Mim parts on a 1911

Probably not if well made.

The concern is nearly always with parts failure in high stress areas. Using MIM allows for precise tolerances not afforded with cast or forged parts and require much less fitting by manufacturers resulting in lower labor costs. The machinery required is expensive, the raw materials for parts is expensive and the results do vary.

Sifting through threads will net you polarized responses so it's best to decide for yourself what level of tolerance is acceptable on a personal level as there is much hype in both camps. I can say I've yet to see anyone, given the option of tool steel vs. MIM (at even money) claim they would pay the same money for MIM. Not an indictment, just what I've read.

the concern over Metal injection molding parts is pretty overblown. Of course, if you want a reason to waffle for another year, feel free to quietly worry about MIM all you like, or look into the cost for making a pistol entirely MIM-free (hint, it ain't cheap!)

Do you really expect to shoot enough through the gun to wear it out and NOT notice wear during maintenance? By the time you've run enough ammo through to damage a part (and parts are fairly easy to replace in a properly built 1911-pattern pistol) you'll have spent more on ammo than on the gun, the part's cost would be chump-change at that point.

I wouldnt worry about mim parts. I dont know if colts have glued in ejectors but I know springfields do.....I had one come unglued.

I wouldnt worry about mim parts. I dont know if colts have glued in ejectors but I know springfields do.....I had one come unglued.

Click to expand...

Colts are pinned.

MIM parts on Colts, sear, disconnector, mag catch, mag catch lock.

MIM is the future and has been getting used for a long time in places most owners never knew about. I'd certainly be more comfortable with a company like Ruger who is continually setting the standard with their MIM reliability.

or look into the cost for making a pistol entirely MIM-free (hint, it ain't cheap!)

Click to expand...

It ain't expensive either. Colt has a 70 Series repro that I sent them last September for custom shop work. They charged me an extra $75 (I think) to replace all MIM parts (3?) with bar stock ones. Now, I do understand the gun is already disassembled, but if the OP knows what he is doing, it wouldn't cost much to replace MIM parts on a Colt.......or Springer.

I think the only MIM parts on a new Colt are - mag catch, disconnector and sear. I could be wrong though.

cyclopsshooter got the one I didn't think of, the mag catch lock.

I could have bought a Dan Wesson Valor for what I've got wrapped up in my Colt XSE and it's not finished by half yet. Some will tell you the DW is now an overpriced 1911 but I'd challenge anyone to show me a factory offering from anyone that exceeds it in quality at the same price level. I wanted at least one nice Colt and I will have one...in time. Of note is that the only parts I chose to change for reliability were the slide stop which was a tad undersized and the ambi-safety which had a bit too much flex to it and is weaker by its specific design.

If brand doesn't matter buy a DW or Les Baer. If a small MIM count doesn't bother you and you don't need a precision fit a Colt will serve you better than most.

Parts in the high pressure compressor sections of jet engines are often made of MIM. If you ever fly on jet airliners, you are probably trusting your life to MIM parts.

Why would you post if you have absolutly nothing to say??

Click to expand...

why would you open the never-ending MIM debate opener and expect anything but snark?

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-3725.html
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-103464.html
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-574621.html
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-91178.html
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-146381.html
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-76019.html
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-608337.html
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-607784.html
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-241976.html

hey, that was easy to search for!

John Browning's design philosophy was "Make it strong enough, then double it". Basically, every JMB design and every part within them is overbuilt. Advances in engineering have allowed us to more accurately determine exactly how strong something has to be to do a certain task.

MIM parts are more than strong enough. Stop blowing stuff out of proportion.

Parts in the high pressure compressor sections of jet engines are often made of MIM. If you ever fly on jet airliners, you are probably trusting your life to MIM parts.

Click to expand...

There are a great many articles describing the non-destructive testing methods involving the engine components during an airline inspection, to include MPI, Liquid Penetrant, Ultrasonic Flaw Detection and X-Ray examination (one example here).

While there is a very specific knowledge base for firearms and component parts in platforms such as the AR15 (where High Pressure Testing and Magnetic Particle Inspection are used), there seem to be no published specs for quality assurance testing of the MIM parts found in 1911s. Some MIM suppliers openly share their testing methods (one example here who states they test via 10,000 cycles), but the majority do not. They might be tested using some method, but short of pushing the parts in extreme conditions/circumstances, how can one know that they've got the "Good MIM?" Do you personally X-ray or submit your parts for testing in the same manner as aviation parts are tested? Considering the price points of MIM parts, you can rest assured that the suppliers of these parts are not.

