Transitional (MIM vs cast parts) SP101 DA only specimen?

[Tallbald]

Ruger site estimates year of make as 2011-2012. MIM (hollow back) trigger, apparent cast looking bobbed hammer, stamped not laser engraved serial number, billboard and emblem.
Have a 1999 SP101 with of course cast hammer and trigger, but no very recent DA only model to examine to compare particulars.
Is this gun a transitional specimen wherein the factory was beginning to integrate MIM parts? Are all new DA only models still cast hammers? I don't know how changeovers work, and if different style parts might be used at some time.
Am sure is not a parts gun. Just curious. Thank you. Don.

 

[cmonti77]

The redhawk line still has cast hammers, but changed over to MIM triggers. However, my 41 mag redhawk (2015 manufacture) has a cast trigger, so maybe it was just luck or maybe they've started switching back. I prefer the cast triggers.

 

[ADP3]

Three new DAO SP101's I picked up (today) all have cast hammers. The newest change appears to be a front tapered cylinder like the Wiley Clapp model introduced. The MIM spur hammer is a mistake on the SP101's as far as I'm concerned. I'm glad they have retained cast hammers on the DAO version. Mine are all nice ,tight, well+timed guns with properly aligned barrels and tight (but not too tight) b/c gaps. The chambers are also polished nice and smooth.

Best Regards,
ADP3

 

[kyguy]

Do the new sp101 sa and da ones have cast or mim? I have a 2.5" not sure if it's mim or cast but it's heavy and feels very well made, most durable feeling revolver I've held.

 

[ADP3]

Unload your gun and cock it single action. While it's cocked look at the sides of the hammer. If you see a squarish cavity on both sides of the hammer then yours is MIM. If it has smooth sides it's the older, and better in my estimation, cast hammer. The cast hammers also have nice, aggressive checkering on the hammer spur that makes it difficult for your thumb to slip when you cock the hammer. The MIM hammers have a wimpy, slick checkering that doesn't give your thumb as much purchase. Cast hammers have gotten pricey on the used market when you can find them. Most run between $135 and $150. All my SP10's are current DAO model 5720's. If Ruger dropped the MIM hammers I'd buy the spurred version again. Used Ruger SP101's used to be an option but around here they're within 5 to10% of new prices.

Best Regards,
ADP3

 

[22/45 Fan]

It's really ironic reading this exchange where cast hammers, triggers, etc. are now preferred. I remember when cast parts first appeared all the complaining was about these inferior parts replacing the obviously superior forged parts. Now, after decades of proven performance they are the parts of choice and the newer technology (MIM) is treated as a poor substitute. MIM parts have established a good track record so far and there is no reason to avoid them except for tradition.

 

[cmonti77]

MIM parts are cheap-looking and cheap-feeling, and they're only used because it saves the manufacturer money to use them. And then the savings is never even passed on to the consumer.

 

[s4s4u]

And then the savings is never even passed on to the consumer.

And just how do we know this? Perhaps the savings are passed on in the form of not increasing the price of a gun. If you have access to the books feel free to share.

 

[kyguy]

One thing I just don't like about many new Smiths is that they have that bead blasted finish, makes them look cheaper in my opinion, whereas it seems many new Rugers have the nicer looking more substantial steel finish. Maybe just me, but that's how it appears, not sure if it's the fact that Smith is using more MIM parts than Ruger..

One reason I'm drawn to the single actions is that they just look to built extremely well, and have a very high quality looking feel, weight, and finish, even compared to many of the new Smith double actions. I mean, compare a Vaquero to say a new Smith 686 and (yea apples and oranges) but the fit and finish of the Vaquero to me looks nicer.

 

[P89DC]

MIM parts are...only used because it saves the manufacturer money to use them....

If tighter tolerances saves money I'll take MIM every time. I have an older SP101 with cast parts and newer SP101 with MIM, the newer SP101 has cleaner machining, better trigger and doesn't need hammer shims. I just wish it had the contoured cylinder.

 

[cmonti77]

And just how do we know this?

Business Economics 101.

 

[s4s4u]

And just how do we know this?

Business Economics 101.

Feel free to enlighten us......

 

[cmonti77]

Feel free to enlighten us......

Turn a profit or go out of business.

 

[s4s4u]

Feel free to enlighten us......

Turn a profit or go out of business.

Well, duh!

 

[PriseDeFer]

Smith & Wesson has said that MIM made their Lifetime Warranty possible. Dimensional predictability. Where did all those guys with the vests and ties, files and stones and lead hammers go? They were there when those old black and white photographs of the Smith & Wesson factory floor were taken.
With a bunch parts to choose from and some fitting they could make forged steel lockwork sing. It can take time to develop the eye and skill for such work. Did their labor come cheap enough then that a company could afford a factory of artisans rather than just assemblers?

 

[cmonti77]

Well, duh!

You're welcome.

 

[22/45 Fan]

Did their labor come cheap enough then that a company could afford a factory of artisans rather than just assemblers?

That's exactly what made it possible. That and the fact that there was no other way to make guns at the time and guns weren't low cost items even then.