I had a conversation with Teddy Jacobson (Actions by T) recently and Teddy showed me different parts from various pistols he was working on at the time. He told me that S&W was now using Metal Injection Molded (MIM) parts in their guns. I am no metalurgist and I am wondering, should we be shying away from S&W? Teddy was not badmouthing S&W in partcular, just pointing out how, over the years he's been working on pistols, cost control efforts have resulted in new technologies that lead to new (inferior?) parts. Any thoughts? I ask because I have never had a J frame and would like a 642 but not if quality is not up to par.
S & W and MIM Parts
- Thread starter Willieboy
- Start date
- Status
Both S&W and Taurus are using MIM lockwork in their revolvers. So far, in the short term, there don't seem to be any problems, although I think you can get a smoother (I didn't say "lighter") double-action with the older parts.
As for the long term - we don't know. The older "real-steel" parts first came into the picture back during the 1860's so they have a track record, and we know what to expect. In another 100 years or so we'll know about how well the MIM parts worked out, but unfortunately I won't be around to learn what the answer is.
Teddy is right. The reason these companies are using MIM parts is because of cost savings - some of which they pass on to their customers.
But from a personal point of view I am more interested in quality rather then savings when my neck is involved.
I prefer the older guns because I have a good idea about what I am dealing with, but at the same time I sometimes carry Taurus revolvers with MIM parts.
But I keep a very close eye on them, and the first time I experience or learn of problems I will discontinue carrying them.
I suggest you might do the same, or simply buy an older gun - which ever way you're most confortable with.
As for the long term - we don't know. The older "real-steel" parts first came into the picture back during the 1860's so they have a track record, and we know what to expect. In another 100 years or so we'll know about how well the MIM parts worked out, but unfortunately I won't be around to learn what the answer is.
Teddy is right. The reason these companies are using MIM parts is because of cost savings - some of which they pass on to their customers.
But from a personal point of view I am more interested in quality rather then savings when my neck is involved.
I prefer the older guns because I have a good idea about what I am dealing with, but at the same time I sometimes carry Taurus revolvers with MIM parts.
But I keep a very close eye on them, and the first time I experience or learn of problems I will discontinue carrying them.
I suggest you might do the same, or simply buy an older gun - which ever way you're most confortable with.
Thanks for your reply Old Fuff. I'm with you regarding quality and my neck. I am currently carrying an SP101. A bit more stout (in every way) than a J frame but I know it is a rugged, reliable revelover. By the way, Teddy said Ruger has not cut back on the quality of their parts. He showed me his SP101 and it's a beauty. Next year, I plan to have him work his magic on my SP.
As an aside, my screen name should be old Willieboy. Despite my old age, I plan to be around another 100 years to see how those MIM parts work.
As an aside, my screen name should be old Willieboy. Despite my old age, I plan to be around another 100 years to see how those MIM parts work.
Last edited:
An excellent choice.
Which may be harder to carry, but makes it a lot better weapon if you have to use it.
And I agree with him. The revolver is built like a brick outhouse...
That would be a very wise move.
I hope you make it. At my age it's unlikely... But I'll do my darnest...
Smith & Wesson seems to have the MIM process down pat.
I recently had Jerry Miculek do an action job on a Smith 610, my first handgun with MIM parts. Of course I asked his opinion on the MIM, he stated he preferred them to the older forged parts as they (mim) were held to tighter tolerances and required less work to achieve a nice action job on.
He went on to state that in several hundreds of thousands of rounds he never had a mim part fail.
I recently had Jerry Miculek do an action job on a Smith 610, my first handgun with MIM parts. Of course I asked his opinion on the MIM, he stated he preferred them to the older forged parts as they (mim) were held to tighter tolerances and required less work to achieve a nice action job on.
He went on to state that in several hundreds of thousands of rounds he never had a mim part fail.
MCgunner
Member
I thought Rugers were investment cast? Don't know about internal parts, though.
I would agree with him up to a point. In the short term he's right, but 10, 20 30, or more years down the road we may be hearing a different story. I also worry about knife edges and seams on MIM parts.
