Tool steel parts REALLY better? - 1911Forum
1911Forum
Advertise Here
Forum   Reviews   Rules   Legal   Site Supporters & Donations   Advertise


Go Back   1911Forum > >

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-18-2017, 10:25 AM
JNW JNW is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 113
Tool steel parts REALLY better?

So I need a full size .45 ACP. I'm looking at TRPs and the Combat Operator. Can anyone really feel the difference in the trigger between these two? I can get a standard TRP for under $1300 with ambi safety and a magwell while the CO is a bit more money without those features. Is it truly better, or is this a theoretical argument? Any and all opinions welcome.
Thanks,
Jeff
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-18-2017, 10:32 AM
JB6464 JB6464 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 470
Depends on what day of the week you ask .
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-18-2017, 10:46 AM
JNW JNW is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 113
I know the merits of tool steel have been discussed, but can anyone truly feel a difference in operation? I think I just have to buy a pistol and start shooting it.
Jeff
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke
Reply With Quote
 
  #4  
Old 04-18-2017, 10:53 AM
bdavis385 bdavis385 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,121
I would suggest the difference is in durability. In truth, for many people that is not a consideration as they just don't shoot that much. I have several full custom guns with tool steel firing system and a couple of TRPs with factory parts tuned to about 3 lb.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-18-2017, 10:55 AM
Wilsonedbrown's Avatar
Wilsonedbrown Wilsonedbrown is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: CT
Posts: 4,800
Tool steel parts are stronger in general. The most important parts IMO to be tool steel are the ignition parts. While a mim sear and hammer may work fine it's not optimal for a trigger job IMO. Tool steel sears are much easier to work with as are tool steel hammers. That this is all assuming they are of quality manufacture. Many smiths won't do a trigger job on mim sears and hammers. Has to mean something..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-18-2017, 12:33 PM
havanajim havanajim is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,220
Ahhhh, the age-old, tool steel vs, MIM thread. Haven't had one of these in a long while . To answer your questions:

Can you feel the difference? No.
Theoretical argument? Yes. (I'll go one further: goofy interweb argument.)
Is tool steel stronger? Perhaps. Does it matter? No.

The fact is that there are countless pistols in daily use, service use, competition use with MIM components. Yet, the only time it seems to be an issue is with 1911s. Gotta wonder why that is? Perhaps because there's a robust after-market parts industry? Perhaps because so many 'gunsmiths' are taking advantage of that after-market industry? Who really knows? The fact is, MIM works and works well. Action jobs can be successfully performed on those components. Now, if your preference is otherwise, that's fine. But it shouldn't be an indictment of MIM, it's just a preference. I submit that your grand-kids will still be using your MIM-equipped pistol, right along side your tool-steel equipped pistol.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-18-2017, 05:08 PM
Texas Guy Texas Guy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,245
Tool steel resists rust(in the white) when oiled more than MIM, a tool steel sear holds an edge longer.


Sent from a distant planet far far away
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-18-2017, 05:17 PM
Jolly Rogers Jolly Rogers is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 3,385
Tool steel if properly formulated and heat treated may be better than most MIM. Mediocre tool steel may be inferior to premium MIM subject to top level quality control. After all the material used to make MIM may be tool steel.

Joe
__________________
1911
The instant emergency response number.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-18-2017, 05:40 PM
drail drail is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 10,620
Good steel will hold the trigger job longer but you can't really compare two new production guns, one with MIM and one with tool steel components and judge the triggers that way. Factory trigger pulls and quality are all over the map regardless of what parts they used to slap it together. The trigger pull is all about the angles of the sear and hammer and some spring tuning - both of which the mass producers aren't willing to spend a lot of time on - like a Wilson.

Last edited by drail; 04-18-2017 at 05:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-18-2017, 10:45 PM
Jason D Jason D is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Keller, TX
Posts: 2,965
Tool steel was blessed by our Lord and Savior John Moses Browning.
MIM is the Devil's work.












My oldest gun with MIM bits is an early Kimber model. I've been shooting it on and off since I bought it, and the only change I've made, was ditching the rubber "MIM" of grips for something in wood.

I do attribute more worth to a gun without the MIM bits, and I'd never buy a replacement part for one of my guns that was MIM. That said. I don't actively replace them either. I will say I have never had an issue with an MIM part.
__________________
1911forum member #7
ACCEPT NOTHING LESS THAN FULL VICTORY!"
General Dwight D. Eisenhower June 6, 1944
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-19-2017, 01:54 AM
JNW JNW is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 113
I am curious if anyone has compared trigger pulls of MIM vs tool steel triggers with the Trigger Scan system. If no one can feel a difference, or display it with the Trigger Scan, then the argument is in longevity or mean time between failures. If the Pro has some MIM parts then I think they must be okay in certain applications. Thanks for everyone's thoughts - not trying to just be an MIM troll.
Regards,
Jeff
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-19-2017, 04:31 AM
army_eod army_eod is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 1,032
OK. I will bite.

