Ruger is indeed using MIM parts

[stantheman86]

This is what I don't get, why a company that has used casting since day 1 would go with MIM, when the cast parts have been working fine since the 1950's.

I know a business has to trim costs to meet the bottom line, but I don't see a huge savings using MIM over cast parts. A lot of us aren't overly worried about it, but it will drive some buyers to look for used guns over buying new.

 

[dipper]

This is what I don't get, why a company that has used casting since day 1 would go with MIM, when the cast parts have been working fine since the 1950's.

I know a business has to trim costs to meet the bottom line, but I don't see a huge savings using MIM over cast parts. A lot of us aren't overly worried about it, but it will drive some buyers to look for used guns over buying new.

Because making MIM parts is faster, provides closer tolerances, better densities, less machining, etc. etc.

OR, for the same reasons the automotive industry left cast connecting rods etc. for PM connecting rods.
MIM is an ADVANCEMENT in producing metal parts.
Ya'all will really get to like it when the day comes that you can replace parts with virtually NO fitting.

 

[deputy125]

This is what I don't get, why a company that has used casting since day 1 would go with MIM, when the cast parts have been working fine since the 1950's.

I know a business has to trim costs to meet the bottom line, but I don't see a huge savings using MIM over cast parts. A lot of us aren't overly worried about it, but it will drive some buyers to look for used guns over buying new.

"cost savings" is generally associated with cutting corners and reduced quality...........i for one still do not see the increased quality with ruger using plastic trigger guards on the 10/22, or remington on the 870.

If MIM increases quality, then that is all good and fine. But MIM seems to be a frequent subject in guns with some noted problems in Smith and especially in some parts on 1911's.........

if Ruger themselves are producing the MIM parts, then i might feel better about it. If ruger is using MIM parts from an outside vendor......well that's a different story.
powdered metal mixed with plastic and poured in a mold with heat........its rocket science........and i ain't no scientist.

Some folks choose a ruger over a Smith because of the key lock issue. For me, it was the MIM (or lack of) issue. One less difference now between Ruger and Smith.

And i'm afraid i will be one of the uneducated ones who will prefer a used older ruger over a new one.

 

[J Miller]

MIM parts are butt ugly. A forged and machined, or investment cast and finish machined has a finished appearance. MIM parts are coarse, porous and have shrinkage problems. Look at the pics flatgate posted of the rear sight, you can see the porosity and shrinkage plain as day.

Have any of you actually seen a S&W MIM hammer and trigger? Or a hammer from a late USRAC Winchester 94? They are hollowed out, and flat out look cheep and trashy. They look like the cheep pot metal parts you used to see on a RG or Rohm import guns.

The MIM parts might work, but I do not believe for one moment they are in any way better than a forged or investment cast part.

As to what might or might not be inside the engine, transmission or differential of my vehicles, I don't know. I do know that should I ever have to replace any MIM part I will go out of my way to attempt to find a forged part.

MIM parts exist because they are cheep to make. When you say you don't need to fit MIM parts in your Rugers, that's a laugh. As it is we swap out parts all the time.
My OM BH has parts from the 50s, 60s, and 70s in it. Not one has needed any fitting at all.

MIM parts ........ BAH HUMBUG!!!!

Joe

 

[dipper]

Ruger rear sights.......MIM, I think........
flatgate[/quote]

Yes, definitely MIM. Note that Ruger wanted the shrinkage pit (as a result of MIM) covered by their eagle logo.
Chet15[/quote]

That isn't a "shrinkage pit" , that is an area where the mold did not fill completely and it may have not filled for a number of reasons... none of which is hard to fix.

They did not "cover" the "shrinkage pit" with their eagle logo.... that eagle logo is there because it was molded into the part and that logo could be the reason that area didn't fill properly... it isn't a big deal on that part and in no way will it affect the strength or function of the part.
You get what you pay for and I imagine Ruger specifies what they want the part to look like and OK'd the section not filled since it is a cosmetic issue. IF Ruger wanted that corrected, it would be corrected.
I am guessing that they put the parts out for bid and probably give the job to the lowest quote.

