MIM vs. Machined

[Jart]

Numerous and profound? Seems to me if Kimber chooses not to QC their parts, which in my case its obvious they do not, then there really is not much difference between the Kimber's processes or implementation. Because, in the end, I ended up paying too much of a high price for a sub-par gun.

It would appear we're essentially in agreement.

Kimber isn't MIM. MIM isn't Kimber.
Neither of us trusts Kimber parts. If your distrust is derived from the MIM process, I would not be inclined to argue overmuch.

However I, personally, lay the entire mess on Kimber's doorstep.

I very seldom post in Kimber threads anymore - I've concluded my experiences are outdated and I dislike my own repetition as much as anyone else's. I've had my say on the matter.

If I might, with all due respect, suggest something which may not have occurred to you: perhaps you're giving the Kimber you remember a "free pass" by assigning their responsibility for a working product to a vendor or a sorry in-house implementation of a process they didn't understand.

The responsibility to make you happy with your purchase was Kimber's - not anyone or anything else's. I wound up with STI - they use MIM parts but they're STI parts - not Kimber parts and that made all the difference to me.

However, again with respect, I would suggest you've formulated an opinion on MIM in general based on your experience with Kimber. It is your right to do so, of course, but I can't share that appraisal - but I'll commiserate all day long on Kimber.

 

[gyvel]

I still say the MIM parts in my new S&W "1917" look like cheap, cast pot metal parts. They may be just fine, but they look cheap. Really cheap.

 

[CraigC]

And the difference is what exactly?

In this discussion, the biggest "difference" is that you can replace any damn part in a 1911 with an aftermarket replacement of your choosing. The two you broke are especially easy to replace. So personally, I wouldn't do too much crying about it. Much less damn a gunmaker over such minor failures. They obviously sell a hell of a lot of guns without problems. I have two of them.

You cannot replace the innards on a S&W so easily and inexpensively because aftermarket parts do not exist. Besides, why would you spend a bunch of money on a new S&W 'and' replacement parts when you can buy an older sixgun much more affordably???

I still say the MIM parts in my new S&W "1917" look like cheap, cast pot metal parts. They may be just fine, but they look cheap. Really cheap.

I have to agree. It's pretty disheartening to pay so much for a new gun only to find out the innards look like they were molded out of plastic. Contrast that to the USFA SAA. Every single internal part is precisely machined from forgings. There is absolutely no roughness and everything just falls together. Maybe S&W could take a lesson or two from USFA???

 

[mete]

Ruger made big changes in the gun industry .They used investment casting to make most parts.But they were designed from the start as castings, not cast copies of forged parts. Only essential areas are machined. The rest is the as cast surface .That disturbed people just as the MIM parts do but they work.
MIM is metal powder mixed with a wax like polymer which can be injection molded.The polymer is melted out and the powder is sintered to bind the particles exactly as powder metal parts are made.These parts , like PM, can be carburized and heat treated. Design a part for MIM, have good QC and you have a good part.

 

[oneounceload]

Secondly, the name is probably what tanked MIM. Not the first "M", but the remaining "IM". That is, injection molding. From that point on it does not matter how good the process actually is. We, the traditional lot we are, will always associate "injection molding" with plastic. Which equals "cheap"

CraigC - guess you don't like to fly in planes since a lot of them are IM parts.

You said revolver guys don't like changes, yet very few I know, (myself included), shoot blackpowder open-top old revolvers.

Do you also not like the newer calibers available today that are not available in semis???????

Guess I am confused about this. MIM parts are no more prone to failure than anything else, yet parts can be made in that manner that otherwise could not be made or would make your gun cost the same as a Korth

 

[CraigC]

CraigC - guess you don't like to fly in planes since a lot of them are IM parts.

I don't fly too often but don't really care how they're built. I'm a sixgun nut, not a commercial airliner connoisseur.

MIM parts are no more prone to failure than anything else

That really has yet to be proven. Forgings have been around for a long time. MIM parts are as of yet unproven in the long term and as I stated before, a current 100yr old sixgun can have its hammer welded up, notches recut and the whole thing rehardened. Not so with MIM.

parts can be made in that manner that otherwise could not be made or would make your gun cost the same as a Korth

Really, there's no in-between??? Because I thought I could still buy a 20-30yr old S&W with forged innards for less than a new one. Or maybe I missed your point?

You said revolver guys don't like changes, yet very few I know, (myself included), shoot blackpowder open-top old revolvers.

