Why do people fear the MIM?

F

feets

New member
I don't understand why people fear MIM parts. It's worse than the whole cast vs forged frame thing.

Gun parts (with a few exceptions) are very lightly loaded. This is especially true for the trigger group. The hammer has to be the toughest part of this group because it whacks things and get whacked back on auto loaders. Even those don't see excessive force.

Metal injection molding can build surprisingly robust parts. The more technology advances the better the parts become. Different alloys are developed to increase life expectancy and overall strength of the parts.

Sintering is taking a bunch of powder, heating it up, and mashing it into the shape you want. Sounds extremely weak, doesn't it? SURPRISE! It's used to make connecting rods in the Chevrolet LS series of engines. The correct alloy makes the part really strong.

The same holds true for MIM. It's not like they are making barrels and bolt faces with MIM. I'm sure a properly designed slide would take the impact of repeated firings but a barrel would be a bit too thick with today's metals.

Who cares if a sear or disconnect are MIM? What difference does it make? The surface of the part can be made to be just as slick as a forged part while costing much less.

Ruger is willing to cast nearly anything gun related. They have developed the alloys that give the strength they need in a cast part.
S&W concentrated on using a more conventional alloy and much more expensive forging process to give their parts the strength they deemed necessary.

Technology is advancing. Demanding that gun mfgs stay in the dark ages only guarantees that costs will rise dramatically and production will fall.

Embrace the new tech. Done properly it can outlive the old stuff.

What is the problem? Fear of change? Fear of the unknown?
 
No doubt there are allot of very high output engines with powdered metal connecting rods. 5.0 Ford, EcoTech GM Turbo 4 cylinder(120 cubic inches, 275HP):eek:, LS, HEMI,etc....
Its more a mental thing than functional.
 
Ruger will cast anything for anyone, assuming the price is right.
They are an innovator and a leader in that industry.
 
The main idea, in my observation, is that as older methods fade away, those made in the old manner get scarcer, hence more valuable and desirable.

Me, I prefer all steel in my guns. Aluminum alloys and zinc alloys, and polymers have all proven acceptable. But I prefer the look of blued steel, color cased steel, and grips of wood, bone or elk stag; never plastic nor rubber.

Hand checkered vs. machine checkering; oil painting vs. photograph. Packard vs. Kia.

Sort of brings to mind the old story of the old violin and "the touch of the master's hand" type of thing.

Bob Wright
 
Very simple !
MIM was a new process , not very well developed .
The gun makers wanted every part to be the low cost MIM ! So they made everything from MIM. Obviously many of the gun designers and the bean counters didn't know what they were doing !!! The same group that thought that they could turn a 9mm into a .40 S&W by just using a different barrel, without other changes !!! :rolleyes: :eek:
 
This has been talked about before. What it amounted to is it's much ado about nothing. Forged is more desirable than mim to most people especially what we call purists. The notion is that forged will bend where mim will just break off (never mind that if you're stressing the parts enough to bend in the first place something's fixing to break). That said, my ruger.gp100 and sr1911 are both first rate guns to me. As for my 1911 I'd take the Pepsi challeng with any Kimber,colt, brown or baer costing three times as much in terms of function and off hand accuracy.
 
Anytime you introduce a new technology you introduce new and likely unknown problems. Like the V8 engine, MIM will likely progress, solve problems, get refined, solve more problems, repeat.

Like software based products, don't get stuck with version 1.0 to V 2.1
 
Please explain the fear that generated this:

The gun makers wanted every part to be the low cost MIM ! So they made everything from MIM. Obviously many of the gun designers and the bean counters didn't know what they were doing !!!
Click to expand...

It does not offer an example of a problem.

If you, personally, have experienced a problem of a parts failure that would not have happened with a forged or cast part please share.

Kindly leave out the sister's brother's father's mother's friend's widow's nail dresser who heard of a problem that might have happened 137 years ago when Abraham Lincoln's daughter chopped down a cherry tree and blamed it on Benjamin Franklin because she used a MIM axe.
 
I look at it like the people who refuse to have anything to do with a polymer handgun.

Or the guys who swear they'd still prefer a M14 to an M16.

Don't get me wrong.. I LOVE old guns, I LOVE M1A's, but I would much rather lug around an M16A4 or a M4 vs a M1A, specially the news retro-fit ones in Sage Chassis.

Awesome guns.. but to me it's like dragging around a boat anchor. They have their role with DM's and such, but as a main battle rifle or carbine, no thanks.:rolleyes:

New things scare people. Forging is known to be good, where is MIM is new fangled technocrap. BOTH can be good, BOTH can be bad, MIM is the future, more or less.

Kindly leave out the sister's brother's father's mother's friend's widow's nail dresser who heard of a problem that might have happened 137 years ago when Abraham Lincoln's daughter chopped down a cherry tree and blamed it on Benjamin Franklin because she used a MIM axe.
Click to expand...

I think we just became best friends.
 
The main idea, in my observation, is that as older methods fade away, those made in the old manner get scarcer, hence more valuable and desirable.

Me, I prefer all steel in my guns. Aluminum alloys and zinc alloys, and polymers have all proven acceptable. But I prefer the look of blued steel, color cased steel, and grips of wood, bone or elk stag; never plastic nor rubber.

