SP101s now have MIM parts
- Thread starter drastic_quench
- Start date
Help Support Ruger Forum:
desertrat
Single-Sixer
Easy for you to say, but I hold the item in my hand & it sure looks like it. "Show me the carfax!"
desertrat
Single-Sixer
Well, they definitely look cast & are too symmetrical & clean to be machined, so I assumed they were MIM'd.
Flash
Buckeye
DPris said:
I'm pretty sure Ruger's use of MIM parts go back farther than that. The P series has many MIM parts in it and that was introduced 29 years ago
Flash
Buckeye
DPris said:And you're wrong.
Denis
lol....you have such tact
Flash,
My info on that MIM introduction was from a Ruger project manager who spent several years at the foundry.
He said the first MIM piece was that M77 extractor, in that timeframe.
And, tactfully speaking, he'd be in a position to know.
The P Series didn't originally have MIMs, any more than the current SPs & GPs did.
Denis
My info on that MIM introduction was from a Ruger project manager who spent several years at the foundry.
He said the first MIM piece was that M77 extractor, in that timeframe.
And, tactfully speaking, he'd be in a position to know.
The P Series didn't originally have MIMs, any more than the current SPs & GPs did.
Denis
I have two SP101s one bought new in 2010. No MIM parts. The other bought used but made in 2013 according to serial number. It has MIM parts. I cannot tell the difference when shooting.
DPris, abrupt perhaps, but he knows what he's talking about.
DPris, abrupt perhaps, but he knows what he's talking about.
BKDinTexas
Bearcat
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- Messages
- 67
Evidently, he realizes it, but just can't help it...
Flash
Buckeye
DPris said:
I'm not disputing your acquaintance with the project manager but if you scroll down this link, you'll see a paragraph titled MIM vs. Investment Casting with quotes from Ruger's chief engineer and he'd be in the position to know. The illustration shows a double action revolver ejector that became the driving force for MIM use and the mid 1990's goes back 20 years. I guess we were both wrong. Oh by the way, the Model 77 ejector is just a simple spring loaded pin on the bolt face and the extractor is also a very basic part.
http://www.micromanufacturing.com/content/full-metal-molding
desertrat
Single-Sixer
Flash said:DPris said:And you're wrong.
Denis
lol....you have such tact
I'm a subscriber to several gun forums & this one is at the top of the list for having the most rude know-it-alls.
Don't know why they'd flock to this one more than any others, but it must have something to do with the brand. Lots of horn tooting here about having an 'inside connection' to key Ruger employees that the average peon member doesn't have. :roll:
Flash,
My info is from Mark Gurney, a Ruger spokesman with a background at the foundry. You see Mark on the Ruger segments on the Sportsman's Channel, if you get that channel.
A year or so ago we were trying to figure out between us when that M77 MIM extractor first appeared. He said it was the first MIM use by Ruger.
I have an M77 International from about '98 or '99 that has a non-MIM extractor, so we were extrapolating forward from that.
That's the source of my dating info.
Desert,
I participate in about five gun forums. I learn from them, and I try to pass on some helpful info in return when I can, as subjects come up that I do happen to know something about.
I blow no horn, I don't "flock" here more than anywhere else, I'm on this one because I've got over 20 years of dealing with various people inside Ruger that, whether you consider yourself a peon or not, you don't have.
That's not horn blowing, it's my job.
I pass on what I pick up in dealing with Ruger here, since it's a dedicated Ruger forum. I pass on what I pick up in dealing with Ruger & other companies elsewhere on other forums.
If I'm not always as tactful as you'd like, life can be tough at times, and eventually you die. Get over it.
You are invited to put me on "Ignore" if you don't find what I post useful in any way.
I could do the usual Internet "Hey! I heard a rumor from the plumber who overheard two guys talking at the checkstand at a gunshop someplace while he was fixing a busted pipe there!", or I can say "Ruger says...."
I prefer "Ruger says..." and I won't apologize for knowing people there as my job requires.
I mention Ruger as a source for others reading posts here to use in determining credibility, it certainly isn't to try to impress you, or anybody else.
You don't like it, you don't have to read it.
