MIM Opinion

[A-37]

MIM (metal injection molding) gun parts = serviceable but looks cheap.

I'd rather pay the extra $$ for polished blue forged parts on a high quality pistol.

Compare the quality look of a Model 52-2 safety with the crude MIM safety of a 952.

Hmmm......will a 52 safety fit a 952?

 

[da gimp]

Ruger has used casting for many, many years on nearly every receiver & most internal parts of all their firearms.... and at this time, they are S&W's main competition. The guys at S&W are having to cut costs too in order to remain competitive, so they are doing it too on a few select parts.

My first thought when I saw your two pix was to ask which was which...... the milled vs the cast, but I figured it out. My guess is that if you can get Sturm Ruger to not use any part or receiver that is created by casting, Smith and Wesson will surely do the same on the very few parts they use MIM on.

 

[Hapworth]

MIM, it's here to stay; this thread, not so much.

 

[Rick_A]

Full of ugly parts.

Functions 100%. It's one of the ugliest guns we own, but it sure works well.

 

[zzzippper]

I'd rather pay the extra $$ for polished blue forged parts on a high quality pistol.

You certainly have that option. Not everyone does.

 

[Hillbilly77]

MIM is actually much more expensive than stainless steel bar stock.

They use it because it works.

An explanation right here on the forum:
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-smithing/94072-faqs.html#post1029055

 

[NZshooter]

I agree with the OP.

If it works so great and is actually more expensive, home come all those custom guns (Freedom Arms, any number of the custom 1911 builders) use so much MIM ? (sarcasm)

Note: I'm not an MIM hater, just saying... in the looks department, MIM fails miserably in most cases. Some cases it's really hard to tell.

 

[cowart]

MIM (metal injection molding) gun parts = serviceable but looks cheap.

The ability to make visually attractive MIM parts varies substantially from one company to another. Compare the S&W MIM parts in your examples to the MIM slide and slide stop lever on a Kahr pistol.

 

[A-37]

Profit Motive

"An explanation right here on the forum:
FAQ's "

A very informative post. Thanks.

I didn't mean to imply that MIM parts are functionally deficient. However, I still maintain that poorly finished external parts have no place on a $1500 pistol. The safety on my 952 works just fine. S&W just didn't want the expense of polishing it.

 

[Hapworth]

MIM is actually much more expensive than stainless steel bar stock.

They use it because it works...

All true -- though MIM is ultimately less expensive in the long run due to precision and uniformity, which is why it's economically sound to go MIM despite it's steep initial costs.

 

[Hapworth]

...If it works so great and is actually more expensive, home come all those custom guns (Freedom Arms, any number of the custom 1911 builders) use so much MIM ? (sarcasm)...

See above post for an answer to your first question.

As to the second: high end makers use forged internals because there's a market of premium buyers who'll pay top-dollar to avoid parts they incorrectly assume inferior.

 

[rwsmith]

Practically speaking...

I did a survey a ways back and found nobody that said MIM parts had failed or performed poorly in any way. They function well and are durable. If a company saves money in a way that has no impact on me. That's fine. If i want the old appearance, I'll buy an old gun.

 

[regalsc]

If the technology to produce mim had been available long ago & used in gun parts there would be no discussion today.

 

[rwsmith]

If you machine that SS bar stock......

MIM is actually much more expensive than stainless steel bar stock.

They use it because it works.

An explanation right here on the forum:
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-smithing/94072-faqs.html#post1029055

When that SS stock is forged and machined to make a finished part, it's cost goes up.

Reminder: The mods don't want bashing due to MIM parts. I guess a discussion of the merits of MIM is ok. The point being that S&W is using MIM parts no matter what, which was probably a wise way to cut costs rather than cut somewhere else.

 

[Mike McLellan]

Not only do I not have a problem with MIM parts, I wish the factory (or some other reputable source) would manufacture MIM replacement parts, such as triggers, hammers, etc., for the old, old guns.

 

[just jim]

No fan if mim parts here. Reading a recent blue press put out by dillion and they were testing a new ruger. Front sight disappeared and they said it was due to a bad run of mim parts. Faulty parts have no place on a defense handgun. Go ahead on the target guns but don't put junk in my gun I risk my life with.

 

[Snapping Twig]

It has its place, but it's not in any of my firearms.

 

[Hapworth]

No fan if mim parts here. Reading a recent blue press put out by dillion and they were testing a new ruger. Front sight disappeared and they said it was due to a bad run of mim parts. Faulty parts have no place on a defense handgun. Go ahead on the target guns but don't put junk in my gun I risk my life with.

Fortunately forged parts have never failed...not even once.

 

[just jim]

Fortunately forged parts have never failed...not even once.

Seems they only surface heat treat mim parts so they don't last long. Buy what makes you happy

 

[rwsmith]

Haven't heard that...

Seems they only surface heat treat mim parts so they don't last long. Buy what makes you happy

No one mentioned it when I did the survey. I believe someone said that S&W acknowledged a bad batch of parts but outside of that do MIM parts really wear out faster???