Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns New Dan Wesson revolver

MIM isn�t investment casting and it isn�t sintering; although sintering is very similar.




Do I have a preference? No I don�t much care one way or another. I�m a gunsmith and I build 1911�s all the time, yet I�ve felt no compulsion to swap out any of the MIM parts on my personal carry guns. If they break, I�ll swap them out with whatever part I feel fits my needs. If I�m building a custom gun, I tend to go for the milled parts just so the parts match the quality of the rest of the gun.
As for reference on the DW cast internals�I have the Mk I eyeball. If you pull the side plate on a Dan Wesson revolver you will see the slightly rough surface and casting seams on internal parts that is the telltale sign of investment casting. And I don�t have any problem with investment casting, sintering (a little), or MIM; they�re all good sound processes. The issue I have with the investment cast parts in the DW revolvers is the second rate quality of SOME of the parts I�ve seen. Ruger has used investment casting forever, but their parts are very precise. So the difference isn�t he process, but the quality of the process.

Well we need to define �better�, because that can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. If you mean stronger, then I�d have to agree with you; they are typically not stronger than top notch milled/forged parts.
But MIM parts have show to be more than sufficiently strong and they are dimensionally perfect every time; not even CNC machines can do that. And because they are prefect every time (well almost; they have rejects), that means the gun is built closer to spec and typically has less problems than guns built by other processes. The cost savings isn�t on the individual part; MIM is NOT cheap! The cost savings is on factory returns that have to be repaired by a skilled technician. MIM is VERY expensive to setup for each part. When I did an article on Kahr arms back in �95 I spoke to the CEO and he was telling me he was about to take out a loan so they can start making magazine catches by MIM process; that was (at that time) TWO magazine catches. A fully machined part is more expensive than MIM, but not by much. The difference is, a CNC machined part is still not perfect, and must be hand fitted by a person. And no matter how good that person is, they will have bad days and will not duplicate the precision of an MIM part; they can�t, they�re human. So even though the milled/forged part may be dimensionally very close, and structurally a little stronger; factory return rates go up. So the factories see the MIM part as �better� because it�s structurally sufficient, yet dimensionally perfect allowing no hand fitting, and a much lower factory return rate.
What reference??? Pick up a S&W revolver made sometime before MIM and after WW II and feel for yourself. I�ve been doing action work on S&W�s for 25 years, I know how �smooth� S&W�s are over the years.

I have seen broken everything over the years on all different types of manufacturing processes. MIM is used by non 1911 guns and works out VERY well. Most stories of broken MIM parts are from guns that are over 15 years old. I have several 1911�s I built for a number of customers in the early �90�s that have MIM hammers and not one has come back; not one.
If parts are breaking it�s not the process, but how the process is done. Milling and forging can produce some pretty piss-poor parts as well, just make them of the wrong metals. I�ve seen investment cast parts that would make your eyes water. It�s not the process that�s to blame, it�s the people doing the process.
Stop and think; if the process was so bad, why is it that every major firearms manufacture are using the process. They are all betting their reputation on MIM parts. Your condemning an entire process because of a few failures is just ignorant.
Back when S&W and Colt�s owned the LE market with their medium frame revolvers, you could find large number of cracked/broken frames in LE armory�s on any given day. These were all guns shooting .38 Special on FORGED frames of the best steel available at the time. Yet even guys who saw the same bunch of guns I saw, never condemned the forging process; that�s just ridiculous. Most times the problem could be traced down to just over-use. The other most common problem was holes drilled in the wrong place. I�ve seen it in batches of WW II Victory model S&W�s also. Things break, simple as that.
Like I said, MIM is the latest technology that�s getting kicked around out of ignorance. Before that, it was investment casting.
Just because MIM parts aren�t as strong as a milled part, doesn�t mean they�re garbage. It�s not an all or nothing thing.

