View Full Version : mim parts in sig 1911's

19th March 2009, 06:57
Whats the big deal about these parts are they not good or what. I mean it seems like a lot of gun use what everyone refers to as mim parts. I just don't understand if the weapon you buy has a life time warranty I mean I don't know just confused I guess. A lot of reputable gun manufactures from what I hear use this system without problems right?:confused: Help me to understand.

19th March 2009, 16:52
The future will prove that the issue of mim parts being bad will be a passing fad. There is no doubt that parts machined from forgings are stronger than mim parts... but that does not mean that mim parts are inadequate. The issue of lifetime warranties is a realative issue... is your pistol for target shooting or protection? If for target shooting all you have lost if any part breaks is a fun afternoon at the range... the lose in the protection category is obvious. It also is a life time. If you are concerned at all, simply choose a 1911 without mim parts or change the mim's out for forged parts.

How about cast vs forged 1911 frames? Another can of worms?

20th March 2009, 09:39
I didn't realize this was kind of a dead horse type thing. I just don't do enough searches I guess. I've never really worried about mim parts I really never even give them a second thought till now. I carry several different guns I mostly carry a Springfield TRP 1911 now I'm sure even that at 1300 bucks has the MIM parts. But I trust it and it goes bang. if it breaks and I can't fix it I'll send it back and carry something else.
Oh Ya I do carry a P220 a lot those are really nice guns too.
have a nice day :)

20th March 2009, 14:16
Do a search and you should find several quite thorough discussions on the subject.

Very Short Version - it depends on what part is MIM. A grip safety? Absolutely no problem. A sear? Mmm, will probably outlive you, but the trigger pull may eventually change. A slide stop? Some have posted pics of them having strange chip-like marks, but I can't recall someone saying they broke one...

Don't worry - I think when you read on the topic you will be put at ease...

8th July 2009, 21:22
I saw this posted in the Sig Forum today.

I don't know if there is any truth to this but this poster works at a place that does custom gunwork.

Anyone else have any info on this that "current production" Sig 1911s are made with almost ALL MIM parts for the internals? I know up to later last year they were advertising they had NO MIM internals. I love my GSR 1911 that was made 03/08 and am hoping mine is not filled with poor quality MIM parts and I was also thinking of buying another one.


"Honestly, I would get the Springfield over the GSR without question.
As I understand it, when the GSR first came out there was no MIM in the guns and the quality was pretty good once they started making their own frames. The current production guns components are completely MIM except either the hammer or sear (I don't remember which right now) and if that were not bad enough, the MIM parts themselves are the worst quality MIM parts I have ever seen in my life."

9th July 2009, 03:29
While I have read comments on MIM parts chiping and/or braking in other 1911 brands, I don't recall doing so for any Sigs. Somebody posted that he didn't like some casting marks on a grip safety a while back, but no damage was involved.

10th July 2009, 21:36
I wouldn't believe the post on the Sig forum from the poster claiming all internal parts are MIM. Just doesn't compute. Take a look at these threads:



I am not absolutely dead set against MIM but there are too many reports of parts dmage/breakage of certain MIM parts like the sear and slide stop. Better to rely on stronger parts rather than a manufacturer's lifetime warranty. The lifetime warranty ends when your life ends because your gun doesn't go bang when you needed it the most.

Most shooters won't put a lot of rounds through a pistol. For those who do and experience a parts breakage, it may be cheaper for the manufacturer to repair those pistols than to build them without MIM parts.

10th July 2009, 22:06
Thank you for that information. Interestingly I emailed Sig 3 days ago about this and asked for clarification and have not received a response yet. I emailed them the same quote that I posted above. I will update if I get a response.

20th July 2009, 19:31
I spoke today with someone extremely credible at the organization where poster of the link quoted from the sigforum works (see Grumpy1's posting above). Unfortunately, it's an accurate recapitulation of the situation, at least concerning the specific current production SIG-Sauer 1911 example that they just acquired.