I said that as a collective we are more traditional and "apprehensive" about change. Not frothing purists that think revolver advancement ended in 1860.

I'm not really arguing for or against MIM. I'm just stating what are obvious reasons to me why revolver shooters 'may' react the way they do. I'm not a stick in the mud or resistant to change but the idea of my trusty Smith & Wessons, a 150yr old American icon, having "injection molded" innards does not give me the warm and fuzzies. Same for the internal lock and the jacked up price tag.

 

[Blondie.357]

I like my S&W MIM trigger.

 

[BlueTrain]

I cheerfully admit to being a stick in the mud and I'm waiting until they make some more 20, 30, 40 year old guns. Not that I'll be able to afford any of them either.

 

[oneounceload]

The S&W Performance Center actually boasts that there are "Forged parts only" in their pistols. Wonder why they do that? Given the obvious superiority of MIM as told to us by experts here, why not put MIM parts in those expensive PC pistols and revolvers?

Called marketing to those who think it is better and are therefore willing to part with more money for the same basic gun

I don't fly too often but don't really care how they're built.

And if they fail, you crash and die - so you might want to care just a little

Really, there's no in-between??? Because I thought I could still buy a 20-30yr old S&W with forged innards

I suppose you'd like your TV to be the same? your car? your cell phone? your computer? Technology and manufacturing advance. Since, it seems, that 95% of the folks who posts on these boards love to brag about some Chinese cheap piece of junk they bought for $100, domestic companies have to find ways to compete - using advanced mfg techniques to lower labor costs is the most cost-effective.

 

[18DAI]

You might want to check out some Performance Center guns. Hardly "the same basic gun".

 

[oneounceload]

You might want to check out some Performance Center guns. Hardly "the same basic gun".

I have - the fine polishing or extra care in assembling has nothing to do with the MIM question versus forged

 

[18DAI]

Research further then. It's more than "fine polishing or extra care in assembling".

It is also air guaged barrels, tight tolerances, hand fitting and forged parts. Forged parts because they are made in small production runs, not mass produced. It's quality, which is lacking in the mass produced MIM parts handguns.

If the Performance Center filled their products with MIM it would indeed make them more similar to the "same basic gun".

 

[CraigC]

And if they fail, you crash and die - so you might want to care just a little

Yes, but what does educating myself on the parts they're built with do for me? They all come from the same manufacturers. In aircraft, maintenance is the single most important factor. I'm unsure what you're trying to accomplish with this far-reaching analogy. We can revisit this when I become an eccentric millionaire and aircraft enthusiast. Right now it's a little out of radar range.

I suppose you'd like your TV to be the same? your car? your cell phone? your computer?

We're not talking about those things and my attitude about those things is 180° opposite. I don't care how TV's are made as long as they work, same for cell phones and computers. You're deflecting. "I" am not stuck in the past, nor am I a stick in the mud. I'm an IT professional, I make my living with and through technology. I feverishly accept fuel injection as superior in every way to carburetors and went so far as to spend $2500 to convert my toy to Edelbrock EFI. NOTHING OF WHICH has anything to do with guns in general, S&W's in particular or my attitude and feelings toward them.

Since, it seems, that 95% of the folks who posts on these boards love to brag about some Chinese cheap piece of junk they bought for $100, domestic companies have to find ways to compete

I agree about the Chinese junk but what Chinese-built revolvers are competing with S&W? To compete with Colt, USFA chose to build a better sixgun and sell it for less. To stay competitive, S&W chose to cheapen their guns all the while increasing their prices. Ruger has maintained their guns or in some cases IMPROVED the way they're manufactured yet they're still less expensive than S&W. S&W does NOT pour the same amount of effort into producing a fine quality firearm that they used to. So what exactly are we paying for??? IMHO, you're paying extra for a much-cheapened version of a 100yr old design. I love S&W's but the extra effort put into them is a major reason for their appeal. The lack thereof is a major reason for their loss of appeal. Seems that either USFA should start building double actions or S&W should take some queues from USFA.

I still feel as though I should reiterate that my main gripe with S&W is the infernal lock. I could deal with the MIM parts and accumulate several of their newer "Classic" guns if they had not the lock.

 

[gyvel]

Really, there's no in-between??? Because I thought I could still buy a 20-30yr old S&W with forged innards for less than a new one. Or maybe I missed your point?

Yeah, you kinda did miss that point; A "20-30yr old S&W with forged innards" is not a current production S&W with forged innards.

I think the point was that such an animal would be about the same price as a currently made Korth revolver, and thus probably would cost more than a current production S&W with MIM parts.