I think it's safe to say the correlation between airline engine components and 1911 parts is a loooong stretch.

I really don't worry too much about MIM parts on a 1911 unless we're talking Kimber. I've had more than my fair share of Springfield 1911s and still own a TRP and an EMP both have mostly all MIM small parts and I've had no issues with parts failure. I carried the TRP every day for about four years and ran around 1000 rounds a month through it before getting my Wilson Combat CQB and let me tell you, I've never had any issues with the small parts on the TRP. The EMP has not been shot or carried as extensively as the TRP, but again I have no worries about it. I would say the same of MIM parts used in SW and Sig 1911s.

Kimber MIM, I would be a little more worried about. I've owned three Kimbers (presently own none), and of the three none would function properly under all conditions the way my Springfields and my Wilson Combat do. My worries with the Kimber MIM are prefaced on the many reports of parts breakages wth Kimber's MIM parts as reported here and elsehwere on the net and my own experience with parts breakages on my Desert Warrior. With in the first 2,000 rounds my thumb safety broke (normal use only, gun not at any time dropped), and shortly after that my slide stop broke. Both parts were replaced with Wilson Combat Bulletproof parts and the gun sold shortly thereafter.

Bottom line, most MIM is good enough that it's a non issue, but for some reason Kimber still has issues with their MIM parts. As far as whether to get the Colt or the Springfield, it's like asking whether you should buy a a Nissan or a Hyundai.

Some of us have actual negative experience with MIM. An MIM part disabled my gun while shooting recently, good thing it was range shooting and not combat!

I take the position that substitution of MIM, zinc alloys and even 7075 aluminum is bad policy for a gun you must depend upon. It's all part of a trend in US and foreign manufacturing towards cheapening production. Once you have the equipment to squirt out MIM parts the cost goes down down down as the quantities increase, cost per hour for materials and labor drop fast.

Forged and machined, and machined from barstock parts do cost more, and people will argue that MIM has an equal breakage ratio to forged/machined and MFB, but I don't buy it.

The camels nose has been snorting under the edge of the tent for a long time now, but if enough people know about the failure rate of MIM they can reverse the trend.

In many guns you don't have a choice, but part of the beauty of the 1911 is the fact that you will always have a choice with that platform. Dan Wesson!

Oh, and if you can find a Norinco, those have all forged and barstock parts I believe! I have three DW's and a Norinco, two Colts and an RIA.

The RIA I got for $350, and it's a fine gun considering it's MIM parts, but for $350 that's OK. There's no way I'll pay $600-$1200 for a 1911 with MIM parts.

Les Baer sells a $7,000 Presentation Grade, does that mean an Ed Brown is a Chevy? I didn't know a Lamborghini could be had with a cast thumb safety...hmm.

They are what they are regardless of snobbery, I suppose as a Colt owner I could claim all others are imitation 1911s but I own imitations as well. I'll say it again, MIM is a polarizing arguement as is cast when compared to barstock. You must decide what your threshold is as it relates to you budget otherwise you'll be walking till you can afford a Lamborghini.

Winkman822 said:

I really don't worry too much about MIM parts on a 1911 unless we're talking Kimber. I've had more than my fair share of Springfield 1911s and still own a TRP and an EMP both have mostly all MIM small parts and I've had no issues with parts failure. I carried the TRP every day for about four years and ran around 1000 rounds a month through it before getting my Wilson Combat CQB and let me tell you, I've never had any issues with the small parts on the TRP.

Click to expand...

And yet a few months ago, I personally witnessed and assisted a shooter on our squad whose extractor broke during a stage using a new TRP (< 3,000 rounds). Luckily I had a spare tuned extractor (Ed Brown) that he was able to use but the harsh reality is that if he were using that pistol to defend himself he'd be in a world of trouble. A case was stuck in the chamber and he had a tough time getting it out. His pistol was inoperable so he didn't finish the stage but luckily for him it was just a game.

