Conversation with MIM sales rep (long)

[Shear_stress]

I was at a recent trade show for more or less completely non-gun-related products when I stumbled across an unassuming, but very interesting booth. The fellow manning the booth represented a small company in Longmont, Colorado that specializes in the production of metal-injection-molded (MIM) parts. After all the debate on this forum and others about the extent to which MIM parts have ruined recent gun quality, I wanted to get the scoop from someone who makes these things. His opinions would not be impartial, but they would be interesting.

On the table was a wide and random array of "green" and finished parts. Immediately, I saw something that grabbed my attention: the trigger for an Accu-Trigger-equipped Savage rifle (you could tell by the slit for the "AccuRelease"). It was then that I noticed all the Smith and Wesson parts: revolver hammers and triggers, 3rd-generation semi-auto hammers, and numerous 1911 parts (hammers, sears, MSHs, etc.) After talking to the rep, here's what I found out:

1.) This company makes 85 different parts for S&W. I had understood that Smith made these parts in house, but I guess I forgot when century it is.

2.) In addition to S&W, the company makes parts for Savage, Remington, Mossberg, and even the late Winchester (he showed me the "end-cap"--not sure what to call it--of a Model 70 bolt).

3.) According to the rep, MIM results in parts with little or no porosity. He argued that recent advances have allowed them to produce parts with close to the theoretical densities (7.5-7.7 g/cc for most MIM steels).

4.) To pick a random example, the 2% yield and ultimate tensile strengths for MIM'ed 316L stainless (25 and 75 KSI), were no different than typical 316L steel.

5.) Their low-alloy ("MIM 46xx") steels are heat treatable to 48 HRC.

6.) The company makes parts for the medical-device industry.

7.) They have tried to eliminate visible mold parting lines. Yes, they are aware that consumers are very suspicious of MIM parts.

8.) Due to advances in the field, we can expect to see MIM parts that are larger and have different form factors than we are used to (slides or frames?)

All in all, it was pretty interesting. As for myself, I am still agnostic about MIM technology and tend to prefer older guns for subjective reasons--aesthetics, an old-fashioned sense of craftsmenship, etc. However, it looks like MIM is here to stay and will be popping up in unexpected places.

Just thought I'd pass this on.

[Car Knocker]

Thank you for relating your conversation.

[MarshallDodge]

I am familiar with that company. They were one of my customers when I lived in Colorado and have a good reputation.

My thoughts on MIM are positive. I have quite a few guns with MIM parts and have had zero issues. The look of a machined part is better, especially with a high polish and good bluing.

It does not matter if the part is MIM, cast, or machined. If the process has a quality control issue then the parts that come out of it will be flawed. I have seen machined parts fail because of a glitch in the heat treat process.

[fastbolt]

I've observed no particular issues with MIM parts in the S&W and Colt pistols I help maintain and personally own. FWIW, I've seen more issues arise with forged & cast parts over the years.

I remember asking someone from the S&W factory how things were going with their usage of MIM parts last year, and I was told that the factory continues to be pleased with the quality of the parts produced for them, and that they maintain ownership of the MIM molds used to produce their parts.

[PracticeFreedom]

Count me as in the dislike-MIM camp.
The problem I have with MIM has nothing to do with close-fitting/tolerances or price. It's the way MIM parts catastophically fail with no warning. Happened no less than 3 times, on 3 different parts, on a Para-junk P14 Limited I had the misfortune of owning (safty lever, slide stop, firing pin stop) That little lesson caused me to go over my other 1911s very carefully, replacing any cast or MIM internal parts, pins and levers.

MIM has its place, but IMO, doesn't belong on ANY internal, or stress-heavy firearm part.

I've been told that the reason for this type of failure has to do with the way flaws develop in the MIM process. Apparently, unlike say castings (who's flaws are usually visible), flaws in MIM parts are not apparent until the part is stressed/used (like firing a gun for the Nth time) As MIM parts aren't individually tested (this would cost $$ and the whole point of MIM gun parts is cheapness) you can get "lucky" as I did. I'm no metalugist, so I don't know if that is true, but I do know that the Para I owned had 3 MIM parts that failed with less than 500 rounds through the gun.