Metal Injected Molded parts consist of a binder holding powdered metal particles together. How long or how well the binder will hold up remains an open question.
On a toy I don't worry. On a weapon I'm more careful.
MCgunner:
You are right, and the principal internal parts (hammer, trigger, transfer bar, etc.) are also investment castings. My concerns about MIM parts don't extend to Ruger-quality investment castings, which are the best in the business.
You are right, and the principal internal parts (hammer, trigger, transfer bar, etc.) are also investment castings. My concerns about MIM parts don't extend to Ruger-quality investment castings, which are the best in the business.
gudel
Member
the bottom line is, if it's done right first time, then it'll be okay. if it's not, then you'll get you-know-who-1911-mim.
no problem with my 686 here with the mim parts. not sure why they make it look dark, i'd rather have it look stainless just like the rest of the gun.
no problem with my 686 here with the mim parts. not sure why they make it look dark, i'd rather have it look stainless just like the rest of the gun.
News Flash.....ancient cave writing deciphered! Two early humans (possiby Cro-Magnan man) sitting on a log (they would have sat around a campfire, but they were afaid of the new technology) the younger one, shows the older one what appears to be a stone axe (possibly the first stone tool ever developed) younger one gleefully shows off his accomplishment. The older shakes his head in disagreement. No my son.....that may work for now, but 100 yrs from that rock you fashioned the axe-head from may turn to dust!!
"Actually I find it interesting that most of this "modern technology" stuff is usually linked to a cost savings for the manufacturer."
Old Fuff - Don't you think that that is precisely why Ruger uses investment casting to make their parts instead of the forgings that S&W uses to make their MAJOR parts?
Old Fuff - Don't you think that that is precisely why Ruger uses investment casting to make their parts instead of the forgings that S&W uses to make their MAJOR parts?
Old Dog
Member
If Jerry Miculek has no problem with MIM parts on S&W revolvers, I may have to rethink this whole MIM thing ... He surely shoots more rounds through Smith revolvers in a few months than most of us do in a lifetime.
Sometimes, I think we get all wrapped around the axle on this MIM issue. Every other industry that uses metal components for anything uses MIM. Seems the only time anyone has a problem with MIM is in their firearms.
Sometimes, I think we get all wrapped around the axle on this MIM issue. Every other industry that uses metal components for anything uses MIM. Seems the only time anyone has a problem with MIM is in their firearms.
Not exactly. Ruger designed their firearms to take advantage of investment castings technology. Smith & Wesson originally designed their lockwork to be made from low-carbon steel that was then case hardened. When this apparently became too expensive they substituted MIM parts in place of machined steel ones. When MIM technology is used to make parts that are designed from git-go to be made using this kind of manufacture the parts usually work well. However when MIM parts are simply duplicates of something that was designed to be made using other methods or materials things don't always work out so well. A good example might be a Colt Government Model extractor that is supposed to be machined from spring steel. MIM replacements have so far proven to be a failure.
All of these technologies have their place, but problems can and do occur when any method is used to make something that was intended to be made another way, or from different materials.
While I wouldn't hesitate to experiment to some degree, I tend to be very conservative when someone proposes to use a different technology on a particular application when the arm may be used as a personal defense weapon and the parts in question haven't any past history. Others of course may not share my concerns, but that's their business.
Incidentally, about the only "major" part in a S&W revolver that is made from a forging is the frame, and some barrels. It is generally agreed that Ruger revolvers stand up better to extensive use of heavy loads then they're S&W counterparts. Reloading handbooks contain many "Ruger only" loads, but not "S&W only" ones.
EddieCoyle
Member
OK guys. I have a metallurgy background. Here we go....
You can have good forgings, good investment castings, or good MIM parts, or you can have crappy forgings, crappy investment castings, or crappy MIM parts.
It all depends on who's doing the work, the quality of the raw materials, and how they control their processes.
For those of not "in the know", forging involves heating up a slug of metal, bashing it in a press until it is close to net shape, and then machining the result.
