100% MIM free


October 28, 2011, 08:32 AM
just curious, asked this in another thread
(not really expecting an answer there, but it is a simple, honest, legit question)

Which revolver makers manufacturing new revolvers today are 100% MIM free ?
(or autoloaders, for that matter, but mostly focused on revolvers here)

No woobie wars required, just a list, you know
MIM never used to be all that a HOT topic on gun forums, that I recall... but then again, internet gun forums were not all that common back-when either !

If you enjoyed reading about "100% MIM free" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
October 28, 2011, 08:41 AM
Mass produced? I don't think there are any. At least not American made. The last off the shelf 1911 clones that was available with all machined steel throughout were the Norincos.

October 28, 2011, 09:05 AM

Old Fuff
October 28, 2011, 09:12 AM
With the exception of their new LCR models (which I'm not sure about), other Ruger revolvers use investment castings rather then MIM parts. I presume that this is because the revolvers were designed to use castings, and they have been tooled up to produce them "in house" for some time.

October 28, 2011, 09:26 AM
I'd be willing to bet Freedom Arms could be on the list.

Others might include Korth and/or Manurhin, if they're even still being made.

Taurus 617 CCW
October 28, 2011, 09:45 AM
Most of the pre lock S&W's are MIM free to my knowledge. I just paid a pretty penny for a model 66 pre lock but it's worth it.

October 28, 2011, 10:13 AM
understood, T617.. LOTS of the old models (all makers) once were
(congratulations on that 66, I own three of 'em myself, two S&W, one Taurus)
asking about today's NIB stuff

FA and USFA would have been my offhand guesses (and Korth, I don't doubt); wasn't sure if Ruger (other than plastic) was still investment cast and/or forged, 100% MIM free or not
don't know if any of the New Dan Wesson revolvers by CZ are in the wild yet or not

October 28, 2011, 10:40 AM
Which revolver makers manufacturing new revolvers today are 100% MIM free ?
(or autoloaders, for that matter, but mostly focused on revolvers here)

The Berretta 80 series is MIM free if you don't mind .380acp

October 28, 2011, 01:19 PM
What's a woobie war? I hear this term used on the forum but don't know it's meaning.

October 28, 2011, 01:27 PM
woobie = childish

October 28, 2011, 02:54 PM
With the exception of their new LCR models (which I'm not sure about), other Ruger revolvers use investment castings rather then MIM parts.

Sorry, but by their own admission, Ruger uses MIM parts in some of their most popular revolvers. Not that it is or even should be a big deal.....other than fodder for internet trolling.:rolleyes:

Old Fuff
October 28, 2011, 03:36 PM
I'd be interested to know exactly what these parts are. I have been in and out of numerous Ruger revolvers and never discovered any MIM parts (which doesn't concern me a bit :)) I wouldn't be surprised (or concerned) to find MIM parts in their center-fire pistols. The pistols were designed to use this technology in the first place.

October 28, 2011, 03:40 PM
"Not that it is or even should be a big deal.....other than fodder for internet trolling"

but it so often happens, I was just honestly curious
for all the flame games, I really don't know.. just who doesn't do that anymore
no troll intended
if anybody knows, THR would

October 28, 2011, 03:52 PM
What's a woobie war?

"my dawg's better'n your dawg, my dawg's better'n yourn, cause MY dawg eat's..."

and/or my little sweet 2 year old great-grand-daughter's favorite blanket
well, she do throw herself on the floor, and kick her heels, get all red in the face, and scream every now and then, especially if you take her woobie away... but she is mighty lovable most of the time, just like all of us here on THR

or... S&W k-frames (my woobies)
but I only rarely throw myself on the floor (on purpose), I just scream some every now and then ;)

great-grand-daughter, not screaming, lovable
ain't it clever how grandpa snuck that into "gun related" ??
(but she do have a Pink Crickett in my gun safe waiting for her to outgrow the woobie blanket)

October 28, 2011, 07:37 PM
Priceless, oldfool, simply priceless.

4v50 Gary
October 29, 2011, 01:04 AM
Mim free? Ruger. Investment casted throughout except for the barrel and cylinder (machined from round stock). I'll take a Pine Tree Casting over mim anyday.