Denis
My info is from Mark Gurney, a Ruger spokesman with a background at the foundry. You see Mark on the Ruger segments on the Sportsman's Channel, if you get that channel.
A year or so ago we were trying to figure out between us when that M77 MIM extractor first appeared. He said it was the first MIM use by Ruger.
I have an M77 International from about '98 or '99 that has a non-MIM extractor, so we were extrapolating forward from that.
That's the source of my dating info.
Desert,
I participate in about five gun forums. I learn from them, and I try to pass on some helpful info in return when I can, as subjects come up that I do happen to know something about.
I blow no horn, I don't "flock" here more than anywhere else, I'm on this one because I've got over 20 years of dealing with various people inside Ruger that, whether you consider yourself a peon or not, you don't have.
That's not horn blowing, it's my job.
I pass on what I pick up in dealing with Ruger here, since it's a dedicated Ruger forum. I pass on what I pick up in dealing with Ruger & other companies elsewhere on other forums.
If I'm not always as tactful as you'd like, life can be tough at times, and eventually you die. Get over it.
You are invited to put me on "Ignore" if you don't find what I post useful in any way.
I could do the usual Internet "Hey! I heard a rumor from the plumber who overheard two guys talking at the checkstand at a gunshop someplace while he was fixing a busted pipe there!", or I can say "Ruger says...."
I prefer "Ruger says..." and I won't apologize for knowing people there as my job requires.
I mention Ruger as a source for others reading posts here to use in determining credibility, it certainly isn't to try to impress you, or anybody else.
You don't like it, you don't have to read it.
Denis
BKDinTexas
Bearcat
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- Messages
- 67
I think Denis never got over it after the editors quit using his full body "strike a macho pose" self portraits in his articles... ;-)
Flash
Buckeye
DPris said:
Yes I've been looking at that part. D-14 and D-15 for the MKII. It's a basic claw extractor that investment casting could easily handle. It seems odd that it would be the target of MIM processes, since there shouldn't be any fill or porosity issues from casting. Dunno, companies have done stranger things.
At the risk of offending Desert Rat by mentioning a direct source, Mark says Ruger is now looking at the most efficient processes for overall production.
If it makes "more sense" (his words) to use Ruger's traditional lost wax casting process for a given part, it'll stay cast. If it's more efficient to spec out a given part to an outside MIM production facility, that's how that part will be done.
In some cases, they're even expanding the use of CNC processes in-house.
In determining which way each part's made, they take numerous factors into consideration that you & I don't see, and that includes production costs, machinery maintenance, design parameters, and ability of that part (by whichever process) to stand up to the stresses & wear factors inherent to the function the part carries out in or on the gun.
I was surprised to hear, when we were discussing the .308 Compact Magnum I was working with at the time, that those Mauser-style claw extractors were now MIMs, and that led to us trying to approximately date the transition period.
The extractor can work as a MIM part, the bolt (for instance) remained cast.
The two materials processes are not 100% directly interchangeable, one reason why you probably won't see a MIM receiver, unless the MIM process continues to advance substantially.
Smaller non-stressed parts, yes. Larger, not necessarily.
Denis
If it makes "more sense" (his words) to use Ruger's traditional lost wax casting process for a given part, it'll stay cast. If it's more efficient to spec out a given part to an outside MIM production facility, that's how that part will be done.
In some cases, they're even expanding the use of CNC processes in-house.
In determining which way each part's made, they take numerous factors into consideration that you & I don't see, and that includes production costs, machinery maintenance, design parameters, and ability of that part (by whichever process) to stand up to the stresses & wear factors inherent to the function the part carries out in or on the gun.
I was surprised to hear, when we were discussing the .308 Compact Magnum I was working with at the time, that those Mauser-style claw extractors were now MIMs, and that led to us trying to approximately date the transition period.
The extractor can work as a MIM part, the bolt (for instance) remained cast.
The two materials processes are not 100% directly interchangeable, one reason why you probably won't see a MIM receiver, unless the MIM process continues to advance substantially.
Smaller non-stressed parts, yes. Larger, not necessarily.
Denis
Similar threads
