Lol, reading is hard for some.
Lol, reading is hard for some.
If it wasn’t a negative, the high end manufacturers would be using MIM.Agreed, but it’s really not a negative either with modern parts done correctly. One of the forums out there has followed an MC Operator used by an instructor that’s north of 100k rounds. It had some frame rail cracks that were fixed and a barrel replacement, but all those dreaded MIM parts really haven’t been an issue because this really isn’t much of an issue anymore. For a while Wilson used a number of MIM and cast parts on the CQB. Bill Wilson said at the time that it really wasn’t an issue but people were upset by it so he made the standard CQB MIM free (and raised the price accordingly). It’s not 2007, this just isn’t an issue unless it’s a personal thing that bothers you, which is fine, we all have personal preferences.
I should have said it wasn’t a negative performance wise for 99.9% of shooters. Who won’t shoot a single gun over 50k rounds. All tool steel guns are of course available at a significant price increase.If it wasn’t a negative, the high end manufacturers would be using MIM.
They don’t. They use tool steel.
Ah, read the whole postMight want to read the whole comment before replying.
Maybe I just need to use my glasses when I read posts, missed your other sentence.Ah, read the whole post
Quote “ Good thing HK and Glock don’t use MIM, if they did their pistols wouldn’t be legendarily reliable.“