MIM's the word

[Hedge Hog]

We love our 1911's. I have to ask, though, how necessary is replacing all the MIM parts? J.B.'s intended genius/masterpiece/reliability notwithstanding, why does a 1911 need to have all the MIM pieces replaced, yet the ____________ pistol (fill in the blank) does not? I don't hear of Glocks, SIG's, S&Ws, Rugers, yadda-yadda needing to have all their cast or MIM particulars replaced. Certainly they are full of them. Why, Santa Claus, why?

Let's dispense with all the arguments regarding the 1911's superiority. Why the double standard, if indeed that is what it is? I understand the notion that for a defense pistol, we want to have utter trust in all components. If this notion is true, and I happen to agree, then do other pistols not NEED replacement of their MIM or cast parts? If they don't, (gulp), why this discrepency? In this scenario, I suggest: (1) either all lesser pistols will soon utterly fail due to MIM (or plastic) infection; (2) the 1911 requires higher quality parts than other designs to function reliably; or (3) our beloved forged, tooled, wire cut, uber steel parts are all .......... bling, all obsession.

Now for some pre-emptive house cleaning: I am not a troll, I do not have an agenda against the 1911, George W. or the Mormon church (J.B. was LDS). It is far and away my favorite pistol. I want some discussion, not the accusations less mature posters seem to throw when their knickers get twisted in their forged, rear-only serrated, carbon steel slides.

 

[1911Tuner]

MIM

Howdy Hedge Hog,

Although I'm decidedly not a fan of MIM, the answer is no...not
all the MIM components in a 1911 need to be changed. There are some parts that are perfectly suited for it, assuming that the material itself
isn't flawed or brittle. Parts that aren't thin in the cross-section,
or parts that don't endure high impact stresses work very well with MIM.
Even with internal flaws, some parts will last for the life of the gun
without failure.

I would replace the hammer, sear and disconnect...even though I've
never seen an MIM disconnect break or wear prematurely...and only
a few sears that gave a problems or showed signs of impending early failure. Very likely that those sears were flawed from the git-go..but
that's one of the unknowns in any molding process. It's impossible to
detect an internal flaw until it breaks unless the part is magnafluxed or X-rayed.

An MIM extractor should be tossed as soon as possible. The manufacturers
are catching on that those don't work out well at all.

The slidestop is another part that is prone to breakage, but it's also one
that lends itself very well to drop-in replacement as part of a scheduled
maintenance item. I would replace an MIM slidestop about every 5 thousand rounds. Chip McCormick markets a very good MIM slidestop,
and are available from Brownells for about 20 bucks. Cheap insurance.
MIM firing pin stops should also be changed at regular intervals, IMO.

Mainspring housings, grip and thumb safeties, and barrel bushings fare
pretty well in MIM...as do mag catches. Never seen an MIM mag catch break, though I'm sure that they have somewhere along the line. Probably
a 20,000 round replacement item, just to be on the safe side. 20 bucks.

 

[stans]

I think MIM is fine for low stress parts, but firing pin stops, extractors and slide stops are high impact items. Probably the biggest reason for MIM part failure is a flaw in the part itself. Just like in a casting, a void is a weak spot and will eventually fail.

 

[Bill Z]

We will all have to get used to MIM, it's just a fact of life. I think with technology improving everyday in the manufacturing world you will find that the issues we were encountering several years ago will deminish to a point where it is statistically immesurable from quality manufacturers. If the cast is good and the machining is good, you can get a quality part at a fraction of the cost that has better tolerances and consistancy, but this is true with any process. Any customer of mine that wantsthe parts replaced, more power to them, I could use the money.

 

[1911Tuner]

MIM

Have to agree with Bill on a few points. MIM is still an infant, and there will be a breakthrough on the process in a few years so advanced that parts
made with that process will be superior to machined barstock. It's not a matter of "IF"... but when. The day will come that we'll see an MIM part that's so tough you can't break it with a hammer and anvil.

Cheers!

Tuner

 

[Jim Watson]

From the little bit I have read on the process, I think you can already get MIM parts at least equal to and maybe better than milled. Problem is, it is commonly called "aerospace grade" and will cost more than conventional. Aircraft industry uses it anyhow because you can mold a complex shape instead of fabricating it from cast, stamped, or machined bits.
Maybe if they can bring the cost down we will see some functional benefits.

 

[Browns Fan]

Hedge Hog makes an excellent point. You would expect that German engineers from H&K or Sig Sauerto use barstock on thier ALL intenal parts... do they?

And what about the new Rorbaugh (spl?) for nearly $1k?

 

[Browns Fan]

Ooops, I mean ALL their internal parts. Sorry guys.

 

[Tamara]

You would expect that German engineers from H&K or Sig Sauerto use barstock on thier ALL intenal parts... do they?

Both those companies were pioneers in using sheetmetal stampings for internal components.

 

[45auto]

Perhaps MIM will "get" better and better. But if the manufacturer has a "target" price of say...$3.00 per sear, will that sear be produced better 10 years from now...from all suppliers?

Is casting or forging better now than it was 20 years ago? That's a question...I have no point to make since I'm not really against MIM in production 1911's at competitive price points. My experiences with them are good so far.

But, when I have them replaced it will be with "real steel" since the retail cost difference is minimal compared to the labor and SHIPPING if need be.

 

[Z_Infidel]

I think what Hedge Hog might be asking, and I've wondered this myself, is whether we should be concerned with use of MIM parts in guns in general and not just the 1911 platform. Since these discussions have come about, those of us who shoot 1911s might now be paying more attention to the matter when it comes to our 1911 pistols. But is the issue actually much bigger? If I go out and buy a new pistol from XYZ Manufacturer, should I scrutinize the gun's internals and begin the quest of replacement with better parts, or do I just have faith in the manufacturer's design and production methods?

I think part of this might be the fact that there are people who have such in-depth knowledge of the 1911 who work on these guns all the time and share what they have discovered, and less so with some of the other makes. So now the potential issues with 1911 parts are leading to forum readers wondering about the same issues as they apply to other guns.

Choose:

A) There isn't a no-frills semi auto available that can be utterly depended on and that is affordable to the average person.

B) We're making too much of the issue and just about any quality gun will do.

C) It's a huge grey area with no easy answer that will drive us all nuts if we think about it long enough.

D) None of the above. The real truth is... __________ (fill in the blank)

 

[Old Fuff]

First of all, why is it that the popular European guns and some U.S, manufacturers are able to use MIM parts without apparent problems? Simple. It’s because the parts in these guns were originally designed with MIM fabrication in mind. Most of the guns originated in the early 1970’s and they usually work, MIM, investment cast parts, and pressed metal stampings not withstanding.

The problem with the 1911 pistol is that it wasn’t designed to have parts made with these technologies. The manufacturers adopted it for the sole purpose of saving themselves money in production costs. Some parts came out fine, where others – particularly extractors, slide locks and hammer struts – didn’t.

The issue becomes more complicated because most, if not all, of the gun manufacturers buy the parts from sub-contractors rather then make them in-house. Since saving money is the motivating force behind MIM parts, quality control can and does run all over the map. It appears that the manufacturers simply accept the parts and put them into production with no further checks or inspections. If a company buys from the lowest bidder they usually get what they pay for.

If the gun owner uses the pistol exclusively in a non-weapon context all of this probably doesn’t matter. On the other hand if they do use it to protect themselves and others, prudence suggest that certain MIM parts be replaced using others that are made to or exceed Colt/Browning specifications.

John Browning can hardly be faulted for not designing his gun to use manufacturing technologies that hadn’t been invented at the time, but today’s makers should be called onto the carpet for making unproven changes before they were sure beyond doubt that they would work – not some of the time, but all of the time.

Future improvements in MIM or other technologies may make it possible to make parts that are truly better then those made out of forgings or machined bar stock (what I call “real-steelâ€), but that isn’t the case now.

Ultimately one has several choices:

1. Keep the pistol as it is, and hope nothing breaks or fails to work at a critical time. Personally I wouldn’t accept such compromises in anything that was part of my life insurance.

2. Replace the suspect parts with real-steel ones as a precautionary measure. These parts have a proven track record dating back to 1911. At this point the “near-steel†parts don’t, and if you do a search on this forum you will find plenty of threads, involving various guns but mostly centered on the 1911 design, that indicate there are some serious problems.

3. Buy a pistol based on a later design (Glock, SIG, H&K, Beretta, Ruger, etc.) that use MIM or investment cast parts but apparently don’t suffer any problems because of it.