What's the problem with MIM parts?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think all this boils down to is Quality Control. Obviously these firearms manufacturers employe metallurgist and engineers who may know more than your brothers friend who broke his gun. MIM when used in the PROPER applications is far better than forged. Has it ever occurred to anybody that the ability to control a material porosity is a good thing. Sometimes polishing a materials surface isn't the only way to slicken it up. A materials ability to retain lubricants can be as effective and will require less maintenance. The facts are that MIM is cheaper to manufacture and there is no chance they will ever stop. Obviously I would rather all my guns be made of unobtainium and adamantium and be diamond coated too but there's not always room in the budget.
 
918v said:
That S&W does not trust MIM parts for hard use.
Click to expand...

It could just as easily be that people who buy Performance Center firearms don't THINK anything but forged will suffice. A dish washing detergent does not have to create suds in order to clean. Yet many people associate cleaning with that annoying white foam, so sudsing agents are added to detergents that would not otherwise foam.

Now, you might say that competitive shooters wouldn't use something if it didn't work and that's 100% true. Anything that failed would be chucked aside. But it could simply be that forged parts provide no real advantage, except in easing the minds of shooters. Smith and Wesson might know full well that their MIM parts can, or could be made to, stand up to the use of competitive shooters but the worry warts wouldn't accept the switch.

Not saying that is the case (all my revolvers, incidentally, have forged parts) but it's an equally viable explanation.
 
The only problem I have with MIM is it's ugly looking.

I don't know the technical term, but MIM parts have "mold lines" on them. Mold lines are ugly.

My problem with the lock is that it's also ugly looking. A black pimple on the side of a stainless revolver is ugly.

For me, and I suspect the majority of people here, the problem with the lock and MIM parts is emotional.
 
Performance center revolvers use forged parts, not MIM. That should tell us something.
Click to expand...

My bet is it's simply for looks. The Performance Center also chrome plates the trigger and hammer on a lot of their models too which I believe is also for looks.
 
That S&W does not trust MIM parts for hard use.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that it shows that Smith understands that MIM parts cannot be used to make as smooth of an action.

But with those clowns...who knows? These are the same idiots that put the most idiotic designed lock ever conceived.

Second guessing the decisions at Smith & Wesson is impossible. They are simply an embarrassment.
 
My bet is it's simply for looks. The Performance Center also chrome plates the trigger and hammer on a lot of their models too which I believe is also for looks.
Click to expand...

Sort of. If the parts are MIM they don't color caseharden worth a darn. If they are older "real steel" ones they will rust if not finished with something. Contrary to what some believe, S&W only used stainless steel in lockwork for a short time, and that was in early model 60's. Flash chrome plating offers a hard-wearing surface that looks good with stainless steel platforms.
 
Now, you might say that competitive shooters wouldn't use something if it didn't work and that's 100% true. Anything that failed would be chucked aside. But it could simply be that forged parts provide no real advantage, except in easing the minds of shooters. Smith and Wesson might know full well that their MIM parts can, or could be made to, stand up to the use of competitive shooters but the worry warts wouldn't accept the switch.
Click to expand...

They do provide a real advantage- Peace of Mind.
 
I shoot competitively and MIM doesn't bother me one bit. I have lock work which includes a MIM hammer, sear and disconnector. This set has several thousands of rounds on it. The set is so good, when I built another pistol I removed the lockwork from the gun it was in and put the set in the new pistol. It was worth fitting another lockwork into the old gun before I advertised it for sale. No adverse wear, sear nose rounding, hammer hook gouging and so on. I can take that set as low as 2.2 pound pull force and the hammer will not follow.

I have a 629 DX S&W. It has MIM in it. I have no problems with it. The parts are good, trigger is great and Smith builds good stuff. I sleep well at night knowing that.

Old military 1911's used forged machined sears. My Dad was an Army DI when he was training recruits on the pistol range when one 1911 sear broke, things got interesting.

I don't have any more piece of mind with machined steel parts than I do with good MIM. I comes down to set up and quality of the pieces.
 
Last edited:
No adverse wear, sear nose rounding, hammer hook gouging and so on.
Click to expand...

You are describing problems caused by overy soft parts, which MIM isn't.
 
Does this look like it belongs in a forged and machined revolver?

SWHammerBlock.gif
 
what gun did that come out of?

"that quote that is mistakenly attributed to P.T. Barnum has never been more true "
I can see where that statement could work on either side of the MIM debate. Nice move.
 
All I know is, Daniel Clements of Clements Custom Guns is always Complaining about MIM parts and about how they suck, and he has to use Forged parts to Smith b/c the MIM won't hold up.

I think he counts as an authority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Bad Rugers with MIM parts?
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Replies
210
Views
10K
Guillermo
G
Y
  • Locked
MIM?
Replies
7
Views
420
Confederate
Confederate
V
  • Locked
From S&W, on MIM-parts...
Replies
17
Views
2K
Albert Shear
A
buck460XVR
  • Locked
S&W views on their MIM parts
2 3 4
Replies
86
Views
5K
Guillermo
G
km101
  • Locked
Changing out MIM parts on S&W 15-8?
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Old Fuff
O
Back
Top