Bad Rugers with MIM parts?
- Thread starter JellyJar
- Start date
- Status
Anyone interested in the sintered metal lock work of the early Dans can simply type "Sintered Metal/Steel And Dan Wesson" into their browsers search box. Sintered metal does indeed use a binding agent same as MIM.
Sintered metal was/is a precursor to MIM technology which is becoming more prevalent in gun manufacturing these days.
Dan Wesson revolvers were designed/manufactured using state of the art processes almost 40 years ago!
Dans were in many ways years ahead of the rest of the handgun industry, not only in the design and manufacturing aspects. The reduced number of parts used in the lock work and the tolerances held made getting a box stock smooth trigger widely available to anyone that purchased a Dan.
In fact there wasn't much a Gunsmith could do to alter the trigger pull except a very light polishing and clipping a coil or two from the mainspring. The separate barrel and shroud is being used on various Smith and Wesson guns recently. DW had grip stubs used by Ruger on some of their big guns.
So Ruger using MIM parts doesn't bother me one bit, it's part of a natural progression taking place in the industry brought about by many factors which consumers have little control over. One of the more pleasant side effects is those of us with older non MIM guns will see our handguns value rise faster because many people will not buy the supposed "inferior MIM" products.
The above opinions are based on my aged memory and may contain some errors, please cut me some slack and I certainly am not implying everything I wrote is hard fact.
Sintered metal was/is a precursor to MIM technology which is becoming more prevalent in gun manufacturing these days.
Dan Wesson revolvers were designed/manufactured using state of the art processes almost 40 years ago!
Dans were in many ways years ahead of the rest of the handgun industry, not only in the design and manufacturing aspects. The reduced number of parts used in the lock work and the tolerances held made getting a box stock smooth trigger widely available to anyone that purchased a Dan.
In fact there wasn't much a Gunsmith could do to alter the trigger pull except a very light polishing and clipping a coil or two from the mainspring. The separate barrel and shroud is being used on various Smith and Wesson guns recently. DW had grip stubs used by Ruger on some of their big guns.
So Ruger using MIM parts doesn't bother me one bit, it's part of a natural progression taking place in the industry brought about by many factors which consumers have little control over. One of the more pleasant side effects is those of us with older non MIM guns will see our handguns value rise faster because many people will not buy the supposed "inferior MIM" products.
The above opinions are based on my aged memory and may contain some errors, please cut me some slack and I certainly am not implying everything I wrote is hard fact.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Yes but this is as a cost-cutting measure. Not exactly the same thing as Dan Wesson's interchangeable barrels. Another reason to be upset with their pricing.
I agree 100% with you Craig. When they cut manufacturing costs it should be passed on to the consumer.....not the stockholder, unfortunately the manufacturers didn't get the memo.
Even as little as 20 years ago I didn't mind paying extra for a better product but today I can't say Smiths are any better than a Ruger for the money. In fact I think the fit/finish of Rugers is more than acceptable these days.
Even as little as 20 years ago I didn't mind paying extra for a better product but today I can't say Smiths are any better than a Ruger for the money. In fact I think the fit/finish of Rugers is more than acceptable these days.
Last edited:
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
S&W's of 20yrs ago were better guns and I didn't mind paying more for them. I like the thorougbred/draft horse analogy. Today, perhaps it's perception more than reality but I don't feel they're a good value or worth their premium. It's not just the MIM parts, two-piece barrels or the internal lock, it's a list of things, some major and some minor that add up to a second-rate revolver at a premium price. I'll buy Bangor-Punta era guns all day long before anything made in the last ten years.
Ruger, on the other hand, has only improved their products and prices have barely kept up with inflation on most guns.
Ruger, on the other hand, has only improved their products and prices have barely kept up with inflation on most guns.
Guillermo
member
as long as they sell, why should they lower the price?
Sure, they are living on the reputation that they used to have...but it is profitable for them.
As long as the public buys crap at high prices, it would be silly for them to change.
The Lone Haranguer
Member
I would have phrased the question differently. 
(i.e., "Rugers with bad MIM parts?")
(i.e., "Rugers with bad MIM parts?")
SKT,
Demand has nothing to do with MIMs at Ruger.
As I said- they've been using MIMs progressively for several years.
Rem,
I have not made the effort to pursue an in-depth knowledge of sintered vs MIM, I've just been told the two processes are not identical.