[fastbolt]

Lumping all MIM parts together is like lumping all cast, forged, extruded, machined, etc., parts together.

The quality of the materials used and the quality control involved with the specific manufacturing process are also very important. However, in some respects you may only get what you pay for, as with some other things ...

There's forged, and then there's forged ...

There's cast, and then there's cast ...

There's MIM, and then there's MIM ...

There's ammunition, and then there's ammunition ...

The last several parts I've had to replace on various firearms were all produced with other than MIM.

Quality of manufacture and component application are important.

There are a couple of things I don't necessarily like when it comes to MIM parts, but the manufacturers seem to be improving their MIM offerings and I've learned to trust QUALITY MIM parts in certain applications.

[HankB]

I'm not a metallurgist, but my impression is that

* Top-quality MIM parts are better than low quality forged & machined parts.
* MIM parts are not suitable for the most highly-stressed parts, such as the aforementioned 1911 slide stop and springy things like 1911 extractors.
* NOBODY claims even the best MIM parts are as good as, let alone better, thaN the best forged & machined parts.

[jeepmor]

Like an engineering endeavours, quality control is the key. As new technologies come out and mfrs try them to save a buck or two, people who are willing to buy new things get to play guinea pig. That's just the way it is, the way it's always been.

People used to think the car would never replace the horse and buggy....see any horse and buggies on the highways lately? The Amish don't like mim, or rubber wheels for that matter, so let's leave them out. ;)

I would really like to work for a company conducting this type of engineering, it would be a nice change from my current role in semiconductors measuring things your naked I cannot even begin to see.

[Old Fuff]

If you happen to lay hands on an older S&W revolver you may notice the (then) trademark color casehardened hammer and trigger. The oil-slick colors add a quality appearance to the gun, as well as being functional.

Today's MIM lockwork may be functional, and it's still casehardened, but the colors are muddy-gray because the parts don't color when they are hardened. They also don't burnish or polish as smoothly as well as the "all-steel" parts used formally.

They are to be blunt, cheaper subsitutes. They are being used because they cost the manufacturer less. When MIM makers can duplicate the older parts in all respects I might get interested.

But they aren't doing that now. :uhoh:

[Flame Red]

Remember that MIM is used because the process makes the product less expensive to manufacture - NOT TO IMPOROVE THE QUALITY.

Just another technique so they can give thier CEO's a bigger retirement golden-parachutes. Like my CEO that just walked away $158M, and his anual golf club membership they also threw in of $25K/year will be more than any pension I will ever see even after 30 years.

[Onmilo]

Regular floor workers still get pensions somewhere???

Our Factory took that away when the last contract was ratified.

MiM is popular because the Chinese and India are buying up all the steel they can get their hands on and MiM is a cheaper alternative.

It is in no way better than forged and machined steel.

[5Wire]

Thanks for the informative post, Shear_stress.

[Shear_stress]

I knew this would generate a lot of debate. Let me be, if not the first, then the millionth gunowner to say I do not particularly like MIM parts. I don't like the way they look, I don't like the fact that MIM parts are cheap but guns are not (at least in non-adjusted dollars, see below), and I don't like the fact that MIM parts are not hand-fitted by craftsmen/women. Among the reasons I love guns is the fact that, despite the encroachment of mechanization over the past two centuries, the way guns were once made spoke to a more time-honored sense of quality and workmanship.

. . . However, I fully acknowledge that the above are subjective--matters of personal taste that heavilly influence what I choose to put in my gunsafe (which is populated almost entirely with used guns). In addition to being a gunlover, I am also an engineer who seeks to evaluate things based on objective, data-driven criteria. Because of this, I find myself in the unusual position of defending MIM against statements like this:

MIM is popular because the Chinese and India are buying up all the steel they can get their hands on and MIM is a cheaper alternative.

