quote:

Originally posted by David Lee:
As I see the filler plate at the start of this thread, there is no reason it couldn't have been lasered or water jetted from sheet stock, sans the Glock logo. Even blanked complete with holes. I'm certain the little plate would sustain harsh abuse if made as such.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
MIM has its place, like any technology.

I'm getting a little tired of how everyone is a metallurgist and manufacturing expert.

Actual facts and experience routinely get overshadowed or at least muddied by people spouting what they think they know.

Is it OK to not like it? Sure. But you then go and self-select for all of the information that confirms your dislike. Then you decide that MIM doesn't belong in anything, which isn't going to happen, it is used to make all kinds of things.

Do you want a gun without MIM parts? OK, well, then you won't be buying certain guns. Great. Do we need to go round-and-round on MIM? No, particularly when large manufacturers chose it for a specific purpose, and are going to keep using it.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
MIM has its place, like any technology.

I'm getting a little tired of how everyone is a metallurgist and manufacturing expert.

Actual facts and experience routinely get overshadowed or at least muddied by people spouting what they think they know.

Is it OK to not like it? Sure. But you then go and self-select for all of the information that confirms your dislike. Then you decide that MIM doesn't belong in anything, which isn't going to happen, it is used to make all kinds of things.

Do you want a gun without MIM parts? OK, well, then you won't be buying certain guns. Great. Do we need to go round-and-round on MIM? No, particularly when large manufacturers chose it for a specific purpose, and are going to keep using it.

quote:

Originally posted by David Lee:
sns3guppy, I will take your word on the cost of the material being 10 times greater. I dont see how for small parts but if that is true I accept it. Other materials and the process of making them and, parts of age old quality from them, we have faith in. MIM is pretty new to us and at birth was not good. Its pretty well evolved as Bruce has pointed out to us. People feel and correctly so, why pay extreme prices for products the producer has so little invested in.

quote:

Originally posted by walker77:

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
MIM has its place, like any technology.

I'm getting a little tired of how everyone is a metallurgist and manufacturing expert.

Actual facts and experience routinely get overshadowed or at least muddied by people spouting what they think they know.

Is it OK to not like it? Sure. But you then go and self-select for all of the information that confirms your dislike. Then you decide that MIM doesn't belong in anything, which isn't going to happen, it is used to make all kinds of things.

Do you want a gun without MIM parts? OK, well, then you won't be buying certain guns. Great. Do we need to go round-and-round on MIM? No, particularly when large manufacturers chose it for a specific purpose, and are going to keep using it.

I agree.

It gets old listening to people complain about it all the time.

How can you get upset about something breaking when you dropped it?

quote:

Originally posted by Dusty78:
It is interesting that to this day Beretta doesn't have a single MIM part in their 92 series and prices keep going down.

quote:

"The 1996A2 is the base gun for all our models. On the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) log books, it will say 1996A2 no matter what the model is.

In 1996 we first came out with our own guns. The first ones said 1996A2 on one side and on the other it said whatever the model was Protector, CQB etc.

Note: On the right side of my gun is imprinted: Wilson Combat.
On the left side of my gun is imprinted :1996A2 .45 cal auto.

We also sold a basic model called the 1996A2. It was very close to a CQB, but did not have checkering or serrations on the front strap and had rubber panel grips. It came in Parkerize or blue and later was available in hard chrome frame/black Polymer top or in all Polymer (forerunner of our Armor Tuff.) (Then) At this time our Protectors & Classics were marked Service Grade. Later this name was dropped (about the time we started the CQB.) You might still find CQB's or some of the other models marked 1996A2 or Service Grade.

Also, to clear up another question, the CQB and carbon steel Protectors are identical except in color and that the Protector comes with a full length guide rod and the CQB comes with a short guide (this is now a steel short guide rod. Originally it was in polymer to work as another form of buffer, but was being knocked because people did not understand the principal. We here, including Bill Wilson still use the polymer type.)

The short guide is used in the CQB because ordinally designed for the military, a long guide rod is a little harder to disassembly/reassembly in a field environment.


