Guillermo
member
Or even producing revolvers with that new-fangled double action thingy
What's the problem with MIM parts?
- Thread starter OldCavSoldier
- Start date
- Status
Or even producing revolvers with that new-fangled double action thingy
LTR shooter
Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 468
In regards to the Ruger barrel , one of my older catalogs states regarding the Redhawk - "The forged barrel is formed with an integral rib and ejector rod housing."
Not sure if this holds true today.
The MIM debate , especially regarding Smith revolvers , will never end.
I have both the old Smiths and a couple of the MIM era revolvers , a 629-5 Classic 44 mag and a 66-5 357. The fit and finish of the newer 66 is actually better than my older pinned/recessed 66-1. And the accuracy is excellent. As is the 629 Classic. I am really impressed that mass produced revolvers can shoot so accurately. I think I can live with them having the MIM parts.
"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."
How does one objectively measure if the parts are "the best parts ever?"
Appearance? Functionality? Failure rate? Interchangeability?
There are very few customers who do not ask, "How much?"
The manufacturers could produce guns which cost much more, but would they remain in business? Would most customers be able to afford them?
gd
The process could produce the best parts ever. Instead they used as a cost cutting measure."
How does one objectively measure if the parts are "the best parts ever?"
Appearance? Functionality? Failure rate? Interchangeability?
There are very few customers who do not ask, "How much?"
The manufacturers could produce guns which cost much more, but would they remain in business? Would most customers be able to afford them?
gd
clutch
Contributing Member
How about someone with an education in materials tell us how MIM compares to steel as far as hardness, Youngs Modulus, tensile strength and whatever other thing describes the two.
Oh yeah, can you polish MIM for a slicker surface?
Clutch
Oh yeah, can you polish MIM for a slicker surface?
Clutch
oldfool
Member
I don't think a too ancient AeroE qualifies on all that anymore
"hardness, Youngs Modulus, tensile strength and whatever other thing"
but methinks Old Fuff's point was that not every part in a gun ought be based on precisely same criteria
(or mebbe not, might be thinking of other threads, this one round-n-round so often)
design is a fitness for function thing, and no one shoe fits all
me not overly fond of plastic, for example, but do I own (amongst a fair selection of steel alloys) a ceramic blade or two, and they work just fine for what I do with 'em
the right tool (or piece) for the right job, and all that.. if/when it's done rightly in manufacture
(which was mebbe G's point, and well done too)
"hardness, Youngs Modulus, tensile strength and whatever other thing"
but methinks Old Fuff's point was that not every part in a gun ought be based on precisely same criteria
(or mebbe not, might be thinking of other threads, this one round-n-round so often)
design is a fitness for function thing, and no one shoe fits all
me not overly fond of plastic, for example, but do I own (amongst a fair selection of steel alloys) a ceramic blade or two, and they work just fine for what I do with 'em
the right tool (or piece) for the right job, and all that.. if/when it's done rightly in manufacture
(which was mebbe G's point, and well done too)
Last edited:
Guillermo
member
strongest, smoothest and most dependable is how I would define "best ever"
Guillermo
member
Smith charges plenty for revolvers of the same (or lesser) quality of Taurus, which cost a lot less.
As long as Smith produces crap and people not only buy it...but pay a premium for it I say that it is a brilliant business model.
I didn't say "define."
I said "measure."
I'm really curious. How can one determine if a part manufactured in a certain process is "better" than a part manufactured using another process?
I understand that everyone has their opinions about this, but I do want to know why MIM parts seem to be considered less desirable by some. Have they failed more often?
gd
P.S. Why are S&Ws "less desirable" (my wording)?
I said "measure."
I'm really curious. How can one determine if a part manufactured in a certain process is "better" than a part manufactured using another process?
I understand that everyone has their opinions about this, but I do want to know why MIM parts seem to be considered less desirable by some. Have they failed more often?
gd
P.S. Why are S&Ws "less desirable" (my wording)?
Guillermo
member
MIM parts, as manufactured by S&W, are the same harness all the way through. This makes them brittle. They also are not smooth which makes them work with more effort against one another in the lockwork. (friction)
A forged part has flexibility to it. and the "working surfaces" are hardened (sometimes "flash chromed") for smoothness.
A MIM part could be as strong if they were to mold the "core" out of a softer, flexible material and then use a layer of super hard material on top. This top layer could be a much finer "grain" and make for a very smooth part.