Here is the way I would end this argument.

You have a choice.

Pick one.

Both pistols cost the same.

One 1911 built with MIM by, say, Kimber.

Other built with tool steel parts, say, Wilson Combat Bullet Proof parts.

Which would you choose?

I will go with tool steel.

Have a great day.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-19-2017, 05:11 AM
Billy1911 Billy1911 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason d View Post
tool steel was blessed by our lord and savior john moses browning.
Mim is the devil's work.


lol ....
__________________
Obi-Wan Kenobi : Who's the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?
SACS-RO Champion / SACS -Mod Longslide / SACS TGO-1 / SACS Professional w/rail / SA TRP / Wilson CQB / Kimber CDP II / HK P30L / DW Target .
Lots and Lots of plastic army men with a Guns of Navarone play set / A huge Star Wars Clone Army fighting with the Jedi Pre-order 66
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-19-2017, 05:18 AM
Billy1911 Billy1911 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by havanajim View Post
Ahhhh, the age-old, tool steel vs, MIM thread. Haven't had one of these in a long while . To answer your questions:

Can you feel the difference? No.
Theoretical argument? Yes. (I'll go one further: goofy interweb argument.)
Is tool steel stronger? Perhaps. Does it matter? No.

The fact is that there are countless pistols in daily use, service use, competition use with MIM components. Yet, the only time it seems to be an issue is with 1911s. Gotta wonder why that is? Perhaps because there's a robust after-market parts industry? Perhaps because so many 'gunsmiths' are taking advantage of that after-market industry? Who really knows? The fact is, MIM works and works well. Action jobs can be successfully performed on those components. Now, if your preference is otherwise, that's fine. But it shouldn't be an indictment of MIM, it's just a preference. I submit that your grand-kids will still be using your MIM-equipped pistol, right along side your tool-steel equipped pistol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason D View Post
My oldest gun with MIM bits is an early Kimber model. I've been shooting it on and off since I bought it, and the only change I've made, was ditching the rubber "MIM" of grips for something in wood.

I do attribute more worth to a gun without the MIM bits, and I'd never buy a replacement part for one of my guns that was MIM. That said. I don't actively replace them either. I will say I have never had an issue with an MIM part.


Both of these are so true .

JNW :
If you like the TRP buy the TRP . Its a good pistol and you can't really
go wrong with it . It will do the job well . Plus you have a lifetime
Warranty so if the MIM goes bad SA will fix it . That being said I would
trust my life to any pistol I've shot 1000 rds or more through and its
preformed well in that time .
__________________
Obi-Wan Kenobi : Who's the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?
SACS-RO Champion / SACS -Mod Longslide / SACS TGO-1 / SACS Professional w/rail / SA TRP / Wilson CQB / Kimber CDP II / HK P30L / DW Target .
Lots and Lots of plastic army men with a Guns of Navarone play set / A huge Star Wars Clone Army fighting with the Jedi Pre-order 66
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-19-2017, 09:12 AM
Vin63 Vin63 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 3,170
I look at it this way, and in this case, specifically as it relates to my TRPs: I could've spent a couple hundred dollars replacing MIM parts with, say, WC Bullet Proof parts, but I wouldn't have had $200 worth of ammo supplies. 15K, or so, rounds through each pistol later, the MIM parts are still holding up just fine.



Quote:
Originally Posted by JNW View Post
So I need a full size .45 ACP. I'm looking at TRPs and the Combat Operator. Can anyone really feel the difference in the trigger between these two? I can get a standard TRP for under $1300 with ambi safety and a magwell while the CO is a bit more money without those features. Is it truly better, or is this a theoretical argument? Any and all opinions welcome.
Thanks,
Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-19-2017, 05:30 PM
spooky619 spooky619 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: SLC, UT
Age: 33
Posts: 975
Glock, emotions aside, are probably the most robust and dependable pistols on the market. They're carried by police worldwide, militaries and military contractors worldwide, and continue to go through rigorous testing with very very few parts breakages.....

They're made of plastic and MIM parts.

I rest my case.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-19-2017, 07:42 PM
Slow bullet guy Slow bullet guy is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,222
I think them MIM ignition parts are doing just fine for most shooters. Tool steel offers more flexability in how the gunsmith can tune the sear/hammer engagement. Some smiths won't do anything with MIM aside from cleaning the burrs to smooth things up.

I've got one 1911 with MIM ignition parts. It has a very smooth rolling break. I have another 1911 with tool steel ignition parts. It feels the same as the MIM one. Neither have been tuned, only smoothed out. I expect the tool steel should last longer and tune easier. But honestly, my trigger "feel" needs are very simple. I really just wanted the sweet commander hammer that came in the tool steel kit

Most of the other parts are MIM. I don't lose any sleep over that.

PS. To interject with what Wilsonedbrown stated, Jerry Kuhnhausen seems to advocate replacing any part that is questionable with high quality steel. While I have trouble going that far with it, I'm sure he had good reason. I tend to wonder if the cheaper steels were of lower quality at the time of publication.

