All MIM is not created equal, the current HK's being prime examples of good MIM. Taurus was crap long before MIM. Ive had to use S&W's lifetime warranty way too often in the last two years but none of those issues involved MIM.Originally Posted by jkurtz7
I think you'd fare well to take some time to understand what MIM really is. Quality is a combination of a good design made with the right materials and the right processes. Sometimes that's MIM, sometimes it's a solid block of steel with 90% material removed. MIM and sintered metal work just fine in the auto industry where recalls apply. In the gun world poorly designed parts don't seem to matter because Taurus and HiPoint can't make guns fast enough, no matter how bad they are, no matter how loud all of us scream.
Think for yourself. Question authority.
MIM is currently being used in diesel turbos (vanes), injectors and injector pumps (some with fuel rail pressures north of 20,000 psig), and general automotive (yes, even the expensive German ones) transmission components, rocker arms, etc.
Most of us 'stake our lives' on these components daily. Just sayin.
That is a fact. When I read that, I said to myself, "Nah. They couldn't/wouldn't..."
They damn sure DO. Had one come through the seizure pipeline this morning, with the integral laser. Recalling your statement, I detail-stripped that puppy to put it on the scope; turned out I had no need to. They didn't even bother to polish out the mold lines on the barrel hood and locking lug areas.
I have managed to "get over" my aversion and distrust of MIM parts in general... but a BARREL????
I think I now know the answer to my question in another thread... "Where is all of this (corner/cost cutting by the makers) going?"
.
I wish the BG380 had been released in a non-laser variant earlier. Due to the position of the "On" button, the laser is next thing to useless on a firearm used for reactive self-defense, and only adds unnecessary cost to what is essentially a disposable gun. If it's designed with a service life of more than a couple of cases of ammo in mind, I'll eat my hat.
Not only that, the supplied integral unit isn't very durable… which is surprising, as it is supposedly an InSight Technologies piece of kit.
We have 500+ of these abortions in service, with another 500 ordered and/or soon to be issued. I spoke with our FTU head this morning after making this "discovery". He sighed and said he knew that already. The FTU had ZERO input into the selection of these things; they were presented with a fait accompli and told "get everybody qualified". Consequently, they are sad.
I used the term "in service" a bit loosely, perhaps. Most of the dozen or so troops I've spoken to about it dutifully qualled with it and stuck it in the closet. Although, I did see a plainclothes lieutenant in the Academy cafeteria the other day, wearing his proudly clipped to his SansaBelt trousers in some sort of skimpy plastic holster.
At least the holster wasn't a Serpa…
Anyway, my point here is that the FTU guy told me they've already had several of the laser units go tango uniform.
Tam, I've seen three versions of this pistol; the one with the integral laser, one with a bolt-on laser unit (came in the gun box and fastens around the front of the trigger guard; we removed it immediately); and a plain vanilla example.
And there is a positive side to it; several troops I know who are also shooters have told me the thing is quite accurate, seemingly reliable so far, and holds a rather decent group at distance if you do your part.
I suppose it is all how you look at it. I had lunch yesterday with an old SWAT bud; he's retired too but came back and works in IA as a gray shirt investigator. I asked him if he had been issued one yet; nope. Noticing his lack of enthusiasm, I then asked him if he was going to "take" one when/if offered.
"Free gun", he said.
Indeed...
.
A turbine came does not see impacts.
Not even close to the same sort of cycle/environment.
One needs fillet radii, nice chamfers and surface area for a MIM part to be durable in a firearm. Look at HK extractors versus, say, Glock's extractors.
MIM will yield a part that has porosity and as such will not have the density of a part machined from a bar stock.
As an engineer one must look at application. MIM/sintering produces a part with very little wasted material. It's called "net shape". I would be inspected then heat treated and can be good to go - for an application it was previously designed for.
I like material science and metallurgy and for a turbine or compressor on a turbocharger I like it. On a 1911, Glock, M&P, etc., I will have said part replaced if possible. If not I will pass unless its obvious upon inspection there are generous surface area, radii and chamfers - again, look at HK.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
You cannot determine the viability of a material for an application by visual inspection of intact parts.
I'm only addressing the design aspect. Arts can be scanned. If the PROCESS is out of control one has bad parts. That's well understood.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
You cannot determine whether a process is "out of control" by visual inspection of functioning parts alone, either.
Reply With Quote