OK, I would buy a S&W if I liked it enough.

October 29, 2011, 09:39 AM
Mim free? Ruger. Investment casted throughout except for the barrel and cylinder (machined from round stock).

Again....incorrect. E-mail them, or call them, they'll be happy to tell you, yes...... they do use MIM parts in their revolvers .:rolleyes: Why continue to perpetuate another internet myth with incorrect information? Or is it just too hard to accept that the MIM process has been accepted by the gun industry as a functional tool to produce quality guns. The quality of firearms has not been sacrificed because of MIM parts. The fit and finish of firearms has been sacrificed sadly by the same factors that makes folks cherish the old ones. Human craftsmanship and cost. Labor used to be cheap and workers took pride in their work. Nowadays, labor costs have skyrocketed and many folks take no pride in the work. Their mind is not on their work anymore, it's on the text message they just got from their wife or the thoughts of what the weekend will bring. Thus....productivity and quality suffers. Add to this all us folks with 401ks and other stockholders that want a profit from our investments. This isn't just affecting the gun industry but all industry. It isn't affecting just one gun manufacturer, it affects them all. You want a perfect gun with a mirror finish and only handmade, hand-fitted parts? Better have deep pockets, cause it won't come from mass production.

Old Fuff
October 29, 2011, 10:24 AM
The issue of Ruger using MIM technology to make parts shouldn't be an issue, but what the particular parts are might be. If they are using MIM parts in revolvers (other then the LCR line) I would think it's a recent development. If they are using the technology to make rear sight bases or front sights, I don't see a problem. If they are making parts for recently introduced internal locks they're might or might not be. I wouldn't like to have a revolver with a MIM transfer bar safety or mainspring strut.

The only solution for those that don't like what's being made now is to buy that which was made before. Works fine for me. :cool:

October 29, 2011, 01:41 PM
Ruger tells me they started using MIMs about ten+ years ago, the first part was the extractor on the M77 boltguns. The new Ruger bolt-action trigger is MIM. From there, it's creeping thoughout the lineup.

The SR pistols have them, the LCP has at the very least a MIM hammer, the SP triggers are MIM, the SP hammers soon will be, and MIM hammers & triggers won't be far off in the GPs.
The brand new GP I have here, as far as I can tell without stripping it down, has no MIMs, at least none visible externally. Oops- it does have what appears to be a MIM front sight blade. :)
The .357 LCR has a MIM trigger, may have other MIM internals.

There are undoubtedly more, I didn't look at the P90 I had here a while back, but it probably does.

Ruger's found that for certain applications MIMs are more practical for them than cast.
Info comes from personal observation & phone conversations with a Ruger rep who has a background at Pine Tree.


Old Fuff
October 29, 2011, 01:54 PM
This as all very well, and I am not going to have an emotional upset over the GP-100 (or any other Ruger) having MIM iron sights - front or back. But this thread has been revolver-specific, and until I learn differently I will say that Ruger isn't making principal parts out of anything but bar stock and investment castings, except in the new LCR

This is not to say or imply that I have any objection to Ruger or anyone else using MIM technology, when it's limited to the kind of parts you specified.

October 29, 2011, 02:08 PM
Well, what do you define as "principal parts"?
Frames, barrels & cylinders won't be MIM, but hammers & triggers are principal parts by my definition.

I included the rifles & pistols as a broad overview to counter the misconception that "Ruger doesn't use MIMS!"

Frank V
October 29, 2011, 03:59 PM
I think, (but can't prove it) we can add the Colt SAA to the USFA, & FA list.

October 29, 2011, 05:12 PM

I thought that Wilson Combat started using MIM parts and then quit as MIM does "not play well with others"

I also was of the opinion that Les Baer was MIM free as is Dan Wesson

Do you have information to the contrary?

Of course the modern revolver has turned to crap and MIM is rampant.

October 29, 2011, 05:28 PM
At least you can still buy a quality 1911


the following is from the FAQ section

Do Ed Brown handguns have any MIM (metal injection molded) parts?

No, we use no MIM parts in Ed Brown firearms. While the current thinking is that MIM parts are "good enough" for firearm applications, this thinking doesn't fit with our philosophy at all. All Ed Brown parts are made from either forgings, bar stock steel, or quality investment castings.

