Beyond_Visual_Range
New member
Had a "friendly" talk with a guy at the range the other day, he kept on insisting that stainless steel slide has better tensile strength than regular slide. True?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Stainless steel slide stronger than Blued?
- Thread starter Beyond_Visual_Range
- Start date
John Forsyth
New member
Not really, it depends on the grade of steel used and it's heat treatment. Slides are heat treated to a certain hardness with a tolerance around 42 on the Rockwell C scale, +/- 2.
So pick up two slides, one carbon, one stainless. Test them. On any given day, one could be harder (higher strength) than the other.
So pick up two slides, one carbon, one stainless. Test them. On any given day, one could be harder (higher strength) than the other.
It depends.
Beretta claims that their stainless slides are 30% stronger than the blued steel versions.
Ruger, on the other hand admits that their stainless alloys are not as strong as their carbon steels. In fact, the .454 and .480 Ruger Super Redhawk guns utilize a new stainless steel alloy developedby Ruger especially to be stronger than their normal stainless. However, I seem to recall reading somewhere that it's still not as strong as the carbon steel alloy they use in their other revolvers.
From a practical standpoint, either way, a well made and well designed gun should wear slowly enough that it's not an issue.
The possible exception to this rule may to be some of the early stainless steel S&W revolvers. I've heard of some instances of accelerated wear in these pistols apparently due to an excessively soft stainless steel alloy.
As a point of interest, I have heard of a single instance where a Ruger employee advised a handloader (after he blew up a stainless Redhawk .44 Mag) that he should get a blued steel replacement to give him an added measure of safety. Personally, I would have recommended that he handload more carefully since, ultimately, it's possible to blow up any gun if you try hard enough.
Beretta claims that their stainless slides are 30% stronger than the blued steel versions.
Ruger, on the other hand admits that their stainless alloys are not as strong as their carbon steels. In fact, the .454 and .480 Ruger Super Redhawk guns utilize a new stainless steel alloy developedby Ruger especially to be stronger than their normal stainless. However, I seem to recall reading somewhere that it's still not as strong as the carbon steel alloy they use in their other revolvers.
From a practical standpoint, either way, a well made and well designed gun should wear slowly enough that it's not an issue.
The possible exception to this rule may to be some of the early stainless steel S&W revolvers. I've heard of some instances of accelerated wear in these pistols apparently due to an excessively soft stainless steel alloy.
As a point of interest, I have heard of a single instance where a Ruger employee advised a handloader (after he blew up a stainless Redhawk .44 Mag) that he should get a blued steel replacement to give him an added measure of safety. Personally, I would have recommended that he handload more carefully since, ultimately, it's possible to blow up any gun if you try hard enough.
JohnKSa right re Ruger.
Tensile strength only one important factor.
Yield strength different critter and considerably less in stainless.
Hardenability much less in stainless as used in firearms.
A gun maker can easily and honestly claim their stainless part is stronger than their blued part. Design the stainless part to take the material used in consideration.
Parts that are like in dimension, radii etc...
Medium carbon steel stronger than stainless by a significant amount.
Sam
Tensile strength only one important factor.
Yield strength different critter and considerably less in stainless.
Hardenability much less in stainless as used in firearms.
A gun maker can easily and honestly claim their stainless part is stronger than their blued part. Design the stainless part to take the material used in consideration.
Parts that are like in dimension, radii etc...
Medium carbon steel stronger than stainless by a significant amount.
Sam
John Forsyth
New member
Fellows, one should know that there are several grades of stainless steels in use today that are quite strong, meaning very high yield and tensile stengths. Saying medium carbon steel is stronger than stainless steel is a misleading statement.
Let's use 4340 in an oil quenched and tempered condition as an example. Done properly, strengths in the range of 180ksi for tensile strength and 170ksi for yield strength are common.
For stainless how about 13-8PH. In it's hardened condition, a tensile strength of 220ksi and a yield strength of 205ksi are easily obtainable.
From the reading I have done on material for handguns, will stick to 1911's, the most common slide and frame carbon alloys are either 4140 or 4340. In stainless, the alloys I see mentioned most often are 410 and 416. In some instances 440 was mentioned. These alloys have very similiar stress-strain curves and depending on the quality of the alloy on the day it was formed, be it cast, forged, cut from bar stock, or whatever, and how it was heat treated, will have an impact on which one is stronger on any given day.
Let's use 4340 in an oil quenched and tempered condition as an example. Done properly, strengths in the range of 180ksi for tensile strength and 170ksi for yield strength are common.
For stainless how about 13-8PH. In it's hardened condition, a tensile strength of 220ksi and a yield strength of 205ksi are easily obtainable.
From the reading I have done on material for handguns, will stick to 1911's, the most common slide and frame carbon alloys are either 4140 or 4340. In stainless, the alloys I see mentioned most often are 410 and 416. In some instances 440 was mentioned. These alloys have very similiar stress-strain curves and depending on the quality of the alloy on the day it was formed, be it cast, forged, cut from bar stock, or whatever, and how it was heat treated, will have an impact on which one is stronger on any given day.
Walt Sherrill
New member
Ledbetter wrote:
A stainless frame, where it is most likely to be in contact with salty hands makes some sense, and a blued slide, which would be easier on the eyes while sighting, and less conspicuous when carrying, also makes sense.
It might also be that a blued slide is more practical than a stainless one when you consider glare and visibility (i.e., the likeliehood of being seen.)As an example, take a look at custom two-tone 1911s. You see them with stainless lowers and blue uppers, but not the other way around. Hardness is more important than tensile strength for the slide maybe.
A stainless frame, where it is most likely to be in contact with salty hands makes some sense, and a blued slide, which would be easier on the eyes while sighting, and less conspicuous when carrying, also makes sense.
John Forsyth
New member
I asked Gary over at Caspian which was stronger and got this reply. To paraphrase it, the frames run in the 23-27RC range, the slides run from 38-42 RC whether they're stainless or blue. The rockwell numbers for hardness were chosen because they yield the maximum durability to the product. Both the frame and the slide are machined after heat treat. Stainless slides are not stronger. They're not bad either, but the strongest slide Caspian ever sold and still does is the 4340 forged that is offered now.
From my Hardness Conversion Table, from Bethlehem Steel, 1972, RC 40 is approximately 184ksi tensile strength, RC 25 is approximately 123ksi tensile strength. 4 points on the C scale is approximately 20ksi.
From my Hardness Conversion Table, from Bethlehem Steel, 1972, RC 40 is approximately 184ksi tensile strength, RC 25 is approximately 123ksi tensile strength. 4 points on the C scale is approximately 20ksi.
CastleBravo
New member
As usual, everyone is confusing hardness with strength. They are different physical properties. Stainless steel is generally harder than carbon steel, but carbon steel is almost always stronger to some degree. You can pretty much make non-stainless steels as hard as you want up to a point, but eventually they become too brittle and crack prone. Of course, I'm generalizing, and depending on the specific alloy, heat treat, etc., the properties of either one can overlap.