A bit of opinion about MIM parts
Heard about "MIM" parts? MIM is an
injection molding process for metal parts, and it has been
revolutionizing many industries. In the revolver business, both
Smith & Wesson and Taurus have made use of MIM parts. Like any
new process, however, there are those who decry the new technology;
some gunsmiths spread the misinformation that MIM parts can't be
worked on, and refuse to take in guns using MIM parts. Adding fuel
to the fire are a few well-publicized parts breakages, most notably
with 1911 autopistol sears.
Is there something inherently wrong with MIM parts? No, but the
story is a bit more complex than that.
I have some experience with MIM parts in revolvers; I'm not at all
averse to the use of MIM parts, where appropriate. Note those last
two words!
MIM is just another metalworking method, like forging and casting.
Like those well-established metalworking methods, it has strengths
and weaknesses. Far too few engineers apparently understand
them.
First off, a steel MIM part can be treated like any other steel
part; it can be welded, soldered, blued, hardened, and tempered.
This is important to understand, as there is a perception out there
that the parts are not "real" steel. They are!
The advantages of an MIM part do not generally include raw cost;
the material is expensive, and the molds are horrendously
expensive. The benefits come in the area of post-fabrication. The
MIM part, as noted, can be heat treated - the benefit is that they
don't need to be, as the hardness of the part can be engineered in
when the part is made. The parts come out ready to use; no
additional surface finishing is generally needed. Finally, the
parts can be made in shapes that would be extremely expensive or
nearly impossible to economically machine.
The downsides? Cost, as already noted. Additionally, the tolerances
for an MIM part generally need to be larger; it's hard to hold them
to .001" in all dimensions (though they're getting better all the
time.) Another problem is that the technology doesn't work all that
well for parts that are more than about 3/8" thick (again, this
gets better on an almost monthly basis), nor on stressed parts that
are very thin.
There are other, less obvious pros and cons of MIM parts, but you
get the idea - MIM, like anything else, is a balancing act.
Now here's the part that those of you who aren't fond of MIM should
understand: the problem isn't with the technology, but with the
engineering behind the part itself.
As noted, MIM on a per-part basis is pretty expensive, but since
they can be engineered with specific traits they can eliminate some
expensive secondary operations - hardening, for example. Here's the
problem: let's say that you are building 1911 sears, and MIM seems
a good method for producing them. You decide that the sear has to
have a certain hardness (so that it doesn't wear), and since the
surface finish is good "as produced" you think you're home
free.
The trouble is that the MIM part is the same hardness all the way
through, since that's how it was engineered. This is great for
reducing sear face wear, but with hardness comes brittleness - and
that thin edge is quite brittle. What you need is a surface
hardening of some sort for wear resistance, with the underlying
material left softer for strength. You COULD do that with an MIM
part, but if you did you'd negate one of the primary benefits of
the method: the elimination of secondary operations. So the company
chooses to continue to use the MIM part as designed, and which is a
poor choice for the application. No wonder some people don't like
them!
The bottom line: if you have trouble with MIM parts, it's not the
part's fault - it's the fault of the engineers in the company that
designed the part. (Frankly, I wouldn't want to buy an entire gun
from a company that botched the engineering that badly, regardless
of whether or not I replaced the parts in question. I'm funny that
way!)
-=[ Grant
]=-