Hand checkered vs. machine checkering; oil painting vs. photograph. Packard vs. Kia.

Sort of brings to mind the old story of the old violin and "the touch of the master's hand" type of thing.

Bob Wright
Click to expand...


I think Bob hit the nail on the head. While admiting the newer tech and newer materials are well proven, some guys do just prefer classics, hand made, and gorgeous material.

I can definately get behind that, however.. My old Pre-Garcia Sako's now stay in my safe for hunting season while the stainless synthetic ones generally get taken out and dragged through brush or falling down hills.

I love classic handguns as well, but I would much rather strap my Glock on as a carry gun every day.

I can appreciate fine craftsmanship, to the point I don't want to ruin it, I let the ugly guns carry that burden.:rolleyes: They arent safe queens, I still shoot them, I just baby them.
 
Like many other new techniques and materials, MIM had some problems in early applications, not just in guns, but in other uses as well. Again, as usual, some manufacturers used MIM in applications where it was not appropriate, and it got something of a bad reputation.

Once the bugs were worked out, designers and manufacturers began to treat MIM as just another manufacturing method, to be used where it is appropriate. Example: Polymer is well established today for pistol frames, but AFAIK, no one uses it for barrels or sears because it would not be right for those applications. Likewise, no one would make a scope sight tube out of forged and machined steel; it would not be right or necessary.

Jim
 
James,you and I were writing the same thing at the same time!
I think there is also an issue around design for the method of manufacture.Great functioning parts can be made MIM,but its best if the parts are designed for MIM.
A part designed for a forging and machining process might run totally afoul of injection molding process.
To retro a 100 yr old gun design to MIM may have pitfalls.
To design a gun around the MIM process might well produce a better combination of "good,cheap,fast,pick two"
To have a group consensus on the definition of "quality" is an interesting exercise.

Is a mirror polished stainless steel toothbrush price $750 higher quality than the $4 good one at the grocery store?Quality is defined by the customer.A $750 dollar toothbrush with the same bristles,IMO,is not higher quality because it does not better meet my needs.

Part of the success/popularity of the AR system is Stoner did a brilliant job of applying the current manufacturing tech to firearms design.IMO,its aesthetically better "quality" than stamped sheet metal and spot welds.Yet,in their time,the Sten and M-3 had their own "quality" of producability and lethality.
The Glock,M+P,etc are an expression of manufacturing methods and materials.

IMO,a Mauser crf extractor is not the best application for MIM,yet the Classic M-70 by whatever name Winchester was using at the time used an MIM extractor...So Darcy Echols made a replacement.I don't think the 1911 extractor is just right for MIM either...notice some mfgr's changed the extractor design on their 1911's?

Its in the application of the technology as much as the merits of the technology
 
Last edited:
Straying a bit, but 1911 internal extractors should be made of the best quality spring steel; many clone makers cast them out of inferior steel and they lose tension rapidly.

Jim
 
I don't understand why people fear MIM parts. It's worse than the whole cast vs forged frame thing.
Click to expand...
I don't fear MIM - I simply don't like MIM.

As long as I'm spending my money on something, I'll try to get something I want - unless I'm forced to take what I have to because what I want is no longer a viable choice.
 
Firt of all, MIM is just a process. My understanding is it was developed to get great materials into their final shape easier. I.e. You don't have lots of machining to get to a final shape. Purpose is to make steel, Al, ti, and exotic metal parts. If I remember right, this has a lot to do with exotics not liking to be machined.

It has worked in airplane engines, etc.....but how many per year do they make?

Now with 1911 parts, the design requires parts which have a high polish finish and sustain regular impacts. Also fatigue can be an issue.

So basically MIM has been around for a few years and has proven to fail due to random breakages. They can say bad batch, but I say misapplied process to the design. MIM guns, like Sig or S&W M&P, don't seem to have this issue as far as I can tell. 1911's do. The process is too old. There is a fundamental failure here. I wish I were the guy analyzing it!

End result is MIM in 1911 is no go. Possibly just a bad fit for guns in general. Trouble is MIM is a huge investment. How does Kimber quit using MIM and retool for forged and machined?
 
Hi, HiBC,

True about designing around the material, but many companies don't have that luxury. S&W, for example, has megabucks invested in forging dies and tooling for their revolver frames. To change things to accommodate MIM wouldn't be feasible. So what they have done is to keep the basic shape and design of the part, while tweaking it to not only use MIM but to take advantage of it to turn out parts that cost less than parts made by forging, etc. A comparison between the old style hammers and triggers is pretty interesting; their designers have done a good job of using the strengths of MIM to do what would have been very difficult with forged parts, and use that to keep costs down. Just the way they made the double action sear (hammer strut) is educational - they eliminated a machined part, two drilled holes and a pin, plus reduced assembly time, and the user can't tell the difference.

Jim
 
Same reason some people don't like poly firearms. MIM is used in all production including Aerospace. I had plant owner once who almost fired me for using a electronic micrometer. He was old and believed everything must be measured with a manual one. He despised battery operated power tools and CNC machinery. He has since passed on.
 
Nathan, I must disagree on the 1911 bit.

Some parts of a 1911 are readily adaptable to MIM. Most of those are found buried in the frame. An extractor is not the best idea due to the high degree of modulus required in the part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top