Possibly (probably?) true. But I don't plan to do the Bata testing, particularly if the handgun is something I might have to stake my life on. While the older guns (I'm thinking of S&W revolvers and 1911 pistols here) are not always perfect, their performance is predictable because they have a long track record. I have no problem with MIM or investment castings being used in guns that are or were originally designed around the respective technologies. I do when someone tries to duplicate a part in an older design where the technology may not be appropriate, simply because some manufacturer is trying to save money. Saying that a manufacturing method is O.K. now because it will be eventually perfected simply confirms my preference for older guns, at least for the time being.
Conversation with MIM sales rep (long)
- Thread starter Shear_stress
- Start date
- Status
Possibly (probably?) true. But I don't plan to do the Bata testing, particularly if the handgun is something I might have to stake my life on. While the older guns (I'm thinking of S&W revolvers and 1911 pistols here) are not always perfect, their performance is predictable because they have a long track record. I have no problem with MIM or investment castings being used in guns that are or were originally designed around the respective technologies. I do when someone tries to duplicate a part in an older design where the technology may not be appropriate, simply because some manufacturer is trying to save money. Saying that a manufacturing method is O.K. now because it will be eventually perfected simply confirms my preference for older guns, at least for the time being.
ZeSpectre
Member
Well, this is really quite interesting. I'm glad the OP started this thread.
New_geezer
Member
For those who pine for the old days of hand crafted, hand fitted guns, do you not realize that the reason they were made that way was because manufacturers lacked the technology to make them otherwise. As for all that handfitting, it mattered greatly whether the work was being done by Joe Caresalot, versus Bobby Newguy, or Marty Dungivacrap. The best modern example probably are the Turkish Shotguns, lots of handfitting and lots of inconsistant quality. Depends on who does the work.
Look at the debates between those who love the old Win Model 12s and those who favor the Rem 870 Wingmaster. Lots of nostalgia for the Mod 12, too bad it can't be produced economically anymore. And can anyone honestly say the classic Wingmaster that basically replaced the Mod 12, is a bad gun?
Modern manufacturing methods may not be romantic but the more the process is automated, and the less human handling, the more consistant and precise the product. There's no getting around it, quality hand work is expensive. MIM technology may have a few kinks yet to work out, but in twenty years we may be longing for it because the "new way" won't measure up.
I admit, I too prefer the aesthetics of the older guns. I like good wood and forged metal. But my guns with MIM parts have never let me down over many round. My wife loves her old Singer with the foot treadle and little wooden drawers all over. But it's not the machine she sews with
Look at the debates between those who love the old Win Model 12s and those who favor the Rem 870 Wingmaster. Lots of nostalgia for the Mod 12, too bad it can't be produced economically anymore. And can anyone honestly say the classic Wingmaster that basically replaced the Mod 12, is a bad gun?
Modern manufacturing methods may not be romantic but the more the process is automated, and the less human handling, the more consistant and precise the product. There's no getting around it, quality hand work is expensive. MIM technology may have a few kinks yet to work out, but in twenty years we may be longing for it because the "new way" won't measure up.
I admit, I too prefer the aesthetics of the older guns. I like good wood and forged metal. But my guns with MIM parts have never let me down over many round. My wife loves her old Singer with the foot treadle and little wooden drawers all over. But it's not the machine she sews with
After your long rant,
and I don't believe you really think that a 57 Chevy -even when new- is as good as a 2007 car, but you may be blinded by nostalgia. I never saw an oldy get 100,000 miles and if one did, it was front page news. By contrast, I can drive most any cheap Toyota 200,000 miles. It's so common nobody even mentions longevity. It's expected. The Toyota may not have the nostalgia value of the Chevy but it's a better car. and it's not 50 years old. 
Also, I never said adjust the wages for inflation. I said get paid 1957 wages, like a buck an hour. Just mentioning so you can't twist the facts I presented to suit yourself. If you want to adjust the wages and reproduce a new 2007 "57" Chevy you need to accept 2007 MIM gun as well. About your quote - yes, as an enthusiast you can demand whatever you decide you can pay for. A manufacturer has to meet a whole lot of factors you seem to be unaware of. Stockholders, yes, they count and you will soon be out and somebody who pleases them will take your place.
Shear_stress wrote:
The investment casting process used by Ruger for firearms differs substantially from the casting process for golf clubs and aerospace applications by the type of alloy used. ALL of Ruger's IC work is top notch.
