fletcher
Member
Sintering is a diffusion/consolidation process, MIM is a forming process. MIM parts are sintered at some point, but sintered parts need not be formed by MIM.
Bad Rugers with MIM parts?
- Thread starter JellyJar
- Start date
- Status
Guillermo
member
fletcher,
the old Colt parts that were said to be "sintered"...were they not formed by the same basic process that we now call MIM?
And what differences in the process have evolved since then?
the old Colt parts that were said to be "sintered"...were they not formed by the same basic process that we now call MIM?
And what differences in the process have evolved since then?
fletcher
Member
Sintering is just a step in the manufacturing process, common to any such part. I don't know what Cold did originally, but there is more than one way to get to the end "sintered" product.
A sintered part requires some sort of compacted-powder form to be made to actually subject to the sintering process. MIM is one way to create that compacted form - it utilizes binders mixed with the metal powder and is capable of more complex geometries than other methods. For simple geometries, one could use dies to create the compacted powder part, with nothing but the base metal powder used.
A sintered part requires some sort of compacted-powder form to be made to actually subject to the sintering process. MIM is one way to create that compacted form - it utilizes binders mixed with the metal powder and is capable of more complex geometries than other methods. For simple geometries, one could use dies to create the compacted powder part, with nothing but the base metal powder used.
Blue Brick
Member
I don’t even know where do start with that comment, it's so narrow minded. Pre 1985 cars are best years to get depending on make and model. I prefer 1975-1983.
Performance: Late 70’s began the “Turbo” revolution and the return of the “HO” models.
Reliability: Many of the engine platforms designs developed and used in the 70’s and 80’s were still in service in new cars for many years.
Mileage: Full size half ton pickup with 29 mpg hwy or a four passenger sedan that could get 0 to 60 in 6.9 seconds and 28 mpg hwy all before 1983.
Handling: I assume you mean a pylon course. This once again depends on make and model. Handling or sport packages were available.
(Pardon my high jacking, OP)
Yea, I wasn't sure if Ruger used it or not but I did know it was an early form of MIM technology. What I do know is Dans had sintered parts in their actions and I've shot them for years, still own one and it has a very smooth nice action.
Thanks for the clarification on Rugers.
Thanks for the clarification on Rugers.
Guillermo
member
Blue Brick,
I will give you the fact that some of the cars of the 80's were recovering from the abysmal 70's performance-wise. They even managed to make a solid axle leaf spring car handle pretty well (f-body gm) but let's not pretend that they were screwed together worth a crap.
I will give you the fact that some of the cars of the 80's were recovering from the abysmal 70's performance-wise. They even managed to make a solid axle leaf spring car handle pretty well (f-body gm) but let's not pretend that they were screwed together worth a crap.
Guillermo
member
Remllez
I am not sure that you are correct about DW.
Surely it is not true with the new ones
I am not sure that you are correct about DW.
Surely it is not true with the new ones
hardluk1
member
I read somewhere S&W also use's MIM parts.
I'll stick to what I know, and that would be older revolvers. I'm not a pioneer when it comes to forking out my Franklins. I'll leave that to the armatures.
Keep buying them and they'll keep making them. No complaints from me. I'll take up the burden of giving those old crusty obsolete revolvers a good home.
Keep buying them and they'll keep making them. No complaints from me. I'll take up the burden of giving those old crusty obsolete revolvers a good home.
Guill,
Both sintered & MIM are powder-based forming/molding processes, but they're not the same exact process.
Colt dropped their sintered parts because they weren't happy with 'em.
S&W has used MIMs for over ten years.
Ruger has too, just more quietly.\
If Colt ever does get back into the DA revolver biz, you'll see MIMs there, too.
In order of progession, you have the older lost wax process (casting with molten steel) that Ruger perfected & used for decades. Then sintered (powdered steel), which Colt dallied with & dropped. Then MIM (powdered steel +), which is taking over the industry.
