OldCavSoldier
Member
I don't get it. What is the problem with MIM parts? Everybody seems to be hot against MIM parts but I have had absolutely ZERO problems with any revolver I own that has MIM components....and I shoot A LOT!!!
What's the problem with MIM parts?
- Thread starter OldCavSoldier
- Start date
- Status
Early on before most manufactures got the process right or knew what parts to use (at least in what application) there were problems, now for the most part, its not a problem. its cheaper to produce precise parts. Of course the savings is rarely passed on to the consumer.
LC '92
Member
Honestly, I don't think their is anything substandard about MIM parts. To an old S&W man however, they represent a change in direction that S&W took. Still make good revolvers but they are a different breed than the older ones. The MIM parts finish is a faux color case hardening that we don't like. The MIM parts are also found on the revolvers with the zit lock, two piece barrels and the other changes that just don't fit the old tradition of revolver manufacturing.
Again, the new S&W's are fine, safe, quality revolvers. They are however, non-traditional to us that have known, used, and admired the classic S&W's of the last 100 years.
Just my 2 cents.
With best regards,
Again, the new S&W's are fine, safe, quality revolvers. They are however, non-traditional to us that have known, used, and admired the classic S&W's of the last 100 years.
Just my 2 cents.
With best regards,
When parts are designed to made using MIM technology and produced under conditions where inspection and quality control are employed as they should be, MIM parts usually work (at least). 
When however the technology is used to duplicate parts that were designed to be made using older technologies, or quality control is slighted, problems can, and do come up.
Within the firearms industry, MIM technology was introduced primarily to reduce costs, and cost-cutting and best quality seldom come together. That said, if today's manufacturers don't reduce costs, they might soon be out of business.
In most cases, MIM parts are functionally equivalent to older ones, but those of us that prefer to have more, tend to stick with something else.
When however the technology is used to duplicate parts that were designed to be made using older technologies, or quality control is slighted, problems can, and do come up.
Within the firearms industry, MIM technology was introduced primarily to reduce costs, and cost-cutting and best quality seldom come together. That said, if today's manufacturers don't reduce costs, they might soon be out of business.
In most cases, MIM parts are functionally equivalent to older ones, but those of us that prefer to have more, tend to stick with something else.
Nothing's wrong with the technology or the parts. Failures are due to TOO much pressure to reduce costs come hell or high water, and some engineer either prevented from, or incapable of, doing his job. When it's used correctly, with skill and careful analysis, the end product is frequently better than the old techniques.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,079
There is nothing wrong with MIM parts. They are accepted and used by most major manufacturers of revolvers and autos and they work very well. The MIM process is also accepted and used in many other applications outside of the gun industry and they too work very well. Despite what some want you to believe, failure rate on MIM parts is no higher or lower on average than the failure rate of non-MIM parts. MIM parts cost much more to manufacture than parts done the traditional way and every part is made to the same exacting dimensions. That is where the cost savings is, not by using a cheaper part, but elimination the expensive process of hands on fitting. MIM parts in guns are like plastic bumpers and EFI in automobiles. Something old farts stuck in the past refuse to accept, but effective new alternatives that work well and are here to stay.
LC '92
Member
Well lets see, young punks, plastic bumpers, MIM parts. Yep, the perfect trifecta. They each deserve each other.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,079
One shouldn't make assumptions without knowledge of what they are talking about. Young punks are what date my grand-daughters.
Walking Dead
Member
Remember when they said polymer guns will not last? It's kinda like that.
"Of course the savings is rarely passed on to the consumer."
I'm not sure that I follow this logic.
The manufacturers have opted to use a technology which allows them to produce guns at a reasonable price. The technology seems to work, although it is different from the previous manufacturing process.
How much did guns cost 40 years ago? Measured in today's dollars?
