Regarding my TRP extractor failure, etc., in fairness to SA, here's an update

I decided it would be best to start another thread about this because as so often occurs, the original one developed some significant drift and you might not see this mixed in with all the other posts in the other thread.

Before I go on a recap of the problem. I bought (actually traded) for a SA TRP. Because of a heavy trigger I disassembled it and found some pathetic assembly and a waaaay out of spec disconnetor, which I fixed myself and would have thought no more of it other than it's inexcusible for a part like that to get into an expensive gun like that. Then, the extractor broke while I was shooting around the 200 round mark.

I decided to replace my broken extractor with a WC BP because I had it. The after the original thread, I had the thought why not get a replacement from SA and see how it does. If it breaks that would tell us something, if it doesn't that would tell us something.

So I called SA, told them about the extractor, of course there was no hesitation on their part for me to send the gun in. I just about had him talked into just sending me the extractor and remembered how sad my disconnector was. We discussed that and he was reluctant to send me a disconnector and I don't blame him at all. Here's the good news and encouraging part.

He said they would go through it with a fine tooth comb and check everything. So it should be very near a custom built gun when I get it back.

I'm excited!

There's still no excuse for a gun leaving SA in that condition, but it did. Anyway, I whined about state of the gun and I felt it only fair to give the up side as well.

There's still more. I asked if the extractor was cast. He said yes. I asked if that has been a problem and he said no. He went on to say that any process can get a little out of spec and produce some out of spec parts on occassion, but the generally have not seen problems with their cast extractors.

Then I asked if the slide stop was also cast. He said, "Oh, no they're MIM." I said I hear those tend to break. He said, "Oh no, those work great."

time and lots of rounds later----please tell us, the rest of the story.

-------------------

my other car is a 911
actually--its a Supra

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tangle

He said they would go through it with a fine tooth comb and check everything. So it should be very near a custom built gun when I get it back.

I'm excited!


There's still more. I asked if the extractor was cast. He said yes. I asked if that has been a problem and he said no. He went on to say that any process can get a little out of spec and produce some out of spec parts on occassion, but the generally have not seen problems with their cast extractors.

Then I asked if the slide stop was also cast. He said, "Oh, no they're MIM." I said I hear those tend to break. He said, "Oh no, those work great."

---

Customer service, positive. :hand56:

Cast & MIM small parts... :afraid: :sorry2:

That is a great update, Tangle. Please update again once you receive the TRP back. :smile:

Since you started this thread, I have done some research on the subject, and have come to the conclusion that I would desire forged and tempered spring steel over mim or cast for the extractor.
If it were me I would just Annie up the extra for a forged product.
At least that's my conclusion after reading the manafacturing process of the 3 techniques.
Is this possibly what contributes to the price difference in 1911s?

Glad th hear you contacted Springfield. Good luck and let us know how it turns out.

Thanks for the update. Glad to hear SA at least gave a positive phone experience. The proof will be in the pudding.... Let's see how it comes back & what all they do to make it right.

Ok, my rant.

I hear and hear and hear bar stock is better, tool steel is better, MIM will crumble, cast will break, but there never is any proof or data to back these claims. All you ever get is "so and so said", but so and so has no significant verifiable data, "I know of..." and then preceeds to talk about a few cases they heard about that happened years ago that is suppose to proof something.

Let me give an example. Kimber produced 80,000 1911s in 2009. Of those, and only those, had many had MIM failures? You don't have a clue do you? I don't either. Yet on and on we go about MIM.

What I can't understand is why poeple are so quick to spend good money for certain parts because somebody tells them it's some how better. There apparently is no verifiable data anywhere that indicates bar stock, tool steel, cast, MIM parts are any more or less reliable. Where's the verifiable data? Internet posts? Uncle Charley? What? Where do we get this profound, unerring data that proves anything?

Listen guys, I'm an engineer, we're trained to look at tests, data, and to evaluate and analyze objectively. As an engineer I also have some knowledge of how statistical analysis works. The core of statistical analysis is the data. It must be of the correct size, collected uniformly without conflict of interest or bias and it must be verifiable. So where is the verifiable data? There simply isn't any!