Ever machine a cast part??? I have, many.
Ever just be machining a cast part and hit a "hole" or a place that was hollow in a casting?? I have.

Better throw away all your cast frames!! LOL!! "might" be a hole in there that you can't see!! LOL!!

 

[k22fan]

Perhaps using MIM will allow Ruger's budget to provide wide hammer spurs and triggers. That might make the BHs look a little less like Custer's Colts but can only improve the double actions.

 

[dipper]

MIM parts are butt ugly. A forged and machined, or investment cast and finish machined has a finished appearance. MIM parts are coarse, porous and have shrinkage problems. Look at the pics flatgate posted of the rear sight, you can see the porosity and shrinkage plain as day.

Have any of you actually seen a S&W MIM hammer and trigger? Or a hammer from a late USRAC Winchester 94? They are hollowed out, and flat out look cheep and trashy. They look like the cheep pot metal parts you used to see on a RG or Rohm import guns.

The MIM parts might work, but I do not believe for one moment they are in any way better than a forged or investment cast part.

As to what might or might not be inside the engine, transmission or differential of my vehicles, I don't know. I do know that should I ever have to replace any MIM part I will go out of my way to attempt to find a forged part.

MIM parts exist because they are cheep to make. When you say you don't need to fit MIM parts in your Rugers, that's a laugh. As it is we swap out parts all the time.
My OM BH has parts from the 50s, 60s, and 70s in it. Not one has needed any fitting at all.

MIM parts ........ BAH HUMBUG!!!!

Joe

You have a very good eye if you can see the porosity and shrinkage in a part... I usually have to measure and test and I have worked with this stuff for several decades.

MIM is nothing like pot metal.. not even close.

Forged parts are usually very good, but they can have flaws too.
Investment cast parts can have hollow areas that you can't see unless you machine into them... a finished part CAN have hollow areas ..... you just can't see them.

MIM parts are not cheap to make, the presses and tooling are very expensive.... the process of MIM produces parts very quickly, that is the difference.... like a company spending millions on a hammer forging machine to manufacture barrels..... pretty fast and effective way to make barrels.... cheap no, cost effective yes.

I didn't say you don't need to fit MIM parts in your Rugers, I said......

Ya'all will really get to like it when the day comes that you can replace parts with virtually NO fitting.

Meaning that as the process and the technology grows, there will come a day when all parts produced are virtually identical..... especially if the customer INSISTS that they are.... you get what you demand and pay for.

Pay attention so you don't misquote me again ...... please.

 

[Boge]

Behold the power of KNOWLEDGE!!!


http://www.stiguns.com/FAQ-MIM.php

Q. Why do we seem to see more MIM parts fail?



A. This is pure Numbers. Most production firearms include MIM or PM parts- Yes, you might not want to believe it but most all pistols, revolvers, and rifles contain MIM or PM parts. Most people, without knowing the difference, have been using these for many years. Why we hear about it more is because the majority of pistols and revolvers have some MIM content in them. So, if we want to look at this logically you have to think in PPM. (PPM is Parts Per Million- it is a basis to how to figure a parts failure rate and its effect on the product.) For example if in 2005 there were 500,000 pistol produced with MIM slide stops and the failure rate worked out to be 1 failure per 1000, we would see 500 MIM slide stops fail. If in the same year we produced 50,000 with bar stock slide stops with the same failure rate we would hear of 50 failures. So Yes, we do hear of more MIM failures and we probably should due to the fact that they are, at a minimum, of 10 to 1 in annual sales.

 

[Cordite]

As far as I can see none of us here (including me) are Metallurgists who have conducted comparative testing on identical parts made of MIM / forged / cast / bubble gum / etc. to determine the failure rates due to material type.

A lot of people seem to be jumping on the "MIM is a bad thing" bandwagon without any concrete evidence. If someone can show me a link to something definitive where MIM is proven to be worse that forged or cast, I'll jump on the bandwagon too. Until then I'll be happy with my Rugers that have MIM parts.