But didn�t really make it to the firearms industry until the late �80�s to early �90�s. And the internet didn�t really pick it up until the late �90�s. 20 years is �new� in the gun business. I recall people pissin and whining about investment cast parts being used in Series 80 Colts, saying it was crap quality and wasn�t perfected; etc. The first firearm I�m aware of to use investment casting is the Johnson 1941 rifle, and as mentioned before; Ruger had it well perfected back in the 1950�s; yet people still bashed the technology rather than the quality of execution. It�s just ignorance.

Like I said, �new� is a relative term. As for �perfected� that�s a loose term; but you�re right�it�s about as perfected as the other technologies.

Again, we have to define �better�. Stronger? No. Dimensionally perfect? Yes. Milled/forged will be stronger if the metal chosen is correct, but not even CNC machining can match the dimensional accuracy of MIM.

Congratulations, you know how to use Wikipedia. Now can you copy and paste the part where it talks about using it in the firearms industry?

That�s a rather ignorant statement. If what�s on paper isn�t executed in steel then what�s on paper really doesn�t matter does it? MIM will produce a part that is in holding closer to the written specification than any other process commonly used in the firearms industry. Is that clear enough?

I never said it was stronger. I said it was sufficiently strong to meet he need or spec. Actually, milled/forged parts will typically be stronger all else being equal.


I wasn�t bashing the technology�but I was rather critical of DW�s investment casting quality because I�ve had to work on a number of them. Stop and think of it, can you name a well known gunsmith who advertised doing action work on DW revolvers? Only a fool would take up such a task; you�d lose money on every job because the internals are just too inconsistent. But don�t misunderstand what I�m saying. I�m not saying that DW�s are junk; they work and shoot rather well. I�m just saying that the quality of execution of their internal parts leaves much to be desired. If you�re happy with the action out of the box, the DW will give you long years of happy service.

Nothing magical, just holds to tolerance closer than any other common method; and it�s not �cheaper�, you need to do your homework. MIM is not cheap.

Here�s the problem with that statement�can you build 10,000 holding all parts to .0005 and keep costs down to hit your price point. If you can do that with nothing but machine equipment; you�re in the wrong business, and all those big name gun manufacturers just don�t know chit.

His �better� results seems to have come from investment casting; which is not as precise as sintering. I can�t help but wonder, did that change in process from a much more expensive sintering to a much less expensive investment casting come at one of the many times that Dan Wesson was on the verge of insolvency?

Rather goofy example, since a barrel shroud can�t be made by MIM process. So they made the barrel shrouds from extruded barstock; what point does that prove? The barrel shroud doesn�t really do much, and doesn�t take any real stresses.

Okay let me stop and ask you something. Have YOU ever had the side plate off of a Dan Wesson revolver? . Because if you haven�t, then your sum knowledge on the subject seems to come from your Google-Fu abilities.

As to the point made, on the one�s I�ve seen IN THE FLESH; I have seen one that I can remember that had a sintered hammer. The rest had investment cast hammers, hands, and triggers. If there was a change to other processes, they weren�t on the guns that I worked on. Who knows, maybe the change worked and that�s why I never worked on them. The point being, it�s not the process, but the QUALITY of the process. I can point to MANY guns that are made of forged/milled steel ONLY that are garbage.

As specifically for the Dan Wesson revolvers; I�ve always liked them. Had a .357 Pistol Pac at one point and I wish I still had it. But I don�t care what era you choose, pull the side plate of a Dan Wesson, then pull the side plate of a Taurus and with YOUR eyeball; YOU tell me which has the better quality under the skin.

Regardless, Dan Wesson revolvers are really cool and quite serviceable revolvers.

Ok looks Like I found a nerve, oops!

The nerve is telling me I'm wrong when I'm not.

When I see things that are wrong on the forum, I try to correct them so everyone comes away better educated. People have corrected me on several occasions and every time I was wrong I apologized for being wrong and thanked the individual for the correction. I've learned more than I can describe here on this forum.

If we stay dedicated to stating things as correctly as possible, and dispel the old wives tales, rumors, or just repeat things that are dated and no longer apply; then everyone wins.

no worries, I hadn't heard the news about DW revolvers, so your post is appreciated, here.