Also, you can thank increasing labor costs for rising firearm prices. I don't know about S&W, but I know Colt workers were Teamsters, if I recall correctly.

Ruger has been able to maintain a relatively lower price for its firearms by innovative manufacturing methods and, currently, one of its major plants is located in a "right to work" (aka right to starve) state (Arizona).

Personally, as I stated above, I think the MIM parts in my S&W "new" 1917 .45 look cheap as hell, like cheap die cast parts, but, so far, they've worked properly.

 

[stevieboy]

I'm back looking at this thread after a few days and I'm amazed. It's generated into "MIM parts are ugly" and "I just don't trust any innovation". OK, but my question is, is there any evidence at all that MIM parts fail at a higher rate than cast or forged parts? Or that they work any less efficiently? Any evidence? Anyone care to share it? Or, will you all go back to the food fight right after reading this post?

As far as I'm concerned I couldn't care less what the parts under the side plate of my revolver or in the receiver of my semi look like just so long as they work. And, I'm unaware of any evidence that the MIM parts on -- for example, new Smith & Wesson revolvers -- fail at a greater rate than the parts on anyone else's gun.

 

[CraigC]

I think the point was that such an animal would be about the same price as a currently made Korth revolver

I don't think so, not even close. Not even close to being close. We're talking about machine-polished Bangor-Punta era S&W's, not Triple-Locks or Registered Magnums. It isn't the forged parts that would make authentic replicas of those guns prohibitively expensive, it's all the hand fitting, hand finishing and hand checkering. Same for the Korth, which probably carries about a 75-100% premium on the name alone.

 

[scbair]

I'm not a fan of MIM, but, if it's similar to "sintered metal" I do believe the old Colt Mk IIIs (Trooper & Lawman) had sintered metal hammers & triggers. I don't recall hearing or reading of failures of those parts.

On the other hand, I think MIM is totally unsuited for parts such as 1911 extractors. The original 1911s had (as best I can recall) spring steel extractors.

As a hidebound traditionalist, I will admit to a personal bias in favor of the older, pinned-barrel S&Ws.

 

[mec]

The whole MIM thing may come from the unfortunate decision of some unprinciples to make extractors with this process. One Kimber-associated gunwriter said that he had not had any problems with them but apparently a lot of other people did and the word spread.

I've been hearing the term "sintered metal" since the late 1960s or early 70s. I dont know if the people were using the term correctly or if it compares with the current MIM process, but they said that it was powdered metal solidified in some manner. Ruger was accused of using it for action parts on late old models though the parts may have been investment cast.
A friend went into Ray's Gunshop in Dallas wanting to buy a Dan Wesson Pistol Pack. There were some DW products on display. Ray refused to sell it to him because he said that the guns were made out of powdered metal and would break. The friend took this as very strange -not because he had any opinions about powdered or sintered metal but because the merchandise was on sale, on display and here was this guy who wouldn't let him buy one. His interpretation of the situation was colored by previous experiences in the store. Whenever four or more customers were in the shop at the same time, the proprietor would rush out and chase everybody out the door then close the store until they went away. This seems to have been some sort of anti theft practices as he would repeat, " I'm loosing control of the store! over and over while driving out the customers."
Sometimes the gun industry resembles the lyrics to Bob Dylan's songs, the "poetry" on his album jackets or that trans-dimensional horror story by Lewis Carroll.

 

[gyvel]

I've been hearing the term "sintered metal" since the late 1960s or early 70s.

Sintered metal is not new at all. The Germans used sintered iron in bullet making during WWII. Take a look at a steel-cased 9mm with a black bullet; That bullet is sintered iron.

 

[gyvel]

Do you also not like the newer calibers available today that are not available in semis???????

A little OT, but "newer calibres" don't offer a whole lot that hasn't been done many, many times before. In fact, after the advent of the .357 Magnum, there has not been any new calibre introduced that has had any widespread practical application whatsoever.

All of the newer calibres seem to come and go, eventually becoming footnotes in reloading manuals or cartridge reference books, while the old standbys keep going on forever.

So... If I were to answer that question I would have to say "no" because I see no real need for them, outside of some limited applications.

Regarding MIM parts, the economic reality is that they are cheaper and quicker to produce, thus increasing profit margins and compensating for rising labor costs.

As I said earlier, they seem to be performing as required in my S&W revolver, but they are still cheap looking and don't inspire confidence at all. It's more a sign of the times in our world that form will follow function.