MIM is bashable, not in its processes, which demonstrably work to form things that are useable, but in the end application of those parts. Forgings and ICs are more consistent part to part and time proven to take all manner of mechanical stresses. MIM is a demonstrated failure in taking repeated impacts whether that be hammer strikes or whether that be the lateral stress of ripping spent cases out of a chamber while being violently moved away to the rear by a slide.
Mind you MIM doesn't fail in every such small part application, but it has failed in enough such applications to have people rightfully concerned about being guinea pigs for cost cutting.
I am a Ruger fan alright, but I am a Ruger fan primarily because their IC products are state of the art and legendarily tough. They earned this reputation for bombproof toughness over time. MIM is a different process and a johnny-come-lately. I will accept the widespread use of MIM only after it has proven itself, which to my mind, hasn't even come close to happening.
Just for the record:
I have and had no problem with Sig Sauer's folded sheetmetal slides.
Aluminum alloy pistol frames.
Polymer receivers, especially those sandwiching steel reinforcements.
Polymer guide rods.
Plastic coated metal parts, ala Beretta
Titanium alloy frames and parts.
Stampings ala the AK.
I also think MIM would make for excellent sights, XD grip safeties, metal magazine tubes, and other low stress applications, but is misapplied in wear items, such as extractors, ejectors, magazine catches, firing pins, pins in general, sears, disconnectors, hammers, triggers, trigger bars, or safety/decocker switches which directly interact with the sear, hammer, or trigger.
Maybe MIM will get there someday, but that day isn't here yet.
The investment casting process used by Ruger for firearms differs substantially from the casting process for golf clubs and aerospace applications by the type of alloy used. ALL of Ruger's IC work is top notch.
MIM is bashable, not in its processes, which demonstrably work to form things that are useable, but in the end application of those parts. Forgings and ICs are more consistent part to part and time proven to take all manner of mechanical stresses. MIM is a demonstrated failure in taking repeated impacts whether that be hammer strikes or whether that be the lateral stress of ripping spent cases out of a chamber while being violently moved away to the rear by a slide.
Mind you MIM doesn't fail in every such small part application, but it has failed in enough such applications to have people rightfully concerned about being guinea pigs for cost cutting.
I am a Ruger fan alright, but I am a Ruger fan primarily because their IC products are state of the art and legendarily tough. They earned this reputation for bombproof toughness over time. MIM is a different process and a johnny-come-lately. I will accept the widespread use of MIM only after it has proven itself, which to my mind, hasn't even come close to happening.
Just for the record:
I have and had no problem with Sig Sauer's folded sheetmetal slides.
Aluminum alloy pistol frames.
Polymer receivers, especially those sandwiching steel reinforcements.
Polymer guide rods.
Plastic coated metal parts, ala Beretta
Titanium alloy frames and parts.
Stampings ala the AK.
I also think MIM would make for excellent sights, XD grip safeties, metal magazine tubes, and other low stress applications, but is misapplied in wear items, such as extractors, ejectors, magazine catches, firing pins, pins in general, sears, disconnectors, hammers, triggers, trigger bars, or safety/decocker switches which directly interact with the sear, hammer, or trigger.
Maybe MIM will get there someday, but that day isn't here yet.
Have any of you folks ever seen a Walther P.38? I mean a good, early gun, not late war or postwar alloy.
Did you know that the P.38 is complete junk, stamped of metal that is little better than tin foil? Well, writers in the 1940's said that.
Did you know that WWII Japanese rifles were no better than a cheap .22 and were so inaccurate that they couldn't hit anyone over ten feet away? Some American soldiers were told that and some died believing it.
Did you know that Ruger is making guns by casting, cheap trash just like the Spanish junk guns that everyone knows blow up? Winchester spread that story, long and loud, to gun writers. (Note: Ruger is still in business, still making good guns; Winchester is gone.)
Did you know that Remington rifle receivers are made from cheap tube steel, not forged like a real rifle? Credit Winchester again, see note above. (Winchester 70 receivers were milled from bar stock, not forged, but anything to knock the cometition.)
And on, and on.
Companies that progress, and progress includes taking advantage of modern production techniques, remain in business. Companies that "do it the old way", at vast expense in time and labor, lose out.
Not all new techniques are good, and not all stand the test of time. But stagnation for the sake of nostalgia or because something "looks better" will put a company on the road to the bankruptcy sale.
Jim
Did you know that the P.38 is complete junk, stamped of metal that is little better than tin foil? Well, writers in the 1940's said that.
Did you know that WWII Japanese rifles were no better than a cheap .22 and were so inaccurate that they couldn't hit anyone over ten feet away? Some American soldiers were told that and some died believing it.