Unfortunately this multi step process would raise costs and S&W want the part to be ready for use when it comes out of the mold.
There are other issues but this is but one example of how they could produce a better product than they did rather than a worse product (when they went to MIM)
A forged part has flexibility to it. and the "working surfaces" are hardened (sometimes "flash chromed") for smoothness.
A MIM part could be as strong if they were to mold the "core" out of a softer, flexible material and then use a layer of super hard material on top. This top layer could be a much finer "grain" and make for a very smooth part.
Unfortunately this multi step process would raise costs and S&W want the part to be ready for use when it comes out of the mold.
There are other issues but this is but one example of how they could produce a better product than they did rather than a worse product (when they went to MIM)
I have not had a issue one with MIM. I have worked it with stones and shot the crap out of it in my 686P, Sigma, M&P .45 and the wifes 60-Pro. And yes,,, it has taken very well to stones and tuning. And it darn sure does not rust like forged white!
hemiram
Member
I've never seen a single problem on any gun I've owned due to MIM parts. Mismachined barrels, yes, slides with a lot of tool marks that makes the action almost unusable, sure, the list goes on and on, but no problems from MIM parts. I won't buy a new S&W revolver because of the locks, not because of any QC/MIM problems. There is so much irrationality in any hobby, there are fans of one manufacturer, others hate it, in radio, there are people who hate new stuff with CPUs in them, others love it. Some people have no use for polymer pistols (I admit I belong in this group), and some love them. I think most of the fear/hate of MIM doesn't really make any sense.
dashootist
Member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2010
- Messages
- 551
Performance center revolvers use forged parts, not MIM. That should tell us something.
dashootist, what does that tell us?
If that is true, it would seem that S&W acknowledges that there are 2 tiers of customers. Some will pay more for forged or machined parts and the other benefits of a more customized gun, while a market exists in a lower price category.
If this is the case, then I would say that S&W has covered all the bases. Good for them.
If their products were truly inferior, the market would solve that problem.
I'm pleased that we have so many manufacturers competing for our business. A good time to be a gun and shooting enthusiast, to be sure.
gd
If that is true, it would seem that S&W acknowledges that there are 2 tiers of customers. Some will pay more for forged or machined parts and the other benefits of a more customized gun, while a market exists in a lower price category.
If this is the case, then I would say that S&W has covered all the bases. Good for them.
If their products were truly inferior, the market would solve that problem.
I'm pleased that we have so many manufacturers competing for our business. A good time to be a gun and shooting enthusiast, to be sure.
gd
Guillermo
member
Depends on what you like
Premium double action revolvers have gotten worse through time
Inexpensive double action revolvers have gotten better
big bore single actions have gotten better
since I am a premium double action guy I have to buy used...which is fine.
personally I enjoy the hunt.
As a DA revolver guy it is sad to see the market as it is.
To the degree that there have been problems, most of them are associated with the 1911 pistol platform, and those issues have been well documented on this and other forums. Put bluntly, most of the failures occurred because the parts that were being duplicated weren't well suited for MIM technology. Others were caused by questionable (or lack of) viable quality control procedures.
In the case of Smith & Wesson revolver lockwork, the issue isn’t so much one of part failure, but a perceived cheapening of the product. While the current products are functional, they lack the “class act” quality that made S&W the one others were compared to. If this perspective doesn’t concern you then by all means buy the new guns and be satisfied. If others with different insights feel differently it shouldn’t matter.
"Put bluntly, most of the failures occurred because the parts that were being duplicated weren't well suited for MIM technology. Others were caused by questionable (or lack of) viable quality control procedures."
The fact is that MIM technology allow very large numbers of identical parts to be made and very tight tolerances to be held. The raw material used to manufacture these parts costs many times what an equivalent forged part does. The savings are in labor cost in both machining the part and fitting it to a gun. Fitting is minimal because of the close tolerances being held during the MIM process. The MIM part can be hardened just as a forged part can and further and can be smoothed during action tuning. As mentioned before, the part is the same hardness throughout and therefore you cannot cut through the heat treated exterior into the "soft" steel as with a forged part.
