Fusion Frames and Receivers

[Windsor]

Looking for impartial thoughts on the Fusion 1911 frames and slides,
ie. metallurgy, fit and finish , spec. hole dimensions.
Are their any custom builders using these as a foundation ?

[MICHAEL T]

Fusion owner was the previous owner of the Dan Wesson pistols He sold to CZ. He has excellent frames and slides He will build you a custom pistol . I suggest you check so of the 1911 boards He has a following I am considering building a Commander size from his kit.

[ranburr]

Do you like STI slides and frames? If so you will like Fusion. If not, you won't like Fusion.

[EHL]

I've got a commander model Fusion frame and slide that I made into a 1911. Great pistol format. Highly recommended.

[Windsor]

Why the similiarity to STI frames ? Are the fusion frames forged inhouse or subcontracted to other companies ?
Thanks for your responses.

[Pistol Whip]

[Windsor]

The rebated slide stop pin, the fitwork on the sights, and the finish is superb.
Impressive. Are the internals from Fusion as well, or other ?
Also like the stainless slide work !
The milling serrations are classy too.
Thanks !

[KyJim]

Why the similiarity to STI frames ? Are the fusion frames forged inhouse or subcontracted to other companies ?

I don't know who makes their frames. I am positive they don't forge them in-house. In fact, not all their frames are forged. Their "Scout" frames are cast.

I did have someone kinda' blast Fusion for supposedly using STI parts in their custom guns because so much was MIM. I asked in another forum how much MIM they used and Bob Serva answered that they only use one MIM part, the thumb safety. He said they used to use cast safety but they broke more easily. Now, I don't know about all their parts but Mr. Serva seems to be very approachable on the subject of his guns and his parts.

[parisite]

I have an STI master frame and slide and like it real well.

[Windsor]

Anytime profits are the bottom line, and not integrity, MIM seems to figure in the equation. However, Ed Brown is doing well, and he uses forged parts. It is good thet Serva is approachable, as many are not.This is a good token of honesty. I personally despise MIM parts, due to the fact there is little traceback on responsibilty when a part fails.
The nature of any powder metal product is suspect in a weapon designed to protect your life, and those whom you love.Say what you will, it has a different grain molecule.
Why buy them ? If the supplier told you up front it was MIM, would you still buy it ? Doubtful.The fact that many cheap 1911's have them installed, including Kimber, without telling the buyer, speaks volumes.
The frames Bob Serva is selling make me wonder about q control, if they are made outside of his own supervision.
I would like to know the level of q control once in his possession, and how well He backs them if out of spec holes are encountered . I will endeavor to reach him to know the truth of the matter, and get back to you on the thread.
Thx for your excellent imput .

[Hawk]

From STI's FAQ:

Q. Does STI use any MIM parts?
A1 Yes. We, like most manufacturers, do but not in any of the "critical" stress or wear components. Our good friend Bob Serva of Fusion Firearms has graciously allowed us to quote his response to this question.

"Gentlemen, the hysteria over MIM ...
<snippage>

In general, I've found that you won't find much difference between STI's view of what makes a good firearm and that of Bob Serva.

However, "despise" is rather of a strong word and if it's indicative of your actual beliefs I would suggest you stick with Brown to avoid frustration. Most anyone will make you a "MIM free" firearm on demand much like shotgun manufacturers in the early part of the last century would cheerfully take extra money from you to provide damascus barrels which were actually weaker than many of the "fluid steel" barrels coming on line at the time.

But any new process will have early adopters that will mis-apply or simply "booger up" the technology and that memory will linger with enthusiasts until a generation or two die off. I won't name names but will simply gaze in the general direction of Yonkers, NY and whistle.

Given a choice between adjusting one's prejudices versus simply paying a couple of bucks extra to indulge them, breaking out the checkbook is easier. Get an Ed Brown.

[Windsor]

Perhaps it is wrong for me to be biased against MIM parts in a gun, yet I am unbiased in a transmission application using the same metallurgical processes. I do believe based upon factual breakage, that MIM parts in a defensive weapon may cost more dearly than if a transmission gear tooth fails, or a vacuum cleaner platen were to fracture. My predication is simple: Why any risk at all, by manufacturers, if it ultimately is an inferior part ?
Inferior to what you may say; When Colt originally spec'd out the tempering for many of the GI parts they were only case hardened, not fully tempered through the piece, i.e. sear, hammer. Could they have done better ? Yes.
With the available CNC quality, and oven tempering processes now available for forged parts, it really is not that more expensive to make them versus MIM, in fact may cost less. The 1911 today with forged parts, and very tight original specs are better than any original Colt was.
I know of numerous guns with MIM parts and have shot them, but it is the longevity against sudden fracture that is troubling to me, not the part specs, (most MIM parts have very close tolerances). When you say prejudiced in a certain direction, it would imply ignorance of the facts, but in this case the evidence against MIM as used in fire control parts,
safety parts, and even screws and springs, leaves little to install on the 1911, and my position is still tenable.
While typing this response,, as i look across the workbench here, there are boxes of carbide cutters, used often in my machining, which are powdered metal products.they serve their function well.
But when breakage occurs, it usually is not catastrophic,
however,the same technology used for a weapon in a confrontation with armed assailants, it very well could be.
Overall, there appears to be more "plasticity" in forged parts but please correct me if I am wrong.
The inherent violence of the firing mechanism, slide returning to battery in the 1911 pattern does not lend itself well to MIM, which does not stand up well to sharp blows, however hard the part may be.
Again please correct me if this is a wrong presumption.
Thx

[Hawk]

Well, I believe it's wrong but I indulge my own personal preferences and it's been my experience that there's no harm in doing so.

