SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  SIG Pistols    I hate MIM...now with a passion
Page 1 2 3 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
I hate MIM...now with a passion Login/Join 
7.62mm Crusader
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 18000 | Location: The Bluegrass State! | Registered: December 23, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Quit staring at my wife's Butt
Picture of XLT
posted Hide Post
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.


you cant water jet all of that part.
 
Posts: 5711 | Registered: February 09, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
7.62mm Crusader
posted Hide Post
Correct XLT.
 
Posts: 18000 | Location: The Bluegrass State! | Registered: December 23, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Certified All Positions
Picture of arcwelder
posted Hide Post
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.


Arc.
______________________________
"Like a bitter weed, I'm a bad seed"- Johnny Cash
"I'm a loner, Dottie. A rebel." - Pee Wee Herman
Rode hard, put away wet. RIP JHM
"You're a junkyard dog." - Lupe Flores. RIP

 
Posts: 27124 | Location: On fire, off the shoulder of Orion | Registered: June 09, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Purveyor of Death
and Destruction
Picture of walker77
posted Hide Post
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?
 
Posts: 7410 | Location: Raymore, Missouri | Registered: June 24, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
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.

Well stated. I've been biting my tongue trying to stay out of the same old MIM wars. Spent an inordinate amount of time during the last MIM war expressing my view on the matter.

I worked at Crucible Steel division of Colt Industries back in the 1970's. They were a major source of product in the specialty steel industry. All high end materials for high end tech applications. Like aerospace.

What did they do? Specialized in powdered metallurgy applications...like MIM.

I started shooting in the 1960's. Have seen a lot of development and evolution in firearms of all types. While my heart prefers steel and walnut, my brain accepts the changes over the decades. Price is an important factor in that acceptance.

Of no particular significance and utterly lacking in any empirical meaning, I've only seen/had two parts breakages. One was a Charles Daly (Armscor mfg) 1911 GM slide in a gun my gun writer friend had out for T&E (test & evaluation). Fifty rounds into the testing I noticed something funny when another shooter placed the gun on the bench. The slide had a 1" crack near the ejection port. The other was my own 1980's Colt LW Cmdr. In the mid-nineties, it sheared the top of the Colt slide lock lever off. Presumably, both were machined forgings. S--t happens.

Equally insignificant, I have a 2011 Sig P226 .40 with MIM parts. Also, a 1995 P229 .40 with no MIM parts. No issues with either. In other words, if something breaks, I'm just going to replace it. MIM, not MIM, polymer, aluminum, steel or whatever. Goes with the territory.

There...I feel better. Smile


______________________
An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing. --Nicholas Murray Butler
 
Posts: 4670 | Location: Pennsylvania | Registered: June 29, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
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.


Metal Injection Molding typically starts with a part 30% larger than the finished product, and can be constructed in such a way that the finished part is superior to most machined parts, and is a true drop-in, identical, repeatable part that isn't possible with other processes.

The material for injection molding is approximately ten times more costly than bar stock; it's detail finishing work that costs, machining to the final product, and the chief reason that s&w and others use it is that it's much more repeatable and exacting for the finished cost. With strength typically at 98-99% of design, and design far exceeding what's necessary for a given part, strength of the part isn't an issue.

People tend to confuse pot metal and poor metal and poor workmanship with the process; the two are not the same.

The process of injecting a material into a mold isn't new, and this is not the same as a cast piece. The point of metal injection molding is that it is superior to a casting, and it achieves that superiority at a molecular level with granular orientation in the metal itself, during the sintering process.

MIM has become a buzzword on internet web boards, usually tossed around by those who have read that it's bad and simply parrot what they've heard. It's not true, but the same are usually quite quick to dismiss anything that doesn't align with their perception of the world.

Metal injection molding is used in firearms, aerospace, automotive parts construction, and nearly every other industry where parts are fabricated. This is especially true of parts that need to be produced to a very repeatable design with good properties. "MIM" parts can be case hardened and treated, machined, and otherwise worked just like anything else, but the key advantage is that without that it still starts as a repeatable, exact part.

While the components are more expensive (materials), the end product is usually far more cost effective because the process is efficient and far less waste occurs.
 
Posts: 6650 | Registered: September 13, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Certified All Positions
Picture of arcwelder
posted Hide Post
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?


MIM is here to stay. If folks don't like it and don't want it, OK. What I'm tired of is the continued nonsense about it.

Why, WHY is MIM present in so many production firearms from major manufacturers? Many of whom have gubmint contracts? Is it because it is awful, failure prone, and inferior?

The answer is no. MIM is present because it is an advancement in manufacturing, that can supply parts of sufficient quality.

Full stop, if you'd like to delve into the history of firearms manufacturing, there are books and books about the failures of all kinds of guns and their parts. 1911s, Garands, you pick, all before the advent of MIM. The whole "MILSPEC" thing is a crock, certainly in ARs and sometimes elsewhere, when it comes to describing standards or quality.

This discussion, started, over an inexpensive adapter plate, that probably would still work with the crack in it, and that someone oopsied.