Really? A steel MIM part is still made from steel. The density of a properly finished MIM part is, for all intents and purposes, the same as one made from barstock. What MIM saves is not material but labor (see above, re: craftsmenship.)

It is in no way better than forged and machined steel.

No one is arguing that it is. The point I'm trying to make is that there is no evidence that, from a purely mechanical point of view, MIM parts are inferior to forged parts.

Remember that MIM is used because the process makes the product less expensive to manufacture - NOT TO IMPOROVE THE QUALITY.

This is correct, but, again, no one is saying that MIM parts are better--only that they aren't necessarily worse. On the other hand, I'd be willing to bet that most modern gunbuyers wouldn't be willing to lay down the dough for new guns made "the old way". Just ask Colt. This isn't so much of a problem right now while there is so much good stuff on the used market, but it may become a factor years later.

I share many folks' gut-level dislike for MIM. For exactly the same reasons, I don't like plastic pistol frames or rifle stocks (why buy plastic that costs pennies on the dollar to squirt into a mold when I could buy something forged from metal or hewn from wood?) I've only recently come around to investment cast frames (why do the anti-MIM folks never carp about Ruger, FN, Caspian, or Freedom Arms for that matter?) All I am trying to do is add a few data points into the debate here and there for consideration. I think folks should just be honest with themselves as to their preferences.

[FullEffect1911]

There is one sad truth about the world we live in today, American manufacturers need to find a way to compete with the rest of the world. Other countries (China for example) currently has much much much (did i say much) lower wages then we Americans do. Wages are usually what drives the price of things up. In order for American manufactures to compete they either have to move their manufacturing overseas, or find a way to do it differently/cheaper.

The U.S. has to stay ahead of the game through technology now a days, cause I wouldn't be happy making a dollar a day. And eventually when China's wages start to catch up, there will be another country with cheap labor to take it's place.

New technologies take time to get all the kinks out. And I would not commit to saying that MIM is bug free at this point... but they are getting there.

I would rather see MIM part in our firearms then see some of our most historical firearm manufactures go out of business.

I think in another few years, it will be quality parts will be quality parts despite how they were made.

[DawgFvr]

Does Ruger use any MIM parts?

[MarshallDodge]

I don't know about MIM but they do use a lot of investment cast parts.

Once again, this may not be a bad thing if it is a good design using an efficient quality control system.

[Nightcrawler]

Does Ruger use any MIM parts?


No. But nothing Ruger makes is forged, either. It's all investment castings.

[Boats]

Ruger just happens to make some of the best investment castings the planet has ever seen, which are magnitudes of order better than MIM parts.

[Shear_stress]

Ruger just happens to make some of the best investment castings the planet has ever seen, which are magnitudes of order better than MIM parts.

So, one great implementation of a molding technology invalidates an entire alternative molding technology? Both investment casting and MIM involve squirting a liquid into a mold, though the former is usually under a vacuum and the latter under positive pressure. Neither involves coldworking. If anything, Ruger's excellent cast parts should make Ruger fans less suspicious of molded parts in guns. As has already pointed out above, it's often not the technology, it's the implementation that matters.

See, this is the kind of stuff that prompted me to start this thread.

[MarshallDodge]

Ruger just happens to make some of the best investment castings the planet has ever seen, which are magnitudes of order better than MIM parts.

Do you have facts to backup this claim? :scrutiny:

[Nightcrawler]

Yeah...has anyone actually scientifically demonstrated that investment castings are better than metal-injection-molding, given the same levels of quality control? Has anyone scientifically demonstrated that either of these are inferior to forged materials, in terms of how they're applied to firearms? (I.E. can you prove that a cast hammer or a MIM hammer is more likely to fail or break than a forged one?)

It seems to me that if they can make major firearms components out of plastic, then making them from castings or MIM doesn't necessarily mean they're more prone to failure.

