Lock and security hardware packages a surprising amount of precision into small metal parts. A lock core, cam, pawl or latch may need tight keyway geometry, wear resistance, corrosion resistance and repeatable fit with mating parts — all in a component small enough to hold in a hand.
For OEM programs, the manufacturing question is usually not "can this be made?" but "which route gives the right balance of geometry freedom, strength, finish and annual-volume economics?" This guide walks through how MIM and powder metallurgy are evaluated against machining and die casting for typical lock hardware.
Start with the function, not the part name
Lock hardware covers a wide range of part forms: cylinders and plugs, cams and tailpieces, deadbolts and latches, pawls and detents, springs, spacers, bushings and mounting brackets. Two parts that look similar may have very different manufacturing requirements depending on whether they carry load, wear against a mating part, seal a mechanism or simply locate another component.
The first step is to separate the functional surfaces from the cosmetic ones. The surfaces that must mate precisely — a keyway, a cam profile, a pivot bore — are usually the surfaces that decide the process route and any secondary machining.
1. Where MIM fits
Metal injection molding is most interesting for small, complex, near-net-shape lock parts. A lock core with an integrated keyway, undercuts, bosses and multiple holes can be very expensive to machine from bar stock in volume. If the same geometry can be molded, the shape detail comes almost for free and machining is reserved for the critical bores and surfaces that actually need it.
Typical MIM candidates include cores, plugs, cams, pawls, latches and compact mounting hardware. The crossover depends on annual volume, because MIM requires dedicated tooling; below a certain quantity, CNC machining may remain the lower-risk option.
2. Where powder metallurgy fits
Powder metallurgy is a strong candidate for repeat-volume, compaction-friendly structural hardware — bushings, spacers, washers and some structural brackets. PM excels where material utilization and near-net-shape economics matter and where the part does not require the full three-dimensional freedom of MIM.
The decision between PM and MIM usually comes down to geometry. If the part can be pressed from a die in one or two directions, PM may win on cost. If it needs undercuts, cross-features or complex 3D form, MIM is more likely the right evaluation target.
3. Where machining or die casting stays relevant
Simple rotational parts — pins, shafts and some spacers — often remain best suited to turning or machining. Zinc-based lock hardware that is already designed for die casting may not benefit from a switch to MIM unless the geometry is becoming too complex for the casting process or the finish and strength requirements point toward a steel material.
The key principle is the same across all lock hardware: choose the route from the drawing, not from a preference for any single process.
4. Material and finishing
Corrosion resistance is often a first-order requirement for lock hardware, especially for outdoor or security applications. Stainless steels cover many corrosion-sensitive functions; low-alloy steels suit strength-focused parts; copper alloys appear where specific bearing or cosmetic properties are required. The material choice affects not only performance but also the finishing route — passivation for stainless, plating for steels, or PVD coating where wear and appearance both matter.
Explore related mechanism components
The Lock & Security application category lists the part forms, materials and DFM notes SINTS most often reviews for smart locks, deadbolts and security hardware.
Have a lock component to evaluate?
Send the drawing, material and annual volume. We review geometry, mating fit, wear and finish before recommending a route.
Send a Drawing for Review →