Old Fuff
October 30, 2011, 09:26 AM
Frames, barrels & cylinders won't be MIM, but hammers & triggers are principal parts by my definition.

O.KÖ Iíll concede that hammers and triggers are principal parts. Iíll withhold judgment on those until Ruger actually incorporates them, which so far I believe they havenít.

I included the rifles & pistols as a broad overview to counter the misconception that "Ruger doesn't use MIMS!"

Again, it isnít MIM technology that concerns me so much as how the technology is employed. In the list you provided, I personally wouldnít want extractors, strikers (firing pins), and possibly components in rifle trigger assemblies included in any firearm I might purchase.

I fully agree that we are going to see more and more MIM parts in future firearms, not because they are necessarily better, but because they will be less expensive then the parts they replace. If they are correctly designed for the application, and not purchased from a sub-contractor on the basis of "lowest bid," this may not be of consequence, but cost-cutting changes seldom result in a higher quality product, just one that will simply get the job done. Forgive those of us that want (and sometimes demand) more.

October 30, 2011, 09:48 AM
Forgive those of us that want (and sometimes demand) more.

greedy old man :neener:

October 30, 2011, 10:12 AM
The sig line from one of the Moderators here at THR sums this thread up the best........

Try being informed instead of opinionated.


October 30, 2011, 10:17 AM
You're entitled to your own opinions.

Your are not entitled to your own facts.

Old Fuff
October 30, 2011, 10:18 AM
I know I'm evil... :evil:

And cheap to boot, but I hate to spend more money and get less, when I can spend less and get more. This of course means that I've cut myself out of the latest fads (like a revolver chambered in 410 shotgun), or maybe a .357 Magnum flyweight snubby, but somehow I'll cope. :uhoh:

October 30, 2011, 10:55 AM
At least you have not become an apologist for the cheapening of revolvers

October 30, 2011, 01:41 PM
"Your are [sic] not entitled to your own facts."

Well, I have asked over and over for "facts"... and all you give me is "opinion."

What's a girl to do? :confused:


October 30, 2011, 02:15 PM
What's a girl to do?
read a little


October 30, 2011, 02:18 PM
I ask for facts, and you give me a blog entitled thus: "A bit of opinion about MIM parts"?

Thanks for the laugh!


October 30, 2011, 02:32 PM
whatcadoin' fighting wobbie wars over MIM on Sunday afternoon, G ?
Sundays (after range practice, this morning was j-frame day) are for baby-back-ribs and cold beer !

well, ok.. the ribs are pre-cooked and sauced from Publix... (we think of 'em as MIM ribs).. but tasty, nonetheless
and the beer is in them soft "alloy" easy opening (thank goodness) cans, not steel or glass... but tasty, nonetheless :)

October 30, 2011, 02:33 PM
If you would read it you would see that Grant Cunningham gives you the facts and reasoning as to how he arrived at his opinion.

And some of us appreciate the opinion of one of the most talented gunsmiths in the country.

your mileage obviously varies

October 30, 2011, 02:36 PM

October 30, 2011, 02:43 PM
Old Fool,

I keep breaking my own rule.

If someone wants to piss away their money on an overpriced piece of garbage, why should I care?

In the old days I would write soliloquies explaining about the metallurgy, the method of production and how MIM does not react well with other metals. (Even Grant Cunningham mentions this...but gdeslodge does not respect Grant enough to put any stock in his opinion)

I gave up because apparently critical thinking has gone the way of reading comprehension. Most folks are fan-boys that are too scared to google "MIM failures" or "MIM sucks" or the like.

Of course we live in a stupid world with lazy people.

We can look at the 47% of adults that pay no income taxes and prove that.

People don't care enough to know what goes on inside their guns, their cars and their state houses.

Yesterday I had to explain to an 18 year old boy as to how a heater works in an automobile. His eyes started glazing over when I talked about coolant. He had no idea as to how a car functions.

I have tired of sweeping against the tide...but I haven't stopped standing near to watch.

October 30, 2011, 02:44 PM
Didn't you see my previous post re the Rugers that NOW have MIMs?

