Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Handguns > Semi-Auto Handguns > 1911 Forum > MIM Parts on Sig 1911

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-08-2011, 07:45 PM   #21
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 454
Liked 10 Times on 6 Posts

Default

The picture I posted above isn't a wive's tale, it's an illustration of the poor choice's being made by gun manufacturers (and a warning that minimum wage monkeys will happily install obviously bad parts into your gun). MIM is as good or as bad as the subcontractor's quality control, but it's a process and like any process, it's a good choice for some things and a dumb choice for others.

If you look at the trigger strut I posted, the end is supposed to a round ball shape. It's not broken, the material did not fill the mold. I know because it is flash chromed, and the jagged end is chrome plated across it's complete surface

MIM has two main defect modes: the one above (air voids in the mold) and the second is caused when the powder/glue mix is not completely homogenous, like there are powder clumps (like cake batter that isn't beat long enough). Those can't properly fuse when firing. so they leave a weak point.

Bottom line, long thin pieces are not a good choice for MIM unless the QC is absolutely immaculate or the part is X-rayed post manufacture like they do with MIM aircraft parts.

Gun makers insist on using it for everything, so thin pieces (like extractors) had a lot of early failures and safety levers too. They are not only thin, they are subject to a lot of twisting torque.

The thing about MIM is the part gets baked then goes into the product. If it has a defect, it doesn't fail until the end user gets it. With parts machined from tool steel, if there is a defect in the bar stock, it will probably break when subject to the milling of the piece.

__________________
bountyhunter is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2011, 02:21 AM   #22
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
kvtcomdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 75
Liked 3 Times on 2 Posts

Default Shame on you!

Quote:
Originally Posted by bountyhunter View Post
The picture I posted above isn't a wive's tale, it's an illustration of the poor choice's being made by gun manufacturers (and a warning that minimum wage monkeys will happily install obviously bad parts into your gun). MIM is as good or as bad as the subcontractor's quality control, but it's a process and like any process, it's a good choice for some things and a dumb choice for others.

If you look at the trigger strut I posted, the end is supposed to a round ball shape. It's not broken, the material did not fill the mold. I know because it is flash chromed, and the jagged end is chrome plated across it's complete surface

MIM has two main defect modes: the one above (air voids in the mold) and the second is caused when the powder/glue mix is not completely homogenous, like there are powder clumps (like cake batter that isn't beat long enough). Those can't properly fuse when firing. so they leave a weak point.

Bottom line, long thin pieces are not a good choice for MIM unless the QC is absolutely immaculate or the part is X-rayed post manufacture like they do with MIM aircraft parts.

Gun makers insist on using it for everything, so thin pieces (like extractors) had a lot of early failures and safety levers too. They are not only thin, they are subject to a lot of twisting torque.

The thing about MIM is the part gets baked then goes into the product. If it has a defect, it doesn't fail until the end user gets it. With parts machined from tool steel, if there is a defect in the bar stock, it will probably break when subject to the milling of the piece.
One cannot take things out of context to make your point.

I mentioned also, ANECDOTES; stories of an event or in this case an item and making generalizations without data to back up the allegation (outside of the single event).

Your single event proves nothing of the MIM parts in general. Your part was faulty; I suspect one can find failures of machined parts as well which does not damn all parts in the process.

Show me some data comparing a particular MIM part to the corresponding machined part and dissimilar failures and NOW we have something to talk about.

Parts fail, unless one can show an increased failure rate with the MIM part one has no argument and this is merely an anecdote that someone else we regurgitate, then it becomes and old wives tale.

Sorry but one must maintain intellectual honesty. It's refreshing don't ya know.
__________________

"Those who would give up essential freedoms for a little temporary safety, deserve neither freedom nor safety." Ben Franklin

NRA Benefactor Life
US Army 1972-1980
TSRA Life;GOA Life

kvtcomdo is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2011, 04:06 AM   #23
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 454
Liked 10 Times on 6 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kvtcomdo View Post
One cannot take things out of context to make your point.
I didn't take anything out of context. I posted a URL explaining MIM, and showed what happens when it isn't done right. The context is real simple.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kvtcomdo View Post
Your single event proves nothing of the MIM parts in general.
No offense, but that's ludicrous. Single event? There were so MANY failed 1911 extractors when they first went to MIM, I remember one maker using the marketing phrase "Real Steel" to point out theirs were from tool steel. "Single event"? MIM is a process well suited for larger parts and poorly sutied for long thin ones. Want to know why? Refer to picture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kvtcomdo View Post
Your single event proves nothing of the MIM parts in general. Your part was faulty; I suspect one can find failures of machined parts as well which does not damn all parts in the process.
Whatever. Yeah, all those extractors, safety levers and the rest were anecdotes too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kvtcomdo View Post

Show me some data comparing a particular MIM part to the corresponding machined part and dissimilar failures and NOW we have something to talk about.
OK, let's ignore historical data, and most of all common sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kvtcomdo View Post

Sorry but one must maintain intellectual honesty. It's refreshing don't ya know.
Yeah, whatever works for you.

For the record, I don't think MIM parts are all an anathema. SW uses them for hammers, triggers, rebound slides and some other larger piece parts and have had no failures. The problem occurs when some idiot says:

"Oh, look... we can save two cents making them this way so we will make them ALL that way."

And if there is an engineer in the room he says:

"Uhhhh... maybe it's not such a good idea for these parts..."

And everybody ignores him.

