMing the barrel and not spending much time getting rid of the mold marks.

By the way there are many other mold marks on other parts of the barrel. I might have to spend some more time this evening trying to post pictures so everyone can understand the ********* barrel I am holding in my hands.

[birch]

Another thing I noticed.

There is a nice little ring around the chamber. I can only guess that there was a tolerance set for chambering and rifleing. On this particular barrel, you can see where the chamber reamer took off more on one side of the chamber than the other. The mold part line was taken out on the right, but no on the left. I imagine that when the barrel cooled, one side shrank more than the other. I am sure the designers allowed for this. Again, a little polishing and the part line would not even be noticeable.

I am more than upset about this cheapo move by Smith designers. Hell, my father in law bought the little Taurus .380 pocket gun, and I am sure they actually used a solid piece of steel to make/machine their barrels. I cannot believe this ****!!!

[HATCH]

thats the main reason I like to buy old guns not new guns...

[birch]

99% of my collection is 25 years and older. Unfortunatly, the Colt Mustang is the only "old" gun that I could put in my pocket, and for some reason, I can't bring myself to pocket carry an old gun like that. It just seems wrong to destroy a piece of history even thought the primary reason for the Mustang was pocket carry. I even bought a Colt Cobra to try out and even though it was a nice fit, It was too nice to carry.

This is the reason I went to modern polymer. I could drop the thing in the river while salmon fishing and not feel even a remote sense of sadness for doing so.

[birch]

The main reason I started this thread was to see if Smith and Wesson is using MIM on any other models besides my .380 bodyguard. If they have adopted this technique for other firearms, I will probably never look at another Smith again--old or new.

I looked in the manual that came with the gun, and they really stress the importance of using the correct ammo--I mean three pages of warnings! They do say that the use of +P is permitted although it may prematurely age the gun. The use of +P+ is prohibited, and handloads-----they are a no, no.

[birch]

Exactly what they say,

"+P+ ammunition must not be used in Smith and Wesson firearms. This marking on the ammunition designates that it exceeds established industry stnadars, but he designation does not represent defined pressure limits and therefore such ammunition may vary significantly as to the pressures generated and could be DANGEROUS."

If you were refering to the use of handloads being a no, no---Yes, 99 percent of manufacturers have this in their literature. My point refers to my first post. If a MIM barrel decides to let go, will it be like a grenade?

If Smith lovers have a hard time reading this post, I understand. However, I am not letting Smith and Wesson get away with this. The way I see it--If people become aware of the cheap, cheap, cheap way Smith is manufacturing their guns, maybe they will stop doing it. Hopefully, you will not let your love of the company and their firearms get in the way of the truth. I hope the word gets out about this and has negative impact on the company bottom line.

MIM barrels are NOT A GOOD IDEA and represent everything I cannot stand about modern production techniques.

[birch]

I am not going to comment on anything but the MIM barrel. The pro's and con's of the ergonomics can be debated somewhere else.

Also, Rob, you edited your post and added a whole bunch that was not in the original post. I am not saying you are or are not a Smith lover, but I will say that even though no MIM barrels have been reported to blow up, corporate shortcuts are getting out of hand. Whether it works or does not work is not my concern. My concern is with Smith taking shortcuts too far. Even if the MIM stuff is perfect, there is still no excuse for them not taking a few extra minutes to clean up their guns. A mold mark should not be part of a firearms overall presentation.

I am not saying the bodyguard is a fine firearm. However, I paid a pretty penny for this little gun. It was not cheap! This is where my concern lies. If I had known about the MIM barrel and poor finishing before I bought the gun, I would have given ruger and Taurus a chance--Or, i would have bought another sig 238.

[MarkP]

Is Ruger doing this on their 10/22's?

I picked up a new one off the rack and it sure looked like a parting line on the top of the bbl. Also looked like the cross section of the bbl was somewhat elliptical. Finish was very rough as well it looked as NO secondary machining opperations were performed.

[birch]

Rob--go somewhere else. I am sure the little Smiths you have on your avatar picture are fine firearms. I am also sure there are other posts where you can discuss how perfect they are.

[Piedmont]

It makes you wonder if Smiff went or will go to those MIM barrels in the Shield and M&P autos. I quit buying their revolvers when they went to the lock, but the autos were still on the table.

[EMC45]

Get a KelTec. I am very happy with my second P3AT. It beats the Bodyguard in size too.

[birch]

I agree mike.

I am not against MIM for certain parts. In fact, I had a beautiful Colt MKIII Trooper that was one of the finest guns I have ever owned. It had a trigger that would rival any old Colt (Python included). When Colt started using the MIM for their internal lockwork, they were simply trying to compete with Smith and Wesson in production/cost production possibility curves. They succeeded! I also think the old Smiths are true works of art. In fact, a model 66, 19, and both the k-22 and k-38 masterpieces are all on my must have list.

I am just wondering if Smith is going to use MIM barrels on their other general production guns like the M and P line. I had a M and P .40 compact, but didnt think to look at the barrel.

If someone owns one of the new Smith pistols, could you check to see if there are mold marks on the barrel?

[Rick Hodges]

I have a new S&W M&P Shield 40.....no mold marks.......if it was MIM it was very well polished. I doubt they would use it in a .40 that runs at twice the pressure of a .380 but you never know.

[birch]

Is the 64 two piece barrel like the Dan Wesson? Can it be adjusted (functional), or is it just a way to cut costs?

[dubber123]

MIM is basically just a cast part. Ruger has been casting tons of things forever. AMT used cast barrels for as long as they were in business. If a cast barrel in .380 bothers you, I'm guessing you wouldn't want to shoot my Automag in .45 Win mag with it's cast barrel. I've shot it a bunch, mostly handloads, and none were in the "plinker" category. I wouldn't worry in the least.

[birch]

If I remember correctly forged is different than cast, and cast is different than MIM. Is the automag a MIM barrel?

MIM is different than investment casting. I believe investment casting still involves pouring liquid metal in a mold/form that is a near duplicate of the part being molded.

MIM involves the use of powdered metal with a binder. The entire form is heated until the binder (usually a polymer) is burned off and the metal melts to form one piece of metal. It actually shrink from the original size when the binder is burned off.

I may be mistaken in this description, but I don't think the automag barrels are MIM. This is much different than an investment mold/part.

Maybe someone who knows precisely the difference can chime in here with a better explanation.

Again, I am not saying that my barrel is going to explode with the next high pressure handload. I am just annoyed that Smith and Wesson has decided to cut corners while supposedly lesser manufacturers are building highquality barrels the old fashioned way.

[FergusonTO35]

Get a KelTec. I am very happy with my second P3AT. It beats the Bodyguard in size too.

Yep! I love my Kel-Tec P-32 and PF-9. They are my main carry guns, and both a fed an exclusive diet of reloads with cast boolits. The PF-9 is on my side in a IWB holster as I write this.

[NoZombies]

Believe it or not, the crystalline structure of MIM parts more closely resemble the of a forged part than an investment cast part does, all things being equal.

That's not to say I would want a cast or MIM barrel, but the metallurgical science backs up the idea.

[wv109323]

If it is such a high tech and accurate system to make parts, why is there a mold line?
On the other hand MIM is not that terrible is done correctly. MIM has got a bad rap because of poor quality control.

