Bad Rugers with MIM parts?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Take a look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_injection_molding
Unless I misunderstood, MIM is just a cheaper way to make a cast product with the alloy of choosing. It's not the final product that's different it's the process.
If the ending product is has a weaker strength that is the result order for alloy or the way a manufacturer has made it.
 
If you look at the front surface of the hammer on each, there is a mold seam.
Click to expand...
As Denis stated, that's the seam from casting. They've been there all along, although Ruger used to do a better job of cleaning that up.
 
MIM, MOM, DAD or what ever we need to get to use to them as thats the way things are going and as long as they do the same why care? I remmeber when people were against laminated stocks but we used them on our bench guns and liked them, its just like anything else if its not the traditonal way we dont like it. I dont like modern guns at all im a traditonalist i shoot flintlocks and nothing but lol just being sarcastic a bit.
 
The reason MIM hammers & triggers will be different (and they are) is that the solid MIM part is more vulnerable to cracking unless it's "reinforced". MIM parts in firearms applications are typically pretty hard.
That reinforcement is done by molding hollows or "cutouts" that produce angled surfaces and depths to the part.

You see it in Smith triggers with the hollowed back, same with Ruger MIM triggers. You don't see it in Smith hammers because the "hollows" are below the visible sections of the parts, inside the frame. If you take the sideplates off two Smiths, one old & one new, you can see there's quite a bit of difference.

On the SPs with MIM hammers, the sides are "hollowed out". Very visible.
Ruger decided not to go with a MIM hammer on the GP because it'd have to be configured similarly & the decision-makers thought it'd just be too ugly on the bigger revolver.

MIM parts can't be, in these cases, molded identically to non-MIM parts.
Smaller ones, like the cylinder stop (or cylinder latch, as Ruger calls it), can be.
Same with the rebound slide in a Smith.

Function, work load stresses, and size all help determine the configuration of a MIM part in a gun.

As far as the mold seam goes, my 1975 Single-Six hammer has it.
They've always been there.
Denis
 
Last edited:
My BH .44 Spl doesn't appear to have a MIM hammer or trigger.
Don't know about any other internals. If it does, I'll be pissed. It costs too much to have MIM parts in it.
I love the mentality of "they have to use MIM to survive in the marketplace", when the only thing they achieve is higher retail prices/higher profits/lower production costs.
As long as consumers tolerate crap, OEMs will continue to make crap.
Remember what happened to US car makers in the 1970s/80s?
UAW built crap. Japanese cars offered reliability and good gas mileage at a better price than Union built crap.
As a result, the US car makers got their rear ends handed to them. And they deserved to, until they started making better cars.
Maybe, if we stop buying guns that are made with MIM, the Mfrs will stop making guns with MIM.
In a way, I'm glad Colt quit making DA revolvers, instead of going down the MIM path.
A Python with MIM parts would be an abomination.
 
Last edited:
Japanese cars offered reliability and good gas mileage at a better price than Union built crap.
Click to expand...
Well, in their defense, US automakers were caught with their pants down when the market turned towards small and efficient. This after 75yrs of building them as big as they wanted. The Japanese were way ahead of the game out of necessity. We don't have many 1000yr old streets in the US and we have plenty of real estate. Try driving a `69 Cadillac in downtown Tokyo. There were lots of reasons for what happened with domestic cars in the 1970's.
 
That's true, but the fact is that american cars were garbage in the 70s and 80s. I didn't mind worse gas mileage. What I couldn't tolerate was unreliability.
 
On the strength question, how about this thought. In normal operation, a trigger is pulled with the index finger. About the most pressure the normal index finger can exert is 20 pounds or so. (See how much weight you can lift with just one finger!)

Now a normal trigger made from forged steel can probably take over 200 pounds without breaking or bending. So there is a lot of overkill, and someone pays for that. I don't advocate making triggers from plastic or tinfoil, but a trigger or any other part really does not have to stand up to over ten times the pressure that can conceivably be exerted on it.

