Picking up a ruger gp100, trigger job info?

[amd6547]

I bought a 2013 production 3" GP100 this year...it has one of the best revolver triggers I have ever experienced. Both DA and SA are better than my two older, well used S&W's, a Model 15 and a Model 10.
I had read up on spring changes and stoning parts on the GP...I won't be doing a thing but shooting it.

 

[DPris]

Again- no problem whatever in stoning MIM parts, if you're concerned about that non-existent issue.
I don't know where that originated.
Denis

 

[Old Fuff]

You can polish/stone MIM parts, but if you simply dry fire the revolver the contact points between parts that are under pressure (usually caused by spring tension) will burnish themselves smooth.

They're at least two possible negative to removing metal:

1. Take off too much in the wrong place, and the part(s) may become out of tolerance.

2. If for whatever reason you return the revolver to the Ruger factory and they discover aftermarket "polished" parts they are likely to replace them and bill the owner for the replacements; or return the gun and refuse to work on it. Burnishing on the other hand won't void the implied warrantee.

 

[scythefwd]

Since its a used revolver, no warranty

Trigger feels ok, no grit to polish out. That wide & flat trigger i dont like. May have to get a spare and reprofile it a little to be more rounded on the right side.

Looks to be an 07 production. If the trigger is mim, i cant tell. Same with cylinder release

 

[scythefwd]

Now to get rid of those aweful sights. Not sure if shell get an optic or fiber optic irons yet.

 

[DPris]

If it's an '07, it won't be MIM. That started less than two years ago in the GP. MIM triggers on the GPs & SPs are very easy to tell anyway- if the back is solid, it's cast. If it's hollowed vertically, it's MIM.
Denis

And, good luck on getting a spare trigger.

 

[scythefwd]

I have a couple smiths that may oblige... Finding an all steel one, that may be harder

 

[DPris]

An obliging all-steel smith?
Denis

 

[scythefwd]

I have a couple smiths that may be able and willing to order a new trigger from ruger.
Finding an steel trigger vs. MIM (yes, I know MIM is steel, but you know what I mean) would be a bit more difficult.

I've got a machinist buddy or two that could duplicate it though, but it'd not be cheap..

 

[DPris]

Dunno if Ruger has any of the pre-MIM triggers left, but you can always try.
Denis

 

[scythefwd]

I doubt the do... If have to get a mom one fitted
But first, trigger return spring swap

 

[scythefwd]

And here she be

 

[Rule3]

Since its a used revolver, no warranty

Trigger feels ok, no grit to polish out. That wide & flat trigger i dont like. May have to get a spare and reprofile it a little to be more rounded on the right side.

Looks to be an 07 production. If the trigger is mim, i cant tell. Same with cylinder release

Don't worry about MIM, if you do then you will worry the whole gun is cast Change the springs shoot it a lot and it will feel fine,

 

[DeMilled]

2. If for whatever reason you return the revolver to the Ruger factory and they discover aftermarket "polished" parts they are likely to replace them and bill the owner for the replacements; or return the gun and refuse to work on it. Burnishing on the other hand won't void the implied warrantee.

My personal experience with sending my GP100 back to Ruger in 2009 says this statement is un-true.

I did a full on trigger job, replaced the springs and then had a problem with one of the parts I had worked on being out of tolerance and the cylinder bound up.

I could not even swing the cylinder out of the frame and could not pull the trigger.

Ruger replaced one part with a new part, left all the other parts alone and sent my revolver back to me.

Ruger did not even charge me for the part.


Personal experience.

 

[scythefwd]

Rule, we have all live through an 07... 2007 lol. Also, im not worried bout mim... Dont mean i want it. Cast = one piece poured into shape... As strong as the extruded bars most guns are milled from.

Mim= sintered metal powder, so far different it hurts to even try to intimate they are even related

 

[DPris]

Sintering was actually a much earlier predecessor to MIM, similar process but different.

I think it's fair to say that properly done MIMs are markedly superior to sintered parts.
Denis

 

[Rule3]

delete

 

[scythefwd]

Dpris - my understanding of MIM is off then. I understood it to be metal powder and a bonding agent injected into a mold that is a little larger (roughly 25-30% larger depending on the piece) and then heated to sintering temps in order for the metal powder to bond to eachother. There is a bit of shrinkage due to the this...

I'm guessing I'm pretty far off base on that. Even if that were an accurate description, I dont have a problem with MIM in and of itself.. I just dont think it should be used in friction parts against hardened steel. Low stress parts, non issue. In this revolver, where the trigger also acts directly on the hammer.. I'd not care for it so much, but I could see it being doable (or ruger, smith, etc.. never would have even bothered to attempt it).