[dubber123]

If your description of the two different precesses is correct, then MIM is superior to cast in my book. Newer engines, some very high performance ones, use powdered metal connecting rods, and they are reputed to be VERY strong. GM made the mistake of using cast rods in one of it's engines in the 60's and that engine garnered a poor rep as a result. I don't even think MIM was an available technology back when AMT was in business.

[birch]

If Smith and Wesson were actually doing this because the technique actually improved on the original design, It might be a different story (maybe), but they are not doing it for a good reason. They are doing this to save money. It is cheaper, and the final finishing is a tragedy. I just finished my 100 yard break in and had 3 failure to chambers. They seem like a stovepipe with the bullet lodged against the top of the chamber. There is no excuse for an MIM barrel period. I can already tell that the metal flakes by the way the 100 round brake in has boogered up the top of the barrel hood. It did not flatten, it flaked.

I am going to ask another question regarding some flaking and flattening of the top of the barrel hood by the loaded chamber indicator (if you could call it that) which is basically a little hold to see the cartridge rim. If this is normal for all bodyguard users, then I will be OK, but if not, it will go in for a new barrel.

Thanks to all who replied.

[DeanWinchester]

Lemme tell you guys, of done correctly, there is nothing wrong with this process. Not saying everyone doesn't right though.

Crucible Particle Metallurgy uses a similar process and is some of the toughest metals to machine ever made! Once heat treated it takes something akin to CBN or diamond to work it.

A was stated, the real problem is quality control.

[JHeath]

thats the main reason I like to buy old guns not new guns...

Ditto. I visited Cabela's to buy a pocket .380. I looked at new and used guns, and went home with a 92 year old Remington Model 51.

[birch]

I do know that MIM is very strong. It is so strong in fact that in the old Colt revolvers, there is no polishing that can be done on the sear parts. Once the MIM heat treat layer is polished through, it basically starts breaking and chipping. A diamond is the strongest material known to man, but you don't see very many diamond barrels.

I think some may be missing my point. My point is that Smith is not using this to make their product better, they are going to this process because it is cheaper. If this were a good idea, Remington would be making their model 700 barrels out of an MIM casting. Think about the post 64 Winchester model 94's. In many ways, they are just as functional as their pre-64 counterparts. For some reason, you can pick up a nice post 64 model 94 in my area for 250 or less. A nice pre-64 in the same condition will set a feller back 6-1000.

They cheapened the gun to cut manufacturing costs, and they didnt recover. They traded management and owners many times.

Does a stamped follower perform just as well as a milled follower===yes it does. However, when I look at a stamped piece of whatever, it bums me out.

If MIM is just as good as a cast or forged receiver or barrel=maybe, but I would bet no. But, would you buy a hammer forged barrel or a MIM barrel. I would like to see Les Baer or Wilson Combat put an MIM barrel in one of their high end 1911's.

[birch]

I have had quite a few handguns with MIM triggers and hammers, and they were beautiful. From all the research I have done, MIM on small parts is perfect as the hardness allows for extreme use without tuning. However, I think cost saving should in no way get in the way of quality, or in the case of the 64-8, safety.
Since I have not heard of any more MIM barrels on new Smith barrels besides my .380, I have to assume I am lucky and have a real gem. Hopefully, Smith and Wesson will start making all their barrels out of MIM casting so everyone stops being so envious about my high quality barrel. It seems that after reading the majority of the posts on here, everyone is going to throw away their traditionally made cast/forged barrels and pay extra money for the new miracle in modern technology.

Thankfully, I did not get the memo that two is better than one or I would have ran out and bought a 64-8!

[MtGun44]

So why the silly hyperventilating about a MIMed part? MIM is a perfectly fine way to make high quality,
precision parts for a reasonable price. "cut corners" and "explode like a grenade" is hogwash based in
ignorance about manufacturing methods. MIM, done properly and ANY manufacturing technique can
be done improperly, is just fine and this fear of the new technology is silly.

100% of small parts inside every Kimber 1911 ever made are MIM. They are very reliable and high
quality and have been in service for about 15 years without problems. All hammers and triggers
on current S&W revolvers are MIM and according to a very knowledgable gunsmith friend, they
are "the best and most consistent parts S&W has EVER made including all the 'wonderful old
hand fitted guns' - which are a PITA to work on".

Bill

[olafhardt]

Tell him Bill. I keep thinking about a manufactoring facility using MIM to make transmisson gears for trucks. You saved me from making a reply that a moderator would have to remove. A note to all who think they know, some here do know. That's, in my opinion, a main reason this siteis the web's best.

[birch]

Like I say, I hope all smith and wesson barrels from here on out are MIM--Just because all the Smith lover seem so happy about it.

SMALL PARTS ARE DIFFERENT THAN BARRELS!

[Dale53]

MtGun44;
Thanks for the clear headed reply. I was about to say something that I would regret.

I have old Smiths and new Smiths. My new Smiths, in spite of the MIM parts and lock are some of the finest Smiths I own. My Model 520 (with MIM) and two piece barrel are one of the most accurate revolvers I own and shoot. I have access to a Ransom Rest and KNOW whereof I speak.

My 625-6 (5") and 625-8 JM Special (4") are ultra modern and absolutely FINE revolvers. My eyes are not clouded with fan worship, either. I can shoot and I KNOW what works.

Smith & Wesson, like any other manufacturer out there, has on occasion, dropped the ball on a particular handgun. When they do, a simple phone call will get you a return slip to send the gun back which they will make right. THAT is the proper way to go about getting a problem solved.

FWIW
Dale53

[birch]

The end!

[VictimNoMore]

I have a "MIM"-barreled BG .380. Hundreds of rounds through it. Always goes bang.
Which is what I paid for.
If it goes bang, I do not see what the problem is.

[dubber123]

I have bought guns and later found the quality to be lacking. I sold or gave them away, and bought something better. It has always worked for me.

[btroj]

Like I say, I hope all smith and wesson barrels from here on out are MIM--Just because all the Smith lover seem so happy about it.

SMALL PARTS ARE DIFFERENT THAN BARRELS!

So they can't make barrels using a method that reduces production costs? Making it better is OK but using a less expensive method isn't?

If there was a potential problem with safety then the safety and legal teams at S&W would speak up and stop the process.

I suppose the real question is this- why does this bother you? Do you feel it isn't safe? The fact it is less expensive in terms of manufacture bother you? Does the process make the gun too inexpensive to meet your standards?

[Garyshome]

You should have got a Ruger!

[JHeath]

So they can't make barrels using a method that reduces production costs? Making it better is OK but using a less expensive method isn't?

If there was a potential problem with safety then the safety and legal teams at S&W would speak up and stop the process.

I suppose the real question is this- why does this bother you? Do you feel it isn't safe? The fact it is less expensive in terms of manufacture bother you? Does the process make the gun too inexpensive to meet your standards?

Ah, now we get to the guts of the question.

Why buy a solid-gold wedding ring when a cheap electroplated ring is just as shiny and you will be just as married with it?

Why eat at a nice restaurant when spam and wonder bread will sustain you for less money?

Why waste money on a pre-64 anything when the newer ones are cheaper and "go bang" just as loud?

Is a gun an appliance, or does it mean something more?

When I got in this game I saved my paychecks for forged/machined steel and walnut. Now I save paychecks and am offered polymer and MIM. It is not the same to me, so I tend to buy old guns.