Jim
 
Jaymo said:
Maybe, if we stop buying guns that are made with MIM, the Mfs will stop making guns with MIM.
Click to expand...

Truth is, those that have a problem with MIM have quit buyin' new guns. But they are such an insignificant minority that Ruger and S&W still can't keep up with demand. MIM has been used for over a decade now in new guns. There is no higher failure rate with them as there was with non MIM parts. Maybe that's why the majority of folks don't really care.
 
Yes but the sear engagement surfaces, as well as the pivot holes, must maintain integrity for the lifetime of the revolver. Which may see tens if not hundreds of thousands of cycles. That's a lot to expect, forged or injection molded.
 
Jim,
How about this thought: The engineers that spec these parts based on material properties & applications know more about it than you & I.

There's a reason MIM parts are configured the way they are in Smiths & Rugers, and it's not just to save minuscule amounts of material or just to make those parts oogly. :)

I'm no fan of MIMs, just discussing their spreading use.
As a matter of fact, I stood at my gunsmith's counter for several minutes today trying to figure out a way to finance a pristine stainless five-inch GP built last year he has under glass, with no MIM parts in it.
Largely because it HAD no MIM parts in it. I certainly don't need another GP. :)
Wish I could float it, but...
Denis
 
unfortunately it seems to be a trend not much made 100% USA it is sad
look at RCBS there new boxes say some parts made in China I could not believe
that either when wife and I do a major purchase " stove/fridge ect... tried to buy
made in USA and its impossible
 
Engineers get paid to figure things out that will work, they know more about tolerances and the like than us.

If Ruger says it will work, I Hope it does..

My SR22 pistol had a part break after two months. The "latch release" I believe they call it.

I sent it to them, they fixed it, and it shoots fine.
 
CraigC said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yep. It would be one thing if they cut corners and passed the savings onto us; but they cut corners and raise the price. Maybe they have to do that to give their workers benefits. But if they're just eating the difference, that's another thing. I don't like the new sights, or the locks. But the guns seem to shoot as well as the older models. The stainless models look like they've been sandpapered by chimpanzees and the overall appeal is definitely down.

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.
Click to expand...
I despise MIM parts on stainless guns because the hard chromed parts looked better, even if they were hard chromed MIM parts. I've got both a new and an old 686 6-inch. The older model has a great trigger, but then, so does the new one. There's no comparison in the quality, though. The old one is much nicer with a much better finish.
 
I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure Ruger has been using "sintered" parts in the actions of quite a few of their handguns for years. Sintered parts are a different form of "MIM" but none the less are not solid carbon steel to begin with.

Dan Wesson revolvers used sintered action parts in their actions in the 70's-80's and most of them are still running like scalded dogs. So I have no problem with manufacturers using MIM parts, as long as they use acceptable industry standards and keep quality control at the top of the final inspection procedure.
 
Rem,
You are wrong.
Sintering is a different process that Ruger has never used.
Colt used them fror a while in their Trooper IIIs, dropped 'em by the time their MKV action came out.
Denis
 
Sintering might be considered a predecessor to MIM in powdered steel technology.
Ruger never used it.
Denis
 
Denis is correct.

Sinitering is a term that refers to an early form of MIM, obviously named after part of the process.

I posted the definition merely for information purposes...not to disagree.

BTW, what is the difference between the earlier injection molding and the current process? (the only definition that I can find is the formulation of the wax)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
What's the problem with MIM parts?
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Replies
209
Views
7K
Art Eatman
A
A
  • Locked
S&W--Hey or Ney?
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
18DAI
1
Y
  • Locked
MIM?
Replies
7
Views
420
Confederate
Confederate
V
  • Locked
From S&W, on MIM-parts...
Replies
17
Views
2K
Albert Shear
A
buck460XVR
  • Locked
S&W views on their MIM parts
2 3 4
Replies
86
Views
5K
Guillermo
G
Back
Top