I'm looking for a 17.3 with the old frying pan finish as it's supreme.

While I'm searching the used ones - what's the date range to look for to ensure there's no MIM parts in the gun?

It's not a deal breaker by any means for me but would be icing on the cake if I ran across the right serial prefix.

Well when is the last time you heard of a Glock MIM gun failing because of MIM?

Never and it's not a concern to me.

Just figuring if I have access to a batch of trade ins do I want a 2008 model vs a 2010 model.

Just more of a novelty.

I believe they started using MIM parts around the L serial # prefix.  But they gradually implemented more MIM parts into the guns so some around that time might have some, but not all of the MIM parts the current ones have.

It's strange to me that some 1911 makers start putting MIM parts in their guns and people lose their minds, thinking it's a pile of junk.  Yet Glock goes to MIM for some pretty critical parts and hardly anyone seems to care.

This.

When the Germans came out with the MP-40 using revolutionary manufacturing techniques. They were mocked in the same manner MIM parts are made today. While some may prefer traditional milled steel, Mim is here to stay.

There are enough early guns out there that old parts are easy to find.

Much easier than finding a replacement hammer for your S&W Registered Magnum.

I wanta say it was 2008-2009 time frame MIM became standard in Glock.

Mim works fine when it is done right. Problem is the quality control is not there to insure consistency. Therefore I don't trust mim and will go out of my way for machined parts.

I'm sure many are just "old fashioned" but you can change any part in a Glock in minutes or less with just a punch. With a 1911 you need more tools, time, and possibly fitting.

This.

THe issue is lack of QC as QC is expensive which defeats the purpose of MIM $$$$$.

MIM can work and work well.  It often fails because its function is to save money and more QC doesn't save money.  It is cheaper to warranty broken MIM than QC it up front.

Sucks.

Probably because a lot of people get a 1911 partially for its "old world feel" and craftsmanship.  It's a throwback to another time.  Adding in a new, cheaper, non human processing step doesn't really fit in with that style.  Sort of like how really particular wine connoisseurs probably don't want certain additives in their wine, even if it might make it taste better.

1911 buyers also tend to just be more old school, and a lot of them are of the "if the original didn't need it, neither does mine" persuasion.  It's like using plastic parts or computers in a classic car.  Sure, they probably work fine, maybe just as good as the original and cheaper, but people still don't want them in their classic cars.



Right, and before MIM parts failures were unheard of in firearms.


I do find it interesting that quite a few buyers of GLOCKS, the gun which was and sometimes still is ridiculed for being plastic instead of metal, are so easily drawn in by the "new is worse!" mentality around MIM.

So you have three instances where you had a part failure but you know nothing about the part.  What was the mileage on said parts would be a valuable piece of info?  Are we sure beyond a reasonable doubt these are MIM parts or could one be a machined?  Are these your parts from your pistol?

Seriously if MIM was such a bad design everybody who owns a Glock would be pissed right now because parts would be breaking right and left.  I am not saying MIM does not fail but a few pictures with out context is dishonest and misleading.  For all we know these parts could have 23,682 rounds on them or 3 rounds and broke right out of the gate.

You know this an I know this.
Pointless to convince MIM apologists.

Right, so we're at let's say 1000 firearms, which were instantly repaired, of about 1,000,000 sold that year.  That's a 99.9% success rate.  As far as I know, firing pin breakage has not become an epidemic due to MIM which seems to indicate they can work just fine.  

For one, we can't be sure it wasn't ammunition related.  It might be the firing pin, but to completely rule out ammunition without any evidence seems odd.  For two, QC slip ups happen with every manufacturer of every type of gun (and ammo).  Glock had plenty of issues before they started using MIM, to blame every problem they have now on MIM is silly.  If you want to pretend non MIM parts can't break or have a bad heat treat, enjoy living in your bubble.  When someone makes a gun without ever having a single QC issue for <$600 consider me impressed.   Hell, make it <$1000.  

Virtually all manufacturing processes exist to make more $ or reduce costs.  Obviously having every firearm custom made and fitted and looked at under an electron microscope would get you a (slightly) more reliable product, but that gets you a $3000 firearm.  Personally I'll take 99.9% reliable for $500 over 100% (except ammo, so really back to around 99.9%) reliable for $3000.

No I don't, but plenty of people who do still choose Glocks, even after this "scandal."  One thing worth noting is none of these failed in the field, they were all caught during what I'm assuming is an initial training/break in period they go through with new pistols, specifically to catch things like this.  

Again, please show me an alternative anywhere near the same price point without any QC issues ever happening, that has even half of the service record Glocks do.  I'm still not totally convinced it's unrelated to ammunition, but that's beside the point.  Oh yeah, remember your alternative can't use MIM.

I haven't been able to find the LIE with a quick google search, but do remember reading about it awhile back when I was researching this exact issue.  It was probably someone emailing a random CS rep who didn't know what they were talking about, that's nothing new for any industry.  Again, nothing to do with MIM.

I'm sure if you really wanted to you could measure out all the dimensions from your garbage MIM striker and have a local machine shop machine one out of Inconel.  It'd cost a few hundred dollars, but then you could sleep at night.  Hell, do that with every part.  You'll end up with a $3000+ glock that still functions the same, but you won't have to worry about MIM.  While you're at it, why not make the frame out of Inconel instead of that cheap plastic shit they only use to cut costs?  Everyone knows steel is stronger than cheap plastic, they only use plastic to make more money.  I brought my food to work in a plastic container this morning.  Shit bent so easily it's not even funny.  That crap has no business being anywhere near a gun.  

EDIT:  And to clarify, I'm not saying Glocks are flawless, or even the best choice in their price bracket.  What I'm saying is, all manufacturers have occasional QC issues, MIM or not.  Blaming all of Glock's problems on MIM is ridiculous.  They had plenty of problems before MIM, and they still have problems.   They've turned out literally MILLIONS of guns since they started using MIM, and the vast majority of them are great.  Obviously MIM can work well, as those guns show.  If every gun they made using MIM fell apart like the ones you showed, I'd agree MIM might be the culprit, but it's simply not the case.  There's obviously something else causing these failures.

This is what I am talking about context.  I can show you a picture of a broken whatever but with no context of what the picture is or means how can anyone draw a conclusion.

I do not deny MIM exist to cut manufacturing cost and increase production what would you rather have a $800 Glock that uses fully machined parts takes 2 weeks to make or a $500-550 Glock that takes 1 week to make (The amount of time I am making up because I do not know how long it takes Glock to produce one gun or how much it would drive cost up).  Market demand drives these things and people do not want to spend $800 to buy a Glock when they can buy one for $500 same goes for LE they have budgets that says you can buy X amount of guns at Y price + training and parts so to the penny pinchers 500 with MIM parts looks better to 800 with machined parts with a statical failure rate of A vs B say A = 1.35% and B = 2.50% MIM being the higher percentage (arbitrary number pulling from my ass for the sake of discussion).  Glock probably looks at it the same way if they have only a slight increase in failures and the replacement parts can be made at an 1/8th of a cost it makes more since to do MIM from a financial stand point.

I've had to replace 3 MIM extractors that were out of spec. Two were NIB, and one was a LNIB.

Maybe I was just limp wristing it.

MIM is an excellent material as long as two conditions are met:

QC is top notch.

The part is designed originally to be MIM.  There are MIM jet engine parts.  Work great.  Excellent QC, and designed for MIM.

Both the 1911 & Glock were designed for either machined or cast parts.  Cast isn't the same as MIM.


Cat