Did you know that Ruger is making guns by casting, cheap trash just like the Spanish junk guns that everyone knows blow up? Winchester spread that story, long and loud, to gun writers. (Note: Ruger is still in business, still making good guns; Winchester is gone.)
Did you know that Remington rifle receivers are made from cheap tube steel, not forged like a real rifle? Credit Winchester again, see note above. (Winchester 70 receivers were milled from bar stock, not forged, but anything to knock the cometition.)
And on, and on.
Companies that progress, and progress includes taking advantage of modern production techniques, remain in business. Companies that "do it the old way", at vast expense in time and labor, lose out.
Not all new techniques are good, and not all stand the test of time. But stagnation for the sake of nostalgia or because something "looks better" will put a company on the road to the bankruptcy sale.
Jim
Speaking only for myself, I am not arguing from nostalgia. I have several "inferior" aluminum receivered Mossbergs that show no hint of giving up any time in my lifetime. The plastic trigger group and safety button on two of the three are as good as the day I bought them.
MIM is unproven. At this point, I do believe there is a certain amount of truth that the market is experimentally testing this process via warranty returns. That's not something I want lurking in the background of any firearm I want to stake my life on.
A return authorization number don't feed the bulldog if my hammer snaps one shot into a gunfight or a disconnector suddenly fails and pukes all of my ammo downrange uncontrollably.
MIM is unproven. At this point, I do believe there is a certain amount of truth that the market is experimentally testing this process via warranty returns. That's not something I want lurking in the background of any firearm I want to stake my life on.
A return authorization number don't feed the bulldog if my hammer snaps one shot into a gunfight or a disconnector suddenly fails and pukes all of my ammo downrange uncontrollably.
454c
Member
Sorry guys, the car comparisons don't hold water. Other factors come into play on that one.
With todays better machinery that we hear about, why can we not produce forged parts to tighter specs that would require less fitting and still have a better part?
With todays better machinery that we hear about, why can we not produce forged parts to tighter specs that would require less fitting and still have a better part?
DawgFvr
Member
So...how long has S&W been using MIM technology...and, how many people who have purchased newer S&W revolvers have had failures/breakages due to this MIM technology? I personally, have not had a failure with my weapon...and I do not know anybody who owns the new S&W's at my range who have had any problems. I'm not sure how S&W can stay in business if they make inferior weapons...they just might go the way of Winchester.
I don't know that the "newer" S&Ws are "old enough" to make a determination on MIM one way or the other. It will be interesting over time to see how the ones with MIM lockwork wear. Since the MIM parts are only case hardened, and then their continued integrity if the hardening is worn through is questionable at best, I'd say the jury is still out.
Most quality firearms are designed and built to provide a lifetime or more of service. However, I suspect that just like most firearms, the vast majority of "new" Smiths are not fired enough to expose any class wide MIM deficiencies.
The only test we really have is to see how they wear over time. Castings, stampings, and polymer molding have all met and passed the test of time when those technologies were aptly applied. MIM ain't there yet.
FWIW, sintered metal parts being seen as "quality" never caught on either. MIM faces a similar challenge in market perception.
Most quality firearms are designed and built to provide a lifetime or more of service. However, I suspect that just like most firearms, the vast majority of "new" Smiths are not fired enough to expose any class wide MIM deficiencies.
The only test we really have is to see how they wear over time. Castings, stampings, and polymer molding have all met and passed the test of time when those technologies were aptly applied. MIM ain't there yet.
FWIW, sintered metal parts being seen as "quality" never caught on either. MIM faces a similar challenge in market perception.
Jim Watson
Member
I haven't got a late model S&W, but I guarandamtee you that I would not want to be dependent on heart-lung machine (one claim for MIM) parts of the quality of the MIM in my Springfields, no matter how they were made.
It isn't the method, it's the quality, and MIM is being used to cut costs, not improve or maintain strength and fit.
It isn't the method, it's the quality, and MIM is being used to cut costs, not improve or maintain strength and fit.
Shear_stress
Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2005
- Messages
- 2,728
Folks, I appreciate the intelligent debate on this subject. This is the main reason why I post on this forum almost exclusively.
That was exactly my point. The high quality of aerospace grade parts does not necessarily translate across the board to all investment castings. Ruger has perfected investment casting for sure, but that doesn't mean that all investment cast parts are created equal. Same thing with MIM.
I don't understand this criticism, as S&W's lockwork has always just been case hardened.