The SPs have had MIM triggers for several months, I have one here with a MIM trigger.
The SP will soon have a MIM hammer (per my Ruger contact).
MIMs will be spreading further through the DA revolvers (Ruger contact).

I had a .38 LCR here with a MIM trigger for a 5000-round test shortly after the gun was introduced, I have a .357 LCR here now with a MIM trigger.

On the list I gave you, the rifle extractor appears to be working just fine, it's been MIM for several years according to my Ruger guy, and I've never heard a word of criticism or failure of it. I didn't like the idea when I found out, but after discussing it with him I didn't let it stop me from buying a new .308 Compact Magnum earlier this year. He says "The less you have to do to a part in manufacturing it, the better", and MIMs drop from the mold a lot cleaner & closer to final form (or right AT final form) than Ruger's conventional casting process does.

The MIM LC6 trigger has been chugging along for about 4 years now without any complaints that I've heard, I'm not too concerned with it failing.

I fully agree with your aversion to MIM extractors in PISTOLS, they've been tried & they've failed elsewhere.
I won't have one in my Remington 870, I'm told they wear faster. That small 870 part doesn't equate to the much larger working surface on the Ruger M77 extractors though, so MIM concerns are dependent on application, as you noted.

Firing pins I seriously doubt will go MIM with Ruger, I wouldn't entirely trust one.

October 30, 2011, 02:47 PM
BTW Old Fool

I used to take the time and explain

here are a couple of examples...

perhaps you see why I have given up

MIM is a cost saving method of production. Nobody claims that it is better.

MIM (metal injected molding) parts are expensive to make but they save money by requiring no secondary finishing. Most MIM parts are produced to be very hard so as to make for a slick surface. The problem is that they are that same hardness all the way through, thus making them brittle.

They COULD put a very hard MIM layer over a softer, more flexible metal (that metal could be of any method of production, forged, cast or MIM) but then the main advantage of the MIM process, using the part "as made" (no secondary finishing) would be lost, thus eliminating the economic advantage to the process.

In addition, the high level of hardness that the gun manufacturers like Smith require generally make them virtually impossible to polish. This is why many gunsmiths will not do action jobs on them. They are susceptible to "burnishing" so rubbing them against one another, in the case of handguns, by dry firing will help smooth an action.

Mr Borland,

It is always nice when you chime in on a subject.

While I agree with you that dry firing is no substitute for a real action job, it can smooth out an action somewhat. This is ESPECIALLY so with the "burnishing" of MIM parts.

And BTW, it is try that many smiths will not do action jobs on MIM guns. The main reason is that their customers are often not pleased with the results...because MIM parts don't polish well.

The Grant Cunningham blog is a good one. If you read deep into it you will see that he mentions that MIM parts do not play well with others. Also that they don't hold chrome well like in the JM gun.

It is this "don't play well with others" that makes me leery of replacing the MIM part with forged.

Still, this indicates that the forged part is better. I think that we can all agree that MIM, while often works, is not as good as forged.

Be well amigo

October 30, 2011, 03:33 PM
perhaps you see why I have given up

Eh? I'm the poster boy? :confused: To be fair, I followed up that post with the following reply:

"The final quality of the action is the sum total of many contact points, with only subset being between MIM parts. The burrs and blemishes that cause much of the grittiness in an action are from machining of the frame, so MIM or not, cleaning these imperfections can really slick up an action. If you aren't happy with the quality of the action, then, get an action job by a good gunsmith. It's been my experience that MIM guns slick up just fine.

If, on the other hand, you're concerned about durability, know that competitive wheelgunners put many tens of thousands of rounds through their MIM-infested guns without issue, nor do they worry about any. That ought to tell you something."

And BTW, it is try that many smiths will not do action jobs on MIM guns. The main reason is that their customers are often not pleased with the results...because MIM parts don't polish well.

I took up that challenge in another thread. I actually DID ask several well-regarded gunsmiths their opinion, including the one mentioned and esteemed by Guillermo. Here are their replies:

Revolver 'smith #1:
"The new guns certainly don't have the fit and finish of the old models, and many people deride them for that fact. Of course, nothing made today has that level of craftsmanship, and most of the complainers wouldn't pay the amount of money it would take to duplicate it!

