Why do people fear the MIM?

Siggy, you're taking things out of context again.

I don't mind an open discussion. It would be great if we could have one that stuck to the MIM topic.

All I did was point out that you brought in Ruger's refusal to discount their guns as a point of failing business. That has nothing to do with MIM parts.

While I have been around the Ruger 1911 I have not seen a failure first hand.

You see, I've got my own little machine shop. I'm pretty good with metals and understand a bit more than most. I also do a bit of gunsmithing.

I got a chuckle out of your quote: It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -Aristotle

You are the one blasting me and getting fussy. My mind is still open for discussion.

Lets try it a different way... Your thread asks the question "why do people fear MIM" but it seems that is not really what you want to discuss. Maybe a better title would have directed the discussion that would have suited your intent better.

You end the OP with:

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?

I have given you a few answers but I will summarize them for the sake of clarity.

1. The first company to full embrace the MIM technology to the level where people understood that there were powder parts in their gun was Kimber. They started with what was IMHO proper usage, quality and QC of MIM parts in order to deliver a semi-custom gun at stock price. Unfortunately cost cutting and volume added to poor QC lead to breakages. Then even worse customer service of broken pistols served as one of the origins of the "fear of MIM" parts.

2. Companies, even gun companies, have a long history of cost cutting in order to inflate profits, which is the goal of every company, or to meet a price point. This creates a environment of mistrust between the consumer and the corporation making almost every product produced these days not just guns. MIM parts are an easy tangible example which people can focus on because as other posters have mentioned you can "see" that a MIM part is different then tooled steel. It looks different and therefore is perceived as cheap or inferior.

3. More and more outsourcing of small parts in a race to the bottom scares people because the source of the parts is unknown and the quality of the parts is unknown. As more and more small parts move to MIM that means fewer and fewer guns are being produced "in house" and the company whose name is on the gun is perceived to have has less control over the QC then they did in the past.

4. Yes some people are old fashioned and simply want everything built the way it used to people. Call them purist call them snobs call them antiquated. Whatever terms you want to use but in the end these people know what they like and want seek it out and for the most part are willing to pay what the market demands as a result of their preferences.

5. People like myself have seen MIM parts fail. It is not that we have not see non-mim parts fail it is that the failure of MIM parts is always catastrophic. Thumb safeties shear right off the frame and sights simply disappear while firing.

I will add these to the mix:

6. A lot of people do not understand the MIM process and its real life applications. They are not involved in the field or have not done enough reading and research to understand the process and its past, current and proposed future uses. Lack of understanding often leads to mistrust.

7. Almost every product today is designed to meet a price point. This is the one that personally scares me the most and it is IMHO the other side of the coin to the penny pitching for profit. Products are no longer designed for performance and then priced based on what it took to build it. In today's price point driven consumer economy very few companies set out to make the best anything. Sig wanted to make a .380 auto pistol with a street price of around $450 you get the P238. Ruger wanted to make a sub $700 1911 that looks like a $2500 one you get the SR1911. In doing so companies make design and part compromises which may or may not impact the consumer. Unfortunately all to often these compromises do impact the consumer. We see this playing out in across the spectrum of manufacturing not just guns. At least guns are not as bad as cars in this respect.

These are just some of the reasons people "why people fear MIM" which was your original question wasn't it? The funny part about this thread is that you really don't seem to want to know about "why people fear MIM" as much as you want to prove to people they shouldn't fear MIM. Maybe a different title would have suited your purpose better.

In the end I think MIM is here to stay. Is it a good thing or a bad thing only time will tell. Personally I am indifferent and believe it is here to stay and as you have alluded to this process will allow gun makes to keep making guns and for people to keep buying guns. The majority of people will not pay for tooled steel in guns anymore. Many of today's designs do not demand it. Some of the older designs do not require it. I can say that it is getting harder and harder everyday to get a NIB gun that does not have some amount of MIM in it. Even Wilson Combat uses MIM sears in some of their guns IIRC. I fully accept the reality and role MIM playing in guns today and will continue to play in the future. :eek:

Anyone who has spent anytime looking into MIM knows here is good MIM and bad MIM just like there is good and bad of just about any process. I believe it is universally understood that MIM when applied and manufactured properly can get the job done. That is almost never the real point of contention in these MIM threads.