Investment casting is a process whereby you dip wax copy of the part in liquid ceramic to make a mold, force molten metal into the mold (it displaces the wax), break away the mold, and then finish the part (machining, grinding, etc).
With MIM, powdered metal with a plasticy/waxy binder is forced into a mold, then bashed in a press, and heated to "melt" (or sinter) the metal together. Very often, no secondary (machining/grinding) operations are needed - hence the reduced cost.
When done right, with good raw materials, any of the three processes will produce parts that will outlast you and me. When done wrong, or with bad raw materials, they'll be crap.
Here's the ranking of the three in cheapest (meaning least expensive):
1. MIM
2. Investment casting
3. Forging
Here's the ranking of the three in terms of "hardest to screw up":
1. Forging
2. Investment casting
3. MIM
Keep in mind that there are some parts that can't be forged, and some parts that can't be MIM'ed. Of the three, Investment Casting is the most versatile. You wouldn't try to make a big complex part (like an auto pistol frame) with MIM. It would be wasteful to forge a trigger, hammer, or sear.
MIM is a high-tech process. Investment casting is less so. Forging has been around for a long time and is not difficult to master.
For what it's worth, there is about 1000 times more known about metallurgy now than there was 100 years ago. Anybody that says that the stuff made then is better than the stuff made know has their head in a dark place. The top-of-the-line stuff made now is much better than equal quality stuff made in "the good old days". Crap from 100 years ago was also worse than crap now.
Since 1981, I've travelled around the world selling to the metalforming industry. From what I've seen, the high tech work done in the US (for example, in Springfield) and Europe WAY outpaces anything being done in South America. Read into that what you will.
/<rant>
You can have good forgings, good investment castings, or good MIM parts, or you can have crappy forgings, crappy investment castings, or crappy MIM parts.
It all depends on who's doing the work, the quality of the raw materials, and how they control their processes.
For those of not "in the know", forging involves heating up a slug of metal, bashing it in a press until it is close to net shape, and then machining the result.
Investment casting is a process whereby you dip wax copy of the part in liquid ceramic to make a mold, force molten metal into the mold (it displaces the wax), break away the mold, and then finish the part (machining, grinding, etc).
With MIM, powdered metal with a plasticy/waxy binder is forced into a mold, then bashed in a press, and heated to "melt" (or sinter) the metal together. Very often, no secondary (machining/grinding) operations are needed - hence the reduced cost.
When done right, with good raw materials, any of the three processes will produce parts that will outlast you and me. When done wrong, or with bad raw materials, they'll be crap.
Here's the ranking of the three in cheapest (meaning least expensive):
1. MIM
2. Investment casting
3. Forging
Here's the ranking of the three in terms of "hardest to screw up":
1. Forging
2. Investment casting
3. MIM
Keep in mind that there are some parts that can't be forged, and some parts that can't be MIM'ed. Of the three, Investment Casting is the most versatile. You wouldn't try to make a big complex part (like an auto pistol frame) with MIM. It would be wasteful to forge a trigger, hammer, or sear.
MIM is a high-tech process. Investment casting is less so. Forging has been around for a long time and is not difficult to master.
For what it's worth, there is about 1000 times more known about metallurgy now than there was 100 years ago. Anybody that says that the stuff made then is better than the stuff made know has their head in a dark place. The top-of-the-line stuff made now is much better than equal quality stuff made in "the good old days". Crap from 100 years ago was also worse than crap now.
Since 1981, I've travelled around the world selling to the metalforming industry. From what I've seen, the high tech work done in the US (for example, in Springfield) and Europe WAY outpaces anything being done in South America. Read into that what you will.
/<rant>
MIM
<<With MIM, powdered metal with a plasticy/waxy binder is forced into a mold, then bashed in a press, and heated to "melt" (or sinter) the metal together.>>
Seems like an MIM part would be uniformly more porous (less dense) than a casting or forging. Although castings can have voids sometimes here and there. I am envisioning an old style bathtub made of MIM versus an old cast iron bathtub. The old cast iron tubs could be broken up easily. I am wondering how brittle MIM parts are.