Don't you know, as an engineer, I'd love to see verifiable failure rate data! Don't you think I'd like to know as an engineer and gun enthusiast what metals work best and most reliably in guns? Of course I would - we all would. But, guess what? There is no verifiable data to support anything either way. There just isn't - where is it? Let's see it and settle this once and for all.

The only thing I know of that comes close to verifiable data is the Tacoma PD 20 year tests and their specific testing for their new duty weapon. This testing is documented, has no conflict of interest associated with it, they tested 37 guns, put 23,000 rounds through the Kimbers and Glocks and then reported the Kimbers were far more reliable than any other gun they've tested in 20 years. And the specific gun they tested was the Kimber Pro Carry, the lowest cost gun Kimber makes, with a good ol' 7075 T7 Aluminum frame. And let's not forget the MIM parts.

Cast and MIM may have gotten a black eye during the days of development of the processes. But both of these processes are refined and mature today. Even at MIM's worst, we don't have failure rate data. We really don't have much of anything that is reliable.

Tool steel is stronger and harder but it is also stiff and brittle. As a matter of fact, the Springfield guy mentioned that very thing. And I've seen tool steel parting tools shatter in my lathe several times. In fact, I just about won't do parting operations on steel parts, well larger parts any more.

It's interesting to note that all the major manufacturers use cast and MIM parts and very few, maybe Sig, uses any tool steel in their 1911s. It's been said that Ruger uses no MIM in their guns. What doesn't come out though is that they use cast instead since they own a casting plant!

The small shops are the ones that generally hawk machined bar stock is better - why? It just may be they can't compete with the big boys so they compete in another way - by claiming 'better'. We don't even know if precisely hand fitted guns are more reliable than mass production guns. Again, if you have verifiable data, we'd all love to see it. But you notice you never, never see any verifiable data to support these bar stock claims.

It may be that the small shops simply can't afford the upfront money to buy, install, and maintain the expensive MIM gear, so again, how do they compete - they play the 'better' card again.

As for spring steel, it's cheap enough why doens't anyone, including the small shops use it? Even the small shops use some cast in some of their products and they guarantee them for life. Well, that's not quite true, Wilson has no warranty or guarantee per se whatsoever. And people critisize Kimber for a one year warranty. But of course, Kimber has, does, and will take care of their customers after the warranty period just the same as Wilson will with no warranty.

I talk to SA and they say their cast extractors are dependably and reliable. You talk to a small shop and they say their bar stock parts are better - in what way are they better and is the way they're pruportedly better, of any real significance in a 1911. For example, a bar stock part is purportedly more precisely made - does that equate to the reliable operation of a 1911? I seriously doubt it. It feels good to say these are cut on high precision machines - so what? Show me the test data.

Which brings us back to Glock and M&P - how much bar stock and tool steel do they contain? How much cast and MIM? How many stamped parts? How many polymer parts - like triggers and fire control housings?

Until we see verifiable data - like it or not, this is nothing more than talk about isolated cases that may not even be accurate or even true in many cases.

Ok, rant off, thanks for your indulgence.

Tangle

I will never accuse you of being at a loss for words. :image035:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 357and40

Tangle

I will never accuse you of being at a loss for words. :image035:

---

Thanks! Wait a minute! :rolleyes:

I think the engineer in me is pretty worn out with unsupported claims about 1911s. You'd think, sometimes, all of us that buy mass produced guns are fools throwing away their money, or that we need to rebuild our brand new 1911s with 'better' parts before they shatter and crumble in our holsters.

Bless you for knowing what a paragraph is!

Tangle, I'm not saying one is better than the other. I don't know alot about metallurgy, am not an engineer of any sort. All I have to go on is what I read on the subject, and up until a few days ago, I had not even really thought about it.

But studying the process of cast, in which air bubbles and pockets can form, and reading about mim, well, it just seems like forged products may illuminate some of these possibilities.
But like I said, I'm certainly not qualified to speak with any authority on this subject.

You speak of overkill on some products. It seems to me like over kill on a product one depends on may not be a bad thing.

And, you may be right about proof one way or the other.
But we know for a fact the one in yours broke, and that's enough for me:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glockman10mm

Tangle, I'm not saying one is better than the other. I don't know alot about metallurgy, am not an engineer of any sort. All I have to go on is what I read on the subject, and up until a few days ago, I had not even really thought about it.