I've a small background in metallurgy that no doubt plays a part in being able to keep Kimber MIM distinct from STI MIM but if I didn't already think that way I certainly wouldn't make the effort to try - it's just too easy and not at all expensive to put one's mind at ease by buying what one is comfortable with.

There are few things worse than toting about a firearm one thinks may shatter parts at any moment and I certainly wouldn't do so.

STI's, and I assume Fusion's hammer and sear, are EDM-ed tool steel - A6 and S7 respectively. The extractor is spring steel which gladdens the heart of 1911 types though the guide rod gizmo gives them agita. MIM occurs in other places. On the other hand, a competitive product may well have been assembled from parts that were MIMed from patterns developed in 1908 with no adjustment to suit the process. The predictable results will tend to spill over onto MIM provided by people that make race guns. Unfairly, in my estimation though quite understandable.

I'd cheerfully share a beer and debate MIM in general but if someone is feeling a breeze across one's nethers due to suspicions over parts in a product you're betting your life on, it's not worth it.

I'm comfortable with betting my bacon on MIM done properly (I carry an "as furnished" STI) but convincing others to do so isn't on my dance card.

[Windsor]

Here is an excerpt from a proponent of the technology,"but the MIM process is a complex one. "We've concluded that there are probably over 90 critical variables that we need to control for the process to be successful," says John Popken, executive VP, Advanced Forming Technology, Longmont, CO. "While we have many success stories, there has been a lot of development work involved, and there is much more to learn about improving the cost-efficiency of the process." Wolfgang Meyer, president of Battenfeld of America, adds that injection-molding technology for powder metals has come a long way. "As more molders become familiar with metal-injection molding and more efficient processes are developed, the potential for this market is tremendous."
I also see great potential in MIM, particularly in the Titanium market,but admittedly it is not an easy process to master according to leading companies who have invested millions in equipment, and research.
Most honest engineers will agree that density of MIM parts, even in the very best processes can attain 95% density. The mixing, debinding, sintering, and final machining do not address the potential for voids and small pockets found often in MIM. Since as many as 100,000 parts are processed at once, not sure how it can be controlled. Certainly x-ray could take a snapshot of each and possibly reject it, but the price would be much higher.
I think the advantage of forgings, are the grain structure itself, using pressure and heat to force the molecules in a certain direction, the same as a tree molecule.
The Vikings, when selecting timber for the highly curved front bow of their ships chose trees with natural grain structure following the general curvature of their design, imparting the ship with great resistance to shearing when confronted with severe storms, and of course the Samurai followed the same precept with their swordmaking.using iron and carbon as their medium.
It may well be MIM process engineers will divine a method of pressure shaping to equal the principle of forging,i.e. grain structure, but it does not appear so yet.
As others have pointedly stated, the processes can be faulty in any form, whether casting or forging, or stamping.
The key seems to be the actual molecular grain of the part, and the additives in the steel.
MiM can provide the proper ratio of toughness to impart the good qualities the 1911 requires,
but not the grain structure, and greater potential for fracture due to possible voids.
If this is inaccurate please help me understand.

[Hawk]

Alberox is claiming 95 to 99+% density and Marketech 97.5 to 99.5%

The article you've excerpted appears to have been published November 1 of 1990 if my search-fu is strong this day.

The first Bush was in office, Intel released the 80386SL, Doogie Houser was on TV, there was no TFL as the WWW was taking its first fitful steps and MIM was in its infancy, or adolescence or whatever - it was 19 years ago.

Forging hasn't changed much in 19 years but I believe you'll find MIM has progressed. 95% is no longer the best - it's the worst that might be expected.

But one thing hasn't changed: it's not worth your effort if you're going to distrust the thing. Getting current on the technology might be interesting to take on for its own sake but, personally, I'd keep MIM research and firearms purchasing decisions separate unless some sudden epiphany manifests itself.

Things change, memories and prejudices don't unless forced to. Just look at the number of posts reporting Red Dot as "dirty" - some may be folks that believe the current formula is dirty after having actually tried it but the vast majority, I'd bet, are totally unaware that the formula was changed 10 years ago.

To reiterate: I don't propose to change your mind. It would, however, be equally futile to attempt to convince me that my STI would in any way be improved if I swapped out the few MIM parts for some other process. It would have been different 19 years ago, though.