Considerations on a 44 magnum.

[dwarven1]

TBP, Who is this John Taffin who wrote the article, and why is he an authority? I don't believe that I've ever heard of him, so I was wondering.

 

[Patriot]

TBP, Who is this John Taffin who wrote the article, and why is he an authority? I don't believe that I've ever heard of him, so I was wondering.

http://www.sixguns.com/

 

[Jose]

With today's strong brass, counter bored cylinders, or cylinders that completely enclose the rim of the cartridge case, are probably not needed. They also fill with crud and must be periodically cleaned or cases will not chamber BUT they are a sign of manufacturing quality and they are gone.

This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read, and probably written by someone who has no clue about what manufacturing and quality mean.

If a recessed cylinder serves no useful purpose yet creates chambering unreliability if not kept reasonably clean (as he claims), the extra machining operations neither represent manufacturing skill nor quality. They are just a waste of time and material.

The Japanese call that muda (waste) and their relentless elimination of it is one of the reasons why their quality is so high and their costs are reasonable.

 

[Jose]

TBP, Who is this John Taffin who wrote the article, and why is he an authority?

He ain't an authority on manufacturing, I'll tell you that much.

On that score he just repeats what others say without any basis to examine such statements. His comments about pinned barrels and recessed cylinders in S&W revolvers being signs of "quality" mark him as such.

 

[Patriot]

He ain't an authority on manufacturing, I'll tell you that much.

On that score he just repeats what others say without any basis to examine such statements. His comments about pinned barrels and recessed cylinders in S&W revolvers being signs of "quality" mark him as such.

No doubt. The definition of 'the expert' in the US is the one with the best overhead slides.
I only linked this for the manufacturing timeline and dash numbers relative to the changes made
to the .44 Mag at S&W. Those are accurate, even if his reasoning for those are faulty. I am
not touting him as God's gift to the historical record, only as a reference. It's the internet,
don't take everything you read as someone's expert opinion. You know the very relevant
adage about opinions?

 

[Marcus in the Darkus]

This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read, and probably written by someone who has no clue about what manufacturing and quality mean.

If a recessed cylinder serves no useful purpose yet creates chambering unreliability if not kept reasonably clean (as he claims), the extra machining operations neither represent manufacturing skill nor quality. They are just a waste of time and material.

The Japanese call that muda (waste) and their relentless elimination of it is one of the reasons why their quality is so high and their costs are reasonable.

I hear what you're saying, and I think it's a matter of semantics. Recessed cylinder bores are not in and of themselves a sign of manufacturing quality, but they do indicate a few things, including relative age of the revolver and extra machining of the pistol compared to today's guns. A properly cleaned and maintained revolver with recessed cylinder bores will present no additional chambering problems compared to a modern gun, although they are a PITA to clean. I think what the author was trying to get across is that pinned and recessed revolvers were hand fitted before CNC machining and modern metallurgical techniques took a lot of the soul out of revolvers. Then we had beautiful blueing and wood grips on the S&W N-frames, now we have brushed stainless and rubber. Then we had forged and parkerized metal in the actions with SA triggers that are just smooth as silk, now we have pot-metal crap. And when you close a perfectly fitted cylinder full of magnums that are all nice and flush with the rear face of a nicely blued cylinder, it's just a thing of beauty. Yeah, the function is that same, but the form was a lot nicer back then, IMO.

 

[Jose]

Then we had forged and parkerized metal in the actions with SA triggers that are just smooth as silk, now we have pot-metal crap.

Sorry, MIM is not pot metal crap regardless of how many dismiss it as such.

I wish people would actually educate themselves about what sintered metal really is and who actually uses it in all kinds of products (including high performance engines from several Euro manufacturers) before making such statements.

 

[EddieCoyle]

Is there any truth to the belief that the S&W revolvers won't stand up to punishment like the Rugers? Double Tap and other make some pretty good stuff (at least that is what they say) but will the S&W N frames be okay with it, especially the Mountain Guns?

No, there is no truth to this. There are two reasons for the common misconception that Rugers are stronger than S&W's:

1. Rugers look beefier. Rugers have thicker frames because Ruger casts their frames and they need to be thicker to have strength equivalent to frames that are forged and machined.
2. The "Ruger Only" .45 Colt loads in some load manuals. They say "Ruger Only" because these loads are too strong for antique and lower quality reproduction SAA revolvers. You could run these "Ruger Only" loads all day in a S&W 625 chambered for .45 Colt.

I put stuff through my N-frame and X-frame S&W revolvers that makes the stuff from Double Tap look like CB caps.

Sorry, MIM is not pot metal crap regardless of how many dismiss it as such.

I wish people would actually educate themselves about what sintered metal really is and who actually uses it in all kinds of products (including high performance engines from several Euro manufacturers) before making such statements.

+1,000,000

MIM got a bad rap because it was misapplied early on by some manufacturers (For example Kimber used MIM for internal extractors for 1911s when they should've used spring steel).

Done right, MIM is as strong as forged. Ferrari uses MIM to make connecting rods.

You can say that you don't like the way it looks however.

 

[Marcus in the Darkus]

I know exactly what MIM is - the connecting rods on my Mustang Cobra were MIM with cracked caps. The trigger and hammer in a 1960's vintage revolver is what, 4340? 4130? It is certainly forged alloy steel and it is also parkerized. I'd rather have it on my revolver than a MIM part, wouldn't you? I would also feel comfortable saying it represents higher quality than a new sintered metal action. The reason S&W went to MIM is because it is cheaper. They stopped pinning barrels and recessing cylinders because that was also cheaper. Rubber grips are cheaper than wood grips, which is why most new S&W revolvers don't have wood grips. You won't find blueing jobs on new revolvers like you will on a good vintage N-frame, again, because high-quality metal finishing costs a lot of money, and it is cheaper not to do so. Cheaper is not necessarily better unless you're looking at things from a manufacturing perspective.