I'm very disappointed, to the point that I can only feel comfortable in now recommending the GSR (or whatever it's called on a given day of the week by SIG-Sauer) as basically only as a starting point for a gunsmith. It would appear that an excellent concept has fallen victim to the vicissitudes of profit requirements and market pricing inexorably colliding...

I'm exceptionally pleased with my 06000-sequence serial number XO, but I don't plan on acquiring any more.

Best, Jon

21st July 2009, 04:35
Thanks for that info Jon.

Interestingly I never got a response from Sig which tells me a whole lot. Hopefully my March 2008 serial number 16xxx production model is not in the same category. If it gives me a problem I will take it to a gunsmith to have it upgraded to "good" parts if that is what the problem is. So far it has been stellar for me but only a couple hundred rounds through it.

I plan on not buying any more new Sigs in the future. I have a mid 1990's P220 .45, my GSR, a recently purchased CPO non rail P229 .40 around 2003 vintage, and a new SP2022 9MM which has been a fabulous pistol. But recent comments about problems and cheaper parts with new Sigs in general is troubling on the Sig forum. I want a P226 9MM but will look for a nice non rail CPO instead of new. Sig, from what I have heard, is also shipping new classic P series pistols with plastic guide rods and no longer with braided recoil springs.

Thanks again.

21st July 2009, 21:06
Very, very, very disappointing. I love my C3 so much I was thinking of getting another just to have in case mine went down. It was one of three or four I was considering getting next. I guess it's out of the running now.

It would be nice if someone at Sig responded to the questions, but I suppose the lack of a response is a response.

22nd July 2009, 21:47
Took my GSR XO down after I read this post yesterday--I did not find any MIM parts in it.

22nd July 2009, 21:56
My guess is that the description is of the "current production" Sig 1911 - the new ones do not have GSR designation any more - just Sig Sauer 1911 on the slide I believe. Those of us that covet our GSR labeled Sig 1911s best not let go of them.

23rd July 2009, 08:09
At a minimum, SIG-Sauer has been using a MIM disconnector for at least a year. Not that this is necessarily the end of the world (or the end of 1911 life as we know it). The current situation is far different, according to my source, based on the gun that they recently obtained.

I suspect, but cannot prove, that the MIM disconnectors probably began roughly concurrently with the new "non-manhole" extractors. Exact useage date/serials will probably be impossible to pin down, as the GSRs have always been somewhat of a parts-bin constructed gun, with specific parts in specific guns determined by what parts are placed in the assembly line bins-leading to some interesting variations in triggers, hammers, mainspring housings, slides, etc.

The current situation as reported is far different than just a material composition difference in one relatively low-stressed part; the current SIG 1911s are apparently rife with MIM components, and the key thing is that they're not of particularly inspiring quality as well. There can be well-made MIM components; whether they're ultimately as good as an equivalent forged, tool steel component is a somewhat hotly-disputed item. For most shooters, its probably irrelevant, but for a heavy-use/dangerous environment shooter, a high-quality, forged/tool steel component from a reputable manufacturer is probably more desirable and durable, particularly regarding components that are stressed during the operation of the gun.

The slide stop/release noted on the recent example I've discussed also had reportedly a very bad copy of the original Greider part; I'm not sure if the current part is MIM or forged.

My comment during the discussion that I had regarding the current gun was that I said that it seemed that the current SIG 1911s were now the equivelant of a Kimber. The response was that they were not even that good...

This is NOT good news for potential SIG-Sauer owners, and for the SIG 1911 line in general, in my opinion.

I'd have to echo Grump1's comment-it strikes me that there is a "sweet spot" of GSR production, which seems to be centered around the second generation of GSRs, subsequent to SIG-Sauer assuming production of the slides and frames themselves, and probably leading up to and overlapping somewhat with the point of the modified slides/extractors (i.e., the ones without the "manhole" cover on the right side of the slide).