S&W usually does a good job of making their revos, but sometimes their design decisions are a head scratcher. It will be nice to see additional competition for them. A double action .475, or even a .45 Colt, would be real interesting.

It may be" clear" to you, but it's still not true
If it were, no one would use any other process for any fabrication


I showed you their site which said they didn't use casting for those parts.

Should we believe the companies source or your "MK I eye" (whatever that is supposed to be)






LOL
You just keep makeing claims that are simply false
The biggest selling point of MIM is LOW COST PRODUCTION


LOL
And yet the sources shown contradict your "eyeball"

Carry on then

There are MANY other reasons not to use MIM. Maybe you have a process that you've been using for generations that works very well. Colt's makes their hammers from extruded to shape barstock; it's quick, cheap and turns out a very good hammer. They've been doing this for over a generation. So why would they incur the expense of setting up for MIM?

I don't give a rats what you believe; I believe what I've ACTUALLY SEEN. You don't appear to have any experience beyond what you can Google up. So I don't really care what you believe. I've been inside Dan Wesson revolvers; in my eye, that trumps your Google skills.


I guess you just refuse to accept reason. Yes, it does lower cost of production over milled parts. It does so by making guns that don't come back nearly as often.


You just go on believing what you want to believe and spreading all the regurgitated stuff you learn on the internet.

I too have been in one, with the vested interest of actually owning one and shooting it extensively.

He's provided a reference that backs up my recollection; they did use sintered parts. I possibly did err in lumping sintered parts and MIM together, but I believe they are similar processes. The only reason I brought it up was for historical context, pointing out the actions weren't very smooth, though the guns had other good features and execution. You were the one who started off deriding me from your self-appointed Handgun Forum moderator position, and you continue to rant despite objective evidence contrary to your position.

For all I know it could be that the only ones I've worked on were the ones with investment cast internals. The model 15 that I had years ago had investment cast trigger; I clearly remember that, but I don't remember the rest. The last one I worked on was a 15 with some binding issues; was just severely gunked up; it had investment cast internals, and they were really bad.

My 15 Pistol Pac had an action that I was mostly happy with. The hammer throw is very short which makes the action a bit stiff, but improves lock time for SA firing.

I'm sorry if I came of as trashing DW's; I do like them and i think they're good guns. I just don't think the internal lockwork are up to the same standards as other makers. Even so, they're good revolvers and the barrel swapping makes them really cool and fun.

Every DW hammer system I've seen has lines from the mould they were made in.

IIRC, the last iteration of the DW revolver from CZ was alleged to have forged internals, but if any made it to market I've never known. I've only seen older internet ads for their sale.

Colt used moulded internals in the later Troopers, Cobras and Anaconda.

The bolting design on DW's suck.....but once in the notch, they are about perfect....anyone who has had to fix one knows what I'm talking about!

Colt used Sintered hammers and triggers in the Mk III's and they worked out pretty darned well; they were really well executed. I've done action jobs on Mk III's and they come out SOOO nice. The Mk V and later Troopers, Cobra's and Anaconda's are investment cast. Again, rather well executed investment casting. But, the big difference you see between the Sintered and the investment cast is the telltale signs on the parts. Invetment castings will show seams, and the non-polished surfaces will typically look like they were bead blasted. Whereas the sintered parts are smooth as a baby's butt.

Colt had some problems with the sintered parts early on with the Mk III's; parts breakage. But they seem to have worked that all out. It's too bad Colt didn't stick with the sintered internals, they were very nice. Still, my Anaconda had investment cast internals and while they didn't look as nice as the sintered, the action on my gun was still very smooth.

As for DW's bolting design; I've never encountered any issues with it. Takes a little practice to get used to it, but once you do, it seems to be bank vault tight. The Taurus Raging series took it a step further; tightest DA lockup I've ever seen.

LOL
I feel the same about your claims when you've repeatedly contradicted yourself

If you think your "Eye" is more accurate than the information posted on the DW site itself, then that's your choice.

I know which one is more likely to be credible