Originally Posted By: whip
If MIM parts do the job, are they inferior?
My point exactly. Today a lot of people think they're getting something they're not. MIM has been vilified all over the Internet by people who regurgitate what they hear, and no nothing about metallurgy. It's much the same with the whole cast vs. forged argument. Ruger investment casts all of it's rifle receivers. The Model 77, #1 single shot, Mini 14, all cast. When is the last time anyone ever heard of a Ruger receiver letting go?
I remember when Bill Ruger was alive, he took a Ruger #1 Tropical in .458 Win. Mag. and decided to perform a test with it in front of some media guests. He took a Hornady 500 FMJ bullet, and pounded it into the rifling with a mallet and a wooden dowel. He then filled a .458 Win. Mag. case to the top with Bullseye Pistol Powder and chambered it. They tied the gun to a rest along with a string to the trigger. They discharged it from a safe distance behind a protective barrier. The gun did not explode.
They had to pound the action open, and the stock and forend were split. Ruger estimated chamber pressures went as high as 100,000 PSI+. The point being is what difference would it have made if it were forged? None what so ever. It's much the same with MIM. If something can withstand horrendous overkill over what it was designed for, what is the point of manufacturing it from something different for the sake of arguing it's "better"? When it's already "better" than it could ever possibly need to be?