The new guns shoot just fine; they seem to be as accurate as they ever were, though of course you can always find an example that doesn't (in any vintage.) Bottom line: if you're concerned about future resale value, or if hand craftsmanship is really important to you, buy an older gun. If you just want to shoot it, the new ones do that very nicely."

Revolver 'smith #2:
"I wouldnít have any concerns about MIM vs forged, lock/no-lock, frame/hammer firing pin Ė it just isnít that big a deal. Any of them is not a deterrence to having a good running revolver."

And this gem from a 3rd was asked about the lock:
"I don't think the whole lock issue is a big deal. I have never seen first-hand a failure of the ILS and consider it to be a generally reliable (although unnecessary) mechanism. All the lock ranting on those purist S&W collector sites is mostly just a bunch of noise from a flock of clucking old hens."

I gave up because apparently critical thinking has gone the way of reading comprehension. Most folks are fan-boys that are too scared to google "MIM failures" or "MIM sucks" or the like.

Of course we live in a stupid world with lazy people.

Lessee...I have a PhD and am on the faculty of one of the top med schools in the country. Before I started shooting, I was a competitive cyclist and trained 16-20 hours per week. Since I started shooting, I achieved Master classification, and did very well at the IDPA World Championships last month. I can pick up any of my revolvers - old or new - and shoot a 2" 25 yard group on demand (in double action, thank you very much). I'm not lazy. Or scared. Or stupid. Or an MIM fanboy. I am a shooter - the gun is merely the tool. It has to be accurate, and hold up to the rigors of competition. I could spend my time whining because "they don't make 'em like that anymore", and even more time vehemently trying to convince others to do the same - or I can shoot and become a better shooter. I choose the latter.

Oldfool's got the right idea. It's a beautiful day here in NC, and I'm enjoying a cold one while cleaning out the garage. If Thomasville were closer, I'd be pulling up my chair and settin' a spell. ;)

October 30, 2011, 03:53 PM
Guillermo -

First, you should know that I don't really take too much of this seriously. My life is full of wonderful things, and guns and shooting are really just a part of it.

Second, new technology has always "upset the apple cart", so to speak, but, if the technology is reliable and cost-worthy, it will continue until the next technological replacement. Turbojet engines as the replacements for reciprocating engines with propellers is a good example.

Another interesting example is the introduction of racing slicks (treadless tires) for motorcycles; most racers looked at the smooth tires and believed that the motorcycle would fall over without the treads, but Kenny Roberts saw it differently.

Third, it is the internet which allows you to present your "argument" to a rather broad audience; it is also the internet which allows you to be proven correct or incorrect.

There are engineering studies with quantifiable results regarding the development, production, and application of MIM technology available; do you believe that Rolls-Royce, Pratt & Whitney, Boeing, or Ford would invest millions of dollars into an unproven and untested design? That is what engineers do, and generally the goal is to produce a better product for a lower cost. That is how they remain in business.

Fourth, if you prefer older S&Ws to the new ones - more power to you. One doesn't need to be an expert to have an opinion, but if you can present an argument based on fact rather than prejudice, you might be able to convince more people, rather than being a "Cliff Clavin" sort of orator.

All the best to you -


October 30, 2011, 03:57 PM
Mr. Boreland,

As mentioned in the resurrected post I always enjoy chatting with you.

The above post was not aimed at you, but was rather an example of how the matter might be discussed if one cared enough to learn about the subject.

Sorry for the confusion.

In my never-so-humble opinion, folks like you and Old Fuff and the like are why this is a great site.

Folks that can't even Google a subject or identify a manufacturing process are the ones which I pity.

Again, sorry for the confusion.

October 30, 2011, 04:05 PM
As to the OP, while hand fitting a gun to the level of an early Model 27 might be cost prohibitive, it might not. I asked a fellow with a great deal of manufacturing knowledge (he currently owns a plastic molding company) his opinion.

He seems to think that he could build a double action revolver on a small production line for about $500 bucks with no MIM parts and good F&F. Admittedly this was him sitting on his back deck and staring for a while, sipping cabernet, not a detailed analysis.