Here are some prices of objects in the 1970s:
(From:http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1970s.html)
Money And Inflation 1970'S
To provide an estimate of inflation we have given a guide to the value of $100 US Dollars for the first year in the decade to the equivalent in today's money
If you have $100 Converted from 1970 to 2005 it would be equivalent to $517.65 today
In 1970 a new house cost $23,400.00 and by 1979 was $58,500.00 Examples of homes and Property for sale in the 1970's
In 1970 the average income per year was $9,350.00 and by 1979 was $17,550.00
In 1970 a gallon of gas was 36 cents and by 1979 was 86 cents
In 1970 the average cost of new car was $3,900.00 and by 1979 was $5,770.00 Examples of Models andCar Prices in the 70's
A few more prices from the 70's and how much things cost
Datsun 210 $3,869
Dodge Colt $4,785
Warm Leather Lined Boots $39.99 From Prices for clothes and fashions in the 70's
Car 8 Track Stereo Tape Player $38.99
CB Radio $147
Medium Eggs 25 cents per dozen From Food Prices In The 70s
Miracle Whip $1.09
King Size Bean Bag Chair $19.99
Porcelain Kitchen Sink $9.88
Quartz Alarm Clock $12.97
Also Check Out Our 70's Computers Electrical Prices and Furniture Prices Sections
Example of a home from our
Country Ranch with 10 acres 3 bedroom large barn fruit and oak trees Vallejo California $59,200 1974
gd
I'm not sure that I follow this logic.
The manufacturers have opted to use a technology which allows them to produce guns at a reasonable price. The technology seems to work, although it is different from the previous manufacturing process.
How much did guns cost 40 years ago? Measured in today's dollars?
Here are some prices of objects in the 1970s:
(From:http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1970s.html)
Money And Inflation 1970'S
To provide an estimate of inflation we have given a guide to the value of $100 US Dollars for the first year in the decade to the equivalent in today's money
If you have $100 Converted from 1970 to 2005 it would be equivalent to $517.65 today
In 1970 a new house cost $23,400.00 and by 1979 was $58,500.00 Examples of homes and Property for sale in the 1970's
In 1970 the average income per year was $9,350.00 and by 1979 was $17,550.00
In 1970 a gallon of gas was 36 cents and by 1979 was 86 cents
In 1970 the average cost of new car was $3,900.00 and by 1979 was $5,770.00 Examples of Models andCar Prices in the 70's
A few more prices from the 70's and how much things cost
Datsun 210 $3,869
Dodge Colt $4,785
Warm Leather Lined Boots $39.99 From Prices for clothes and fashions in the 70's
Car 8 Track Stereo Tape Player $38.99
CB Radio $147
Medium Eggs 25 cents per dozen From Food Prices In The 70s
Miracle Whip $1.09
King Size Bean Bag Chair $19.99
Porcelain Kitchen Sink $9.88
Quartz Alarm Clock $12.97
Also Check Out Our 70's Computers Electrical Prices and Furniture Prices Sections
Example of a home from our
Country Ranch with 10 acres 3 bedroom large barn fruit and oak trees Vallejo California $59,200 1974
gd
"Shouldn't make any difference."
If you don't like the guns or the company, don't buy them.
The executives and management keep producing good, reliable products. If the products are overpriced, they won't sell.
If you feel that the executive compensation is excessive, buy the company and cut their pay.
gd
If you don't like the guns or the company, don't buy them.
The executives and management keep producing good, reliable products. If the products are overpriced, they won't sell.
If you feel that the executive compensation is excessive, buy the company and cut their pay.
gd
After 5,000+ rounds through a newer (two years old) S&W 625, and having cleaned it only a few times, I have had no issues with MIM parts. It shoots just as well as any other older revolver I have ever used, and keeps going. I would buy another.
Guillermo
member
MIM parts are great.
New Smith and Wessons are the finest revolvers ever made.
Forged parts suck.
Everyone should sell all of their pre-lock guns and buy MIM revolvers.
You know what to do....go do it...now!!!