They could probably make guns even cheaper with stamped parts but buyers would resist because it "feels cheap." They use MIM to mimic the feel of forged/machined at lower cost. It may not be dishonest but it is . . . insincere. If money is all that matters, why not go straight to stampings?

For that matter, why not buy cheaper meat at the grocer and quit hunting, or buy a $10 hole punch at Office Depot and perforate your targets at home? You'll save gas, too.

[btroj]

MIM is not the equivalent of a gold plated ring. Kimber is using the process and they produce anything but a cheap, low quality firearm.

MIM has become the whipping boy for internet firearm experts. Bet many shoot guns containing parts made using he process and never even know it.

Money does matter. S&W needs to produce firearms in a cost range that makes them sellable. YOU may be willing to pay another 150 bucks for milled parts but that doesn't mean the next guy will, or his 200 friends.

MIM is a modern manufacturing method. It doesn't make it "cheaper"' it makes it less expensive.

I don't see tons of posts here about "my MIM gun broke, again" or "don't buy S&W, those MIM parts fail right away" so people must be getting good use from their guns.

My take- this is a problem in people's mind, not in their gun.

[Lefty Red]

OK, so now is Hi Point off the hook for producing low cost firearms? Are they now on par with S&W?

Ok, that might be taking as "digging" but Hi Point is put down for there casting and MIM parts. Granted they are the low end of the scale.

But I think the pressures that the .380 run at would have no problem with the lowest end of MIM or even steel barrels. Look at Bersas and Hi Points and Davis's or Kel Teks.

But what I feel is the problem is that when I see S&W on a firearm, I feel that it should be an classic! Not a flat black half polymer bullet thrower. But that is not what sells now a days. So the market reins the producers to what will make them money. The revolver version of S&W's Bodyguard looks like hell and just doesn't feel "right" to have S&W on the side. Sure doesn't feel like any J frame I ever held or shot. And I HATE the cyclinder release at the top of the frame where it can be hit and open the cyclinder on draw from a holster or pocket. It shot good and handled well even with +p, but just feels cheap and so unS&W like!

No wonder The Performance Center is getting so much bussiness.

Lefty

[btroj]

No, hi point makes cheap guns. S&W is making good guns using modern, more efficient methods.

Why do I always end up arguing with Luddites?

[birch]

Gary, you are right, I should have bought a Ruger!!

I paid the extra money because I thought I was getting a better gun. My worry is that Smith and Wesson is turning into a Jiminez or Highpoint brand.

By the way, the Luddites were only wishing to preserve a craft that was artisan in nature. The Firearms industry is trying to compete for dollars by sacrificing quality. Many of you keep referencing the use of MIM parts in top end guns. I and many who have responded to the fact that Smith is using MIM BARRELS--NOT MIM PARTS. There is a big difference.

How many have seen the new Winchester model 70's with MIM barrels? Oh, you havent--That is because they don't make one!! It may be cheaper, but Winchester at least is still using a good ol' fashioned barrel made of forging. Or, maybe they have found out that a MIM barrel might not hold up to the pressures involved. Either way, at least there are still Luddites in this world who refuse to cheapen a product for a bottom line. GOD THANK THE LUDDITES STILL LEFT IN THIS WORLD!! AMEN.

[Lefty Red]

No, hi point makes cheap guns. S&W is making good guns using modern, more efficient methods.

Why do I always end up arguing with Luddites?

Had to look that word up! Now I am a better man for it. :)

I am not scared of new tech. I am scared of new tech that is is only in effect to save money, not to make me safer.
I have had a light charged reloaded boolit lodged in the barrel of my G35 and it was Hades on Earth when the next boolit hit is and my gun felt like it was going to explode! A replacement of the barrel and I was back up and running. That is with a solid barrel. Seriously, what would a MIM barrel due? Would it buldge like the solid barrel? Would it become a frag grenade?

Scared of new stuff? Nope! I grew up when the only pistols were 1911s or Hi Powers in LEO's holsters. But only after they had allot of work done to them. The Ruger MK2 22lr was the only pistol I shot that worked out of the box. Then S&W came out with there 4 digit models and WOW these pistol things can actually work out of the box! Ruger came out with the P85 and some other country introduced a plastic Glock. WOW! Seemed like new tech had finally brought the pistol up where is should be, a great fighting tool and not just a range shooter.

All of that happened in the late 80's- early 90's. Now its not what can make the pistol better for the shooter, but what can we go to make it cheaper and more profit for the company.

[btroj]

Guys, do some research. Jet engines contain MIM parts. Those parts require tolerances far tighter than a gun part. Those parts are also placed in conditions a far more extreme than gun parts. Jet engines are anything but a "cheap" item. Failure is not an option in jet engine components.

Ruger took a bunch of heat for using cast frames for years too. Gun people often don't handle change well. Manufacturing methods change and evolve over time.

Get over it guys, this process is used in many more guns than you know. It is in your car, you plane, and in many other items you use daily without thinking about it.

[birch]

I worked at an airport for many years and if you are using a jet engine for your comparison, you are way off base.

A jet engine is designed to have nearly zero high impact zones. If there is a sudden bump, grind, or jerk in a jet engine, then something is going to happen, and it is going to be bad. MIM parts in a jet engine are not going to receive any sudden pressure spikes other than a gradual increase in G=forces. Also, all parts that are connected to the engine or airframe are subjected to very high x-ray and inspection standards. There are no voids or defect allowed anywhere near the business end of a turbine engine.

Also, I would like to know what parts of the jet engine are MIM? Is the input output shaft? Are the bearings MIM? Are the Fins made of powdered metal? I would just like to know since you are referencing them? Is it an Injector? What is MIMed?

[Lefty Red]

I think is all comes down to this......When I see Colt or S&W on a weapon, I think classic looks and quality and a 10 ring shooter. When I see Ruger, I think tank and loading that will blow up anything else! I expect higher standards. That is me.

If Taurus or Bersa brought out a pocket .380 or a 38 snubby that was completely MIMed, I would go ok. They make good cheap guns.

Maybe its just me, but I like real ice cream and not Dippin Dots! :)

[btroj]

http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA521729

High pressure compressor vanes. Certainly a critical engine part.

Until I hear of failures of the gun parts in large numbers I am not worried. The level of testing S&W did, we hope, should have proven the parts are up to the task.

How many of us looked down on a Glock because of a plastic grip frame? Boy did Glock ever make us all look stupid, now many other gum makers are using similar processes.

[Rick Hodges]

Oh yeah, lets compare with the Model 70 Winchester...even a pre '64 Model 70....beautiful to look at. They are overweight, hard to manufacture, inaccurate over rated rifles that gained mythical status because of the rants and fabrications of a drunken outdoors writer. I have yet to see one which will shoot as well as a decent Model 700 Remington or even a 670 Winchester. They have pretty wood and fine metal polishing....pretty is as pretty does. (How is that for Heresy!!)

I am sure some luddites bemoan the fact that we no longer rifle soft iron barrels one groove at a time in a wooden framed jig.

Look I love blued steel and checkered walnut but I don't expect either to be as practical as stainless and polymer. It doesn't bother me one whit that most Rugers use investment castings or that S&W has MIM parts...yes even barrels as long as they work well, and the company stands behind what they build.