Cordite

 

[stantheman86]

I have limited experience with MIM but have successfully dropped in brand new hammers and triggers into my new S&W's and had 0 issues.

I have dropped in forged hammers into older S&W's and had problems with hammer rubbing in sideplates, triggers being too narrow and having too much "slop", etc.

I won't knock the MIM Rugers until I try one, and like with everything else, if there's something new I need to try it myself.

I was on the fence with new S&W's for a while, I "tried" a 64-7 and the gun was great. My only compaint with new S&W's is not the MIM or even the IL, but the way they fit the ratchet teeth.

 

[leejack]

Manufacturing processes have been changing since manufacturing was invented. For better or worse, change is often resisted.

I want to buy a new 57 Chevy, but "they don't make-em like that anymore"! :lol:

 

[jpickar]

When Smith went to MIM they went to frame mounted firing pins and cheapened thier finish up and dropped quality control. That is how MIM got a bad name with Smiths.

My son has a 4" 629 that is a MIM parts gun and he can shoot a 7" group with it at 100 yards. (I wish I had young eyes again.) That is not bad for a cheap gun!.

John

 

[chet15]

I know the process is different but basicaly the MIM and investment cast are the same. Ruger has been using investment cast for most of thier parts for over 50 years!

John

From the looks of the shrinkage void in Ruger's SA rear sights today, it looks though that MIM castings are a lot worse off for shrinkage than you would ever get from an investment cast part. All Ruger's castings have shrinkage too, but the shrinkage is built into the "overall" of the casting so that when the casting cools the finished product will have minimum requirements, then they go to minor surface machining.
Do all MIM parts have such serious shrinkage issues in particular areas of the part??? That's what I'd be worried about.
Chet15

 

[chet15]

Ruger rear sights.......MIM, I think........
flatgate[/quote]

Yes, definitely MIM. Note that Ruger wanted the shrinkage pit (as a result of MIM) covered by their eagle logo.
Chet15[/quote]

That isn't a "shrinkage pit" , that is an area where the mold did not fill completely and it may have not filled for a number of reasons... none of which is hard to fix.

They did not "cover" the "shrinkage pit" with their eagle logo.... that eagle logo is there because it was molded into the part and that logo could be the reason that area didn't fill properly... it isn't a big deal on that part and in no way will it affect the strength or function of the part.
You get what you pay for and I imagine Ruger specifies what they want the part to look like and OK'd the section not filled since it is a cosmetic issue. IF Ruger wanted that corrected, it would be corrected.
I am guessing that they put the parts out for bid and probably give the job to the lowest quote.

Ever machine a cast part??? I have, many.
Ever just be machining a cast part and hit a "hole" or a place that was hollow in a casting?? I have.

Better throw away all your cast frames!! LOL!! "might" be a hole in there that you can't see!! LOL!![/quote]

Good explanation on the rear sight shrinkage. Except that eagle logo didn't start appearing on the rear sight until the shrinkage holes started appearing. Ruger also has logos all over their gun, usually frame as well as the barrel rollmark so I.M.O. Ruger had the contractor add the eagle logo to make that shrinkage hole more more attractive (instead of fixing the issue in the first place...which to me means the contractor couldn't fix it?). Would be butt ugly and cheap looking without the logo.
I can see why Ruger went to a MIM rear sight...because their pre-MIM rear sights were machined out of extruded stock...so the MIM saves a lot of time and expense.
Chet15

 

[k22fan]

First let me remind you that the only thing I wrote that was a wee bit negetive about MIM internals is that I prefer the more traditional appearance of S&W's forged parts and that I wrote I don't hesitate to buy a new MIM S&W if it offers features not available on older revolvers.