Personally, I don't want any MIM in any of my 1911s. My three Ed Browns and two Dan Wessons all arrived MIM free (critical parts) and it was easy enough to swap out all the MIM (critical parts) from both of my Kimbers. MIM isn't such a big deal because we can either live with it or change it so life is good in 1911 land. So far I haven't had a breakage of any sort after thousands of rounds through various 1911s.

boricua9mm said:

They might be tested using some method, but short of pushing the parts in extreme conditions/circumstances, how can one know that they've got the "Good MIM?" Do you personally X-ray or submit your parts for testing in the same manner as aviation parts are tested? Considering the price points of MIM parts, you can rest assured that the suppliers of these parts are not.

Click to expand...

How do you know you have good forged or cast parts without testing? The point is that MIM parts can be as good as forged or cast parts, or better in some applications. The thoughtless rejection of MIM parts today is like the thoughtless rejection of cast frames a few decades ago.

Maybe it is because the 1911 design is more than a century old and people like the tradition involved with the gun, but applying the same no-MIM-parts standard to other guns would mean that you would not be buying many other semi-automatics today.

1858 said:

MIM isn't such a big deal because we can either live with it or change it so life is good in 1911 land.

Click to expand...

That is the bottom line.

gc70 said:

The point is that MIM parts can be as good as forged or cast parts, or better in some applications.

Click to expand...

I don't think that anyone markets or uses 1911 MIM parts because they're "better" than forged or cast parts. MIM has one objective ... cost reduction. When has cost reduction ever lead to a superior product ... in the 1911 world? I had to add that because you could make a good case that GLOCK used cost reduction to make a superior product ... I don't own a GLOCK by the way.

Some gun manufacturers are the s-l-o-w-e-s-t to experiment & adapt modern manufacturing techniques & then use that intentionally conservative approach as a marketable attribute. Others conversely tout "cutting edge technology" & "value pricing" as the attributes to convince us to buy THEIR products. As soon as any new technology (percussion vs. flintlock, autoloader vs. bolt, cast vs. forged, polymer vs. cast, MIM vs. machined, etc.) becomes more acceptably mainstream, then a NEW technology will come along to give us something to cluck about! The younger you are, the more quickly you'll accept a new technology. The older...the slower. Modern mid-grade 1911 variants have better; value, durability, reliability, accuracy, tolerances, fit & function than ANY "gold-standard" factory 1911 (re: Colt Goldcup) from the 50-60-70's. I readily admit to being a pig-headed, gray-bearded gun snob. But MIM parts in a well-manufactured 1911 is a tempest in a teacup. I like Chevy pickups, you like Toyotas. But I'd be STUUUUU-PPPPID to believe, simply because of more modern manufacturing techniques, that an OLD Chevy would top a NEW Toyota.

1858 said:

And yet a few months ago, I personally witnessed and assisted a shooter on our squad whose extractor broke during a stage using a new TRP (< 3,000 rounds). Luckily I had a spare tuned extractor (Ed Brown) that he was able to use but the harsh reality is that if he were using that pistol to defend himself he'd be in a world of trouble. A case was stuck in the chamber and he had a tough time getting it out. His pistol was inoperable so he didn't finish the stage but luckily for him it was just a game.

Personally, I don't want any MIM in any of my 1911s. My three Ed Browns and two Dan Wessons all arrived MIM free (critical parts) and it was easy enough to swap out all the MIM (critical parts) from both of my Kimbers. MIM isn't such a big deal because we can either live with it or change it so life is good in 1911 land. So far I haven't had a breakage of any sort after thousands of rounds through various 1911s.

Click to expand...

Extractors are something that there should be extras of around in your tool kit anyway, however, I said that Springfield has a lower occurrence of MIM part breakages than Kimber, not that they are immune from same. I'm at about 12-15k rounds through my TRP with no issues (other than those caused by tired mag springs) and I will continue to shoot it. When I do end up with an extractor failure, I'll fit a new one and adjust tension properly and go right back to shooting the daylights out of the gun.

My Wilson is still a baby so to speak with only about 4,000 rounds through it, but I'd venture a guess that it'll go a whole lot further before any parts breakages than my Springfields.

Something else to keep in mind is the price difference between a Springfield and Wilson, Brown, Nighthawk, Volkmann, et al...one could easily buy a Springfield TRP twice over for the price of a pretty basic offering from any of the custom houses.