New Smith and Wessons are the finest revolvers ever made.
Forged parts suck.
Everyone should sell all of their pre-lock guns and buy MIM revolvers.
You know what to do....go do it...now!!!
dashootist
Member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2010
- Messages
- 551
Mim vs forged parts is like a machine made suit vs a hand made one, respectively. Both are good. But I know I want the latter ones.
OldCavSoldier
Member
Thanks, everybody, for weighing in on this one. I guess it is kinda like the old argument when Ruger changed from machining their frames from forgings to using investment castings (with their now-proprietary 450 alloy). Of the couple of dozen S&W handguns I own, most are older ones, pre-MIM. However, the ones I rely upon these days are newer ones with MIM parts. Again, thanks!!
fastbolt
Member
As an armorer & owner, over the years I've had more problems with cast, forged & stamped steel parts than MIM steel parts in pistols & revolvers.
I've also come across more problems with occasional QC issues, regardless of whether the parts were forged, cast, stamped or MIM.
If done properly, and limited to an appropriate application, I have no particular problem with MIM.
I've also come across more problems with occasional QC issues, regardless of whether the parts were forged, cast, stamped or MIM.
If done properly, and limited to an appropriate application, I have no particular problem with MIM.
"Remember when they said polymer guns will not last?"
Heck, I remember when the P.38 was described as a "stamped out piece of crap that was made to be thrown away after firing one magazine."
" Ruger changed from machining their frames from forgings..."
I missed that; AFAIK, Ruger never used forged frames on any of their guns. The .22 auto receiver was, and is, made from heavy wall steel tubing with the grip frame either stamped or made from polymer. Other frames, receivers, and slides are investment cast and always have been. Barrels and cylinders are made from bar stock, the same as all the other makers.
Jim
Heck, I remember when the P.38 was described as a "stamped out piece of crap that was made to be thrown away after firing one magazine."
" Ruger changed from machining their frames from forgings..."
I missed that; AFAIK, Ruger never used forged frames on any of their guns. The .22 auto receiver was, and is, made from heavy wall steel tubing with the grip frame either stamped or made from polymer. Other frames, receivers, and slides are investment cast and always have been. Barrels and cylinders are made from bar stock, the same as all the other makers.
Jim
Guillermo
member
People no longer demand excellence.
The way that MIM parts are produced for firearms is proof of this.
The process could produce the best parts ever. Instead they used as a cost cutting measure.
In a democracy, the people get the kind of government they deserve.
In a free market they get the kind of products we deserve.
Looking at the new revolver market (and to a lesser extent autos) and the leader of our country...we are a pathetic people.
The way that MIM parts are produced for firearms is proof of this.
The process could produce the best parts ever. Instead they used as a cost cutting measure.
In a democracy, the people get the kind of government they deserve.
In a free market they get the kind of products we deserve.
Looking at the new revolver market (and to a lesser extent autos) and the leader of our country...we are a pathetic people.
A Non Sequitur. They may (or may not) cut cost, but it doesn't automatically follow that they're inferior. I've read lots of opinions, but have seen little objective data indicating they're categorically inferior.
We get the kind of products we're willing to pay for. And call me an optimist, or even naive, but as technology advances, we produce products that are better and cheaper. A free market rewards those who do both of these best.
Guillermo
member
quite true.
And as I mentioned, if they used a two part molding process they could be outstanding.
in some cases you are absolutely right.
that is not the case when it comes to many things and one example is MIM S&W revolvers.
oldfool
Member
cheer up G
at least Colt ain't doing no MIM parts in revolvers
(but I vote for pride in quality workmanship, no matter the technology/methodology, and that's where methinks me and G are in full accord, including current version S&Ws vs. the golden oldies)
at least Colt ain't doing no MIM parts in revolvers
(but I vote for pride in quality workmanship, no matter the technology/methodology, and that's where methinks me and G are in full accord, including current version S&Ws vs. the golden oldies)
- Status