But the question is not can we make an early Python for Taurus price, but get rid of MIM parts. The answer is "yes". It was not that long ago when S&W made guns with forged parts and the prices were lower than they are today.

As Ed Brown says "While the current thinking is that MIM parts are "good enough" for firearm applications, this thinking doesn't fit with our philosophy at all"

October 30, 2011, 04:10 PM

If you had taken the time to read the discussion between myself and Mr. Boreland or that of Grant Cunningham you might come to realize that there are real issues with MIM parts.

I am aware of the manufacturing process, it's advantages and its limitations. And I admit that MIM parts COULD be better but they use a 1 step process to save money.

Call any names you like, but until you study up a little on the subject, or read those that are more learned than yourself, your opinion concerning the OP or myself have no weight whatsoever.

4v50 Gary
October 30, 2011, 04:33 PM
I stand corrected on Ruger. It's been years since I've been there and when I was there in the early '90s, there were no MIM machinery. They did have four hammer forge barrel making machines.

October 30, 2011, 04:43 PM
not pickin' on you G, nor Old Fuff
You know what I shoot with (even if it is mostly from the 'dreaded Bangor Punta' era, which was sometimes as bad as Chuck Hawks makes it out to be)

But folks in 1900 never used to run that to-die-for stuff on the round counts that today's competition shooters do, and people like Jerry M and David E and MrBorland ain't leaving their prized competition guns to their grandchildren, not without having them rebuilt more than once.
Colt Pythons and pre-lock 27s ain't made of glass (as we both know), but not many folks are willing to put 'em into the harsh service of the speed shooter competition line, not unless they can afford spares, because extreme few serious competition shooters are going to show up at the Championship Match without a spare anyway.

fitness for function does count
intended purpose can be well served at a price that many can afford
and Old Fuff did not learn what he knows about picking out the good old stuff from the old stuff via the internet, nor did he learn all that via some 4 year college degree curriculum

For most of us, the used market in guns is a lot like the used market in automobiles, the 'check-it out sticky' is not magic, nor is the test drive around the block. I am willing to take that gamble nonetheless, sometimes even via internet and untouched up front by my own hand, but not exclusively so.

so.. I say MIM has it's place in this world, right along with Freedom Arms and USFA non-MIM, and fine revolvers made even better by skilled artist craftsmen like Mr Cunningham.

But until MrB says MIM not good enough for what he does, I have zero interest in telling him it ain't good enough.

I would still like a Diamondback and a early model S&W 27.. it may never happen, in part because it ain't real likely to show up in my LGS/pawn shop at MIM pricing, so I will hold out for LNIB/mint.. meaning ain't real likely to happen ever, because I ain't forking up way over a grand for yet another 38/357 when what I have in my hand can already outshoot me and outlast me
so... I would also still like to give a 3" S&W Pro 60 a try,.. and that may never happen either
and maybe a Taurus series 85 (steel) snubbie, for that matter... and I would bet almost anything there is MIM in those somewhere

serious Python people expect to replace that hand every now and then
some MIM shooters don't expect unlimited round counts out of theirs either
as long as you know what it is, and you know what it ain't, it's all good
hits count, always

that of course means that I've cut myself out of the latest fads (like a revolver chambered in 410 shotgun), or maybe a .357 Magnum flyweight snubby, but somehow I'll cope.
yup, I will cope without that :D

me, I bet if me and G and MrB and McG got together for some baby-back-ribs and cold beer, it would be both memorable and congenial
and not contentious
(unless McG insisted on shooting dat Judge .. but we could always put up some 3" targets at 100 yards to slow him down)
G could bring along some 1st class bourbon for when the sun goes down
and we just could sit around and enjoy the stories that Old Fuff might be willing to relate
(yeah, Old Fuff is invited, of course, always.. as long as he promises to not 'Fitz' my woobies when I ain't looking !)

October 30, 2011, 05:01 PM
Old Fool

There are a few things to consider.

The price difference between MIM and forged is not as great as people think. (a decade ago-ish S&W was still making non MIM revolvers)

If MIM is so great, why do (or did) S&W have special models without MIM?

Ed Brown is not an idiot.

Time to grab a beer and head back to the garage...