In the end I think the weakness in the MIM process is quality control. Most gun companies are farming out the MIM parts production to MIM houses do to the cost of tooling it up themselves. People read or hear on the news every single day about an parts manufacture issues in cars and other manufacturing. This leads to a "fear" of the QC process which has been validated in the gun industry by Kimbers teething issues. It is not the MIM process in and of itself that is "feared" it is the miss-application of its use to meet a price point or for profit, its outsourced nature and at this point in time a perceived lack of attention to detail and poor QC.

The best part about my signature tag and putting it in bold is that I am not an MIM hater. I have plenty of guns in the safe with MIM parts. I do not "fear" it as much as I prefer designs which do not require it. I prefer my 1911s not to have any but honestly some do. I even have one with a cast frame!!!!! LOL :rolleyes: If I am paying a premium for what is perceived as a premium product I prefer no MIM. If I am buying sub $500 tactical plastic I expect and accept MIM.

The bolding of that statement was to highlight that just because I am taking this position does not mean I have completely accepted it. I do not fully accept the MIM "fear" as you call it but I do understand where the "fear" comes from and why it exists. I was referring to my position in this thread not yours. :eek: Have a great Sunday.
 
The problem with S&W MIM trigger parts is that the MIM has turned the formerly super-tunable S&W action into one that you can only replace springs.

The out-of-the box trigger pull on a Jerry Miculek 625, with its MIM trigger parts, was an atrocious 10.5 lbs DA and 9 lbs SA. If you contrast that to a box-stock M629 built in 1981, it's not even close. The M629 trigger is 7 lbs DA, and 5lbs SA - and it's never been worked on.

I have no "fear" of MIM only a disgust with it's use in places where it denigrates performance.
 
One thing you will come to understand that if a MIM part is manufactured to the same production and performance specifications for cast or forged parts it will perform just as well.

And it will also cost just as much.
We are probably not getting aerospace quality gun parts.

MIM India advertises regularly in the gunzines.
Wonder who is using Hindoo parts in American brands? Neither side is talking.

I have been lucky, my main IDPA gun, shot at least weekly, has MIM lockwork adjusted to a 3.75 lb trigger pull, and it is holding up just fine.
My FLG does not do the old final step of "boosting" the hammer as part of a trigger job any more, though. Not after the hammer hooks of a major name brand gun rolled right off the part under the extra load.
 
One thing you will come to understand that if a MIM part is manufactured to the same production and performance specifications for cast or forged parts it will perform just as well.

You'll have to define "perform just as well" a bit better. In the case of the S&W trigger parts, the MIM parts do not "perform just as well" if you include the ability to tune an action as part of performance.
 
VWsig Pretty much summed up the correct feelings towards MIM in firearms. Tip of the hat. I've grown to lazy to type up something that well. ;)
 
buckhorn_cortez said:
The out-of-the box trigger pull on a Jerry Miculek 625, with its MIM trigger parts, was an atrocious 10.5 lbs DA and 9 lbs SA. If you contrast that to a box-stock M629 built in 1981, it's not even close. The M629 trigger is 7 lbs DA, and 5lbs SA - and it's never been worked on.

I probably need a dope slap for even wading into an MIM discussion. First off, 2 examples hardly proves the rule. Secondly, IME, a 7lb factory action is hardly normal, even among pre-MIM guns. And a 7lb DA isn't likely to have a 5lb SA. Was a trigger gauge actually used to determine both weights? A smooth 10lb trigger can easily feel lighter than it is.

Finally, I've seen a number of pre-MIM S&Ws that looked like drunk monkeys were running the milling machines and putting the guns together. Final action quality is much more than just whether MIM parts were used.


buckhorn_cortez said:
In the case of the S&W trigger parts, the MIM parts do not "perform just as well" if you include the ability to tune an action as part of performance.

Nonsense. MIM parts tune up just fine. Matter of fact, it's easier to tune an MIM gun, since the parts don't need as much fitting to begin with. FWIW, in the event you haven't seen it yet, here's my tuned MIM-infested 686:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmy5mkjpUNI

You'll have to do a bit more to convince me MIM parts don't respond well to tuning.
 
You know, it's kinda funny. Years ago when Kimber and S&W were the primary users of MIM everybody bashed them for it. Cheap parts yet the guns were still expensive, so on and so forth.
Now that Ruger and many other makers are using MIM it seems it's suddenly a good thing now.
Fact is, MIM's only purpose in a gun is to reduce manufacturing cost. It does not increase quality at all. I would rather pay more money for less of it.