[Boats]

Scientific proof? Look at the state of the two technologies. Investment castings, including those made by Ruger's Pinetree facility, are routinely used in high stress aerospace applications, such as jet turbine blades and other highly stressed internals of jet engines.

MIM is generally limited to dimensional small parts that weigh less than an ounce. Its only advantage over IC is the elimination of finish machining, which is a considerable cost savings on things such as small parts. I'd still rather have an IC part vacuum formed over a baked sintered metal MIM part.

Even where MIM is being experimentally scaled up for larger parts, such as by Honeywell for use in jet flow covers, they daren't use it in a moving part as it seems only suitable for taking passive temperature stresses not mechanical stresses.

MIM might one day be a top shelf production process, but right now it's just a cost cutter that can't generally be trusted in a part over an ounce in weight. Undetected voids inherent to the manufacturing process being the main culprit.

[Shear_stress]

Scientific proof? Look at the state of the two technologies. Investment castings, including those made by Ruger's Pinetree facility, are routinely used in high stress aerospace applications, such as jet turbine blades and other highly stressed internals of jet engines.

Absolutely, but, again this is an example of an implementation of a mature technology. The types or processes and controls used to make investment cast turbine are not the same as those used to make gun parts. The fact that investment casting can be used to make aerospace or mil-spec parts does not automatically mean that such parts are comparable to golf clubs or gun frames. My point is that you can't use one example of a use of a forming technology to either praise or bash everything made that way. How many single crystal Ruger pistol frames are out there?

Even where MIM is being experimentally scaled up for larger parts, such as by Honeywell for use in jet flow covers, they daren't use it in a moving part as it seems only suitable for taking passive temperature stresses not mechanical stresses.

You are right again, but the fact that MIM parts have been difficult to scale up doesn't mean that, for the applications they are used for, they are inferior. S&W uses MIM for lock-work, not pistol frames (which investment casting works fine for). All forming technologies have their limitations.

MIM might one day be a top shelf production process, but right now it's just a cost cutter that can't generally be trusted in a part over an ounce in weight. Undetected voids inherent to the manufacturing process being the main culprit.

See point #8 in my original post. Technology improves. Remember that, once upon a time, investment cast pistol frames were a cheap alternative to forging. You know, the kind of thing that a start-up company like Sturm Ruger might use (and eventually perfect.)

[BigG]

{MIM parts} They are to be blunt, cheaper subsitutes.

I don't think anybody didn't know that. The difference between an enthusiast and a businessman is the enthusiast doesn't have to make money. The businessman has to pay dividends to his stockholders, give his workers a raise, pay the operating costs and buy material. People that believe a businessman is ripping them off because the weapon is not built with 1957 technology ought to drive a 57 Chevy and work for 1957 wages. ;)

[Onmilo]

1957 era technology produced the M14, the oil tankers that bring our precious fuel and that wonderful 1957 Chevy which in all ways except safety, (no seatbelts), was a better automobile that what we have today, oh wait no unneccessary GPS and no cupholders.
Heck I don't even want a sattelite I have never met being able to track my vehicle at any given time.

As for 1957 wages, adjust for inflation and I actually I earn LESS than what a 1957 era factory worker did and current CEOs earn 10,000 times more than a CEO did in 1957.

Ever tried cleaning up a sear or a magazine release made out of MiM material?
The heat treat is a mild surface application and cannot be worked without reducing the structural integrity of the part.
Forged steel can be worked down past the heat treat too but if you do this it will be so out of tolerance the part will no longer function as it should.

As for the density of a similar MiM fabricated part being consistent with a forged solid steel component, so what?
Density does not make a structurally stable steel part.

Lead is denser than steel, put a torch to an identical lead part and an identical steel part and see what happens and when it happens.

MiM is a cheap way to make an expensive gun. Sure looks grand to the stockholders anyway,,,,,,,,

[Old Fuff]

See point #8 in my original post. Technology improves.