October 30, 2011, 06:27 PM
"If MIM is so great, why do (or did) S&W have special models without MIM?
Ed Brown is not an idiot."

no, Ed is no idiot, friend (some folks at the New S&W.... maybe...)
but both know their market demographics, and who they feel like they need to put their target sights on

Ed knows, Korth knows, Freedom Arms knows.. and S&W pretty much knows too, same as Ruger and Taurus, and Charter, and Hi-Point, and Heritage, and Jimenez

I never once said that MIM is as good as forged, nor that polymer is as good as steel
I always did say both are done to cut production costs (same as you say)
I have said that both HRRs and Hi-points both go bang pretty reliably, even if I don't myself care to own either one (nor Glocks, even if you can run over 'em with a biulldozer, because that ain't what I do to my handguns nohow)

I don't own a Taurus 941 because they don't go bang near reliably enough, I own a S&W 651 instead, and it does, and I don't need any assistance to pull the DA trigger.
I casual wear a Colt on my hip, but I keep a 38 Rossi imitation Diamondback with a pretty rough DA trigger in the truck, because it is accurate and it goes bang every time, and I hit pretty good with it, and if they steal it whilst I am in the quick-stop pickin' up some some cold beer or for later in the day, I will miss it, but I can get another something-like pretty cheaply.

fitness for function is my theme

I-R-an-engineer, and the bane of my life is some people that I have to deal with who think some machine and/or technology is some magic bullet
They don't believe me when I say again and again that it's all it's application specific
No special reason why anybody else should believe me either

Milady uses 100% forged steel kitchen cutlery from Soligen, Germany, it gets washed a lot.
I use (far less costly) ceramic blades from the supermarket on my grill for BBQ ribs; never rusts, no matter what

application specific, fitness for function

merely a decade ago I was still young, smart, handsome, highly skilled, charming, witty, and talented
but I got over it
now I settle for one (?) of seven
fitness for function being pretty subjective

Old Fuff
October 30, 2011, 06:47 PM
Old Fuff is invited, of course, always.. as long as he promises to not 'Fitz' my woobies when I ain't looking !)

Anything that has a trigger guard, or looks like it might have, is fair game... :evil:

October 30, 2011, 07:08 PM
parting shot

OP (me) requested a list, not a debate
I know the debate goes on, but it need not go on here
it's not like there is any shortage of that elsewhere

thanks for the list, folks
I think we are done enough for this round
leastways me is, and so are the ribs
(baby back ribs await my undivided and earnest attention)
be well

October 30, 2011, 07:34 PM
application specific, fitness for function


MIM in a 325 Taurus a good thing

MIM in an 850 S&W...not acceptable

Of course as long as people buy Taurus quality and Smith price...I guess S&W would be stupid to spend more. Obviously not enough of us care.

October 30, 2011, 07:48 PM
"your opinion concerning the OP or myself have no weight whatsoever."

Well, at least I can console myself with the fact that I have been dressed down by an expert. ;)


October 30, 2011, 10:01 PM
I have been dressed down by an expert


A- I never claimed to be an expert
B- if you think that is a "dressing down" you must be a 7 year old girl

Thanks though...

It is a very funny post :)

Old Fuff
October 31, 2011, 07:54 AM
The problem with oldfool's list is that when it comes to NEW mass-produced revolvers there are two kinds, those that have MIN parts, and those that don't but soon will. :banghead:

From a purely functional point of view this probably isn't a problem, because with a few noteable exceptions, they do work.

But for some, "do work" will never be enough, because there is a difference between "do work" and "best quality."

Anyone who has decided to buy a new, current, mass-produced revolver is going to have to accept MIM parts and other cost-cutting introductions - including in some cases polymer plastics (which work great in pistols, but leave me cold when it comes to revolvers).

The rest of us can have it our way, by buying older revolvers, or spending some really big, big bucks for one of the high-end semi-custom guns. In most cases I much prefer the former over the latter unless I win big in some lottery.