I recently purchased a S&W for everyday carry...it has stamped steel and MIM parts...God forbid it even has a polymer frame and is striker operated. The fact is, it is compact lightweight for its power, more than accurate enough for my purposes and has functioned flawlessly with factory and my reloads for the few hundred rounds I have put through it so far. I did some research before I purchased it, handled one, and even shot it. I like this pistol and carry it every day!

Birch, you may have a problem with the burr/chipping on your barrel hood, I don't know, but your carping about the MIM sounds like sour grapes and buyers remorse. You failed to research what you were buying and now you are upset.....

Would you like a little cheese with your whine? :violin: [smilie=1:

[Lefty Red]

Then if one of those MIMed barrels don't blow up in then next ten years, I will be the first in line to get one! Or if Ruger makes a SRH or SBH barrel that is MIMed!

[birch]

Those vanes (or fins) are a zero shock component. The only thing they experience are G forces which happen gradually, but are sustained. They are not experienceing zero to 40,000 psi pressure spikes.

To make my point again--Glock was proud of their new polymer frame. In fact, it was highlighted as innovative. Why is there no mention of an MIM barrel on Smith and Wesson's website. They are not proud of their achievement.

I would put a 5 dollar bill up that they are just hoping that people just go along with the fact that they are using cheap parts and getting a high premium for a substandard firearm. They are hoping that sheeple don't raise a big stink about it so they can get a few more dollars per unit. I bet they (the big shots) are loving the fact that there are actual people defending thier **** product.

[btroj]

I don't own a single Smith. Never have owned one. Don't plan to buy one, I am a Ruger guy.

I am less defending their product than I am a manufacturing process.

[birch]

Rick, you think a pre-64 model 70 is a piece of ****--all you said after that sounded like blah, blah, blah, blah,

Yup, you could say I have some buyers remorse--that was the only thing in that whole post that made sense!!

As to your avatar picture--I would also bet that you paid a guide to put some cracked corn about 50 yards from your barrel to get that pronghorn. I guess any trophy can be had if you are paying by the pound for fenced in game!

[Rick Hodges]

Yeah it was a guided hunt, spot and stalk, no corn. It was a lot of fun and If I could afford it I would do it every year. Oh yeah, it is a Remington rifle too. :bigsmyl2:

[MtGun44]

"Vanes are zero shock" - HAH! Are you aware that the ceritification process for turbine
engines involve shooting a chicken through the running engine with an air cannon?

Bit of shock there. . . . .

The point is, S&W and any other maker of any other product, is going to ALWAYS look for better
ways to make parts. For example - how many 1911s does Kimber sell in a year and how many
does Colt make in a year? I don't know, but I do know that in 1985 Colt ONLY made forged, old-method
parts and NOBODY made 1911s but Colt. In the late 1990s, an upstart company Jericho manufacturing
in the New York City metro area came out with a 1911 that was BETTER than Colt and ALL the smaller
parts were MIM. They darned near put Colt out of business, and once it was seen that lower
prices, high quality (possible due to new methods) and giving the customer the features they
wanted would sell, there are 20+ companies competing with Colt on 1911s.

Innovate or die. MIM is innovation and will not be the end of it. Jericho had never made a gun part
before but WAS an expert in making precision parts by modern methods. Colt is barely hanging on
and Jericho is doing very well. I don't know for sure, but I will bet that many/most parts inside a
Colt 1911 today are MIMed.

Jericho is Kimber - in case you missed that part.

Oh, yes - I think there are a lot of transmission gears being made by MIM nowdays. No shock
there ever, of course.

Bill

[dubber123]

Just to add to Birchs apparent heartburn, if you think Winchester is somehow infallible, you should have seen the new Model 1300 I bought that wouldn't chamber even low brass 2-3/4". I had to repair that one myself. A friend/gunsmith had someone bring him in a new one of the same model, it was as yet unfired. Upon inspection, it had a full length crack in the chamber area. Yep, they ALL make junk. If S&W determined MIM'd barrels were safe and functional, it was only after a lot of testing. They are not going to risk a lawsuit over one of the most inexpensive pistols they have ever sold.

[35remington]

The description of the jam......the round standing up against the roof of the chamber, sounds more like a magazine timing issue than anything to do with barrel construction. In other words, a bit of a bolt over base misfeed.

Before attempting to do any ill advised "polishing" of parts, know what caused the malfunction and address only those areas. A picture of the malfunction or a simulation of it with a picture would be most helpful. The actual number of pistols that truly need "polishing" is pretty close to zero. Proper diagnosis of problems leads to less unnecessary and potentially harmful modification.

Again, cannot see how barrel construction is at fault here unless more information is provided.

[dmize]

Don't know how many of you are aware of this but if you have a gas engine automobile made in the last 10 years odds are good that the connecting rods are made of powdered metal (MIM),amongst other pieces too.

[theperfessor]

i can understand being unhappy with fit and finish. But not with the manufacturing process - providing that process meets the necessary standards of strength, dimensional accuracy, etc.

There are so many wonderful manufacturing processes available now that designers are still getting up to speed on how to use them effectively.

[Lefty Red]

Don't know how many of you are aware of this but if you have a gas engine automobile made in the last 10 years odds are good that the connecting rods are made of powdered metal (MIM),amongst other pieces too.

Have on doubt the MIM does a great job of that. But aren't the cyclinders made of steel or alloy? solid? Where the gas is jetted into and the pressure is high cause it goes BOOM and forces the piston down?

And does anyone here think that S&W, which is trying to produce the cheapest weapon it can for the highest profit ratio, is using the high end MIM tech that a jet engine is using? I am thinking no.

[JHeath]

MIM is not the equivalent of a gold plated ring. Kimber is using the process and they produce anything but a cheap, low quality firearm. . . .


Money does matter. S&W needs to produce firearms in a cost range that makes them sellable. YOU may be willing to pay another 150 bucks for milled parts but that doesn't mean the next guy will, or his 200 friends. . . .

I don't see tons of posts here about "my MIM gun broke, again" or "don't buy S&W, those MIM parts fail right away" so people must be getting good use from their guns.

My take- this is a problem in people's mind, not in their gun.

Exactly, we agree: this is a problem in people's minds. Modern technology economically produces a product that works and (let's concede) is durable. It costs $400 and squirts bullets like a Pez dispenser. Meanwhile a lone craftsman hand-forges a flintlock rifle out of genuine steel and stocks it with flamed maple; it is slow and inefficient to shoot. Why would somebody pay $4000 for it? Because it means more, in their mind. The value is in our minds. But it's not any less real for that.

This members of this forum are dedicated to such silliness. Why bother paper patching? Why try to get a worn .43 Spanish Rolling Block to group better? When you can buy an off-the-shelf MIM/polymer wonder for less money and trouble?

The value is in our minds. You are right, MIM allows companies to competitively produce products of relatively high quality. This reflects the values of a world where the dollar makes craftsmanship irrelevant. That world is why try we escape to the woods. That is why we escape to church. That is why we escape to the garage to paper-patch for a silly iron-sighted relic that will never kill another bison, so why bother?

That does not make us Luddites. "The cynic sees the cost of everything, and the value of nothing." I acknowledge the cost and inefficiency of craftsmanship. Surely you can see its value, or you would not be on this forum.