The MIM process gives the greatest cost benefit when the piece part is extremely complex and would require extensive machining/final assembly labor. The gun parts being built with MIM are not complex, but most of the cost savings is realized because they can eliminate machining and hold final tolerances tight enough to eliminate any fitting.

1911 extractors require final fitting anyway to set the tension.
__________________

Last edited by bountyhunter; 10-09-2011 at 04:53 AM.
bountyhunter is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2011, 05:32 AM   #24
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
kvtcomdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 75
Liked 3 Times on 2 Posts

Default Wow!

Quote:
Originally Posted by bountyhunter View Post
I didn't take anything out of context. I posted a URL explaining MIM, and showed what happens when it isn't done right. The context is real simple.


No offense, but that's ludicrous. Single event? There were so MANY failed 1911 extractors when they first went to MIM, I remember one maker using the marketing phrase "Real Steel" to point out theirs were from tool steel. "Single event"? MIM is a process well suited for larger parts and poorly sutied for long thin ones. Want to know why? Refer to picture.

Whatever. Yeah, all those extractors, safety levers and the rest were anecdotes too.

OK, let's ignore historical data, and most of all common sense.

Yeah, whatever works for you.

For the record, I don't think MIM parts are all an anathema. SW uses them for hammers, triggers, rebound slides and some other larger piece parts and have had no failures. The problem occurs when some idiot says:

"Oh, look... we can save two cents making them this way so we will make them ALL that way."

And if there is an engineer in the room he says:

"Uhhhh... maybe it's not such a good idea for these parts..."

And everybody ignores him.

The MIM process gives the greatest cost benefit when the piece part is extremely complex and would require extensive machining/final assembly labor. The gun parts being built with MIM are not complex, but most of the cost savings is realized because they can eliminate machining and hold final tolerances tight enough to eliminate any fitting.

1911 extractors require final fitting anyway to set the tension.
Not going to make this an on going thread between us, but these things you keep talking about concerning ALL THESE PARTS going bad with the only part documented as your own still is nothing but: YOUR PART.

Your coments concerning the reason for the cost savings are valid. The concept of a "bad MIM part" based on your experience is also valid.

The broad brush approach to comdemn the hole process and ALL MIM parts is my objection without objective evidence to support your claim -- beyond your single part evidence. All the other parts your claiming you have no proof of, outside of your assertion.

You are concerned with historical data yet present none to support your claim. The mere fact you mention it is NOT historical data. It is historical data as per your assertion.

I'm truely done with this. You can agree or disagree with me, that's why I Love this country. The best part is you'll get the last word.

But I must insure you understand that your telling me there is data is not the same as data. Prove your opinion to be true and I am on board. Your experiance is proof only of your experience. It is not data but a single data point crying for more data points to prove your general assertion.

God bless you brother.
__________________

"Those who would give up essential freedoms for a little temporary safety, deserve neither freedom nor safety." Ben Franklin

NRA Benefactor Life
US Army 1972-1980
TSRA Life;GOA Life


Last edited by kvtcomdo; 10-09-2011 at 05:42 AM.
kvtcomdo is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2011, 03:04 PM   #25
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
g17frantz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Columbia,Missouri
Posts: 1,328
Liked 18 Times on 17 Posts

Default

Wow that has been an interesting read between you two. Picked up some good info. I'd have to say kvtcomo kinda hit the nail on the head though. Yes some MIM parts are bad and yet some have proven to hold up quite well. Without having more data to compare more parts then just the one, doesn't give enough sufficient data vs non MIM parts. I wish there was more evidence where someone takes two identical guns, one with MIM parts and one that isn't, puts a bunch of rounds down range, strips both guns to see the wear on both parts. Only then will we get a better idea how good the tolerances on MIM parts are. Bountyhunter I think you make a good argument as well. This is a big debate on any forum I have read. It comes down to an case by case basis, some 1911's made with MIM parts hold up well and some don't. My interest for my Sig is really more of a personal preference. I want my CRUCIAL parts that get a lot of torque/stress not to be MIM. My sole concern at this point from any data I have gathered about Sig Sauers and their MIM parts is the ambi safety. I will replace it shortly more as a peace of mind scenario.
Thanks for all the replies guys.

__________________
GOFFA Council Member
Gun Owners For a Free America

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
~John F. Kennedy
g17frantz is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 12:51 AM   #26
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Bigcat_hunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 425
Default

I prefer MIM parts. Just because they are supposed to fail and they don't. Until my 1911's start breaking I wont be convinced otherwise.

__________________
www.rimrockfirearms.com
www.bigcatstickershack.com
Bigcat_hunter is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2011, 05:12 AM   #27
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Morton,WA
Posts: 128
Default

No matter how "good" MIM parts have become, they have a deserved bad rep from their early days. As perhaps most of us know, a rep is something that dies a very slow death. To those who wish to replace any part that is even suspected of being MIM is understandable. Afterall, for someone who is depending upon his firearm to save his life, there can be no limit on the quality of parts in use. I know of a couple of friends who have spent more on "upgraded" parts and custom work than they did on the original gun.

__________________
Dufus Maximus
parinoid54 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
The best 1911 parts available. mudslinger79 1911 Forum 13 03-09-2011 08:46 PM
What 1911 parts should I have on-hand? CHLChris 1911 Forum 22 12-18-2010 06:47 PM
Llama 40 cal 1911 parts camooutlaw 1911 Forum 1 12-08-2009 02:02 AM
1911 3D parts for solidworks ronencolt Gunsmithing Forum 2 06-20-2009 07:22 AM