Honestly, what cases are we talking about? Is there some kind of statistical basis for parts failure in S&Ws? I keep reading declarative statements, but would love to see some links to some studies or reference articles or something. You feel very strongly on this point, so I am trying to understand the basis for your opinion. S&W has been using MIM for going on ten years, and I haven't heard much even anecdotal evidence of people breaking hammers, triggers, etc. I frequent the Smith & Wesson forum daily, and, apart from a lot of griping about MIM, cannot remember a post in which someone had actually had a MIM part break. Now, Kimber or Para Ordnance--another story. Then again, I have a CZ with a casting flaw in its IC frame, so we're right back to talking about quality control, not method of manufacture.
For sure, but your original argument implied that there is somehow less metal in a MIM part.
I wonder if, in S&W's case, MIM takes a lot of heat because they started to use a lot of it right around the same time they discounted a lot of older models, abandoned blueing for the most part, stuck that idiot lock on the side of their revolvers, and started painting their airweight guns with peel-prone clear coat. Maybe some people dislike MIM because it is symptomatic of a raft of unwanted changes the company made to their product line within just a couple of years.
That was exactly my point. The high quality of aerospace grade parts does not necessarily translate across the board to all investment castings. Ruger has perfected investment casting for sure, but that doesn't mean that all investment cast parts are created equal. Same thing with MIM.
I don't understand this criticism, as S&W's lockwork has always just been case hardened.
Honestly, what cases are we talking about? Is there some kind of statistical basis for parts failure in S&Ws? I keep reading declarative statements, but would love to see some links to some studies or reference articles or something. You feel very strongly on this point, so I am trying to understand the basis for your opinion. S&W has been using MIM for going on ten years, and I haven't heard much even anecdotal evidence of people breaking hammers, triggers, etc. I frequent the Smith & Wesson forum daily, and, apart from a lot of griping about MIM, cannot remember a post in which someone had actually had a MIM part break. Now, Kimber or Para Ordnance--another story. Then again, I have a CZ with a casting flaw in its IC frame, so we're right back to talking about quality control, not method of manufacture.
For sure, but your original argument implied that there is somehow less metal in a MIM part.
I wonder if, in S&W's case, MIM takes a lot of heat because they started to use a lot of it right around the same time they discounted a lot of older models, abandoned blueing for the most part, stuck that idiot lock on the side of their revolvers, and started painting their airweight guns with peel-prone clear coat. Maybe some people dislike MIM because it is symptomatic of a raft of unwanted changes the company made to their product line within just a couple of years.
Last edited:
DAdams
Member
Ruger
SWHC
I own both company's stock. Both are considered "strong buys" at the present time.
I don't own a Ruger but everytime I buy another S&W I put some of that I spent right back in my pocket.
I have owned both for over a year.
Keep buying.
A case hardened forging doesn't have microporosity issues like MIM does.
Yes I realize that Ruger's success at casting doesn't extend to CZ or to Astra, or whomever, but one of the reasons that Ruger is uniformally excellent at it is through advanced metallurgy no matter what alloy they are using for a given application. Ruger, due to its methods, gets to use ferrous alloys that can be made without elements that increase its machinability, which in turn, slightly weaken the alloy to allow it to be machined. Ruger gets to leave out most of the sulphur, boron, silicon, and other machinability elements that others have to leave in to make their chosen steel alloys more "free machining."
That Ruger gets to "break the rules" metalurgically is what incenses me when people ignorantly state that GP-100s are "Heavier" or "bulkier" than are L-Frame Smiths in order to be stronger.
It's primo BS, since the two series are within an ounce of each other (S&Ws of equal barrel length being the heavier) and can share leather. The Ruger is widely regarded as the tougher revolver. It is, but only through advanced metallurgy, (which by eliminating "machinability" elements in its steel alloys also increases its wear resistance, especially on the hand and the star), and advanced design that foregoes the sideplate and places the cylinder stop cuts over the beefier parts of the cylinder rather than over the holes. Ruger is almost alone in the gunmaking industry in being interested in fielding the strongest possible designs at sane, end user expected weights.
http://www.cartech.com/news/wr_news_sturmruger.html
IC is a better and more mature technology than is MIM, even comparing the state of the art apples to apples. The real difference is that where a less than state of the art casting is still highly usuable with a low failure rate, a less than stellar MIM piece is a POS waiting to happen.