 

[dwarven1]

Rubber grips are cheaper than wood grips, which is why most new S&W revolvers don't have wood grips.

I can't speak to the other points you made, but I suspect that the reason that they went to Hogue grips is that most of their customers were buying the darned things anyway. The FIRST thing I do when I get an S&W revolver is get rid of those miserable wood abominations that they foisted off on the consumer. I mean, really... does ANYONE'S hand really fit those wood grips? These, I mean:

[/

 

[Mikey]

I have to agree with Jose, done correctly MIM is no worst then anything else. Yes it is cheaper but cheaper does not always mean crappier. A company that does machining or forging badly will do MIM badly and vise versa.

And just in case anyone was wondering I got the Ruger Redhawk, my wife picked it up for my birthday.
http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=366245#post366245

 

[Jose]

I know exactly what MIM is - the connecting rods on my Mustang Cobra were MIM with cracked caps. The trigger and hammer in a 1960's vintage revolver is what, 4340? 4130? It is certainly forged alloy steel and it is also parkerized. I'd rather have it on my revolver than a MIM part, wouldn't you? I would also feel comfortable saying it represents higher quality than a new sintered metal action. The reason S&W went to MIM is because it is cheaper. They stopped pinning barrels and recessing cylinders because that was also cheaper. Rubber grips are cheaper than wood grips, which is why most new S&W revolvers don't have wood grips. You won't find blueing jobs on new revolvers like you will on a good vintage N-frame, again, because high-quality metal finishing costs a lot of money, and it is cheaper not to do so. Cheaper is not necessarily better unless you're looking at things from a manufacturing perspective.

I don't know what your professional background is. But don't try to tell us who are engineers and manufacturers that MIM represents lower quality than forged parts. Depending on the application, a MIM part is sometimes better.

You can say that you don't like MIM. Fine. But please don't tell us who look at this objectively that MIM is lower quality.

Quality is measurable. If I need a sear to hold a Rockwell C scale hardness of 50 for a case depth of .008" and a surface finish of 20 microns Ra for 20,000 cycles and MIM does that as well as a forging then MIM matches the quality of a forging. And at a lesser cost.

All the subjective arguments against MIM, pinned barrels, and recessed cylinders are BS. I have no idea why S&W used to pin barrels. I can tell you that properly engineered and assembled threaded joints do not need any mechanical aids to stay put together unless they are subject to extremes of vibration and rotation and a revolver's barrel screwed into a frame certainly is not.

 

[Marcus in the Darkus]

Gee, I was hoping this wouldn't turn into a 200-page diatribe on the metaphysics of quality. I certainly see a difference in quality between a 1960s vintage S&W model 29 and any current .44 magnum revolver in S&W's lineup, and I don't really think John Taffin was off base in his remarks on the subject. There's a lot more to the concept of quality than how efficiently, from a value-engineering perspective, a mechanical device achieves its design objectives.

 

[Jose]

Gee, I was hoping this wouldn't turn into a 200-page diatribe on the metaphysics of quality. I certainly see a difference in quality between a 1960s vintage S&W model 29 and any current .44 magnum revolver in S&W's lineup, and I don't really think John Taffin was off base in his remarks on the subject. There's a lot more to the concept of quality than how efficiently, from a value-engineering perspective, a mechanical device achieves its design objectives.

Typical.

Someone rants on about "quality" but when his definition of quality is challenged by those who actually deal with such issues in their professional life we get misdirection and "intangibles".

What you see different between a pair of Model 29s built 40 years apart is nothing more than design differences. That has nothing to do with quality. If you measured comparable characteristics our of a statistically significant sample size of both you would find the differences to be minuscule.

I've come to expect this out of fanatics of old guns, who cannot be satisfied by anything the modern iteration of the gunmaker they worship does.

I've heard the same whining from Winchester kool aid drinkers when it became public knowledge that the trigger design of the Model 70 was going to be changed with the resumption of production at FN's South Carolina facility.

You'd fit right in with the old S&W kool aid guzzlers at the S&W forum.

 

[Marcus in the Darkus]

Happy New Year, Jose.

 

[EddieCoyle]

Happy New Year, Jose.

Indeed. Jose, I agree with you, but for God's sake, don't take everything so personal.

One of the things most of us ignore is that if S&W (or others) built guns the way they did in "the good old days", they'd cost $1500.

Maybe more.

It's not laziness or greed that makes manufacturers go to CNC machining or MIM parts; it's necessity. If they continued to produce guns the way they did in the 60's or 70's, they'd have to sell them for big money - big enough to price them out of the market. They'd be like USFA or Freedom Arms - boutique guns with a limited appeal. Just for the record, these boutique guns are generally not Mass-compliant.

Guns today, produced the way they are today, are of a higher overall quality too. Your average modern production gun might not be as pretty, but statistically speaking, it's more likely to run well, for longer, than a random old gun (similarly new off the line).

In my not so humble opinion, S&W has done a tremendous job redesigning their parts and revamping their processes in order to continue to provide us with quality handguns at a reasonable price.

With that said, I still love the old blued, pinned and recessed revolvers.

 

[ranger4-7]

As usual, very well said.