Ruger is finding that MIM parts can provide acceptable function & appearance (in most cases where they use 'em) at lower costs with less final machining & finishing than parts previously cast. They're also moving more into CNC, which they're again finding can be more efficient & cheaper than casting in some areas.
Denis
Both sintered & MIM are powder-based forming/molding processes, but they're not the same exact process.
Colt dropped their sintered parts because they weren't happy with 'em.
S&W has used MIMs for over ten years.
Ruger has too, just more quietly.
\If Colt ever does get back into the DA revolver biz, you'll see MIMs there, too.
In order of progession, you have the older lost wax process (casting with molten steel) that Ruger perfected & used for decades. Then sintered (powdered steel), which Colt dallied with & dropped. Then MIM (powdered steel +), which is taking over the industry.
Ruger is finding that MIM parts can provide acceptable function & appearance (in most cases where they use 'em) at lower costs with less final machining & finishing than parts previously cast. They're also moving more into CNC, which they're again finding can be more efficient & cheaper than casting in some areas.
Denis
Guillermo
member
Denis,
I understand that the sintering process that Colt used was similar to MIM, but how did it differ from current methods/
I understand that the sintering process that Colt used was similar to MIM, but how did it differ from current methods/
Guill,
I can't tell you exactly what the differences are. I BELIEVE the older sintering process did not use a binder, the MIM process does.
One thing I've picked up is that the sintered parts Colt was using had a tendency to be more fracture-prone (brittle) than MIM parts.
Denis
I can't tell you exactly what the differences are. I BELIEVE the older sintering process did not use a binder, the MIM process does.
One thing I've picked up is that the sintered parts Colt was using had a tendency to be more fracture-prone (brittle) than MIM parts.
Denis
Guillermo
member
Thank you Denis.
I know we sometimes on different sides of an issue but I appreciate your intelligence and straight-forward nature.
Every time it is a pleasure to discuss things with you.
You are one of the good guys.
I know we sometimes on different sides of an issue but I appreciate your intelligence and straight-forward nature.
Every time it is a pleasure to discuss things with you.
You are one of the good guys.
Guillermo
member
literally laughing out loud
josiewales
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2011
- Messages
- 694
I don't think their is a bad ruger anywhere.
Guillermo
member
I had a bad security six
The bottom line is that Ruger was a master at building good quality, inexpensive guns for the "workin' man". He never tried to make great guns. Cast frames on the revolvers, pressed sheetmetal frames on the .22s. He tried, and succeeded in creating value. The move to MIM is just a way to stay in the "value" market.
Companies that claim to be makers of premium arms doing the same thing...well that is another story.
The bottom line is that Ruger was a master at building good quality, inexpensive guns for the "workin' man". He never tried to make great guns. Cast frames on the revolvers, pressed sheetmetal frames on the .22s. He tried, and succeeded in creating value. The move to MIM is just a way to stay in the "value" market.
Companies that claim to be makers of premium arms doing the same thing...well that is another story.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Agreed!
I agree with CraigC's last post.
To that, I would add that Ruger also made revolvers that were seriously hell-for-stout.
Not as pretty as a Colt or Smith, but much stronger. And for a lot less money.
IIRC, Taurus was one of the earliest users of MIM parts. Just fine for their price point.
But, can you imagine if Colt started making the Python again (I wish), but with MIM parts?
Sacrilege!
To that, I would add that Ruger also made revolvers that were seriously hell-for-stout.
Not as pretty as a Colt or Smith, but much stronger. And for a lot less money.
IIRC, Taurus was one of the earliest users of MIM parts. Just fine for their price point.
But, can you imagine if Colt started making the Python again (I wish), but with MIM parts?
Sacrilege!
jogar80
Member
VA27
Member
I hope I'm around when the gun companies start using '3-D printed' parts and the old guys start moaning about how much better the MIM parts were.
Guillermo
member
while that is funny (very funny)
I would love to be able to print my own gun
- Status