This year (2002), we have dropped the carbon steel Protector and Protector Compact. The customer can now order the CQB/CQB Compact in all black, all grey (new color Armor Tuff), all OD Green, or Black over Green or Black over Grey. And if desired, a full length guide rod. Because of this, there is no need for the carbon steel Protectors, however we will still make the all stainless steel and Black over Stainless steel Protectors.

I hope this helps everyone to understand our products and some of the reasons behind them.

Frank Robbins Wilson Combat

One other thing I forgot to address. MIM parts. A company that I will not name gave the MIM parts a bad name because they had a bad batch of MIM parts. This was many years ago. Since then remarkable things have happened.

MIM parts are extremely dense and very exact. They are much less prone to wear and breakage than a factory Colt, Spfg. etc. part. This is why we use them in our CQB's, etc. Although not quite as hard as our tool steel parts, they will last a very long time. This is why we can still quarante our total gun, including the MIM parts, for life.

The tool steel parts are actually overkill. The MIM parts last for life (I know of one gun that has over 100,000 rounds thru it and the trigger pull feels the same as it did when new) therefore I guess you could say the tool steel parts lasts for a lifetime and ½.

We use the tool steel parts in our full custom guns. (These are the ones that cost from $2800.00 up) Our full custom guns, Stealth, Tactical Elite, Super Grade and Tactical Super Grade, are not for everyone because of price. They are intended for someone that can afford the very best we can do.

They [tool steel] actually won't last any longer, shoot any straighter or be more dependable than our CQB's, Protectors and Classics, but we spend many extra hours in fitting and prepping them for a perfect cosmetic handgun as well as a great shooter. And because of this, we use the tool steel parts that take longer to fit.

Again, all of us guys here, including Bill Wilson use the very same MIM parts in our guns. And we shoot a bunch! Once installed and fit, no one can tell the difference in the feel of the trigger pull with either type of parts.

Ok, I'm done with my book. Hope this helps too. Just didn't want you all to believe everything you read from self appointed experts.

Frank Robbins Wilson Combat"

quote:

Originally posted by Dusty78:
It is interesting that to this day Beretta doesn't have a single MIM part in their 92 series and prices keep going down.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:

quote:

Originally posted by Dusty78:
It is interesting that to this day Beretta doesn't have a single MIM part in their 92 series and prices keep going down.

They may not have MIM, but they switched to a lot of plastic coated steel. There is a whole aftermarket dedicated to "steel" replacement parts for the 92. Hell Beretta themselves sell the steel parts on their website. So no, not MIM, but not milled either.

quote:

Originally posted by Dusty78:


They may not have MIM, but they switched to a lot of plastic coated steel. There is a whole aftermarket dedicated to "steel" replacement parts for the 92. Hell Beretta themselves sell the steel parts on their website. So no, not MIM, but not milled either.

quote:

Originally posted by RoverSig:
A couple of observations:

1. I would think modern CNC machining -- throw a billet into a machine and the right part comes out -- would be lowering the disparity in overall cost of machining versus MIM. (I get that MIM usage cuts manpower costs related to fitting, too).

2. There sure was a lot of complaining about MIM when it first started appearing in volume in pistols and revolvers. Anyone here remember the dust-up on the Sig Forum when someone found Sig parts (I think it was takedown levers) on the web page advertising an Indian metallurgy company? The implication was that SIGARMS was having those made in India (I don't know if that was true or not). I think that a lot of the anti-MIMness we still see in folks today is left over from very legitimate complaints from that period of time, back when MIM parts were experiencing a lot more problems with breakage due to improper manufacturing.

3. MIM is here to stay, unless a new technology (3D printing of parts? Computer controlled directed energy cutting?) comes along. I agree the topic is a well-beaten dead horse; but I have to say, a MIM hammer (like on my 1998 S&W 3d Gen 5906) with its seam line looks a little sketchy even though it works just fine. A nicely forged part, with faint but symmetrical machining marks, somehow is aesthetically more pleasing to look at! Especially for the old metal and wood generation. Regardless of whether the MIM part is equally strong and indeed cheaper to fit.