Possibly (probably?) true. But I don't plan to do the Bata testing, particularly if the handgun is something I might have to stake my life on. While the older guns (I'm thinking of S&W revolvers and 1911 pistols here) are not always perfect, their performance is predictable because they have a long track record. I have no problem with MIM or investment castings being used in guns that are or were originally designed around the respective technologies. I do when someone tries to duplicate a part in an older design where the technology may not be appropriate, simply because some manufacturer is trying to save money. Saying that a manufacturing method is O.K. now because it will be eventually perfected simply confirms my preference for older guns, at least for the time being.

[ZeSpectre]

Well, this is really quite interesting. I'm glad the OP started this thread.

[New_geezer]

For those who pine for the old days of hand crafted, hand fitted guns, do you not realize that the reason they were made that way was because manufacturers lacked the technology to make them otherwise. As for all that handfitting, it mattered greatly whether the work was being done by Joe Caresalot, versus Bobby Newguy, or Marty Dungivacrap. The best modern example probably are the Turkish Shotguns, lots of handfitting and lots of inconsistant quality. Depends on who does the work.

Look at the debates between those who love the old Win Model 12s and those who favor the Rem 870 Wingmaster. Lots of nostalgia for the Mod 12, too bad it can't be produced economically anymore. And can anyone honestly say the classic Wingmaster that basically replaced the Mod 12, is a bad gun?

Modern manufacturing methods may not be romantic but the more the process is automated, and the less human handling, the more consistant and precise the product. There's no getting around it, quality hand work is expensive. MIM technology may have a few kinks yet to work out, but in twenty years we may be longing for it because the "new way" won't measure up.:rolleyes:

I admit, I too prefer the aesthetics of the older guns. I like good wood and forged metal. But my guns with MIM parts have never let me down over many round. My wife loves her old Singer with the foot treadle and little wooden drawers all over. But it's not the machine she sews with

[BigG]

can anyone honestly say the classic Wingmaster that basically replaced the Mod 12, is a bad gun? No, but they sure don't have the personality. :)

[BigG]

MiM is a cheap way to make an expensive gun. Sure looks grand to the stockholders anyway,

After your long rant, ;) and I don't believe you really think that a 57 Chevy -even when new- is as good as a 2007 car, but you may be blinded by nostalgia. I never saw an oldy get 100,000 miles and if one did, it was front page news. By contrast, I can drive most any cheap Toyota 200,000 miles. It's so common nobody even mentions longevity. It's expected. The Toyota may not have the nostalgia value of the Chevy but it's a better car. and it's not 50 years old. :uhoh: Also, I never said adjust the wages for inflation. I said get paid 1957 wages, like a buck an hour. Just mentioning so you can't twist the facts I presented to suit yourself. ;) If you want to adjust the wages and reproduce a new 2007 "57" Chevy you need to accept 2007 MIM gun as well. ;)

About your quote - yes, as an enthusiast you can demand whatever you decide you can pay for. A manufacturer has to meet a whole lot of factors you seem to be unaware of. Stockholders, yes, they count and you will soon be out and somebody who pleases them will take your place. ;)

[Boats]

Shear_stress wrote:

Absolutely, but, again this is an example of an implementation of a mature technology. The types or processes and controls used to make investment cast turbine are not the same as those used to make gun parts. The fact that investment casting can be used to make aerospace or mil-spec parts does not automatically mean that such parts are comparable to golf clubs or gun frames. My point is that you can't use one example of a use of a forming technology to either praise or bash everything made that way. How many single crystal Ruger pistol frames are out there?

The investment casting process used by Ruger for firearms differs substantially from the casting process for golf clubs and aerospace applications by the type of alloy used. ALL of Ruger's IC work is top notch.