But studying the process of cast, in which air bubbles and pockets can form, and reading about mim, well, it just seems like forged products may illuminate some of these possibilities.
But like I said, I'm certainly not qualified to speak with any authority on this subject.

You speak of overkill on some products. It seems to me like over kill on a product one depends on may not be a bad thing.

And, you may be right about proof one way or the other.
But we know for a fact the one in yours broke, and that's enough for me:)

---

I know what you're saying, but Wilson Bullet Proof parts break too. By the same logic that should be enough not to use Wilson Bullet Proof parts. This one man's experience - this is not data, it is a personal experience:

Quote:

---

My Dad's Wilson broke an extractor in the first year and the barrel bushing on my LB [Les Baer] broke at exactly 220 rounds as well. I've also lost WC [Wilson Combat] mag releases, ejectors, slide stops, guide rods, etc some of which were bulet proof. It happens. I also have a 7k round Mimber [Kimber] Pro Carry and an SA 5" that went almost 30k rounds before it lost a part. Ironically, that part was a WC slide stop which was the only part I changed.

---

There's just been a lot of trash talk (not you) lately about how bad MIM and cast is and I know there's nothing of substance to back up the claims. If there were we'd have seen it way before now.

Just think no small shop, no big shop has released any data whatsoever that could be used to quantify anything. Then we think back to what a completely different take Frank Robbins had on MIM, "...not quite as strong as tool steel..." That's not data either, but at least a professional opinion from a person that worked for a renown company that used to make 1911s with MIM parts.

Actually it was Frank Robbins of Wilson Combat that said tool steel was an over kill. I really don't know if it is or not; I have no data to go by, and neither does anyone else. Or, if they do, they've sure been keeping it to themselves.

I don't know if the properties of bar stock machined to the dimensions of a 1911 part are an over kill at all. Who ran the tests? How were the tests perfomed? What'd they do with the data? Why won't they present it?

That's all I'm saying. We don't know what is an overkill; we don't know if MIM is any less reliable than tool steel (which also fails). By the way can anyone tell me what the failure rate of tool steel parts are in 1911s? ..........................I didn't think so - because we have no way to know. We don't know what types of parts are better - whatever it is we mean by better. Again, how do we know they're better? Who ran the tests? Why can't we at least see the results of the tests?

I don't know any of these things I've mentioned and I've built a bunch of 1911s and have yet to experience a part failure, but I still don't know what parts are 'better'. I can tell you which silver solder works best to attach a beavertail solidly to the frame, because I had to try three different types to find a silver solder with enough strength to hold against the recoil of a 1911 in .45ACP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RemMod597

Bless you for knowing what a paragraph is!

---

I thank you for that. I have to remind my students that a paragraph is not a page full of words with a period at the bottom of the page.

I second the thanks for separation of paragraphs.

Not to derail too far: Tangle brought up a good point touching on perceived value for what you spend on a weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tangle

I think the engineer in me is pretty worn out with unsupported claims about 1911s. You'd think, sometimes, all of us that buy mass produced guns are fools throwing away their money, or that we need to rebuild our brand new 1911s with 'better' parts before they shatter and crumble in our holsters.

---

If you are dropping a large sum of money you have an expectation of quality for the output. Some may turn up their nose for anything over $600, but when you buy quality you buy more than just a brand.

The reason I spent the extra money on a FlexSteel sofa was because I wanted something that would LAST. I could have gone to any furniture store & bought a cheapie, but I was not concerned with spending the extra $$$ for the extra quality. The same goes for firearms.

I own Smith & Wesson, SigSauer, Colt, and Walther because they are Smith & Wesson, SigSauer, Colt, and Walther. I own a Husqvarna pistol because I inherited it. I would not have bought a pistol from a chainsaw maker. Granted, it was a John Moses Browning design that started off with Colt, FN & Husqvarna, but the only reason it is still in my posession is that it was my Dads.

I think when you drop over a grand there is a certain expectation that this item will rise a notch above the mass production items. I think that is part of why we get a bit more passionate when the extractor on a TRP goes balls-up there tends to be heated discussion.