Anyone Else Dislike The S&W Airweight Original Finish

pipoman · July 22, 2006, 10:01 PM

I have always thought my M638 looked like a toy gun because of the epoxy? finish on the frame. I decided to attempt to remedy the ugliness.

Before

Pimptastic

Does anyone else think the original finish on the newer S&W is fugly?

18DAI · July 22, 2006, 10:13 PM

I'm one of those that finds that zit above the thumb latch to be so hideous, that I never get to take in the rest of the ugliness of the "new" .....stuff. They quit making good looking guns years ago, IMHO. YMMV. Regards 18DAI.

whitebb · July 23, 2006, 09:55 AM

I like your polish job! The NEW 638 looks better than the new 638! How long did it take you to remove the original finish?

The Terminator · July 23, 2006, 10:06 AM

It looks like you put a lot of work into your polish job. Good work! I have the 637, DAO, which is blued with a bobbed hammer. It is 2005 manufacture.

Mine says 637-2 on the frame. There was a contract run of these old style pistols. I was lucky to get one. No lock, firing pin on hammer. Never to be made again? Best -

hpg · July 23, 2006, 10:11 AM

pipoman,

I think the reason S&W doesn't polish the Airweights is this:

1-it saves them labor expenses of someone polishing it
2-if it's carried concealed it's not flashy, therefore not drawing attention to the gun.

I prefer the bead blasted finish myself. hpg

zebrajeb · July 23, 2006, 12:42 PM

I recently donated my Taurus 851 titanium shadow gray (same style as S&W 638) revolver to my daughter. Thought I'd buy another one to replace but found they are not being made any longer (this version anyway).

So thought I'd look at the S&W 638. I thought the finish was cheap looking and feeling. Also didn't like where the internal lock is placed. (FYI - Taurus puts theirs on the top of the hammer where you don't notice it at all.) Even though the price was really good, decided to keep looking for my old Taurus or get one of the newer similar models - even if they cost more than the 638 I looked at.

Just my opinion.

John

pipoman · July 23, 2006, 09:41 PM

Quote:

How long did it take you to remove the original finish?

It took about 1 1/2 hours with a 1/2 hp bench grinder with a rag wheel and green rouge and a Dremel using the same rouge. Then the small scratches and swirl marks were removed with Mothers Aluminum Mag Cleaner (good stuff). Then a cylinder brush to remove any debris in the cylinder and barrel. About 2-2 1/2 hours total.

That epoxy finish is tough. (I don't know if it is epoxy but it smelled like it as it was coming off) If the frame would have been the same as the barrel and cylinder it would have taken 30 minutes.

I think they use the epoxy to cover minor imperfections in the MIM frame. There are a few areas on the frame that are a little cloudy. This could be corrected with some ultra fine sandpaper.

MR.G · July 23, 2006, 10:12 PM

I polished the cylinder and barrel on my 638. The finish came off those areas easily. Didn't know that the frame could be polished out like that. Really nice job. Could it be done using just metal polish and rags? That is what I used on the barrel and cylinder.

July 22, 2006, 10:01 PM	#1
pipoman Senior Member Join Date: November 8, 2005 Posts: 897	Anyone Else Dislike The S&W Airweight Original Finish I have always thought my M638 looked like a toy gun because of the epoxy? finish on the frame. I decided to attempt to remedy the ugliness. Before Pimptastic Does anyone else think the original finish on the newer S&W is fugly?

July 23, 2006, 10:06 AM	#4
The Terminator Senior Member Join Date: February 3, 2002 Location: Georgia, 35 miles Northwest of the armpit Posts: 946	It looks like you put a lot of work into your polish job. Good work! I have the 637, DAO, which is blued with a bobbed hammer. It is 2005 manufacture. Mine says 637-2 on the frame. There was a contract run of these old style pistols. I was lucky to get one. No lock, firing pin on hammer. Never to be made again? Best - __________________ The Terminator John 3:16 (I hope to see You over there.)

July 23, 2006, 10:11 AM	#5
hpg Senior Member Join Date: September 14, 2002 Location: in the Bluegrass State Posts: 1,610	pipoman, I think the reason S&W doesn't polish the Airweights is this: 1-it saves them labor expenses of someone polishing it 2-if it's carried concealed it's not flashy, therefore not drawing attention to the gun. I prefer the bead blasted finish myself. hpg __________________ NRA member Semper Paratus

July 22, 2006, 10:13 PM	#2
18DAI Senior Member Join Date: September 30, 2005 Location: NC Posts: 2,156	I'm one of those that finds that zit above the thumb latch to be so hideous, that I never get to take in the rest of the ugliness of the "new" .....stuff. They quit making good looking guns years ago, IMHO. YMMV. Regards 18DAI.

July 23, 2006, 09:55 AM	#3
whitebb Senior Member Join Date: March 18, 2006 Location: ga Posts: 313	I like your polish job! The NEW 638 looks better than the new 638! How long did it take you to remove the original finish?

July 23, 2006, 12:42 PM	#6
zebrajeb Member Join Date: September 19, 2005 Location: Reno, NV Posts: 53	I recently donated my Taurus 851 titanium shadow gray (same style as S&W 638) revolver to my daughter. Thought I'd buy another one to replace but found they are not being made any longer (this version anyway). So thought I'd look at the S&W 638. I thought the finish was cheap looking and feeling. Also didn't like where the internal lock is placed. (FYI - Taurus puts theirs on the top of the hammer where you don't notice it at all.) Even though the price was really good, decided to keep looking for my old Taurus or get one of the newer similar models - even if they cost more than the 638 I looked at. Just my opinion. John

July 23, 2006, 10:12 PM	#8
MR.G Senior Member Join Date: July 20, 2001 Posts: 641	I polished the cylinder and barrel on my 638. The finish came off those areas easily. Didn't know that the frame could be polished out like that. Really nice job. Could it be done using just metal polish and rags? That is what I used on the barrel and cylinder.