Have you seen the hammer assembly on a new SP101, it looks cheap, like a molded part. Compare it to a hammer from several years ago and you can see a big difference. Does it make a difference on how the gun shoots, probably not at all. But I don't like it. Did the price of the SP101 go down when they started using MIM? No. A local gun shop has a higher price on a used pre MIM SP than a brand new one.

I'm not totally against MIM, my Glock has a lot of MIM but it's priced accordingly. But, a lot of MIM on a $1K plus gun is not acceptable to me.
If you look at the collectability (and prices) of older pre MIM S&W's you can clearly see a lot of folks feel the same way.

So, am I old, out of touch with technology, set in my ways... maybe. But it's my money.

Jim
 
Last edited:
Firearms maker Sturm Ruger & Co. RGR, -1.82% reported another quarter of lower demand, posting a 76% decrease in its third-quarter profit and a 42% drop in revenue.
"Lower" demand after a couple of years of record HIGH demand is merely a return to normal conditions, and not an indication of problems in the company
 
Sure, MIM can work and often proves satisfactory. But, IMO, it's a lot like using studs with a 24 inch center instead of a sixteen inch center just because an engineer says that's all that's needed to bear the weight. Maybe so, but a lot of people will pay extra for a house with studs at sixteen inches instead of 24. You'll see more of a difference in guns originally engineered when MIM did not exist, like a 1911. Some companies, like Colt, will only use a couple (three, IIRC) that are MIM while others like Kimber will fill the gun full of MIM.
 
I wonder if it is possible to discuss firearms manufacture without the usual socialist rants about evil capitalist gun makers accumulating tons of money by cheating the poor working class citizens. The alternative would be to have everything made by the government (I guarantee that guns for the masses would NOT be one of those products) and we all know how well that works.

Jim
 
The MIM process allows harder and stronger alloys to be used as very little if any finish machining is needed. The parts come out very close to final size. I have worked on S&W revolvers, been to S&W factory training, and I prefer the MIM parts. My experience is they are better and if they cost less, that is a win-win. I am a target shooter so performance, reliability and accuracy are my priorities. The most accurate S&W revolver I have is also the newest so I like the direction the makers are going. However folks buy guns for different reasons and so they may see it another way. YMMV
 
This from the smith-wesson forum on MIM parts.

What is MIM?

Here is an older post that I have copied here, what is MIM?

By popular request, here's the post from Mr. Herb Belin of S&W -----------------------
"I have read with much interest the many comments in this forum pertaining to MIM, MIM Parts and the use of same in a S&W product. So far I have come away with several impressions and they are "people in general don't like/trust MIM parts" and "no one has said why" I will take a stab at this issue and see where it goes.

As background to our decision to use MIM in some areas of our Mfg Process we took a long hard look at our "Life Time Service
Policy". It was clear to us that any change in any of our products such as the use of MIM components had to show equivalent or better performance and durability to those components that were being replaced or the "Lifetime Service" would haunt us forever. The second consideration was to determine if the change was too radical a departure from S&W mainstream design.

For the performance and durability issues we decided that if MIM could be used for the fabrication of revolver hammers and triggers successfully this would truly be an "Acid Test". There is nothing more important to a revolvers feel than the all-important Single Action Sear that is established between the hammer and the trigger. Mechanically few places in a revolver work harder than at the point where the hammer and trigger bear against each other. If these surfaces wear or loose there "edge" the "feel" is lost. Initial testing was on these two critical parts. Over time we arrived at a point where our best shooters could not tell the difference between a revolver with the old style hammer and trigger and the new MIM components. Special attention was given to their endurance when used in our very light Magnum J frames such as the early prototype 340 & 360 Sc's. None of our revolvers work their components harder than these small magnum revolvers. Throughout this testing MIM held strong and finally we determined that this change judged on the basis of durability and feel was a good one.

The second area of concern to S&W was our customer’s reaction to this departure from the traditional. Many heated, intense discussions resulted but in the end the decision was made to move ahead with MIM.
The issue of cost was only one of the considerations in making this decision. Equally as important was the issue of part-to-part uniformity and the result of this of course is Revolver-to-Revolver consistency. We found that revolvers that used MIM hammers and triggers required almost no Fitter intervention in those areas during final assembly and final inspection and Trigger Pull Monitor rejection rates dropped markedly on finished guns. From an internal process point of view it appeared a "Winner".