Last edited by Slow bullet guy; 04-19-2017 at 07:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-19-2017, 07:50 PM
TRSOtto TRSOtto is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 8,566
Can someone provide the link to the thread with all of the hundreds of pictures of broken MiM parts???

Last edited by TRSOtto; 04-19-2017 at 08:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-19-2017, 09:51 PM
Jason D Jason D is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Keller, TX
Posts: 2,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by spooky619 View Post
Glock, emotions aside, are probably the most robust and dependable pistols on the market. They're carried by police worldwide, militaries and military contractors worldwide, and continue to go through rigorous testing with very very few parts breakages.....

They're made of plastic and MIM parts.

I rest my case.
I think the MIM parts are relatively new in Glocks. By relatively new, I mean within the last 10 years or so.




I did see something in a magazine write up about the new Walther Creed that I would question the merit of. The barrel appeared to be cast. It had casting marks in the barrel lug under the barrel. The weirdest damn thing I have ever seen in a gun magazine. I don't know whether it was investment cast, or MIM, but I would not want to be the tester for that.
__________________
1911forum member #7
ACCEPT NOTHING LESS THAN FULL VICTORY!"
General Dwight D. Eisenhower June 6, 1944
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-20-2017, 08:03 AM
spooky619 spooky619 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: SLC, UT
Age: 33
Posts: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason D View Post
I think the MIM parts are relatively new in Glocks. By relatively new, I mean within the last 10 years or so.
Glocks of the last 10myears have qualified for use in Special Operations military roles, and still sell by the bajillion to enthusiasts, professionals, and everyone in between, simply because they work.

I'm not trying to make this a Glock thread, but just trying to give some context. It's irrefutable that a plastic and MIM gun is considered to be the gold standard for self defense. So why have heartburn because a few parts in a 1911 are MIM? That would be an exercise in not applying logic.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-20-2017, 09:03 AM
azpoolguy azpoolguy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Glendale,AZ
Posts: 432
I would be more concerned about the trigger pull of the specific pistol I was buying. I have worked on two EMP4s side by side one with a 5lb trigger pull one with a 7 1/2 lb pull of grit and nastiness.

What happens if you set the TRP down after testing the pull and it's a 4 1/2lb decent production gun trigger pull and then you try the CO and it 6 lbs of grit and mush? Does it matter then what the parts are made out of?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-20-2017, 08:26 PM
army_eod army_eod is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 1,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by spooky619 View Post
Glocks of the last 10myears have qualified for use in Special Operations military roles, and still sell by the bajillion to enthusiasts, professionals, and everyone in between, simply because they work.

I'm not trying to make this a Glock thread, but just trying to give some context. It's irrefutable that a plastic and MIM gun is considered to be the gold standard for self defense. So why have heartburn because a few parts in a 1911 are MIM? That would be an exercise in not applying logic.
A Glock and a 1911 are completely different designs and based on technologies of their own respective eras. There was no MIM in 1911. Glock has nothing like the internals of the 1911. It is an apples to oranges argument.

I am a huge Glock fan.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-20-2017, 08:35 PM
Hopknockious Hopknockious is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason D View Post
I think the MIM parts are relatively new in Glocks. By relatively new, I mean within the last 10 years or so.




I did see something in a magazine write up about the new Walther Creed that I would question the merit of. The barrel appeared to be cast. It had casting marks in the barrel lug under the barrel. The weirdest damn thing I have ever seen in a gun magazine. I don't know whether it was investment cast, or MIM, but I would not want to be the tester for that.
I would wager Glock forges their barrels (given they make their own dies and cutters).

Thoughts?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-20-2017, 09:12 PM
drail drail is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 10,620
"It's irrefutable that a plastic and MIM gun is considered to be the gold standard for self defense.." That's the funniest thing I've heard in a very long time. You cannot be serious.......

Last edited by drail; 04-21-2017 at 07:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-20-2017, 09:12 PM
Jason D Jason D is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Keller, TX
Posts: 2,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopknockious View Post
I would wager Glock forges their barrels (given they make their own dies and cutters).

Thoughts?
I didn't mean to allude to MIM barrels in Glocks. Their barrels appear to be conventional. I was commenting on Glock being fairly new to the use of MIM for things like rail inserts and other parts.

The Walther Creed comment was just a weird observation I made of their new gun. Trying to make a barrel cheaper is not a new concept. Springfield at one time was marketing 1911's with two piece barrels.
__________________
1911forum member #7
ACCEPT NOTHING LESS THAN FULL VICTORY!"
General Dwight D. Eisenhower June 6, 1944
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:10 AM.


NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS SITE: By continuing to use this site, you certify that you have read and agree to abide by the Legal Terms of Use. All information, data, text or other materials ("Content") posted to this site by any users are the sole responsibility of those users. 1911Forum does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such Content.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2015 1911Forum.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved