Bad Rugers with MIM parts?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...

I should hope so... :evil:

Those who believe it will pay extra to get the older "high quality parts," and those that don't can buy those with MIM innards for less. Both sides should be happy. :D

Someone mentioned that they thought the SP101 .357 snubby was too heavy. Maybe for some, but an engineer from one of the smaller ammunition companies that turn out loads that are absolutely top-end barn burners told me that of all of this style revolvers on the market at the time, the SP101 was the only one that would stand up to an unlimited diet of they're .357 cartridges... :uhoh: :eek:

Frankly, the Old Fuff has no interest in carrying any snubbly chambered for the .357 (cuz' .44 is better) but if he did you should be able to pick out which one it would be.
 
Four jobs in my career as a technician had duties in production testing. Manufacturers spend enormous sums of money to ensure that their products are safe and serviceable for the consumer.

With our society filled with lawyers circling product failures like vultures, do you really think a company like Ruger would put MIM parts in their guns without testing?

Trust me, those parts were tested to destruction extensively before you ever laid eyes on them. They test until the failure point is predictable and they KNOW how long those parts will last.

To have people trash the design without even owning or testing them is simply foolishness. Buy 20 of them, cycle them until they fail. Keep records of how many cycles it took to achieve failure and translate that to years of consumer ownership, then I'll listen to your arguments. You can bet that Ruger did exactly that before they adopted the MIM parts!

There are many things in this old world to worry about. Having MIM parts in a product made by a company with Ruger's reputation for excellent design is not one of them!

Flash
 
Ya' don't send a boy to do a man's job
Click to expand...

so you are sayin' "don't send a judge to do a governor's job"?

Fluffy's carry gun
162410_01_md.jpg
 
Lobo

MIM parts, the way they are made for gun parts, are the same hardness all the way through. Since they want a very hard surface, the whole part is very hard. This makes them brittle.
 
Who here can demonstrate with facts that MIM is demonstrably inferior to "the old way", whatever that may be......?

Also, regarding passing "savings" on to consumers; Businesses are in business to make money and create shareholder value. They aren't in business to be altruistic. They charge a price they feel they can get on the open market for their product. I don't see a ton of S&W fire sales. Businesses make decisions, some good, some bad, based on their ability to make even more money. Smart companies "typically" don't make decisions that will create an inferior product and alienate their customers. Those that do this are quickly out of business if they don't adjust to the market. Changes like this are most often done in less critical areas where the customer won't notice a demonstrable difference in the product or its performance.

Regardless of your opinions of MIM there are valid business reasons for using that process as I'm nearly positive there are manufacturing advantages in the form of higher uniformity, requiring less skilled re-work and perhaps others that I am unfamiliar with.....

You can bet your bottom dollar that it isn't necessarily "cheap" to do MIM as the machines required to perform this process certainly aren't given away to companies.

Competition forces companies to seek improved, faster and less expensive alternatives to production. I'd think American's would get that part of business as businesses who don't do this are soon out of business.

I generally don't see a ton of reports of well engineered MIM, on whatever pistol, breaking very often. I think this whole argument is more or less born out of ignorance and resistance to change.

If Henry Ford were still producing vehicles "The way he always did" he'd have gone bankrupt long before GM and Chrysler a few years ago.

Of course this is my opinion based on years of experience in business. You can agree or disagree, I'm fine with you having an opinion as well. However, I'd bet each of you a paycheck you'd do exactly the same if it were your business.
 
Last edited:
the next time the MIM parts in my sp101 shatter will be the first.

if you guys want more soul in the metallurgy of our firearms lets go back to file work and drop the lathe and mills.
 
your SP101 probably doesn't have MIM

Injection-molding parts is a cost cutting method which is perfectly appropriate in a value-oriented gun like Ruger.

You will not find it in high end revolvers and even many faux-high-end revolvers like special edition S&Ws.

That said...if I were a Ruger guy I would not complain about injection-molded parts in my cast-framed revolver.

Ruger was created to be a value gun. Cost-cutting methods have been employed since the first .22 with a sheet metal frame.