So to each his own. ;)

October 31, 2011, 09:01 AM
"you must be a 7 year old girl"

From Post # 31:

"What's a girl to do? "

Well, at least you can READ the facts, although you can't tell them to us.;)


October 31, 2011, 10:08 AM
too bad u didn't learn anything from posts 32 and 39

Frank V
October 31, 2011, 03:42 PM
There is a lot of information here as well as some emotions.
I really don't think we'll ever see a return to the "old S&W" quality, fit & finish. We do have some great old Smiths that can still be bought & in some cases actually cheaper than the new ones.
I kind of long for the "good old days" too, but we'll never see them again. I think these are the new good old days. We have more choices now than ever before. Heck if we don't like the MIM, don't buy it. I've shot one that was surperb. I know one example isn't a huge sample. If the MIM revolvers were falling apart, locking up, or inaccurate, in every example & with everyone who bought one, they wouldn't sell & I think they are selling.
I guess the bottom line is if you don't like it, don't buy it, if you do like it or it's not a big deal to you buy it. That's kind of what I do. Sure if offered a nice S&W mod. 27 in pre lock pre MIM, & a nice new one with lock & MIM for the same money, I'd buy the old one. That's my choice, everyone has a choice. Let's exercise it & be happy!!!!!;)
Thanks, Frank

November 1, 2011, 04:51 AM
Okay. Okay. Here are few facts, based on an understanding of the metallurgy and backed by my own experience.

MIM isn't an improvement. It's a cheaper way to make things. It may be "good enough" for its assigned role, and probably is in most cases...but that doesn't change the first two sentences.

MIM is nothing new. Good MIM is quite good. Bad MIM is worse than junk. The problem is that it's nearly impossible to tell by looking at it unless the piece has obvious surface flaws.

For many applications, even mediocre MIM is "good enough" for the task. In others in which it's been assigned...not so much. It tends to work well under friction and compression stress, but not under shear or impact. i.e Sears and disconnects, it's probably okay. Hammers...not so much.

Assuming a non-impact stressed part, if the MIM part lasts for 500 cycles, it'll probably last for 50,000. I have two early Colt 1991A1 pistols that I bought and used strictly for range beater duty way back in late '91 and early '92. They both had MIM sears and disconnects. They're both on their third barrels, and have passed 375,000 rounds combined, about equally split. I replaced the disconnect on one at roughly the 70,000 round mark because it was a little worn...not because it had failed. It's still operating on the original sear. The other still has both the original sear and disconnect.

A friend asked me to replace those parts in his Colt because he didn't trust MIM, despite my telling him that he probably didn't have anything to worry about.

After I finished the job, I gave him a demonstration with his old parts. I laid the sear on an anvil...convex side down...and whacked it with a 4-ounce hammer 2-3 times. It didn't shatter. It didn't even crack. When I installed it in a pistol, it functioned...although the trigger action was a little rough. Then, I clamped the disconnect in a vise and whacked it with the hammer. It bent at about 15 degrees, but it didn't snap.

I've seen these same parts in other guns fail within a few hundred rounds. Apparently, Colt has dealt with a vendor that makes quality MIM. Some others apparently haven't.

It's not the process. It's the material and the execution. If it's properly made of good material, it's good enough for many...but not all...applications. Really good...read that as "expensive"...MIM can actually be better than its machined barstock counterpart, but don't count on MIM of that level to wind up in a 500-dollar gun.

November 1, 2011, 09:24 AM
everything John says is 100%.

The frustrating thing is that MIM is the same hardness all the way through. It doesn't have to be.

Because they are trying to save money (labor costs, as MIM is more expensive but comes out of the mold ready to use...thus saving finishing costs) they use a single step process.

If they were to create a soft, more flexible core and then mold a hard surface to encase it they could have the best of both worlds.

This still doesn't solve the issue of MIM not being as "slippery" across another type of metal as it is on MIM.

Also note, a sear is a pretty big part. MIM is usually just fine. It is the small parts that are more likely to have problems with being brittle.

Of course somewhere along the line the logical person has to question what the point is.

As John said "It's a cheaper way to make things."

357 Terms
November 1, 2011, 05:52 PM
A friend asked me to replace those parts in his Colt because he didn't trust MIM, despite my telling him that he probably didn't have anything to worry about.

Thats what it pretty much comes down to; when used and made properly MIM functions fine, despite opinions to the contrary.

If you enjoyed reading about "100% MIM free" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!