<<With MIM, powdered metal with a plasticy/waxy binder is forced into a mold, then bashed in a press, and heated to "melt" (or sinter) the metal together.>>
Seems like an MIM part would be uniformly more porous (less dense) than a casting or forging. Although castings can have voids sometimes here and there. I am envisioning an old style bathtub made of MIM versus an old cast iron bathtub. The old cast iron tubs could be broken up easily. I am wondering how brittle MIM parts are.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
This is a serious question: why hasn't anyone made internal firearms parts out of plastic?
gudel
Member
finally, we have some intelligent people when I thought internet komandos have gone rampant. I completely agree, if the good old days equipment is so freaking damn good, i'd be driving vehicle made in 1940 and using single action revolver!
RonJon:
No, they aren't. They're machined from bar stock. For what it's worth, Colt, Ruger Taurus, and all other makes of revolvers I know of have cylinders made from bar stock.
Smith & Wesson used to make all of their revolver barrels out of forgings, which included the front sight and underlug. More recently they have started to move toward a two-piece construction with an inner tube (the real barrel) and an outer sleeve. I suspect that before long the sleeves will be made from extruded stock.
Progress marches on...
No, they aren't. They're machined from bar stock. For what it's worth, Colt, Ruger Taurus, and all other makes of revolvers I know of have cylinders made from bar stock.
Smith & Wesson used to make all of their revolver barrels out of forgings, which included the front sight and underlug. More recently they have started to move toward a two-piece construction with an inner tube (the real barrel) and an outer sleeve. I suspect that before long the sleeves will be made from extruded stock.
Progress marches on...
EddieCoyle:
If your comment were limited to metallurgy I’d agree up to a point. If you are referring to the total firearm you obviously don’t know as much about guns as you supposedly do about metal.
During the period running roughly from 1850 through 1950, or more particularly from 1930 through 1950, economic conditions allowed gun manufacturers to lavish extensive handwork on even the most inexpensive guns. At the other end of the scale, if you disassemble and examine the fit and polish of a S&W .357 Magnum (the original gun) made between 1935 through 1941, and compare it to what’s made today there is no comparison – at least a favorable one – with respect to workmanship, and the materials aren’t shoddy either. Proof loads of that time for the .357 Magnum cartridge exceeded 50,000 PSI.
In another instance, I recently disassembled and photographed a Smith & Wesson .38 Military & Police revolver (now called the model 10) that was made during late 1917 or early 1918. This incidentally was during wartime at the S&W factory. Even so, the polish on the side of the hand was so bright that when I examined the picture I discovered I could see a clear reflection of the camera’s lens. The hammer and trigger were almost equally polished, but case hardened in a rainbow of colors. Today S&W lockwork has neither the same polish nor case colors. Instead they come in mottled dull gray. It would seem that current MIM parts can't offer the colors that were a S&W trademark years ago. Then, they even tried to patent them.
In years past sideplates were inletted with such precision that one had to look closely to see the lines between the frame and plate.
It may be accurately said that during the first half of the 20th century gunmakers (at least the best ones) worked to make the finest possible products, and during the second half tried to see how much they could reduce the cost, regardless of the effect on quality.
Today the best of these older guns are called “classics,” and often command prices that exceed by two or three times what a similar gun of current manufacture would cost at full MSRP. What they have to offer is elegance and quality of a kind we are unlikely to see again.
There is a lot more to a fine firearm then metallurgy alone, and the best materials cannot make up for sub-par fabrication. I think you have a lot to learn.
If your comment were limited to metallurgy I’d agree up to a point. If you are referring to the total firearm you obviously don’t know as much about guns as you supposedly do about metal.