I don't mean to necessarily impuign earlier, or later guns per se. Especially given the SIG-Sauer parts-bin assembly engineering process, there's a strong liklihood of overlap between the model differentiations discussed as the previous (arguably higher-quality) parts are flushed out/exhausted. And some changes were for the better-such as dispensing the Novak/ACT magazines in favor of the current Check-Mate magazines. Some were arguably operationally insignificant, such as the substitution of the Champion rear sight on the XO for the Novak non-tritium sight (although I'm finally replacing my OEM Champion rear sight with a Novak one-their Wide-Notch varient; my decision has more to do with my aging eyes, and preference for a .140 rear notch over a .125 one).

Generally, however, I'm very disappointed in the cost-saving route that SIG has apparently chosen to take. Originally the GSR was to be a premium gun, comprised of premium parts (and with no MIM), showcasing SIG-Sauer's design, engineering and manufacturing/assembly skills, at an exceptional price point, achieved through economy-of-scale purchasing power. What exists now is arguably a triumph of style over substance, particularly compared with both the recent past and SIG's averred intentions (and advertising)-at least their original intentions. Caveat Emptor-let the buyer beware...

Best, Jon

27th July 2009, 01:20
+ 1 on all of that, Jon

I have two early models, {and one slightly newer 'TTT' model} the ealry mfg. pistols have the man hole cover ..... {which really is a small screw to hold the series 80 plunger in the slide ... for those not familiar with the man hole cover item}

my third Sig 1911, which is the 'TTT' model, has no manhole cover -- it is not as accurate, and the slide to frame fit has a tiny amount of play .. wheres my two early GSR's have zero noticeable slide-to-frame play, and are super accurate... they are all keepers, but any new Sig 1911's for me will be from my finding a new or almost new pistol with the man hole cover screw, so I will know its manufacture and assembly predated the step down in quality -- sad how they can mess up a good thing, to milk it for $$$

The same external extractor style is still being used, however, without the manhole cover screw to hold the series 80 plunger in the slide. ... Now a false, half length, extractor is utilized to hold the plunger. -- In the original Colt version of a 'series 80' style firing pin safety, a slightly modified internal extractor is used for anyone else's series 80 guns ... {S&W and KImber's 1911's are utilizing the 'Schwartz' style safety, which is operated by the grip safety, rather than by the trigger}



25th September 2009, 23:11
Can anyone tell me if my GSR is one of the non-MIM pistols? The serial number is GS024XX. It has the 8 round Novak's/ACT mags, but I may get some of the Colt hybrid mags, I've heard good things about them. Any feedback? Interesting article on 1911 mags here:


26th September 2009, 18:41
SIG doesn't use MIM parts in their 1911s,at least that's all I've been told.

26th September 2009, 20:32
Every mass produced 1911, be it SIG, Colt, Kimber, S.A. etc, etc. all use some MIM parts. Allot use the same parts because they out source from the same manufactures. Fear of MIM parts is over blown and fed by the internet. People have no idea what MIM parts are but are scarred to death their gun will self destruct, because they read about it on the internet.

27th September 2009, 03:57
Every mass produced 1911, be it SIG, Colt, Kimber, S.A. etc, etc. all use some MIM parts. Allot use the same parts because they out source from the same manufactures. Fear of MIM parts is over blown and fed by the internet. People have no idea what MIM parts are but are scarred to death their gun will self destruct, because they read about it on the internet.

And some folks know exactly what it is and want no part of it. Especially from a company that is known to make or use substandard MIM.

27th September 2009, 06:21
SiG made their promise in their early days as no MiM parts...I believe they might have some now...I handled a Blackwater the other day and the hammer appeared to me to be odd on a black pistol...instead of the matte silver and black of earlier pistols it appeared to be electroless or flash nickled...I suspect (but I don't know) it might be MiM...still that Blackwater was nice...just a bit high for me...

27th September 2009, 08:45
Why not just buy a Colt?