Yes I realize that Ruger's success at casting doesn't extend to CZ or to Astra, or whomever, but one of the reasons that Ruger is uniformally excellent at it is through advanced metallurgy no matter what alloy they are using for a given application. Ruger, due to its methods, gets to use ferrous alloys that can be made without elements that increase its machinability, which in turn, slightly weaken the alloy to allow it to be machined. Ruger gets to leave out most of the sulphur, boron, silicon, and other machinability elements that others have to leave in to make their chosen steel alloys more "free machining."
That Ruger gets to "break the rules" metalurgically is what incenses me when people ignorantly state that GP-100s are "Heavier" or "bulkier" than are L-Frame Smiths in order to be stronger.
It's primo BS, since the two series are within an ounce of each other (S&Ws of equal barrel length being the heavier) and can share leather. The Ruger is widely regarded as the tougher revolver. It is, but only through advanced metallurgy, (which by eliminating "machinability" elements in its steel alloys also increases its wear resistance, especially on the hand and the star), and advanced design that foregoes the sideplate and places the cylinder stop cuts over the beefier parts of the cylinder rather than over the holes. Ruger is almost alone in the gunmaking industry in being interested in fielding the strongest possible designs at sane, end user expected weights.
http://www.cartech.com/news/wr_news_sturmruger.html
IC is a better and more mature technology than is MIM, even comparing the state of the art apples to apples. The real difference is that where a less than state of the art casting is still highly usuable with a low failure rate, a less than stellar MIM piece is a POS waiting to happen.
DawgFvr
Member
Well, you know, I like my brand spanking new 642. I fire it weekly and have had no problem with it. I suspect that it will begin to break in after I'm pushing up daisies. I do like the new Rugers as well. I test fired a SP101 and just loved the way it fit my hand. I did not think the trigger was bad at all, however, after hearing everybody give the nod to S&W triggers, I plan on purchasing one from gemini customs and spending $500 on a trigger job, frame glass beaded, moon clips, etc. I suspect it stand up to old guard S&W standards after that.
http://www.geminicustoms.com/Revolvers & Services.htm
http://www.geminicustoms.com/Revolvers & Services.htm
Just for the record since it was suggested I was ranting,,,,,
I like polymer frame firearms.
Investement casting is a good thing, especially when it is done correctly.
Have anyone here EVER seen a Ruger firearm WIN a Precision Match shoot?
Not just be shot in the Match, actually win the match.
Metal injection Molding has uses.
In firearms that use is to reduce overall production costs to increase profits, period.
There is no other sound arguement for using MiM technology if firearm production.
Oh, and for that 200,000 mile 57 Chevy, I know of a couple and admittably the cars need to be worked on regularly to keep them rolling.
The owners do the work themselves and don't need a high dollar computer to make, determine, or fine tune those repairs.
Can you say that of the wonderful Toyoda or any new car for that matter???
Rant off.
I like polymer frame firearms.
Investement casting is a good thing, especially when it is done correctly.
Have anyone here EVER seen a Ruger firearm WIN a Precision Match shoot?
Not just be shot in the Match, actually win the match.
Metal injection Molding has uses.
In firearms that use is to reduce overall production costs to increase profits, period.
There is no other sound arguement for using MiM technology if firearm production.
Oh, and for that 200,000 mile 57 Chevy, I know of a couple and admittably the cars need to be worked on regularly to keep them rolling.
The owners do the work themselves and don't need a high dollar computer to make, determine, or fine tune those repairs.
Can you say that of the wonderful Toyoda or any new car for that matter???
Rant off.
Ya... Over the years, but in particular during the late 1950's and 60's, match versions of Ruger .22 pistols were used by competitors who won any number of local and state tournments, and some national ones at Camp Perry. They still make a decent entry level bullseye match .22 pistol. Because of the way the barrel is threaded into the receiver, with the rear sight mounted on the receiver and the front one on the barrel, they have the potential to be very accurate - more then enought to stay within the "X" ring at 50 yards.
On one occasion I was on a 4-man team that shot a U.S. national record in I.S.U. Centerfire. One of our members fired a .357 Ruger Blackhawk with .38 Special mid-range wadcutters.
That record stood for all of two weeks...
In all fairness to Ruger, with the exception of target versions of their .22 pistol, their other handguns are not made to be formal target guns, and shouldn't be expected to be. They usually serve very well for their intended purpose.
Returning to the original point of this thread: I would observe that those who have no problem with MIM parts in their firearms have a vast number of currently produced products from which too chose. Others that find them to be questionable for what ever reasons can turn to the second-hand aftermarket and find a substantial number of earlier models that meet their expectations. So long as this choice remains I see no issues that can't be resolved.
- Status