Neither are they precisely the same.
Denis
Demand has nothing to do with MIMs at Ruger.
As I said- they've been using MIMs progressively for several years.
Rem,
I have not made the effort to pursue an in-depth knowledge of sintered vs MIM, I've just been told the two processes are not identical.
Neither are they precisely the same.
Denis
G,
You make a valid point and one that is hard to argue against! The majority of "new gun buying consumers" have for some strange unknown to me reason learned to accept less than quality as the new standard.
Most of us more mature gentleman know quality have owned quality and will seek out quality guns made in years past. As mentioned above Ruger seems to be the exception and have kept quality in their business model whilst keeping reasonable pricing.
You make a valid point and one that is hard to argue against! The majority of "new gun buying consumers" have for some strange unknown to me reason learned to accept less than quality as the new standard.
Most of us more mature gentleman
know quality have owned quality and will seek out quality guns made in years past. As mentioned above Ruger seems to be the exception and have kept quality in their business model whilst keeping reasonable pricing.Because they are new buyers they have little or no experience with past production guns, and/or if they do they see no reason to be concerned about any difference.
They may be right.
But what others believe has never affected the Old Fuff's judgment.
huntsman
Member
What a sad state of things, to only know plastic, MIM and zinc.
JR47
Member
We, the more mature, are just as bad as the new people are. We look at anything new, compare it to what we are used to, and shake our heads over it.
Material costs are up, new machinery costs are up, and trained personnel aren't going to work as cheaply as before. The work force is aging, and retiring, and new workers aren't exactly growing on trees. Try finding a decent machinist to set up your CNC machinery. Add in the ever-increasing costs for licensing and regulation, EPA compliance, OSHA compliance, ADA compliance, and legal representation, and the money has to come from somewhere.
How much money does anyone think that any of the MIM parts represent over the preceding type of manufacturing? It's ultimately not much per unit.
MIM has become a mature technology today, and represents an approach to some parts that makes no difference in their performance.
As an aside, I've owned 1960's and 1970's cars. They were as well put together as the foreign vehicles in their price range at the time. They handily exceeded the performance of the foreign vehicles. My own modified 1969 Nova SS ran high 12.0's with street tires and mufflers in place. It also delivered 24 mpg at 65 mph. The only down-side was that it required premium fuel. New, it cost $2459.00 with sales tax, excise tax, tags, and dealer prep. GM was on strike, so I couldn't drive it any lower. New, the car would stay on a Datsun 240Z's tail through twisty roads, but left it in the dust on a straight-away longer than 300 yards.
Material costs are up, new machinery costs are up, and trained personnel aren't going to work as cheaply as before. The work force is aging, and retiring, and new workers aren't exactly growing on trees. Try finding a decent machinist to set up your CNC machinery. Add in the ever-increasing costs for licensing and regulation, EPA compliance, OSHA compliance, ADA compliance, and legal representation, and the money has to come from somewhere.
How much money does anyone think that any of the MIM parts represent over the preceding type of manufacturing? It's ultimately not much per unit.
MIM has become a mature technology today, and represents an approach to some parts that makes no difference in their performance.
As an aside, I've owned 1960's and 1970's cars. They were as well put together as the foreign vehicles in their price range at the time. They handily exceeded the performance of the foreign vehicles. My own modified 1969 Nova SS ran high 12.0's with street tires and mufflers in place. It also delivered 24 mpg at 65 mph. The only down-side was that it required premium fuel. New, it cost $2459.00 with sales tax, excise tax, tags, and dealer prep. GM was on strike, so I couldn't drive it any lower. New, the car would stay on a Datsun 240Z's tail through twisty roads, but left it in the dust on a straight-away longer than 300 yards.
Without question you're right, and I admit past experience has colored the Old Fuff's opinions.
Right again, but what you are really expressing is some of the reasons newer products don't equal the older ones. If current production was made the old way it's likely that many - if not most - potential customers couldn't afford to buy them.
But those of us, who using our knowledge and experience, have decided that "past is better" can have our cake and eat it, in that one can often find the older guns they prefer in excellent to like-new condition for less money then's necessary to buy the same model as a new gun. Given this situation why should I spend more to get less, just because some prefer to do exactly that?
