Abraham wrote:The Annoyed Man,
I know absolutely nothing about this rifle or what MIM technology means.
That said, the rifle looks very much like an M14 to me, that is to say, very appealing.
The various M-14's I carried were robust, but not ah, bullet proof. I've had more than one come apart or malfunction due to parts failure. Of course, these were G.I. issue and no doubt had enormous use before I had my hands on them.
If your model is a civilian variant I too am interested in acquiring one, but if your recent negative experience is common, that creates some pause in my consideration...
Have you at this point determined your problem with the rifle typical for this model or an aberration?
Thanks!
Abraham, yes, the M1A is a civilian, semi-automatic only, variant of the M14. "MIM" means "
Metal Injection Molding" (note that there is a trigger in the picture). And,
as this link says:
"I mean, if they use MIM parts in jet engines at 30,000 feet going Mach 2, what makes people think MIM parts are inferior for a firearm?"
I don't think that MIM as a concept is necessarily inferior technology. What I
do think is that when manufacturers look to MIM as a cost cutting measure, the temptation to cut
too much cost can lead to sloppy quality control.
I don't think that the M1A is an inherently fragile and undependable rifle. I suspect that its degree of reliability is probably similar to the M14 variant you handled in the military. In other words, it has whatever reliability is inherent in a battle rifle of post WW2 design, which was in many ways a refinement of a WW2 contemporaneous design. The M1 Garand (the M14's predecessor) did not have a particular reputation for unreliability, and it was firing a larger, more powerful cartridge. In the other thread I posted at Sniper's Hide forum, there were a few responses from people who had opinions about MIM versus USGI parts, but only a couple who had actually experienced or witnessed a similar failure. And, I received a PM here from
BobCat, who told me among other things:
FYI I saw a very similar failure at the range a few weeks ago - in a USGI hammer from a USGI trigger group.
So I would be hard pressed to attribute the failure to MIM as a technique, and perhaps more to this being simply a flawed part in my rifle to begin with.
My principle daily carry weapon is a Kimber, which uses a number of MIM parts. I've never experienced a part failure in that pistol, and I've shot pretty close to 1500-1800 rounds through it. I stake my life on it when I carry it.
That said, of those M1As out there which have experienced parts failures, hammer failure appears to be a common type of breakage. But I don't think that they fail so often as to give the M1A design a reputation as a fragile rifle.
I hope that answers your questions.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
Since I am sure that your are just so frustrated with Her that you will just donate it to the Carl needs a M1A fund. 