During the period running roughly from 1850 through 1950, or more particularly from 1930 through 1950, economic conditions allowed gun manufacturers to lavish extensive handwork on even the most inexpensive guns. At the other end of the scale, if you disassemble and examine the fit and polish of a S&W .357 Magnum (the original gun) made between 1935 through 1941, and compare it to what’s made today there is no comparison – at least a favorable one – with respect to workmanship, and the materials aren’t shoddy either. Proof loads of that time for the .357 Magnum cartridge exceeded 50,000 PSI.
In another instance, I recently disassembled and photographed a Smith & Wesson .38 Military & Police revolver (now called the model 10) that was made during late 1917 or early 1918. This incidentally was during wartime at the S&W factory. Even so, the polish on the side of the hand was so bright that when I examined the picture I discovered I could see a clear reflection of the camera’s lens. The hammer and trigger were almost equally polished, but case hardened in a rainbow of colors. Today S&W lockwork has neither the same polish nor case colors. Instead they come in mottled dull gray. It would seem that current MIM parts can't offer the colors that were a S&W trademark years ago. Then, they even tried to patent them.
In years past sideplates were inletted with such precision that one had to look closely to see the lines between the frame and plate.
It may be accurately said that during the first half of the 20th century gunmakers (at least the best ones) worked to make the finest possible products, and during the second half tried to see how much they could reduce the cost, regardless of the effect on quality.
Today the best of these older guns are called “classics,” and often command prices that exceed by two or three times what a similar gun of current manufacture would cost at full MSRP. What they have to offer is elegance and quality of a kind we are unlikely to see again.
There is a lot more to a fine firearm then metallurgy alone, and the best materials cannot make up for sub-par fabrication. I think you have a lot to learn.
The only thing I am trying to get across is that not all new technology is bad (even if it is to cut cost).
In the same light......it may not be all that great either.
Neither am I an apololgist for S&W. I don't particularly care for the new shrouded bbl's and the locks. But I have no real experience with either.
Speaking of MIM, I forgot that I also have 2 1911's that have MIM.
A springfield 9mm that I use for steel matches etc. That has an aftermarket MIM hammer (It now has about 15000 or so rounds thru it) with a very nice 1lb trigger.
ADan Wesson 1911 (.45) That I converted into my Bullseye wadgun it has a MIM hammer (3.5lbs)
On both pistols all internal parts are stock, so there may be some MIM in there also.
In the same light......it may not be all that great either.
Neither am I an apololgist for S&W. I don't particularly care for the new shrouded bbl's and the locks. But I have no real experience with either.
Speaking of MIM, I forgot that I also have 2 1911's that have MIM.
A springfield 9mm that I use for steel matches etc. That has an aftermarket MIM hammer (It now has about 15000 or so rounds thru it) with a very nice 1lb trigger.
ADan Wesson 1911 (.45) That I converted into my Bullseye wadgun it has a MIM hammer (3.5lbs)
On both pistols all internal parts are stock, so there may be some MIM in there also.
EddieCoyle
Member
My comment was about the metal. Obviously, firearms (as well as hand tools, staplers, and many other metal durable goods) featured a better fit and finish in the past than they do now.
The guy that put your revolver together knew what he was doing, took pride in his workmanship, and took the extra time necessary to achieve near-perfect fit and finish. A hand made gun like that would cost a small fortune today. They weren't all made as well as yours. Quality today is more consistent and better overall.
Case hardening (then) was used because the steels weren't good enough to deep-harden. A side benefit was that people liked the way that case hardened parts looked. If I was going to hang a gun on the wall, case hardening looks better. If I was going to carry it, I'd opt for one that was made from better materials and was dull mottled grey.
There is one class of gun parts where metallurgy is of the highest importance and that's the springs. You don't hear people lamenting about how the springs were so much better in the good old days because they weren't.
Absolutely. You could say the same thing about a 1959 Porsche 356A but if you had to drive across the country and had three days to do it, you'd be better off doing so in the cheapest new rental car than in the classic Porsche.
I thought that this point was so obvious that it didn't bear mentioning. I stand corrected.
Fuff, my original post was not a direct dig at you. I apologize if you took it that way. And who doesn't have a lot to learn?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