MIM is bashable, not in its processes, which demonstrably work to form things that are useable, but in the end application of those parts. Forgings and ICs are more consistent part to part and time proven to take all manner of mechanical stresses. MIM is a demonstrated failure in taking repeated impacts whether that be hammer strikes or whether that be the lateral stress of ripping spent cases out of a chamber while being violently moved away to the rear by a slide.

Mind you MIM doesn't fail in every such small part application, but it has failed in enough such applications to have people rightfully concerned about being guinea pigs for cost cutting.

I am a Ruger fan alright, but I am a Ruger fan primarily because their IC products are state of the art and legendarily tough. They earned this reputation for bombproof toughness over time. MIM is a different process and a johnny-come-lately. I will accept the widespread use of MIM only after it has proven itself, which to my mind, hasn't even come close to happening.

Just for the record:

I have and had no problem with Sig Sauer's folded sheetmetal slides.
Aluminum alloy pistol frames.
Polymer receivers, especially those sandwiching steel reinforcements.
Polymer guide rods.
Plastic coated metal parts, ala Beretta
Titanium alloy frames and parts.
Stampings ala the AK.

I also think MIM would make for excellent sights, XD grip safeties, metal magazine tubes, and other low stress applications, but is misapplied in wear items, such as extractors, ejectors, magazine catches, firing pins, pins in general, sears, disconnectors, hammers, triggers, trigger bars, or safety/decocker switches which directly interact with the sear, hammer, or trigger.

Maybe MIM will get there someday, but that day isn't here yet.

[Jim Keenan]

Have any of you folks ever seen a Walther P.38? I mean a good, early gun, not late war or postwar alloy.

Did you know that the P.38 is complete junk, stamped of metal that is little better than tin foil? Well, writers in the 1940's said that.

Did you know that WWII Japanese rifles were no better than a cheap .22 and were so inaccurate that they couldn't hit anyone over ten feet away? Some American soldiers were told that and some died believing it.

Did you know that Ruger is making guns by casting, cheap trash just like the Spanish junk guns that everyone knows blow up? Winchester spread that story, long and loud, to gun writers. (Note: Ruger is still in business, still making good guns; Winchester is gone.)

Did you know that Remington rifle receivers are made from cheap tube steel, not forged like a real rifle? Credit Winchester again, see note above. (Winchester 70 receivers were milled from bar stock, not forged, but anything to knock the cometition.)

And on, and on.

Companies that progress, and progress includes taking advantage of modern production techniques, remain in business. Companies that "do it the old way", at vast expense in time and labor, lose out.

Not all new techniques are good, and not all stand the test of time. But stagnation for the sake of nostalgia or because something "looks better" will put a company on the road to the bankruptcy sale.

Jim

[Boats]

Speaking only for myself, I am not arguing from nostalgia. I have several "inferior" aluminum receivered Mossbergs that show no hint of giving up any time in my lifetime. The plastic trigger group and safety button on two of the three are as good as the day I bought them.

MIM is unproven. At this point, I do believe there is a certain amount of truth that the market is experimentally testing this process via warranty returns. That's not something I want lurking in the background of any firearm I want to stake my life on.

A return authorization number don't feed the bulldog if my hammer snaps one shot into a gunfight or a disconnector suddenly fails and pukes all of my ammo downrange uncontrollably.

[Eyesac]

If MIM is perfected I will gladly accept it so long as it makes my pistol much cheaper (with no ill effect).

[454c]

Sorry guys, the car comparisons don't hold water. Other factors come into play on that one.

With todays better machinery that we hear about, why can we not produce forged parts to tighter specs that would require less fitting and still have a better part?

[DawgFvr]

So...how long has S&W been using MIM technology...and, how many people who have purchased newer S&W revolvers have had failures/breakages due to this MIM technology? I personally, have not had a failure with my weapon...and I do not know anybody who owns the new S&W's at my range who have had any problems. I'm not sure how S&W can stay in business if they make inferior weapons...they just might go the way of Winchester.