Chartres Cathedral was built by hand, and took decades. Probably it is not very well engineered. We could build it more ecomically in the same shape with cast concrete and rebar and it be stronger, "better", cheaper. We could cover the same square footage far cheaper and more safely with a tilt-up warehouse. So where is the value of this old building? In our minds.

[35remington]

There are enormous forces at work on automobile connecting rods. They must resist and redirect considerable inertial forces and turn the crank. So we can't minimize the role they play.

Again, the OP's problems are probably related to magazine issues, and indirectly to the short runup time short autoloaders have which is inherently problematic.

There are places it is just not wise to go in terms of autoloader reliability. Making the gun smaller causes reliability problems, and the smaller you go the worse they get. This is true for all autoloading pistols of all makes, in that it is much easier to make a reliable larger autoloader than a reliable smaller one.

The ironic thing is that we favor the little guns when we are most in need of reliability despite the fact that they are the least likely arm to provide it. This has everything to do with carryability and nothing to do with reasonable common sense.

Nothing like arming yourself with the most conveniently carried, most likely to jam type of gun available.......which the very small automatics are.

[garym1a2]

Ford went MIM on connecting rods in 2000-01 on the powerstroke also.

Don't know how many of you are aware of this but if you have a gas engine automobile made in the last 10 years odds are good that the connecting rods are made of powdered metal (MIM),amongst other pieces too.

[birch]

Jheath, everything you wrote is exactly why I started this post. There is something to be said for true craftsmanship. If I had known about the MIM barrel and bought it anyway, I would have had nothing to write about. I chose to buy the Smith and Wesson because I know of their heritage and how long the company has existed. There is a reason that Smith and Wesson has been around for so long--they built quality guns and were competitive with the market. I based part of my decision on buying the Smith on two ideas--heritage and quality. Too me, Smith sacrificed both for money.

It is the same reason someone will buy a 4 cavity Hensley and Gibbs for 200 dollars when they could buy a Lee 6 cavity for 40. There is something to be said for heritage and quality. This is not to say that Lee does not produce a quality product, they just lack something that a H and G mould does not. It is very sad that a company like Smith and Wesson is producing this junk--it is even more sad that a guy like me, who learns all he can about something before trying it out, could have been fooled into paying for this trash.

As far as the post by 35remington--You should really take a firearms history lesson before you go posting something that an advanced firearms student knows very early into collecting and shooting. I could give you a list a half a mile long about the history of small autoloaders in and out of combat situations. I will just list the 1903 Colt as a starting point, and let you learn from there. The 1903 and its FN counterpart were and still are one excellent small frame pistol. I will list the Walther PPK as another big one that might give you some direction in your research. There are more pistols older than those, but why dont you start there since it is very obvious you know little to nothing about firearms. On second thought, you should probably just stick to casting boolits because I doubt you will ever learn anything about the guns you put them in.

There is no reason why a small frame autoloader should not function well. In fact, if they are engineered and produced correctly, they are just as reliable as their large frame counterpart. I assume you are the type of guy who needs a big ol' gun to feel secure. This helps proove my point that you know nothing about guns.

When I was a young buck, my family didnt have alot of money at times. We ate alot of venison and salmon. When my family needed some meat, we hopped in his truck with a marlin 60 and a spotlight and drove around until we found a deer standing by the road. That little .22 dropped them in their tracks and we never, not one time, had to track a blood trail. We didnt need a big rack, a big gun, or even a big deer for that matter. If it was old enough to fend for itself, we would eat it. I am sure that a guy like you who needs big ol' guns would nt even think about shooting a deer with a small, or no rack.

My point is that a small caliber autoloader is all that I need to think of myself as protected. It is comfortable and in my pants or coat all of the time.

There are many companies who make fine small caliber automatics. Unfortunatly Smith and Wesson lost some brand loyalty by pulling this trick.

I will leave my thoughts there. I could argue with the guys that don't get it until the cows come home and they will never understand--too thick. I dont care if MIM is used in planes, trains or automobiles--I can't fit any of them in my gun safe.

To those who understand and keep trying to talk sense into these guys--good luck. Its like arguing with a women on her period.

[btroj]

Wow, a true Luddite. If it is hammer forged or milled it can't be good? You would turn down a Kimber over MIM parts?

I know what Bugs Bunny would say here and I can't disagree.

MIM isn't cheaper, it is modern. Why not make a part in a manner that requires little to no fitting or finish work? I applaud the industry for finding ways to produce quality guns at an affordable price point.

[Mal Paso]

I had a MIM S&W firing pin fail. I noticed because the pin stuck in the primer and the hammer had to be pulled back before the cylinder would turn. After tens of thousands of rounds, the tip of the firing pin had become a crater and the rough edges hung up in the primer. I touched it up with a file, ordered 2 new pins from Brownell's and kept on shooting until the new ones arrived. One of the pins I ordered was S&W MIM and the other custom machined from tool stock.

While I was waiting for the pins I complained about the MIM failure on this forum. The response I got was from guys that had the machined pins fail, breaking into 2 pieces rendering the gun useless. When the pins arrived MIM went back into the gun and has 20K rounds since. The machined pin was tucked into the heal of the grip as a Ward against Murphy.

[Lefty Red]

I saw where they made a bicycle frame out of laminated cardboard! Doesn't mean I want them to use that for my handguns.

If MIM barrels are the "new" thing, then time will tell. Personally, I won't be one of the testers.

And if you like Kimbers, then they could be made from cast iron and people would still buy them. Its a personal thing, not a profession decree about the MIM parts. I am sure that with enough time and better materials, we will be able to have useable weapons from our home 3D printers.

[btroj]

And some will complain

[fecmech]

Those vanes (or fins) are a zero shock component.
No shock at all on the turbine blades during engine start on a cold soaked engine when they go from -10F to 400+C. Yeah right!

[35remington]

birch, you misunderstand completely. I know far more about small autoloading firearms of the "modern" type than you give me credit for.

The small autoloaders I speak of did not exist much before this point in time and have very short slides and barrels and extremely limited breechface overtravel past the magazine well, another thing that did not exist much earlier than today's times. Rack the slide with the magazine removed and see how far your Bodyguard's breechface travels past the magazine well.......not very far at all. Compare to a Walther or a Colt 1903.......it's far less than these pistols. I do not include them in this category. You did, not me.

Little time exists for the "new" pistols to get a round into feeding position before the slide goes back forward.....and jams like you report are very common. Which sounds suspiciously like a bolt over base misfeed. Often after low round counts the magazine spring takes a set and the gun starts becoming unreliable.

You may wish to reevaluate the wisdom of your comments, as some of the most problematic pistols are the ultra short barreled autoloaders that have little runup to their slide travel. Your Bodyguard qualifies. If less time for the magazine to get its rounds into place exists, malfs are more likely to occur, and they will if the magazine spring is a little on the marginal side to get the job done.

Trust me.......I am one of the worst guys to get in an argument with on this forum on autoloader problems and design. My request for a picture of the malfunction was an attempt to diagnose the problem as a favor to a guy that clearly has a less than complete understanding of autoloader function, as evidenced by your attempt to blame it on MIM construction.

The nature of the jam suggests something else entirely, and is a clue to the cause. MIM should be last on your list.

Apparently you are not alone in having problems. Read the top line.

http://www.thesurvivalistblog.net/smith-wesson-bodyguard-380-semi-auto-pistol/

Not to single out the Smith......just to point out that, like 3 inch 1911's, super downsizing the pistol often does not work.