It is their way. And they fill a market and they fill it well.

I am glad you enjoy your guns.

That is their purpose.
 
sorry Guillermo I disagree all new ways are not bad. Metallurgy is metallurgy MIM is closer to ore (as I have read) I posted some facts about MIM in a past thread I will see if I can dig them up. By your argument it would suggest because a certain process takes longer and costs more it is better. It may be prettier, but does it make it better?
 
no one suggests that it is "better"
Click to expand...

With all due respect G, I'll readily admit you and others have obviously forgotten more about revolvers than I'll probably ever learn, however, I've not seen anyone demonstrate with data that it is inferior. In fact, it has been stated that sintering is a similar process. Not being an expert in revolver mfg, I look forward to some actual data and not just opinion and conjecture.
 
you asked a question in post 106

I explained in post 107

Think about knives. The harder it is, the more brittle. The softer the less it will hold an edge.

A large knife would break easily if it were all hard, carbon steel. It would not hold an edge were it all soft stainless.

In the old days they would do Damascus by hammering harder metal on top of softer metal.

These days they harden the cutting edge only.

Imagine a knife made of straight razor metal. It would break because it is too hard.

MIM is all hard and thus brittle.

Get it?
 
FYI

MIM does not "play well" with other metals.
It does not polish well
It does not take plating well


The Jerry Michulec smith (625JM) has a flash chromed trigger.

The chrome flakes off which has predictable effects upon the action.

It is a cost cutting method and perfectly appropriate in a value gun.

Ruger is being smart by using it. It keeps them in the price category that they have always wanted to be in.
 
FYI

Sintering is part of the reason that Colt got out of the Double Action revolver business.

It did not hold up well...harming their already fractured reputation in the market
 
I cannot speak to what you read and what it says.

I can only speak to reality

BTW

None other than Grant Cunningham is happy to explain it since you refuse to believe me.

The trouble is that the MIM part is the same hardness all the way through, since that's how it was engineered. This is great for reducing sear face wear, but with hardness comes brittleness - and that thin edge is quite brittle. What you need is a surface hardening of some sort for wear resistance, with the underlying material left softer for strength.
Click to expand...


http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_files/2ca22a8b4cae7a2da440a1f09f72d8bf-86.html
 
just because colt didn't do it well doesn't mean anything about MIM being good or bad.

The end-product MIM metal has comparable mechanical and physical properties with parts made using classic metalworking methods, and MIM materials are compatible with the same subsequent metal conditioning treatments such as plating, passivating, annealing, carburizing, nitriding, and precipitation hardening.
Click to expand...
 
So u don't believe me
You don't believe grant Cunningham
You don't understand the concept that harder is more brittle


You are beyond my and grant's ability to explain

Good luck
 
stay in the dark if you want I supplied a factual link that has facts about MIM. There are plenty more. I'm not star struck easily, metallurgy doesn't change because grant cunningham doesn't like it.

for one fun fact MIM is cheaper because it is less wasteful than traditional metal working.
 
If a surface hardening treatment was omitted from a MIM part requiring a hard surface, the blame goes to the designer. They need not be completely through hardened to achieve the desired effect.

This is consistent with what Grant is saying - the through-hardness is a design issue, not a process capability issue.
The trouble is that the MIM part is the same hardness all the way through, since that's how it was engineered. This is great for reducing sear face wear, but with hardness comes brittleness - and that thin edge is quite brittle. What you need is a surface hardening of some sort for wear resistance, with the underlying material left softer for strength. You COULD do that with an MIM part, but if you did you'd negate one of the primary benefits of the method: the elimination of secondary operations. So the company chooses to continue to use the MIM part as designed, and which is a poor choice for the application. No wonder some people don't like them!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Good luck you have not read anything I have posted. I will post it again

.Quote:
The end-product MIM metal has comparable mechanical and physical properties with parts made using classic metalworking methods, and MIM materials are compatible with the same subsequent metal conditioning treatments such as plating, passivating, annealing, carburizing, nitriding, and precipitation hardening.
 
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