[Boats]

I don't know that the "newer" S&Ws are "old enough" to make a determination on MIM one way or the other. It will be interesting over time to see how the ones with MIM lockwork wear. Since the MIM parts are only case hardened, and then their continued integrity if the hardening is worn through is questionable at best, I'd say the jury is still out.

Most quality firearms are designed and built to provide a lifetime or more of service. However, I suspect that just like most firearms, the vast majority of "new" Smiths are not fired enough to expose any class wide MIM deficiencies.

The only test we really have is to see how they wear over time. Castings, stampings, and polymer molding have all met and passed the test of time when those technologies were aptly applied. MIM ain't there yet.

FWIW, sintered metal parts being seen as "quality" never caught on either. MIM faces a similar challenge in market perception.

[Jim Watson]

I haven't got a late model S&W, but I guarandamtee you that I would not want to be dependent on heart-lung machine (one claim for MIM) parts of the quality of the MIM in my Springfields, no matter how they were made.

It isn't the method, it's the quality, and MIM is being used to cut costs, not improve or maintain strength and fit.

[Shear_stress]

Folks, I appreciate the intelligent debate on this subject. This is the main reason why I post on this forum almost exclusively.

The investment casting process used by Ruger for firearms differs substantially from the casting process for golf clubs and aerospace applications by the type of alloy used. ALL of Ruger's IC work is top notch.

That was exactly my point. The high quality of aerospace grade parts does not necessarily translate across the board to all investment castings. Ruger has perfected investment casting for sure, but that doesn't mean that all investment cast parts are created equal. Same thing with MIM.

Since the MIM parts are only case hardened, and then their continued integrity if the hardening is worn through is questionable at best, I'd say the jury is still out.


I don't understand this criticism, as S&W's lockwork has always just been case hardened.

MIM is bashable, not in its processes, which demonstrably work to form things that are useable, but in the end application of those parts. Forgings and ICs are more consistent part to part and time proven to take all manner of mechanical stresses. MIM is a demonstrated failure in taking repeated impacts whether that be hammer strikes or whether that be the lateral stress of ripping spent cases out of a chamber while being violently moved away to the rear by a slide.

Honestly, what cases are we talking about? Is there some kind of statistical basis for parts failure in S&Ws? I keep reading declarative statements, but would love to see some links to some studies or reference articles or something. You feel very strongly on this point, so I am trying to understand the basis for your opinion. S&W has been using MIM for going on ten years, and I haven't heard much even anecdotal evidence of people breaking hammers, triggers, etc. I frequent the Smith & Wesson forum daily, and, apart from a lot of griping about MIM, cannot remember a post in which someone had actually had a MIM part break. Now, Kimber or Para Ordnance--another story. Then again, I have a CZ with a casting flaw in its IC frame, so we're right back to talking about quality control, not method of manufacture.

As for the density of a similar MiM fabricated part being consistent with a forged solid steel component, so what?
Density does not make a structurally stable steel part.

For sure, but your original argument implied that there is somehow less metal in a MIM part.

I wonder if, in S&W's case, MIM takes a lot of heat because they started to use a lot of it right around the same time they discounted a lot of older models, abandoned blueing for the most part, stuck that idiot lock on the side of their revolvers, and started painting their airweight guns with peel-prone clear coat. Maybe some people dislike MIM because it is symptomatic of a raft of unwanted changes the company made to their product line within just a couple of years.

[DAdams]

Sure looks grand to the stockholders anyway,

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m22/dadams111/Ruger.jpg
Ruger

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m22/dadams111/SWHC-1.jpg
SWHC

I own both company's stock. Both are considered "strong buys" at the present time.

I don't own a Ruger but everytime I buy another S&W I put some of that I spent right back in my pocket. :D
I have owned both for over a year.

Keep buying. ;)

[Boats]

A case hardened forging doesn't have microporosity issues like MIM does.