[NoZombies]

The nature of the jam suggests something else entirely, and is a clue to the cause. MIM should be last on your list.


35Remington is 100% on the money here and in the rest of his posts on this thread.

The problem you are having with the gun has nothing to do with the manufacturing process that you don't trust.

[NoZombies]

I worked at an airport for many years and if you are using a jet engine for your comparison, you are way off base.

I worked for a company that designed and built jet engines for a while, and while I can say I do know something about jet engines, I know nothing about working at an airport. Your comparison is way off base.

[olafhardt]

I think this thread is a great example of how far people will go to cover up when they make ill informed incorrect statements and get caught. Birch and your defenders are wrong, you dont know what you are talking about. This is not the place to do that. I read some where I think in one of the Brownell's books," He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a not knows.

[FergusonTO35]

On the topic of small autoloaders, my Kel-Tec P-32 is super reliable, as much as my full size handguns. I can shoot it fast and with good accuracy. I keep it loaded with 75 grain flat point boolits at 880 fps. If I could only have one carry gun the P-32 would be it, this little gun has earned my trust.

[birch]

One more post to add to this forum:

I have read and reread the whole four pages of posts made by myself and others. I must say that I am sorry for many of the posts that I made. This was the first time I have ever let my emotions get in the way of presenting a logical argument. Some of the things I said were downright mean and unlike me as a person in my everyday life. Sometimes it is so easy to say and act a certain while typing on the internet. It sure is different having an argument with somebody when you can actually look into their eyes. I think somtimes, without facial expressions and body language, that actual intent is sometimes lost while typing.

My views about the Smith .380 have not changed. However, I could have crafted my arguments without malice. It is vary apparant after a complete reread that I was feeding off negativity and giving it back ten fold. For that I apologize and will be careful with my response to responses in the future.

take care,
Casey B.

[btroj]

No offense taken. Many, heck most, of us hold some strong opinions. Must be a conservative gun owner thing.

A pistol that isn't reliable isn't worth much, particularly one sold and bough for self defense. Wouldn't be the first time one was poorly designed.

I will say this, 35Rem knows his handguns very well. Want sound advice on a Good carry or conceal piece? Ask him.

No hard feelings from me.

[olafhardt]

It takes a man (or woman) to fess up. Good on you Casey B. This is a good place to do it. We love people who tell on them selves and have an occasional contest to see who screwed up worst. Check my signature which I won here in a completely fair contest that I set up and ran and won. So far no onene has challenged my record.

[dmize]

I really do understand the consternation that the OP stated. Technology and advances in manufacturing are never going to stop. Just think of Ruger and the start of investment casting.
Not trying to be a smartaxx but it is as simple as if you like it fine and if you don't fine. I am willing to bet that
A. S&W knows what they are doing
B. The majority of these weapons aren't going to be fired much,as least not as much as most of us shoot.
C. Again the majority aren't going to be reloading,they want a weapon to go with their new CCW permit and a couple boxes of shells.
Now if I may,here is the main thing that irritates me about stuff like this. When ever a company comes out with the newest,best,latest and greatest cost saving way of manufacturing and bottom line you see a $10 difference in price.

[MtGun44]

". . . you see a $10 difference in price.".

Rather than a $20 increase this month and another next spring, etc. Materials and labor are always
increasing, keeping the price from increasing at the same rate takes careful engineering and smart
manufacturing.

Bill

[garym1a2]

Just buy a Glock and you function issues go away.

[dubber123]

Just buy a Glock and you function issues go away.

How true. I don't think Glock makes any pocket 380's though. I don't think they make any small anythings actually.

[MtGun44]

While Glocks are fairly reliable, they DO jam occasionally and the .40s have a history of blowing up with
distressing regularity with factory ammo.

Bill

[HATCH]

How true. I don't think Glock makes any pocket 380's though. I don't think they make any small anythings actually.

Glock does make several models that are in 380. they don't meet the import requirements to be brought into the usa .

The smallest caliber Glock.sells in the usa is 9mm.

[dubber123]

Glock does make several models that are in 380. they don't meet the import requirements to be brought into the usa .

The smallest caliber Glock.sells in the usa is 9mm.

I was unaware of that, thanks. I was more referencing their kinda "chunky" nature, at least to my eyes. I had myself convinced I needed one of their single stack .45 compact models, but it just felt a little too bulky when I got to handle one.

[mikeym1a]

I just found out what MIM steel is, sinctered metal. Sinctered bronze makes great bushing, but, I feel leary of shooting bullets through any sinctered metal. It's all about saving money. Precision molded parts, less skilled craftsmen/women, less money in the manufacturing phase, higher profits for the company. Plus, I don't think their prices have come down. I'll pass.

[MtGun44]

Not really sintered (you misspelled it). The final metal structure is very dense, unlike sintered
metals which are extremely porous. They start with extremely fine metal powder and a polymer
binder which can be injection molded much like plastics. After molding in an oversized mold, the
parts are subjected to a very high temp treatment which burns out the polymer and consolidates
the metal powder into a dense structure much like a forging, shrinking a predictable amount in the
process as the metal densifies.

EVERYTHING is ALWAYS about saving money. Otherwise things increase in cost endlessly and
nobody can afford to buy them. Your comparison to a sintered bronze bearing is totally off
base, nothing could be further from the truth.
As to the endless complaints by all of us that there are "no more craftsmen out there" --
it is basically true. In the USA it is very nearly impossible to find high skill
gunsmiths to do hand fitting these days. Very few are out there at all and they can demand and
get high wages. I know the folks running the manufacture of some of the finest 1911s being
hand-crafted (with lots of the finest CNC helping out, too) today and they CANNOT expand due
to the impossibility to locate any significant number of skilled craftsmen to increase their production.
This is endemic in our current society where few young people are interested in working with
their hands and fewer still have made the effort to develop their skills to a very high level. Too
many become lawyers and lots choose to be on welfare and bend their minds with chemicals.
Neither helps us find skilled craftsmen able to make fine equipment.

It's also interesting that you seem to think that "higher profits for the company" is somehow a
bad thing. How sad that many in our society take this view.

Bill

[Lights]

Bill you are pretty much spot on with your description of the MIM process. how do I know. I am a Moldmaker and I have built MIM molds for Ruger, S&W, Kimber and a ton of others. The company that I work for is one of the largest MIM molders in the USA. Most of the people that say that MIM is junk do not know what the hell they are talking about. These parts have been engineered and have had extensive destructive testing done to them to make sure they are up to the task.

Oh and by the way. I have a .380 bodyguard and it shoots just fine. No FTF or FTE yet with around 600 rounds put down the tube so far.

I have always loved it when someone tells me they just do not make things as good as they used to. I then tell them nope they sure don't. That's why your not driving a Model A.

[JHeath]

I have always loved it when someone tells me they just do not make things as good as they used to. I then tell them nope they sure don't. That's why your not driving a Model A.

So why keep your grandfather's clunky old Elgin pocket watch in a safe place, and how much will your grandson treasure your Casio? The Casio keeps better time at a fraction of the cost, and is more durable. By every objective measure it is "better." It is also disposable and unlovable. It means next to nothing because of the way it was manufactured, and I do not think time will add any lustre.

