Ruger eliminating extractor pins
- Thread starter jhco50
- Start date
gunman42782
Hunter
First I have heard of it. I work in a gun shop, and the last GPs we got in where just like all the other GPs that came before.
powder smoke
Hawkeye
Probably a cost savings measure, first I heard of it. Tobad the bean counters are gonna be happy, my guess the customers won't be. Quality and function should rule. ps
GaryA
Single-Sixer
I dunno, it seems to me that if one reads that entire thread, Iowegan provides a very good explanation of what is being done and why. I have had an SP101 that needed to have a pin replaced so it is possible that eliminating the pins might be a good simplification, I don't know. I know all my Ruger double-action revolvers are the older style. I don't think it's a big deal and might be an improvement.
I have heard essentially the same thing IOWEGAN posted elsewhere.
Makes sense to me.
Edited for spelling.
Makes sense to me.
Edited for spelling.
Jimbo357mag
Hawkeye
The changes to the SP-101 were discussed here on RugerForum last year.jhco50 said:
http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=70526
Seems the changes have made it to the GP now. I expect that the other double-actions will see them also. The changes don't effect anything very much. They are a cost and time savings for Ruger.
...Jimbo
TiteGroups
Blackhawk
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 513
Iowegan clears up the ignorance. Not so sure of his thoughts of investment castings being stronger than "MIM" parts. Connecting rods in some newer engines are made MIM, maybe just to keep the tight tolerances? Anybody have any background on this?
Yosemite Sam
Hunter
Here's a pic of a 1911 MIM bushing that I recently snapped in half:
As you can see, this example is a very porous material, and not what I would consider on a par with a Ruger-quality casting. I can't say that all MIM is like this, but I don't like the looks of this.
What gets me is that all major 1911 manufacturers are now using MIM in the fire control group, including Colt. And Chip McCormick sears are MIM, but are highly thought of.
Like everything else, there's probably "good" MIM and "bad" MIM, depending on the care used in making the parts. One thing I have heard is that any hardening is done as a thin skin layer, so if you (for instance) stone a sear you can break right through that skin into the "soft" inner material beneath, making working with the stuff that much more difficult.
-- Sam
As you can see, this example is a very porous material, and not what I would consider on a par with a Ruger-quality casting. I can't say that all MIM is like this, but I don't like the looks of this.
What gets me is that all major 1911 manufacturers are now using MIM in the fire control group, including Colt. And Chip McCormick sears are MIM, but are highly thought of.
Like everything else, there's probably "good" MIM and "bad" MIM, depending on the care used in making the parts. One thing I have heard is that any hardening is done as a thin skin layer, so if you (for instance) stone a sear you can break right through that skin into the "soft" inner material beneath, making working with the stuff that much more difficult.
-- Sam
The elimination of the ejector pins should be no big deal. S&W did it quite a few years ago and I haven't heard any real complaints over it. In fact, I have a S&W M649 (pre-lock, chambered in .357 but with MIM parts) that has the "keyed" extractor star. Never a problem with alignment when using it. Provided there isn't excessive rotational play in the ejector star (so that the ejector star cannot turn far enough to get out of alignment with the "keyed" cylinder), should be a non-issue. If it saves Ruger money and machine time and keeps prices down without sacrificing quality, I'm all for it.
As for MIM, I wouldn't have bought the M649 had I known about the MIM innards. I didn't know and bought it. It has served admirably for 14 or 15 years now, even though it went to semi-retired status after I bought my SP101. Never a problem with the MIM parts, either. In fact, the MIM parts seemed to be a LOT smoother, with better surface finishing/polishing, than the innards on a well-used S&W M66-2 that I used to won. Even after the M66 saw a LOT of use, the M649 still seemed a little smoother than the M66. I don't know about long-term reliability or breakage, but "good" MIM seems to be at least decent.
Bub
As for MIM, I wouldn't have bought the M649 had I known about the MIM innards. I didn't know and bought it. It has served admirably for 14 or 15 years now, even though it went to semi-retired status after I bought my SP101. Never a problem with the MIM parts, either. In fact, the MIM parts seemed to be a LOT smoother, with better surface finishing/polishing, than the innards on a well-used S&W M66-2 that I used to won. Even after the M66 saw a LOT of use, the M649 still seemed a little smoother than the M66. I don't know about long-term reliability or breakage, but "good" MIM seems to be at least decent.
Bub
jhco50, S&W doesn't use grooves, either. What they do is mill the recess for the extractor star into kinda a rounded square, then mill the extractor star to fit into the square. Here's a pic to explain.
By doing this, the extractor star only fits into the cylinder one way, eliminating the need for the alignment pins. It is "keyed" to only fit one way. Like I said, works pretty well and probably eliminates quite a few machining steps in the production of the cylinder and star.
As for MIM, it's a molding process for metal. As I understand it, the manufacturer mixes metal powder with a plastic binder, then injects the mix into a mold. The mold is heated, evaporating the plastic mixing agent and fusing the part into solid metal. Probably oversimplified, but if you want more info, google MIM or MIM injection molding or something similar. Think of it as a high-tech version of casting.
By doing this, the parts come out pretty much ready to use, with very little or no machining required. "Good" MIM refers to quality, well-molded parts with no voids or air pockets and designed for the application it is used for. "Bad" MIM refers to parts that end up having air voids or not really designed for the application, like the broken barrel bushing Yosemite Sam referenced above. Barrel bushings used to be machined out of a solid block of metal (a forging, I think) and hand fitted to the individual gun. Manufacturers use MIM because it requires little or no hand fitting or machining (both of which require time, money and machinery/hand fitting skills, none of which are cheap) and is ready to go out of the mold. The trouble is, the MIM parts aren't as dense or strong as forgings. Whether or not it matters depends on the part, where it goes and what it does.