A more careful reader will also note that I did not claim to know how high a percentage of the posts to this or any other gun forum are economically motivated, nor did I write that any of the members who replied to this or any other thread might be employed firearm manufactures or the owners of large quantities of their stocks. :wink:

 

[Pinecone]

Well, guess what? MIM parts have been around in the firearms business for a lot longer than most of you think. I have been dealing with this "junk" for as long as I have been gunsmithing. Let me give you just "one" example of dozens I have dealt with. The "striker" assembly on a single shot H&R Topper shotgun. That was one of the first MIM parts I was introduced to. I can't remember how many of those that came into my shop "broken". For the first half dozen or so, I simply replaced them with a "new" factory part. They "all" came back to me broken again! I sent a letter to H&R adressing the "problem" and of course, never received a reply from them! I started making these strikers out of tool steel and "never" had one of those returned. J.B. Wood was telling me about the firing pin in the new S&W .22 pistol being a MIM part and seeing a broken one already. He is already fashioning a replacement out of cold rolled steel! You can say all the good things you want to about MIM parts but sooner or later you'll understand where I'm coming from. This stuff is nothing but pure unadulterated "junk"!.......................Dick :wink:

 

[cas6969]

Have any of you actually seen a S&W MIM hammer and trigger?

Have you ever done an action job on a MIM S&W? Much much easier than on the forged part guns. The MIM parts are smooth and true from the start. They certainly have a different look and feel, but the results speak for themselves.

 

[Anonymous]

Have any of you actually seen a S&W MIM hammer and trigger?

Have you ever done an action job on a MIM S&W? Much much easier than on the forged part guns.

Maybe because the metal is not as tough, softer? I've read and heard way more negative than positive on MIM. Forged, machined, precision cast, all good. MIM, I doubt I'd be convinced it's any better than die-cast (Matchbox, Hot Wheels cars). Not the best choice for a part needing strength.

 

[DPris]

Action work on MIMs is easier for two reasons: parts are already closer to uniform specs & the material is less dense than forged equivalents.
Denis

 

[Rick Courtright]

Hi,

Here's a casual observation from another "ignorant" user:

Whenever we have new technologies, it seems we apply them to EVERYTHING and shake out where they work better, where they work worse, than the existing ones.

Same w/ "new" materials. Just for one example, after the fall of the Soviet empire, titanium became relatively cheap (compared to before, not compared to other materials) and we started seeing it in seemingly everything! There were apps where it made sense, where others I think it was simply marketing hype. As a backpacker, I saw Ti pots and pans (mighta made sense, at least for the yuppie crowd willing to spend $100 to save a half ounce of weight), forks and spoons (uh, maybe that's stretching it?), and even some batteries that claimed to use the material (come on, now!)

Seems most of those apps that made sense still use Ti, where the others have faded away. Maybe I just quit looking? We see the same thing happen w/ different metals, plastics (polymers?), finishes, etc.

Now we have MIM parts. I really don't know much about the history of that process, but what little I've read indicates TREMENDOUS improvements have been had in a relatively short time. When I first looked it up, the consensus was it was a good technology for small, very precise, "finished" parts, but didn't lend itself to larger ones as it wasn't "strong" enough.

Yet it appears the automotive industry has made that idea obsolete. If one can make con rods and cams of the stuff, the process is obviously gaining in strength. Is it up to forged parts? Probably not, may never be. But, to remember a lesson a manufacturing type buddy constantly reminds me of, is it "good enough" to do the job it's asked to? Apparently so...

We've just got to find where the technology IS "good enough." And where it's not (like Pinecone tells us about the H&R hammers!) Kinda makes us guinea pigs when we buy "new" items, like it or not?

But I won't whine too loudly. After all, I shoot Rugers! And remember fondly the arguments around 1964 when Winchester did away w/ a lot of previously forged and machined parts in favor of castings... which Ruger had already been using quite successfully for perhaps a decade?

Everybody wanted to bemoan the loss of the "better" technology, but nobody wanted to pay for it! Can't have your cake and eat it, too, eh?

Maybe if we shooters weren't such cheapskates, we COULD still have forged and machined guns at less than stratospheric custom prices. But if we want Wal-Mart prices, well... something's gonna give. Companies exist to make money. If we're too cheap to buy the more expensive products, they're forced to cut somewhere, now, aren't they?

Rick C