I do not drive a Model A. But I notice the people who own them take care of them, and have for as long as I can remember. They meant something to our grandparents, our parents, and they still mean something. I do not think my grandkids or anybody else will treasure my '98 Corolla.

I recently chose between a 1903 Colt and a Model 51 Remington. I do not foresee my grandchildren 90 years from now making the same difficult choice between a 92 year old BodyGuard and a LCP. Those will be recycled with the Casio and the Corolla.

[dubber123]

So why keep your grandfather's clunky old Elgin pocket watch in a safe place, and how much will your grandson treasure your Casio? The Casio keeps better time at a fraction of the cost, and is more durable. By every objective measure it is "better." It is also disposable and unlovable. It means next to nothing because of the way it was manufactured, and I do not think time will add any lustre.

I do not drive a Model A. But I notice the people who own them take care of them, and have for as long as I can remember. They meant something to our grandparents, our parents, and they still mean something. I do not think my grandkids or anybody else will treasure my '98 Corolla.

I recently chose between a 1903 Colt and a Model 51 Remington. I do not foresee my grandchildren 90 years from now making the same difficult choice between a 92 year old BodyGuard and a LCP. Those will be recycled with the Casio and the Corolla.

I think we have drifted way off the origional topic. This all started about how a MIM barrel was somehow cutting corners too much, or possibly unsafe. I'm sure it was implemented as a cost cutting measure. The fact that it employs new technology means it is perfectly functional and safe at a reduced cost. The Bodyguard is a small 380 in a market full of small 380's. If they had any hope to get much of a market share, they had to offer some things the others didn't, such as the integral laser. Those aren't free, and to keep the costs competitive, something had to go, apparently a forged barrel. We also need to remember this is a sub $400 gun, and that just doesn't buy much today. If I have my facts straight, a Colt Peacemaker back in the 1800's cost the average cowboy about 6 months wages. Guns are comparably CHEAP today by that measure.

I don't like plastic, I don't like molded parts. Thats just me. My last handgun was made in 1917. I doubt any of these new injection molded wonders will ever become family heirlooms, but thats not their purpose. We can still get handfitted, beautiful works of art. Just save up 6 months salary for them.

[JHeath]

I think we have drifted way off the origional topic. This all started about how a MIM barrel was somehow cutting corners too much, or possibly unsafe. . . .

I agree with everything else you said, but we did not drift off-topic; on the contrary, we got to the core of it. This thread is about whether objections to MIM are rational, and more generally what constitutes "quality." If quality is only about the performance-to-price ratio, then objections to MIM may be irrational. But if quality is about the craftsmanship that went into a product regardless of its performance-to-price ratio, then objections to MIM might make sense.

Does a MIM barrel represent reasonable quality for the price? How does its performance-to-price compare to a $25,000 Holland and Holland double rifle? In that sense, maybe the BodyGuard compares favorably to an H&H.

What if to be more cost-effective, H&H introduced MIM barrels. Would it be rational to complain about the quality of MIM then?

It depends how you define "quality." And this thread shows that people have fundamentally different perpectives about quality, so different expectations about what constitutes a reasonable complaint.

I would like to have seen a more thorough discussion of the metallurgical properties of MIM. E.g. the failure mode for a casting might be a sudden fracture, as opposed to a forging that might bend double before it breaks. It sounds like MIM has more the properties of a forging, with perhaps a little less ultimate strength.

[Idaho Sharpshooter]

it would be very difficult to convince me to buy a new S&W of any kind. This is just one more reason, along with general quality control (or lack of it).

[olafhardt]

Well you elitests have stepped on my toes agian Of course good craftsmanship is available today. If you want to buy it just purchase a Case pocket knife. My pressfit barrel Smiths are wonderful revolvers lock and all. My 1970's Win 94 is a better rifle than any pre 64 I have ever seen. Why in God's world would anyone think that human +old technology can beat human + new technology. Tommorrow I am going to hop into my 2001 Honda with 260,000 miles on it and go to town. If you are on the road with your model T, I will zip past you. You will get this message pretty quick since I do not have to go to the telegraph office to send it.

[historicfirearms]

Well you elitests have stepped on my toes agian Of course good craftsmanship is available today. If you want to buy it just purchase a Case pocket knife. My pressfit barrel Smiths are wonderful revolvers lock and all. My 1970's Win 94 is a better rifle than any pre 64 I have ever seen. Why in God's world would anyone think that human +old technology can beat human + new technology. Tommorrow I am going to hop into my 2001 Honda with 260,000 miles on it and go to town. If you are on the road with your model T, I will zip past you. You will get this message pretty quick since I do not have to go to the telegraph office to send it.

You are the first person I've ever heard say that their 1970s M94 was better than a pre 64. I've owned over 20 different pre 64 model 94s and exactly two post 64 models. I got the second post 64 to make sure the first one wasn't just a fluke ***, nope. I'll never own another post 64 model 94.

[Lights]

Where is this going? My Chevy truck is better that your Ford. LOL

[garym1a2]

I would get a Dodge, the Fords use powder metal rods.

Where is this going? My Chevy truck is better that your Ford. LOL

[dubber123]

I would get a Dodge, the Fords use powder metal rods.


He He.. Good one :) But I think the Dodges use them too.. At least I'm pretty sure the 6.1L Hemis in the R/T's do.

[MtGun44]

Can't agree on fit and finish on pre-64 94s, but certainly the function of later ones is fine. Of course,
they DO cost too much to compete anymore, and are made in Japan on CNC machines. As to the 2001
Honda Accord - mine has 347K and is fine. :bigsmyl2: Great car! I agree with your point in most cases.

Bill

[dubber123]

It depends how you define "quality." And this thread shows that people have fundamentally different perpectives about quality, so different expectations about what constitutes a reasonable complaint.

This is a very good point. In this particular case, if you buy a sub $400, polymer framed blowback pistol and it comes equipped with a laser, goes bang reliably, and flings a bullet in the general direction you want it to, I feel you got all the quality you have coming. In the market they are competing in, I personally would expect no hand fitting at all. I also personally would have rather bought a used .38 snub for the same money, but not all people like that particular platform, and choose something else.

[MtGun44]

To pick a nit --- I think it is significant that the Bodyguard is a locked breech design. Substantial recoil
reduction over blowback designs like the PPK. Othewise, agree with your post.

Bill

[olafhardt]

I have to make a sort of apology hear. I have never checked out the fit and finish on a model 94. They all look like there supposed to, to me. It seems that the gun in question had a line down the barrel that somebody thought shouldn't be there. That started the whole brew-ha-ha

[dubber123]

To pick a nit --- I think it is significant that the Bodyguard is a locked breech design. Substantial recoil
reduction over blowback designs like the PPK. Othewise, agree with your post.

Bill

My error Bill, I incorrectly assumed it used the simplest design for a pocket pistol. So you actually get a bit more for your money in this case. I still don't want one, but I'm sure many on here wouldn't want any of my antiquated junk either, it's personal preference I guess.

[MtGun44]

Heck, I have a whole gun safe full of 'antiquated junk' - I LOVE old guns. :-) I just add to that
love of blued steel and walnut a practical engineering perspective that making that sort of
stuff with the old methods is VERY expensive today, and only a small fraction of the gun
owner market can afford them. A business only catering to that group would be a very small
outfit, indeed. Actually, there are a number of small companies making guns that are
just as nice as the best quality from the 1890s or the 1940s. They just are really expensive
(and beautiful!) guns. Thank goodness for used guns! That way I can have a few of
the nicer old guns - although my budget doesn't permit very many, even used.

To make affordable guns you need to work on ways to keep the functionality
and lower the labor content, just that simple. For the "gun as a tool" group, this is fine,
but it sure doesn't do much for the "gun as art" group. I have a foot firmly in each camp.

Bill

[dubber123]

I've never succeeded much in owning a gun to be used solely as a tool. I truly understand the concept, and have been trying to buy something to be used as such. I'm thinking maybe a Glock. Rugged, reliable, not so attractive.. :)

I have mostly S&W revolvers for handguns, not that other makes don't have attractive features, but I find Smiths "prettier" than most, with more attractive lines, and generally nicer finish. I wish they were as rugged as a Ruger, or maybe I wish Rugers were as pretty as a Smith.

[MtGun44]

Current production S&W revolvers are pretty reliable and durable machines.

Bill

[DX250]

This quote was taken from
http://www.mimaweb.org/Genl_guidelines.htm


"Final Properties

MIM fabrication is ideal where near-full density, high impact toughness, fracture toughness, and fatigue and corrosion resistance are required. And if non-standard material properties are required, these can be developed with new alloy systems.

MIM is appropriate for materials that are difficult to machine, materials with multi-phase microstructures, or high work-hardening materials. And it delivers a high-quality surface finish (32 rms or better) and cleaner feature detail than investment casting. "

The properties stated above and in other locations make mim sound quite good for the barrel of a gun. With that said I do love my old I-frame and top break Smiths with their wonderful hand fit quality. The big problem with that quality is the inconsistency in the dimensions. Take my I-frame, I had a hammer fail at the firing pin attachment point and went through 6 replacement hammers to find one large enough to fit and function as the original did. With the advent of cnc in firearms manufacturing you get very consistent machine tolerances that would allow for the use of parts that are made to very tight tolerances that need little if any final machining. This is why we have mim parts. A side effect of mim is reduced labor costs, lower retail costs and, higher profits for the company.

As to the reliability issues of the modern wave of mouse guns out there, I have a Keltec p32 that is wonderfully reliable and consistent regardless of the grip I have on the gun. Those attributes did not apply to the p3at and lcp that I have owned.

As a side note Ford has been using mim connecting rods in the 4.6L V8's since 93. While connecting rods are not a great comparison for a barrel they do under go extreme forces in there use. Take the 4.6l at redline of 5250 rpm, the rod travels with one end traveling in a circle at speed of 110.7mph while the other end is traveling down the 3.543'' bore coming to a dead stop at the top and bottom of the stroke with alternating compression and tension strokes. This is while being side loaded in 2 directions and all this is happening 175 times each second and at a temperature of a few hundred degrees.

To sum it all up do the current mim guns nostalgic warm fuzzy feeling of knowing that your gun was hand fit by a skilled craftsman, hell no. Do they lend themselves to low cost mass produced reliable firearms that you can carry anywhere and not worry about finish wear, yes. do they create a firearm that parts are consistent and interchangeable with little or no fitting, yes.

The bottom line buy what you want to if it is not up to your standards SELL IT and buy something different. All I ask is before blindly jumping into a feeling, movement, political orientation, new car or, anything else DO SOME RESEARCH AND FORM YOUR OWN OPINION.

This was not directed at anyone in particular.

rant off

[theperfessor]

^^ That says it all.^^

[btroj]

Silly people bringing reason to a paranoid rant.

[MtGun44]

Excellent post, #109.

A gunsmith friend agrees totally on the difficulty with inconsistent dimensions in hand
fitted older S&W revolvers. It is a real pain to fix them because of this. Having built up
a nice .38 Spl from a stripped frame found at a low price - mostly as learning experience,
I can verify that a grab bag of "proper" old parts for a K-frame is not even possible to ASSEMBLE
let alone WORK without many hours of hand fitting. The most fun is when you take off a touch
too much and need to get a 'new' (old) part! :-( According to my friend, swapping parts on newer S&W
revolvers is almost always a 100% drop in situation. Some fitting of hands and cyl bolts is
sometimes needed.

I really think the root of this whole discussion is that MIM is thought by the uninformed to be
some poor-quality manufacturing method that makes "cheezy" parts. Hopefully, this thread
has provided a bit of light on that process so that readers are more familiar with it and understand
that, if done properly, MIM can produce fine quality parts to close tolerances.

With parting lines. . . . . . :-(

Bill

[FergusonTO35]

Well said, Gray Area. I love my little P32 also, its the perfect mating of cartridge and gun. .380 is too much for a gun this size and price point, in my opinion.I like guns period, old and new. To me, they both have their advantages and drawbacks.

The old stuff is prettier and tends to have better trigger pulls. However, they also require alot more hand fitting, not to mention you have to deal with various production changes over the years. Also, every time you buy an old gun you are taking the risk that its going to need some work/have hidden defects and there is likely no warranty or guarantee. The firm that made it may not offer any parts and service support or even exist anymore. Repairs for old guns are closer to an art form than a skill, and priced accordingly.

Today's guns are proportionally way cheaper new than the old ones were in their day. I read somewhere that to purchase the guns of Old West legend, the Colt SAA and Winchester 73, would cost about a years income for most people in the nineteenth century. Even more recent twentieth century prices are alot highter than they are today. MSRP on a Marlin 336C in 1971 was $115.00. Adjusted for inflation that's $643.06. MSRP on the 444 back then was $145.00, the equivalent of $810.82 today. Interestingly, prices on New Haven Marlins are starting to enter that realm due to supply and demand, not actual manufacturing and marketing cost. Of course there are reasons for guns being cheaper today, which brings a mix of good and bad. New manufacturing methods such as MIM and CNC significantly reduce labor costs, but the one size fits all parts also can have sloppy fit and poor trigger pulls. Production in historic factories and locations has largely been halted, which keeps costs down but also deprives the guns of a much loved sense of heritage.

[bjeffv]

I see a lot of high end manufacturers advertising that they use parts fully machined from billet, I wonder why none of the MIM parts are advertised as state of the art? Its definitely a corner cutting cost saving measure, and the consumer isn't better off.

I have one I bought when it first came out, I will have to check the barrel to see what I have.

Considering I have had a thumb safety on a mimber sheer off I am not to keen on having a barrel as a MIM part.

[historicfirearms]

^^^^ mimber

That's funny.

[dkf]

As a side note Ford has been using mim connecting rods in the 4.6L V8's since 93. While connecting rods are not a great comparison for a barrel they do under go extreme forces in there use. Take the 4.6l at redline of 5250 rpm, the rod travels with one end traveling in a circle at speed of 110.7mph while the other end is traveling down the 3.543'' bore coming to a dead stop at the top and bottom of the stroke with alternating compression and tension strokes. This is while being side loaded in 2 directions and all this is happening 175 times each second and at a temperature of a few hundred degrees.


No the modulars have used powdered metal rods since their inception.(except the forced induction versions) Forged rods are still stronger however. MIM and Powdered Metal are completely different processes. Powdered metal parts have been improved with technology. They are now forged under higher pressures to increase strength. The transmission gears in the new 6R140 transmission in the F-250-F-650 are made out of powdered metal.