 

[Old Fuff]

I think it's fair to say that properly done MIMs are markedly superior to sintered parts.

I'd agree, but I'm not so sure they are better then high-quality investment castings that Ruger was (and is) famous for. The primary reason the firearms industry is going to MIM technology is cost savings.

But now it's a moot point. The future is clear.

 

[DPris]

SCY,
You're now describing MIM.
Sintering doesn't use the binder.

Saying MIM parts are created with sintered metal is not entirely correct.
Both processes use powdered metal technology, but the processes are not the same.

Fuff,
I agree with you, but I wasn't going to start up the whole MIM controversy again.
Denis

 

[Old Fuff]

... I wasn't going to start up the whole MIM controversy again.

Unquestionably a good idea, but they're shouldn't be any controversy. MIM parts are a done deal.

Those that have a problem with MIM technology have the option of buying earlier made guns. Those that don't care can buy anything they like.

 

[scythefwd]

Agreed guys.

Dp, i think the difference is picking nits. I was using sintering as a reference to heating a metal to a temp hot enough to cause bonding without melting... Not the manufacturing process. I dont have an issue with mim, but id rather keep it to firearms that shipped with it.

 

[DPris]

SCY,
Not nitpicking at all.
Sintered parts & MIM parts are not the same & the process is different.

If you refer to MIMs in talking about parts, you don't use the term interchangeably with sintered, or say that MIMs are made of sintered material.

Both are powdered metal processes, but MIM is not sintered & sintered is not MIM.
Denis

 

[scythefwd]

so you're saying that the final method of forming bonds in the metallic powder is NOT sintering for MIM? That bond is somehow different than if I were to take metallic powder, heat it to temp and then layer it? Is the density different, metalluligically they are the same. Are the bonds between the particles of powder stronger because it was sintered after removing the bonding agent in MIM vs. tratditional sintering? I wasnt using the terms interchangable.. But yes, a MIM part is made by sintering powder together.. so that part IS sintered. The method to get it into shape doesnt change that fact. It may change the end outcome.. but not that much... Lets not forget DLMS is just sintering too and they've made a fully operational 1911 with that recently (and it has several hundred rounds down it in testing). With that in mind, I dont consider it inferior, but it also isnt my prefered option if I have the choice. Sintering is the method used to get the metallic particals to bond.. if you only use it to describe one specific manufacturing process, you may be right from the standpoint of process.. but my use was not incorrect.

If MIM isn't made of sintered material, what is the final step? Is it NOT "the welding together of small particles of metal by applying heat below the melting point"? From everything I've read on MIM.. that is exactly what is happening.. so MIM, by the definition used in the encylopedia britannica.

The other definition that bing dictionary gives up is "
1.bond metal particles: to use pressure and heat below the melting point to bond and partly fuse masses of metal particles, or be bonded in this way
2.bonded metal particles: a mass of metal particles bonded and partly fused by the use of pressure and heat below the melting point
"

If dictionary.com is more your flavor (left off definition 1 as it doesnt apply to the use here) :
"noun
2. Metallurgy . the product of a sintering operation.

verb (used with object)
3. Metallurgy . to bring about agglomeration in (metal particles) by heating. "

or Merrium Webster:
"
Definition of SINTER

transitive verb


: to cause to become a coherent mass by heating without melting

intransitive verb


: to undergo sintering "

That also seems to be a dead ringer of the final step (The bonding agent is stripped out before this occurs in MIM, so the process itself is more detailed, but to say its NOT sintered material is inaccurate). Basically I'm saying, dont get caught up in how one industry uses a term, especially since there are other uses for the exact same word that can and may apply. Shoot, the first time I heard the process described, it was by a journeyman machinist.. who used the phrase "sintered together" for the last step.. which I then had to have explained since I wasn't familiar with the term.

 

[rbernie]

In both processes, the materials start out in powdered form (sintering without binder and MIM with a binder agent) and are based on powder metallurgy. However, traditional sintering uses pressure and time to create diffusion and binding and MIM uses mechanical diffusion of the powders (premix with binders and agents) and a near-melting heat step to complete the finished form.

If you define sintering as the process of using diffusion to mix and bind the powdered metals (the traditional 'sintering' process complete), then MIM is not sintering. If you define sintering solely as the process of using heat (among other things) to form a powdered metal into a single solid, then both are examples of sintering.