What manufacturers make pistols without MIM parts

[Malamute]

Too bad that turbine blades and end mills aren't gun parts.

When stock MIM parts on cheaper guns, become better than aftermarket tool steel parts, I'll gladly leave them in my pistol.

Can you describe exactly what the difference is that makes one good and one bad? I hear about this, but don't know. It seems to just be assumed that one is good and one is bad, but nobody has explained exactly that the functional or mechanical difference is.

It would seem that turbine blades and end mills are made of better grade material than gun parts. Interesting that they are inferior for gun parts.

Do we have a list of makes, models and specfic parts that have failed in mim application, and if that was the reason they failed? Dates/places would be good too.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Zerodefect:

Too bad that turbine blades and end mills aren't gun parts.

Why?

When stock MIM parts on cheaper guns, become better than aftermarket tool steel parts, I'll gladly leave them in my pistol

Do you have an objective reason for believing that MIM cannot be used to make better parts?

I've been away from the manufacturing business for a number of years now. When I left, there were a myriad of new technologies coming on line, and new materials and processes that were showing considerable promise. At the time, no one would have considered using in a new design some of the older processes and materials in many of their traditional applications.

One thing to take into account is that rolled and drawn metals (plate and bar stock) have directional "grain" patterns that introduce directionally specific strength parameters; MIM parts have no such irregularity. Rolled and drawn metals also have the inherent potential for internal flaws; if I recall correctly, forging was used, when economically feasible, not only to reduce the amount of material removal necessary, but also to help reduce the potential for those internal imperfections. But again, it has been a long time.

The applicable material parameters will include tensile strength, shear strength, compression strength, elastic modulus, hardness, and fatigue strength, along with the facility for precision manufacture. Is high grade MIM product inferior in any of those regards to "tool steel"? I do not know, but apparently some companies have decided to produce high speed cutter heads using MIM, and that application was once a main raison d'être for "tool steel".

What I do know is that MIM can be used to make more complex parts and to decrease the number of parts. I also know that the strength requirements and the number of duty cycles in the life cycle are much greater for aero engines, auto engines, and transmission parts than for any handgun.

Until someone can provide me with some objective engineering data, I will tend to discount objections to MIM parts as unsubstantiated prejudice.

 

[Malamute]

Do you have an objective reason for believing that MIM cannot be used to make better parts?

...Until someone can provide me with some objective engineering data, I will tend to discount objections to MIM parts as unsubstantiated prejudice.

Well said. I'd like to see the information as well.

 

[Zerodefect]

I never said that all MIM was bad. Just that my MIM sure was. And it doesn't matter how a bad part was made. For example a Kimber thumb safety. I've broken two of those, and I don't blame the MIM for that.

MIM is used so that Kimber and Glock can manufacturer 50,000 guns every year. Not because it's better, or that they don't know how to make a better part. MIM can rapidly create more small drop in parts than any other method. Imagine making 50,000 tool steel sears in a CNC. Then go watch a MIM vid on youtube.

The aftermarket still offers plenty of smoother, stronger, harder, parts for 1911's and Glocks. And if a pistol is my CCW, then I have no budget set. If there is a part out there that's better, but too expensive for Glock or Kimber to put in everything, then I want to at least check that part out and see if it can improve my CCW.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Zerodefect:

I never said that all MIM was bad. Just that my MIM sure was.

In 1966, I purchased a Smith and Wesson Model 39. After taking it shooting one, I loaded it for home defense. Chambering a round by closing he slide caused it to fire.

I then took it shooing again. It went full auto on the first shot. Back to Smith it went.

The sear disconnect had fractured. Crystallized metal.

Not MIM.

Should I generalize about the metallurgy on the basis of that experience?

 

[DPris]

No, but you could generalize about those 39s.
Denis

 

[Jim K]

FWIW, I have seen two S&W hammers break off; both were pre-MIM, from the era when S&W punched them out of sheet steel. I have seen one Colt hammer break off; Colt always machined their hammers out of tool steel. I have seen one S&W hammer stud break off; they were always machined out of round bar stock. I have not seen any part that I KNOW was MIM break.

When I mentioned at a gun shop having seen those broken S&W hammers, the immediate reaction was that they were cheap MIM parts. Both had been made in the 1970's, many years before MIM was even dreamed of, but the anti-MIM folks simply refused to believe that any non-MIM part could possibly break.

Jim

 

[Lucky Derby]

What about the current production Hi-power, MIM yea or nay?

Not sure if you are asking:
"Is there MIM in current production HPs?"
or
"Is the MIM in current production HPs acceptable quality?"

The answer to the first question is Yes. FN has been using MIM in the HP for several years now. 2008 IIRC.

The answer to the second question is more subjective. I frequent HP specific forums. While some don't like MIM, I'm not aware of any falures of MIM parts in HPs.

 

[huntsman]

"Is there MIM in current production HPs?"

Yeah that's what I was asking, thanks.

 

[Jim K]

"What manufacturers make pistols without MIM parts?"

In spite of the "I'll never buy..." folks, the answer is fewer and fewer. The technique is simply too good to not use. Every area of progress (or at least change) has had its opposition from the old timers. That is the way it has always been and always will be. (What's this nonsense about steel swords, Claudius? Bronze was good enough for Granddad, and it is good enough for me.)

Jim