Bad Rugers with MIM parts?

[JellyJar]

I understand that Ruger is now making a lot of small parts out of MIM for their revolvers. Has anyone had any experiences with a Ruger revolver with MIM parts and if so has the experience been good or bad?

 

[DPris]

I have three new revolvers within the past year that contain MIMs.
No problems.
Ruger says they're using a newer formulation, the hammers & triggers are as well-finished as the previous cast versions, and I'm willing to give 'em a chance.
My understanding is that they're outsourcing the MIMs.

Ruger's using MIM & CNC technology in some areas to replace cast technology.
Denis

 

[beag_nut]

I asked Mike Fifer (Ruger CEO) about this, and his reply (through someone else) was that the MIM parts are only the actual trigger, and cylinder push button. Both are quite low-stressed parts.
I have NO worries, especially since many non-Rugerites tend to exaggerate everything. We Ruger nuts know differently. Still as rugged as a WW2 Panzer.

 

[DPris]

Triggers, hammers, looks like the cylinder latch/bolt.
These are GP & SP, I haven't looked at any of the recent single-actions, asume the LCR has one or two.
Centerfire pistols have MIMs.
Denis

 

[weblance]

I have over 6000 rounds thru my new SP101-22 and there is no wear on the hammer. It has the new MIM hammer. Im not worried in the least. My new Single Six and Single Ten also have the MIM hammer. Ill let you know in 30 years.

 

[lobo9er]

MIM is better metalurgy

MIM is better metalurgy.

 

[DPris]

Somebody's obviously looking for a fight.
I wouldn't go that far.
Denis

 

[lobo9er]

Not a fight just a peek at some facts

 

[Woodsman!]

Say it aint so ! Ruger cant possibly be using mim parts ! Whats next, a smith and wesson lock ? Oh my.

 

[Old Fuff]

The Old Fuff is to lazy to argue, let alone fight. Should the new parts cause concern they're plenty of older Ruger's available. There is no reason to get excited...

 

[Jim K]

It will be interesting to watch all the folks who preached "S&W's use MIM and therefore are worthless junk, not like our glorious Rugers..." dance around the use of MIM parts by ... Ruger!

The fact is that there is a word for companies that don't keep up with the latest materials and techniques to provide the best products for the least cost - bankrupt.

Jim

 

[EMS_92]

MIM is so highly under rated. I can see this become another thread where all thats said is "how much better they were back in the day" and "there not made like they used to be"

 

[Old Fuff]

The fact is that there is a word for companies that don't keep up with the latest materials and techniques to provide the best products for the least cost - bankrupt.

Absolutely true! But changes based on cutting manufacturing costs may, or may not result in a better product. Consumers have to decide if a "latest technology" product is truly better or not, compared to what was formally made. Then they have a choice, buy new or buy older from the second-hand market.

At the present time all of the largest U.S. handgun manufacturers (Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Taurus and Colt) are using some MIM parts. Smaller ones are doing the same or planning to. The Old Fuff will reserve judgment so far as Ruger is concerned but if there is a question he always has an out.

 

[CraigC]

My new Single Six and Single Ten also have the MIM hammer.

Are you sure about that? Somehow I don't think we'll see hollowed out hammers in single actions.

I really don't care if Ruger uses MIM parts or not and that's not the only thing I hold against S&W. My problem is that we previously paid more for S&W's because we were getting a better gun. They've cheapened production on their guns to the point that that's no longer true. Yet the high price remains.

Let's get one thing straight, MIM parts are not "better". They are cheaper to produce and require less skilled labor to install and that is their reason for being.

 

[huntsman]

^ it's a race to the bottom and the loser goes belly up or gets bought by cerberus

 

[DPris]

Agree with Craig.
MIMs are not being used because they're "better" parts, just cheaper parts that still perform at acceptable levels.

The reason the GP doesn't have a MIM hammer is because Ruger people decided the resulting "hollowed-out" look is too ugly.
They're doing MIM hammers on the SPs, but I'm told they won't be on the GPs.
Denis

 

[wow6599]

When did Ruger start going MIM on GP and SP's?

 

[DPris]

Last year.
Denis

 

[weblance]

My new Single Six and Single Ten also have the MIM hammer.

Are you sure about that? Somehow I don't think we'll see hollowed out hammers in single actions.

Yes I am sure. If you look at the front surface of the hammer on each, there is a mold seam. The loading gate also has a mold mark, not a stamp. Just because the SP101 hammer was redesigned, and now is easily distinguished from the earlier version, doesnt mean the Single Action hammers need to look that way also. They can be easily MIMolded, and still look just like the older ones.

 

[DPris]

No.
If they're MIM, they'll be different.
What you're seeing is a cast mark, from the CASTING process, not the MIM process.

Denis

 

[Guillermo]

MIM is not in and of itself bad.

The use of MIM is the potentially bad thing.

The parts that Ruger are injection molding are large and low stress. Should not be an issue.


BTW, are we really talking about MIM use in a cast revolver?

 

[357 Terms]

Ruger is using MIM?!!!!

Next ya know they will be making plastic revolv.....oh....uh....nevermind.

 

[DPris]

Ruger started using MIMs in some of their products quite a while back.
Denis

 

[BSA1]

What are the opinions of the really good gunsmiths out there about how good of trigger pull and how crisp of action can be achieved with MIM parts?

IMHO use of MIM parts is in the same category as "combat accuracy" for semi-auto handguns.

 

[Drail]

How is a trigger that has the sear as an integral part a "low stress" part?