Col. Colt, you're a regular laugh riot.
Let me remind you of some of YOUR OWN WORDS:
Chip McCormick is the villain (or hero - depends on your point of view) of the piece, as he found a cheap way to make parts that LOOKED just like the hard steel custom parts used by the custom gunsmiths and has sold almost the whole industry on MIM and the resulting much higher profits. Kimber, who had failed as a riflemaker, looked at the economies of scale and potential profits to be had from this "new technology" (sintered metal isn't very new - but people wouldn't buy "sintered metal" parts. They can be schnookered into believing in a "new manufacturing method", so let's call it MIM instead.)
No final machining and pennies on the dollar, cost wise. Most MIM parts do work for the limited amount of use many customers give them - but their lifespan is completely unpredictable. Will it break this year or next? The next time you go to the range or when your son needs it to work 20 years from now? Even machined conventional castings are a better, known quantity, and can be completely appropriate when properly applied. When MIM parts fail, Kimber can certainly afford to give you new parts - they average $3.00 apiece or less.
I have yet to hear the argument - from anyone - that MIM is superior to machined steel or even conventional castings. The most generous figure is 98% as strong - if properly done. Even 1% adulteration of a steel completely changes it's properties.
The end result - tremendous profits for Kimber (and McCormick), major competitive problems for companies that still high quality machine their critical parts - like Colt.
That was THEN...now that the omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent god Colt has started using MIM, all of a sudden you sing a DIFFERENT tune...
Regardless of how much MIM Colt uses, there is a more important point. Colt seems to have far fewer parts failures with their parts, regardless of manufacturing methods, than the clone guns do. This may be due to different specs, or different suppliers - but is is an observable fact. Kimbers are well known for slide stop, safety, firing pin stop and extractor failures. Colts - very few parts failures, period. If they both use the same manufacturing method for the same part - why the difference?
As I have said before, it would indeed be ironic if Colt ended up being the company that proved MIM could be a reliable, viable technique when MIM has been the whole key to Kimber's success. For now, I would say you should not be unduely concerned with any new production Colt. Over the last two years we have had nothing but happy customers, and lately we are selling a lot of Colts - particularly Defenders and new 1991A1s.
Here's a hint, Col. Colt...the reason you haven't seen as many reports of failures in Colts is THERE AREN'T THAT MANY NEW COLTS OUT THERE YET!
MIM does NOT have a significant rate of failure compared to regular parts, no matter who makes the MIM parts. Every once in a very great while, someone will make a mistake and a bad part will slip through. The same thing will happen to Colt IF they ever get up again to the level of production that Kimber and Springfield are at now.
You're just a tremendously funny guy. Everyone knows I love Kimbers, but I will freely say that Springfield Armory Loaded 1911s are very good guns for the price, and I even praised the new Colts when one worked well for me.
But God (or Colt, whichever you consider more important) forbid that a good word should pass from your keyboard about any of the "patent infringements (like the Colt pocket 9 you mean?) or counterfiets."
A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn't so sure