Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns CCW - G26 v Sig 365?

Regarding the reference to Glock's use of MIM, if I'm not mistaken they did in fact have some issues with MIM parts. Kimber did as well.

I don't have specific knowledge of the issues with glock or kimber parts. I suspect though, that it was an engineering or design flaw, rather than a flaw with the MIM process. A poorly engineered part cannot be saved by any forming process.

And there can be and are issues with the MIM process. But standard QA procedures are real good at catching them before they leave the facility where they are made.

The MIM process is so exact that a simple part weight indicates quality very well. Ultra sonic inspection is nearly infallible.

QA is not a free service though. It costs, and cost can be an issue in modern manufacturing.

Tool steel was blessed by our Lord and Savior John Moses Browning. MIM is the Devil's work.

I grabbed this off of the 1911 forum.

Most of the MIM parts I see are tool steel. You can MIM 4140. There's also a lot of stainless MIM where I work. MIM is a forming process, and it's very well thought out and generally well executed. I work in one of the largest metal rolling mills in the world and we use a LOT of MIM parts. Hydraulic Spools, valve internals, small gears and cams. Some of this stuff is used in brutal conditions. Untold millions of cycles. And it excels.

I haven't seen an informed opinion yet on what is wrong with MIM formed parts. Machined tool steel breaks too. It's only steel.

And I am no metallurgist. I'm no design engineer. No machinist (not much anyway)...
But I'll take MIM in any suitable application without qualms, given proper design and QA practices.

Good post John. I think that's something a lot of folks here don't realize, that MIM is a process, not a material. Just like CNC is a process, although some seem to think that's a material too. MIM can be used to make soft parts, hard parts, strong parts, weak parts, etc, and the design specs and quality control are just as important to the final outcome as any other manufacturing process.

I am a rocket scientist or at least claim to be one on the fire. MIM parts have a bad reputation in guns for a reason, because a higher percentage of them break than milled steel. You can say its a process, you can say it depends on how its done, and so be it, CNC cutting a steel part based on the information that I am familiar with has a statistically higher chance of being a reliable part. Does this say that MIM is bad, why no it just says that many manufacturers don't know how to do it right, so you have more bad parts. I don't buy any conversation about milling a good piece of steel into a bad part as its either milled to spec or its not and the tensile strength of the metal is the tensile strength of the metal. With MIM your introducing another variable.

If you can provide documentation that a MIM tool steel part is stronger has better tensile strength than a 17-4 SS milled part, then I will listen to you, but other than that your just two guys on the internet. I will just ignore that the part has to be made correctly in other words the mim part is manufactured well for the sake of this discussion.

Finally here are two guys that don't even own the pistol pontificating on the parts therein.

I have often wondered if the problems with mim gun parts is rooted in the money saving aspect.

1. When you go
down the quality above everything road, you forget nickels, dimes and dollars to make a superior product.
"This improves the part 10%, it's only money."

2. The opposite. "This new process saves 30%, by doing this we pay 5% more and increase strength 22%."
"GFY, the engineer said xyz would work, and we ain't spending any more money".

The road to cost cutting, leads to a cheap product. How far down it does one go?

As for myself, I'd choose a through hardening steel with excellent impact and yield resistance. I don't see 17-4 stainless in that role. Not at all sure that tensile strength has much bearing on a striker...

But you go with what you want to.

Your correct the term is toughness.

Jimmy, I think we all know from reading this forum that engineering and other related things we're discussing here are not your area of expertise; that doesn't make anyone think less of you for it. What does speak less of you though is when you pretend you know better anyway. Most of your rant above is just further evidence that you're over your head on this stuff, like talking about tensile strength for example. No need to get hurt feelings or keep your ego tied to a gun part.

Like Johnw said, if someone wants to make an aftermarket striker from an appropriate steel with good hardness, wear resistance, and toughness, it'd be great. Tensile strength has very little to do with it. But your buddies at LSI appear to have chosen 17-4 just based on the fact that it's popular lately for certain other gun parts, and then used misleading marketing to make it sound good. That has nothing to do with MIM, and everything to do with designing a part correctly. Sorry if that offends you but it's as straight up as I know how to say it.

My ego is not involved. I have both parts and could put the mim part back in. If you have some valid documentation that a MIM part is tougher than a 17-4 stainless part post it up. I cannot for the life of me understand why MIM parts have a bad reputation!

David Walter - I agree 100%. Indeed Reliability is key, especially for a PD gun Same reason the military has such stringent tests.

I like the concept of the Sig, hopefully it and other potential similar platforms will gain a track record like i.e. Shields and 43s in reliability/durability.

Nothing is perfect or immune to Murphy's Law...but, I do like time-proven products. Great thread and posts by all. Very informative.

Jimmy, you're still missing part of what we're saying here. MIM is not a specific type of material. 17-4PH stainless can be MIM, and often is in certain applications.
If you're just arguing that MIM is weaker than bar stock of the same material, sure, in most cases that is correct. But choosing a better material can more than make up for that difference. I doubt any of us in this conversation know what material Sig used for the 365 striker, although given that it has some issues I wouldn't be surprised if they made a poor material choice to save a few cents per part. Ranting or complaining about the use of MIM parts shows a lack of understanding; the rant should be aimed at Sig for poor design or materials choices.

Here's a good link that might help in understanding the pros and cons of MIM and what materials it can be used for: http://www.pim-international.com/me...terial-options-and-component-properties/

My point was never that a machined billet striker is inferior to an MIM striker, or that the factory 365 striker is good. My point was that in my opinion, 17-4 is not an ideal choice for a striker material, and LSI's marketing description of it is somewhat misleading. It may still be an improvement over the factory striker, but I think they missed some opportunities that others will pick up in the future.

an update! the magazine release button after carrying in a kydex holster on a regular basis during the hot days here has rusted! I will continue to shoot the gun, I have a holster and a striker invested in it , SIG is being run by someone who is too cheap to add 40 cents to use the right metal for a gun that will be carried all the time. Its a shame this little pistol shoots better than any glock I have owned, holds as many rounds as my first 9mm a browning high power and yet some how SIG finds a way to screw up a winner. Gun is shooting fine, no problems today another 50

Another 50 today, still works fine

Shot another 75 rounds through my P365 this week, paying special attention to the primers on the fired cases. Minimal to no drag imprints. Guess I'm lucky I have 'one of the good ones'. I'm not obsessing about the striker business.

The Sig P365 is one of the first rollouts I can recall where people are proud to go on a gun forum and announce that their gun went through another box or two of ammo without a problem. There also are a lot of "400 flawless rounds" posts. Keep shooting, folks. I would like to try one, eventually.

P.S. I saw a post yesterday by a guy claiming that his new gun was missing a spring that holds a pin in place. THR Post

I hear that SIG is run by a man who believes in cutting corners. What is amazing Is that I cat Hit a 2 inch Bullseye at 20 yards with 147 grain Federal 147 grain HST ammo with slow careful shooting. My Glock 43 does not shoot that well. I have a G43, a Shield in 9mm and 45ACP, and the p365 a few g19’s and a G17.

The 9mm Shield will be sold soon. Most accurate of the group, P365, then Shield 45, then G43, then lastly the shield. The p365 is my primary carry weapon, I have the LS striker in it and carry it in a cooks kydex holster. Mine failed to lock back one outing when run dry, but this not happened again. I do feel a small pistol can be fired incorrectly and your left hand can rub the slide.

Buh bye striker number 2.

First gone at 600...this one lasted around 1200.

Pissed...

Word on the forums is that the latest iteration of the P365 has a redesigned striker. There are pictures of it on Sig Forum.