Guillermo
member
VA27 was funny AND correct when he said looked forward to " the old guys start moaning about how much better the MIM parts were"
Of course they will be "tomorrow's old guys"...not the old guys of today.
right now they are "old guys in training"
Of course they will be "tomorrow's old guys"...not the old guys of today.
right now they are "old guys in training"
^^^^^Now that's funny right there^^^^^.... Old Fuff hit the nail on the head. If one has a mind to and a little patience there are plenty deals to be had on fine older revolvers of all makes and models.
Young consumers don't really have to buy the current offerings being foisted on the gun buying public, they can buy the same guns of the past us mature Gent's buy. Problem is they want the newest technology, the latest greatest materials and of course the lifetime warranty and they want it on the cheap.
Skilled workers can still be had, anyone that thinks different is only fooling themselves.....most companies don't want to pay a living wage for experienced employees, so they "gets what they pays for".
Most of the problems with new guns can be traced directly back to the shareholders and money whores that run these companies. All gun companies faced the same economic pressures for their entire existence and somehow still managed to make a fine handgun until the last twenty years or so ago, if not they faded away.
No one can tell me with a straight face that material costs, labor costs and regulations have EVER gone down in the United States, it don't work that way. If a company won't take the time to invest in its workforce and continue to churn out crap it's just a matter of time.
Innovation, research, quality raw materials, labor, state of the art manufacturing machines, are all pressures other companies face. And despite all these "pressures" corporations like Ruger have somehow managed to continue producing and even found a way to make better products while holding the line on prices.
Old Fuff hit the nail on the head. If one has a mind to and a little patience there are plenty deals to be had on fine older revolvers of all makes and models.Young consumers don't really have to buy the current offerings being foisted on the gun buying public, they can buy the same guns of the past us mature Gent's buy. Problem is they want the newest technology, the latest greatest materials and of course the lifetime warranty and they want it on the cheap.
Skilled workers can still be had, anyone that thinks different is only fooling themselves.....most companies don't want to pay a living wage for experienced employees, so they "gets what they pays for".
Most of the problems with new guns can be traced directly back to the shareholders and money whores that run these companies. All gun companies faced the same economic pressures for their entire existence and somehow still managed to make a fine handgun until the last twenty years or so ago, if not they faded away.
No one can tell me with a straight face that material costs, labor costs and regulations have EVER gone down in the United States, it don't work that way. If a company won't take the time to invest in its workforce and continue to churn out crap it's just a matter of time.
Innovation, research, quality raw materials, labor, state of the art manufacturing machines, are all pressures other companies face. And despite all these "pressures" corporations like Ruger have somehow managed to continue producing and even found a way to make better products while holding the line on prices.
Last edited:
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
They want stainless steel and rubber. They want it cheap and they don't care if it ain't "better". We live in an age where disposable goods and "good enough" is just fine.
Our problem is greed. From top to bottom. No one gets a pass. Greedy corporations that are only interested in the bottom line. A greedy government that regulates industry into submission. Last, but certainly not least, we have greedy consumers who are unwilling to pay the premium for American-made quality. People would rather have ten cheap things from China than one or two good things made in the US. Because it gives them the illusion of having more. Not a good combination.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,079
The reality is, that even using MIM parts, revolvers today are just as accurate, just as reliable and will stand the testament of time just as well as the older models. While many feel that stainless guns aren't as pretty as blued firearms, and the fit and finish on the average is not as perfect on newer firearms, it has no effect whatsoever on accuracy and reliability. This is what today's market wants, and what many of them don't want, is to pay big dollars for a perfect blued finish that has no practical purpose, as stainless guns are less maintenance and less prone to wear. While I too admire the deep bluing and handsome wood stocks of yesteryear's handguns, I have no need for them while hunting deer in the rain and knee deep swamps. It has nuttin' to do with "wantin' it cheap". Years ago, bluing was the only practical metal protection for firearms. While it is still beautiful, it is far down on the list of durability as compared to the many other options out there today. For those that still prefer the look of a blued gun, there are still options available, altho the EPA, OSHA, Labor Unions and cost have made today's blued guns a poor example. Many of yesteryear's handguns were bought and had very few rounds put thru them. One reason there are so many of them out there yet in such good shape. Today's hand-gunner goes to the range and shoots more rounds in one outing than many owners did in their lifetime 50 years ago. Not only have guns changed in the last 50-75 years, but so have those that own them. While today's guns may not be better in some folk's eyes, they certainly are no worse where accuracy, durability and reliability are concerned. At the same time never has there been the options and variety in handguns as there is today for the average handgunner. This is true not just in different models, but in caliber. To those of us who have no problem with MIM, whether it be Rugers or S&Ws, and the readily availability of older handguns in good shape, we consider the present as the "good ol' days" of handguns.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
And how do you know that???