This wailing and gnashing of teeth over MIM is tired and old, and has to stop. MIM isn't even NEW anymore.

This is a far more complex issue than you make it out to be. MIM exists in a host of industries, and in firearms the failure rate doesn't at all justify the butthurt.

I'm not saying people aren't allowed to have a preference, but let's not pretend that there is a deep flaw with MIM, when it's simply not true. Did an inexpensive part break? That's too bad. Do gun parts break all the time, regardless of how they are manufactured? You bet your sweet bippy they do.


Arc.
______________________________
"Like a bitter weed, I'm a bad seed"- Johnny Cash
"I'm a loner, Dottie. A rebel." - Pee Wee Herman
Rode hard, put away wet. RIP JHM
"You're a junkyard dog." - Lupe Flores. RIP

 
Posts: 27124 | Location: On fire, off the shoulder of Orion | Registered: June 09, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of billnchristy
posted Hide Post
It's finding its way into stamping tools too. If it can make 100s of thousands of parts at 200+ tons, I think it can do the mundane job it is called upon to do in guns.


------------------------------------
My books on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/William-...id=1383531982&sr=8-1
email if you'd like auto'd copies.
 
Posts: 17916 | Location: Lawrenceville GA | Registered: April 15, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Security Sage
Picture of striker1
posted Hide Post
Funny...

When a stamped part breaks, it must just be a bad part.

When a MIM part breaks, the entire process is CRAP!


MIM is not the same as the earlier powder-metal process with a single sintering step.



RB

Cancer fighter (Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma) since 2009, now fighting Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.


 
Posts: 7133 | Location: Michiana | Registered: March 01, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I tried to stay out of this. But here is a part whose entire job is a spacer. Once in place I'm guessing you could hit it with an asteroid and nothing would happen. On its own it has no need to be strong. OK I'm unhappy that dropped it broke, but if I was trying to decide on a cost strength tradeoff for this part I'm picking cost. nothing at all to do with MIM.


“So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.”
 
Posts: 11229 | Registered: October 14, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Rail-less
and
Tail-less
posted Hide Post
It is interesting that to this day Beretta doesn't have a single MIM part in their 92 series and prices keep going down.


_______________________________________________
Use thumb-size bullets to create fist-size holes.
 
Posts: 13190 | Location: Charlotte, NC | Registered: May 07, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
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.


Are there any other manufacturers that can say that? Just wondering.


 
Posts: 6727 | Location: Charlotte, NC | Registered: November 09, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Metal Injection Molding is found in Glocks...pistols known for running a couple hundred thousand rounds, often with little or no difficulty. It's been a staple for many years in expensive Wilson Combat firearms.

"MIM" earned a bad reputation in the firearms community thanks to Kimber's use of very cheap, low quality parts some years ago. Many don't know that, but only what they read on gun boards and magazines, and parrot the buzzword as a bad thing. It's not.

Berettas have dropped in popularity. Berettas are also known for certain failures, such as the locking block, and frame cracking (particularly in .40, for the 96). Beretta's decrease in cost, or low increase over the years, has nothing to do with the use, or lack of use, of metal injection molding.

While Kimber has a less than stellar reputation, especially from a few years ago, Wilson Combat has an excellent reputation and produces some very good firearms. A statement that's going back a few years no, on the subject of "MIM," by Frank Robbins, from Wilson:

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"
 
Posts: 6650 | Registered: September 13, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Glorious SPAM!
Picture of mbinky
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 10640 | Registered: June 13, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Rail-less
and
Tail-less
posted Hide Post
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.


Yes all metal parts on 92's are machined hence why there are tools marks on all of them. The trigger is the only polymer coated metal part. The guide rod, safety (one side only), mainspring cap, and mag release are just polymer without metal. Even if you spend $60-70 to buy all the metal parts you are still talking about a sub $600 gun with no MIM parts.


_______________________________________________
Use thumb-size bullets to create fist-size holes.
 
Posts: 13190 | Location: Charlotte, NC | Registered: May 07, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
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.


Yes all metal parts on 92's are machined hence why there are tools marks on all of them. The trigger is the only polymer coated metal part. The guide rod, safety (one side only), mainspring cap, and mag release are just polymer without metal. Even if you spend $60-70 to buy all the metal parts you are still talking about a sub $600 gun with no MIM parts.[/QUOTE]

So what?

That the pistol design is old and uses older technology in construction, which it has long used, would only be a significant issue with regard to the thread subject if there were a problem with metal injection molding. Of course, there is not.
 
Posts: 6650 | Registered: September 13, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of RoverSig
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 1597 | Location: Virginia, USA | Registered: June 02, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Rail-less
and
Tail-less
posted Hide Post
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.


But guns are just tools and who cares about the looks blah blah blah. I totally agree with you by the way. A perfect example for me is be hammer on my 938. It looks like it belongs on a child's toy.


_______________________________________________
Use thumb-size bullets to create fist-size holes.
 
Posts: 13190 | Location: Charlotte, NC | Registered: May 07, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  SIG Pistols    I hate MIM...now with a passion

© SIGforum 2024