Lets shift gears for a moment and talk about the MIM process. It is unclear to me as to the reason for many of the negative feelings on the forum concerning MIM. Typically when people complain and aren't specific in the reason why, the problem is often created by a departure from the "Traditional". Perhaps that is indeed what is bothering some people when they view MIM.

The term MIM stands for Metal Injection Molding. It holds some similarities to Plastic Injection Molding and many differences as well. To start we would take a finally divided metal powder. This could be stainless or carbon steel. Today even Titanium is being used in some MIM fabrications. We would mix the metal powder and a thermoplastic binder (generally a Wax) forming slurry of sorts when heated and inject this mix into a precision mold and finally form what is known as a “Green Part". This part is roughly 30% larger than the finished part it will become at the end of the process. Interestingly enough the Green Part at this stage can be snapped in two with simple finger pressure. The Green Parts are then placed in a Sintering furnace filled with dry Hydrogen gas and the temperature is brought almost to the melting point of the metal being used. Over time the "Wax" in the Green Part is evaporated, the metal fuses and the part shrinks 30% to it's final correct dimensions. At this stage of the process the MIM part has developed 98 to 99%of the density of the older wrought materials and a metallurgy that is almost identical. Dimensionally it is finished and no machining is required. However the job is not yet done and the MIM parts are brought to our Heat Treat facility for hardening and in the case of Hammers and Triggers, Case Hardening. Depending on the particular metal alloy that was used at the start of the process we apply a heat treat process that is the same as would be used if the material were the older wrought style. Final hardness, Case thickness and core hardness are for the most part identical to parts manufactured the older way.

Lets look for a moment at how we achieve dimensional precision when comparing these 2 processes. The old parts were each machined from either bar stock or a forging. Each cut and every resulting dimension was subject to machine variations, Cutter wear, operator variations etc. If every operation was done exactly right each and every time and the cutter didn't let you down you would have produced a good part but sometimes this didn’t happen resulting in a rejected gun and rework or in the worst case an unhappy customer. With MIM parts you must still machine to very high tolerances and your cutters have to be perfect and your machinist has to be highly qualified but all of this only has to come together one time. That time is when the injection mold is made. Typically a mold for this process costs S&W between 30,000 and 50,000 dollars. Once it is perfect every part it makes mirrors this perfection and you have in my view a wonderful manufacturing process.

Hopefully this description will help us all better understand the MIM process.
Please forgive the spelling errors and misplaced punctuation. I have no spell checker on this and the phone continues to ring!

Have a Great Weekend,
Herb

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-smithing/94072-faqs.html#post1029055
 
Folks didn't like the idea of alloy (read aluminum) for the receivers of rifles and pistols. Then came the horror of plastic invisible guns :rolleyes: and folks were having conniptions about polymer frames and some still do. Those are injection moulded too.
So now MIM internal parts are getting flogged. Some folks just do not take to change very well. ;)
 
Some folks just do not take to change very well.

NO, some don't. And Some that do, do ok, unless the change is crap. And that is what people saw, all too often with the introduction of MIM parts.

Sights, hammers, SAFETY LEVERS that broke, for no apparent reason, when traditional cast, or forged parts didn't. The ONLY change, as far as the buying public knew was MIM.

Molded In Metal (didn't they used to call it sintering?)

As a process, its fine, but when early examples turn out to be crap (or at least believed to be, due to a high failure rate), things get a reputation.

It doesn't matter if you've fixed the process, and if you turn out perfectly good stuff TODAY, they guys that turned out the crap in the beginning have painted your MIM into a corner in public opinion.

That's why people "fear" MIM parts, because they remember the crap, and forget all the "good" ones.
 
I'm old school. I like old guns but I also have a Rock Island 1911 that I wouldn't take anything for. I have no idea of the round count but its well over 2,000. Do I have a problem with MIM parts? No, absolutely not.
 
44 AMP said:
Sights, hammers, SAFETY LEVERS that broke, for no apparent reason, when traditional cast, or forged parts didn't. The ONLY change, as far as the buying public knew was MIM.

Yup I had a S&W model 60 from the first year they transition to MIM parts that had a MIM hammer block that snapped on me. Before that it was unheard of for a hammer block to break. They shortly switched back to the original hammer blocks. For those who don't know the hammer block prevents an accidental discharge in case the back of the hammer is struck.
 
Back
Top