Accuracy and reliability are FAR from the only important factors. Even for those who say they are.
Blued finishes are pretty damned practical and have been for centuries. Funny, I hunted all day yesterday with two blued guns. I did not have to stop every 15mins and oil them, nor do I carry them in scabbards made of diapers. The world did not end and they have not rusted.
True enough and yet blued guns seem to still be surviving. I have a 50yr old Single Six that has seen at least 30,000rds in the 12yrs I've owned it. It's been carried in a holster, submerged in water, dropped and banged around. Yet it only shows slightly more wear than it did when I bought it. It doesn't look like it's falling apart.
On that we are in agreement.
Pure nonsense and I really don't know where this myth comes from. People don't want to pay for the prep work necessary for a good blued finish. Like I said, cheap. Has not a damn thing to do with the chemicals used. Unless you think there's something wrong with this finish???
Or this one???
Or my only dedicated hunting sixgun that is NOT stainless steel, nor does it wear rubber grips.
IMHO, much of what fans of stainless steel believe about blued guns is untrue. The reality is that it makes things easier and that appeals to some. Not all of us have thrown in the towel. Personally, if all I could hunt with were stainless guns with synthetic grips and nylon holsters or rifles with synthetic stocks, I just wouldn't hunt. The bottom line is that there's much more to it than the bottom line. It's a good thing we have the choices we do because I couldn't live with stainless/synthetic.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Ha! 
JR47
Member
How many entry level guns of today can even claim a blued finish? Where's that polished, deep, blue that apparently is important? More and more guns are using other coatings that offer superior corrosion resistance, and even lubricity.
I live in the South, and I can tell you that CCW in the summer requires a nightly wipe-down of a blued gun to prevent rust and pitting.
I tend towards matte stainless in my working guns. They aren't as reflective as that shiny blue, and require less maintenance during hunts that last more than a few hours. Especially in inclement weather.
One shouldn't really bring up the fact that blued guns have been presented in that form for a century or more. Short of extra-cost nickel- plating, bluing was the CHEAPEST form of corrosion resistance available in firearms. Bluing is a controlled form of rusting, and, by itself, offers little resistance to continued corrosion. It will hold oil, as it is porous, which will delay corrosion as long as it's properly applied to the blued surface.
Stainless steels are more properly referred to as rust-resistant. However, that rust-resistance is on the order of several magnitudes above blued carbon steel.
I live in the South, and I can tell you that CCW in the summer requires a nightly wipe-down of a blued gun to prevent rust and pitting.
I tend towards matte stainless in my working guns. They aren't as reflective as that shiny blue, and require less maintenance during hunts that last more than a few hours. Especially in inclement weather.
One shouldn't really bring up the fact that blued guns have been presented in that form for a century or more. Short of extra-cost nickel- plating, bluing was the CHEAPEST form of corrosion resistance available in firearms. Bluing is a controlled form of rusting, and, by itself, offers little resistance to continued corrosion. It will hold oil, as it is porous, which will delay corrosion as long as it's properly applied to the blued surface.
Stainless steels are more properly referred to as rust-resistant. However, that rust-resistance is on the order of several magnitudes above blued carbon steel.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
It doesn't sell because it isn't dishwasher-safe. It doesn't sell because apparently, somehow, some folks get the impression that blued guns should be kept in the safe, wrapped in an oil-soaked diaper. I wonder where that comes from???
Guillermo
member
I have to take up for at least SOME younguns'.
Just got back from Lexington (shot heard round the world). Had Snow's BBQ and then did some shooting. Two K22s from the the early 50's and a Diamondback were VERY popular with the 3 teenagers.
Yes, a modern 870 was there, but they liked the wood furniture. The only gun of recent design that got some play was the Buckmark. (I do admit that the Remington 700 in .308 was popular as was the AR15...but I don't have many old long arms. They loved the Winchester Model 63s)
wow6599
Member
Let's see how long it takes for older GP100s and SP101s (especially SP101) that are for sell to have the words "pre-MIM" being used. I'll bet ya those will be more "desired".....
- Status