Bub
By doing this, the extractor star only fits into the cylinder one way, eliminating the need for the alignment pins. It is "keyed" to only fit one way. Like I said, works pretty well and probably eliminates quite a few machining steps in the production of the cylinder and star.
As for MIM, it's a molding process for metal. As I understand it, the manufacturer mixes metal powder with a plastic binder, then injects the mix into a mold. The mold is heated, evaporating the plastic mixing agent and fusing the part into solid metal. Probably oversimplified, but if you want more info, google MIM or MIM injection molding or something similar. Think of it as a high-tech version of casting.
By doing this, the parts come out pretty much ready to use, with very little or no machining required. "Good" MIM refers to quality, well-molded parts with no voids or air pockets and designed for the application it is used for. "Bad" MIM refers to parts that end up having air voids or not really designed for the application, like the broken barrel bushing Yosemite Sam referenced above. Barrel bushings used to be machined out of a solid block of metal (a forging, I think) and hand fitted to the individual gun. Manufacturers use MIM because it requires little or no hand fitting or machining (both of which require time, money and machinery/hand fitting skills, none of which are cheap) and is ready to go out of the mold. The trouble is, the MIM parts aren't as dense or strong as forgings. Whether or not it matters depends on the part, where it goes and what it does.
Bub
chet15
Hawkeye
That's my understanding of MIM also. Can't use MIM in very stressful situations as I don't believe it is anywhere near as strong as investment casting. Ruger has been using a MIM cast rear sight on their adj. sight Blackhawks for a few years now...you can tell the difference as Ruger had to have them made with an incuse Ruger eagle over where the metal shrank in the forward extension of the sight.
Chet15
Chet15
chet15
Hawkeye
Anybody have any sn information on when this changed on the SP's and GP's? Also curious about Ruger's Super Redhawk if they've changed that as well.
Of course, I'm after such info for the collector information, but posting this will also be good for those with concerns about the change.
Chet15
Of course, I'm after such info for the collector information, but posting this will also be good for those with concerns about the change.
Chet15
Rick Courtright
Hawkeye
bub said:
Hi,
I'm not a manufacturing type, but this explanation pretty well echoes what a buddy of mine, who is one, has explained...
He usually starts his explanations w/ a reminder of the concept of "good enough." For example, we CAN drive a six penny nail w/ a 2 lb blacksmith's hammer, a 12 oz claw hammer, or a six ounce ball pein. Though they'll all do the job if we just have to drive a single nail, when we're gonna be driving nails all day, they're kinda like Goldilocks and her porridge: one's too big, one too small, one's just right to do the job the easiest way. End result, you'll want to pick up the claw hammer... it's the "good enough" solution considering the job at hand.
W/ MIM, he suggests it's still in the growth/learning phase we see w/ so many new technologies: it's being used "everywhere" as the mfrs and engineers learn what jobs it's "good enough" for, and which ones it's not so suitable for. After a while, it's almost certain they'll learn how to make MIM parts better, too, or where to simply not use them.
Personally, I like to think MIM gun parts will create an aftermarket niche where guys who are willing to pay for "better" CAN get it from small mfrs who can both produce AND make their desired profit from it... guess we'll see.
Rick C
Rick, I just read back over that post and realized that, while I don't really like MIM, I never said that, while I would have never bought the M649 if I had known about the MIM, it had performed very well. AS LONG AS the parts will hold up at least as long as the original forged innards without breaking or wearing out, it seems that S&W may have actually made a good choice with the MIM parts. As I said, the are have a smoother finish than a lot of the original forged parts and get that way without a lot of extra machining and hand fitting, which greatly reduces costs. The trouble is, we really won't know if they are as good as the forged until some of the guns see HEAVY use. Myself, I haven't seen any after action reports for hard use guns with MIM.
As for good enough, I completely agree. If the part is good enough to hold up at least as good as the original forged parts, it's not a problem. I also realize that most gun owners won't put enough rounds through a gun to seriously stress it, so for them, MIM should be good enough. For recreational guns, I also have no problem with MIM. I'm just old fashioned enough that I don't want MIM in my serious use guns, at least until I am satisfied that they are just as good as forged or machined. Stupid attitude, especially when I LOVE my Glocks (which are about as non-traditional as you can get), but that's how I feel.
Bub
As for good enough, I completely agree. If the part is good enough to hold up at least as good as the original forged parts, it's not a problem. I also realize that most gun owners won't put enough rounds through a gun to seriously stress it, so for them, MIM should be good enough. For recreational guns, I also have no problem with MIM. I'm just old fashioned enough that I don't want MIM in my serious use guns, at least until I am satisfied that they are just as good as forged or machined. Stupid attitude, especially when I LOVE my Glocks (which are about as non-traditional as you can get), but that's how I feel.
Bub
Richbaker
Blackhawk
1st I ever heard of MIM parts was about 1994 or so, used in mountain bike shifters, derailleurs and and other small parts..... never heard of any problems with them then. Used appropriately, they should be good.
The elimination of the pins has been done by S&W years ago but I do not believe it is a good thing. It is only cost cutting. You can not cock a revolver that you are looking at and see how tight it locks up. Same with a Smith. I don't like it and the only way you can see how tight the revolver is, is to load the cylinders. It just puts more slop in the function of the gun.
John
John