15 years ago Glocks would never last. 30 years ago Ruger investment cast frames would never last. Some people claim we never walked on the moon and 110 years ago the flush toilet would never work. The fact is that a now fairly large 1911 manufacturer became the poster boy for bad MIM parts used in the wrong application. Smith & Wesson revolver collectors & shooters were thrown under the bus when Smith decided to use the comparatively hideous looking MIM hammers and triggers on their top of the line double action revolvers and threw in the side frame located IL and the frame mounted firing pin to boot.
The fact is that junk parts are junk regardless of the manufacturing process used to produce them. In applications where the aesthetics of CCH matter, MIM is not the method of choice although the MIM alternative parts are probably functionally superior. If you want to know why Custom Gun Builders use mostly forged parts instead of MIM, it for two reasons:
1. It's what they are familiar with and-
2. More importantly, it's what their customers want as evidenced by this
and similar threads. It has nothing to do with how well they perform.
Bruce
The fact is that MIM technology allow very large numbers of identical parts to be made and very tight tolerances to be held. The raw material used to manufacture these parts costs many times what an equivalent forged part does. The savings are in labor cost in both machining the part and fitting it to a gun. Fitting is minimal because of the close tolerances being held during the MIM process. The MIM part can be hardened just as a forged part can and further and can be smoothed during action tuning. As mentioned before, the part is the same hardness throughout and therefore you cannot cut through the heat treated exterior into the "soft" steel as with a forged part.
15 years ago Glocks would never last. 30 years ago Ruger investment cast frames would never last. Some people claim we never walked on the moon and 110 years ago the flush toilet would never work. The fact is that a now fairly large 1911 manufacturer became the poster boy for bad MIM parts used in the wrong application. Smith & Wesson revolver collectors & shooters were thrown under the bus when Smith decided to use the comparatively hideous looking MIM hammers and triggers on their top of the line double action revolvers and threw in the side frame located IL and the frame mounted firing pin to boot.
The fact is that junk parts are junk regardless of the manufacturing process used to produce them. In applications where the aesthetics of CCH matter, MIM is not the method of choice although the MIM alternative parts are probably functionally superior. If you want to know why Custom Gun Builders use mostly forged parts instead of MIM, it for two reasons:
1. It's what they are familiar with and-
2. More importantly, it's what their customers want as evidenced by this
and similar threads. It has nothing to do with how well they perform.
Bruce
Guillermo
member
Good post but you went off the rails here.
MIM parts do NOT polish well. This is why many gunsmiths will not do "action jobs" on MIM guns.
MIM parts cannot be hardened like a forged part...it has to be hardened at manufacturing. A forged part can be created in a flexible state and then surface hardened or flash chromed.
MIM parts do NOT polish well. This is why many gunsmiths will not do "action jobs" on MIM guns.
MIM parts cannot be hardened like a forged part...it has to be hardened at manufacturing. A forged part can be created in a flexible state and then surface hardened or flash chromed.
"MIM parts do NOT polish well. This is why many gunsmiths will not do "action jobs" on MIM guns."
This is contrary to the information I have seen over the last couple of years. As a matter of fact, I've been told that MIM parts can be smoothed by stoning and it doesn't take much to slick them up.
"MIM parts cannot be hardened like a forged part...it has to be hardened at manufacturing."
True, you do not case harden or heat treat a part after the fact but the part can be produced to the required hardness.
So, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on these points.
Bruce
This is contrary to the information I have seen over the last couple of years. As a matter of fact, I've been told that MIM parts can be smoothed by stoning and it doesn't take much to slick them up.
"MIM parts cannot be hardened like a forged part...it has to be hardened at manufacturing."
True, you do not case harden or heat treat a part after the fact but the part can be produced to the required hardness.
So, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on these points.
Bruce
Guillermo
member
That they do not slick up well is one of the main problems with them.
That is why many 'smiths will not work on them.
I am neither disputing it nor agreeing to it.
I am asking, "What is the failure rate for MIM parts vs. forged vs. machined?"
If the part are so bad, then there must be some evidence of that.
It is easy to claim that the parts are awful.
It is something entirely different to prove that they have a high failure rate.
If they are bad parts, then I would like to know that from objective data.
Pretty simple.
gd
I am asking, "What is the failure rate for MIM parts vs. forged vs. machined?"
If the part are so bad, then there must be some evidence of that.
It is easy to claim that the parts are awful.
It is something entirely different to prove that they have a high failure rate.
If they are bad parts, then I would like to know that from objective data.
Pretty simple.
gd
- Status