Yes I realize that Ruger's success at casting doesn't extend to CZ or to Astra, or whomever, but one of the reasons that Ruger is uniformally excellent at it is through advanced metallurgy no matter what alloy they are using for a given application. Ruger, due to its methods, gets to use ferrous alloys that can be made without elements that increase its machinability, which in turn, slightly weaken the alloy to allow it to be machined. Ruger gets to leave out most of the sulphur, boron, silicon, and other machinability elements that others have to leave in to make their chosen steel alloys more "free machining."

That Ruger gets to "break the rules" metalurgically is what incenses me when people ignorantly state that GP-100s are "Heavier" or "bulkier" than are L-Frame Smiths in order to be stronger.

It's primo BS, since the two series are within an ounce of each other (S&Ws of equal barrel length being the heavier) and can share leather. The Ruger is widely regarded as the tougher revolver. It is, but only through advanced metallurgy, (which by eliminating "machinability" elements in its steel alloys also increases its wear resistance, especially on the hand and the star), and advanced design that foregoes the sideplate and places the cylinder stop cuts over the beefier parts of the cylinder rather than over the holes. Ruger is almost alone in the gunmaking industry in being interested in fielding the strongest possible designs at sane, end user expected weights.

http://www.cartech.com/news/wr_news_sturmruger.html

IC is a better and more mature technology than is MIM, even comparing the state of the art apples to apples. The real difference is that where a less than state of the art casting is still highly usuable with a low failure rate, a less than stellar MIM piece is a POS waiting to happen.

[DawgFvr]

Well, you know, I like my brand spanking new 642. I fire it weekly and have had no problem with it. I suspect that it will begin to break in after I'm pushing up daisies. I do like the new Rugers as well. I test fired a SP101 and just loved the way it fit my hand. I did not think the trigger was bad at all, however, after hearing everybody give the nod to S&W triggers, I plan on purchasing one from gemini customs and spending $500 on a trigger job, frame glass beaded, moon clips, etc. I suspect it stand up to old guard S&W standards after that.

http://www.geminicustoms.com/Revolvers%20&%20Services.htm

[Onmilo]

Just for the record since it was suggested I was ranting,,,,,
I like polymer frame firearms.

Investement casting is a good thing, especially when it is done correctly.

Have anyone here EVER seen a Ruger firearm WIN a Precision Match shoot?
Not just be shot in the Match, actually win the match.

Metal injection Molding has uses.

In firearms that use is to reduce overall production costs to increase profits, period.
There is no other sound arguement for using MiM technology if firearm production.

Oh, and for that 200,000 mile 57 Chevy, I know of a couple and admittably the cars need to be worked on regularly to keep them rolling.
The owners do the work themselves and don't need a high dollar computer to make, determine, or fine tune those repairs.
Can you say that of the wonderful Toyoda or any new car for that matter???
Rant off.

[Old Fuff]

Have anyone here EVER seen a Ruger firearm WIN a Precision Match shoot?

Ya... Over the years, but in particular during the late 1950's and 60's, match versions of Ruger .22 pistols were used by competitors who won any number of local and state tournments, and some national ones at Camp Perry. They still make a decent entry level bullseye match .22 pistol. Because of the way the barrel is threaded into the receiver, with the rear sight mounted on the receiver and the front one on the barrel, they have the potential to be very accurate - more then enought to stay within the "X" ring at 50 yards.

On one occasion I was on a 4-man team that shot a U.S. national record in I.S.U. Centerfire. One of our members fired a .357 Ruger Blackhawk with .38 Special mid-range wadcutters.

That record stood for all of two weeks... :D

In all fairness to Ruger, with the exception of target versions of their .22 pistol, their other handguns are not made to be formal target guns, and shouldn't be expected to be. They usually serve very well for their intended purpose.

Returning to the original point of this thread: I would observe that those who have no problem with MIM parts in their firearms have a vast number of currently produced products from which too chose. Others that find them to be questionable for what ever reasons can turn to the second-hand aftermarket and find a substantial number of earlier models that meet their expectations. So long as this choice remains I see no issues that can't be resolved. ;)