what are the pros of all-metal-framed handguns?

[stinkeypete]

A Sig P320 frame costs about $35 (not the registered part for this firearm)
A 1911 frame costs a hair under $200 (even for an 80% receiver-also not registered)

Interesting to sort of compare the costs of production (to some degree).

I really like things involving the old, nearly lost now, magical alchemy of the ways people have treated steel in days gone by- Case coloring, Carbonia bluing, Cyanide, Nitre blued screws... some of the old pistols have a magic blue that looks infinitely deep and how it was done is a secret... really cool stuff.

We were talking with a friend who just bought himself a "rubber" wedding ring to replace his gold. He works with his hands. "It's light weight and I don't have to worry about scratching it up!" he says. His wife seems quietly please.

"Mine's titanium" says me. "It would take a lot to scratch it up, and it's light weight too!"

"I work around high voltage" he counters.

"Good point!" I concede. "Maybe the wives would like to trade wedding rings for some modern material? All that gold and diamond stuff is sooo out of date!"

The women erupt in a merry round of laughter. No way.

Maybe we all just have our own artistic sense of what "jewelry" is. And sometimes a pistol is just a garden tool- so long as it works, it's a good tool.

 

[dahermit]

Many (perhaps all) garbage bags are specifically designed to degrade in sunlight.There are other ways to know for sure. Accelerated aging tests provide good information.

Also, nylon has been around a long time now--85 years. Its long term aging properties are not exactly a mystery, and there are simple fixes for some of the known issues that cause degradation. For example, UV degradation can be dealt with very cheaply and simply--and it's why the nylon used in guns tends to be black.

Many (perhaps all) garbage bags are specifically designed to degrade in sunlight.

Having done a google search, I found nothing that states that photo degradation of plasitic bags is due to an additive. It seems that my searches found that photo degradation is due to the nature of the plastic.

There are other ways to know for sure. Accelerated aging tests provide good information.

While I am sure that scientists can simulate aging of plastics, simulation is not true aging. So I will stand by my statement that the only way to see how plastics degrade over time is to examine them in the future.

Also, nylon has been around a long time now--85 years. Its long term aging properties are not exactly a mystery, and there are simple fixes for some of the known issues that cause degradation. For example, UV degradation can be dealt with very cheaply and simply--and it's why the nylon used in guns tends to be black.

The nylon item I referenced was not subjected to sunlight...it was subjected to chemicals and age...just like guns are.

In short, I have no confidence in the long term surviablilty (via possible degradation), of plastic guns. However, it is evident that steel has pretty much proven itself...especially the stainless steels.

 

[JohnKSa]

Having done a google search, I found nothing that states that photo degradation of plasitic bags is due to an additive. It seems that my searches found that photo degradation is due to the nature of the plastic.

https://www.thegreenteam.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Solid-Waste-Management-Guide-2012.pdf

Photodegradable plastics are blended with additives that degrade when exposed to the ultraviolet rays in sunlight. Direct exposure to sunlight for extended periods of time causes these materials to become brittle and the plastics break down into smaller pieces. These fragments of plastic also remain in the environment. Manufacturers are currently producing six-pack yolks from photodegradable plastics and are required to do so by law in over twelve states, including Massachusetts. Other commercial products made with photodegradable plastics include trash bags and agricultural mulches. While these items break down in the sunlight, they will have the longevity of other plastics if buried in landfills, as they will receive no exposure to the sun. ​

While I am sure that scientists can simulate aging of plastics, simulation is not true aging. So I will stand by my statement that the only way to see how plastics degrade over time is to examine them in the future.

If you know what causes breakdown and understand the mechanism, you can accelerate the breakdown to find out how the plastics will hold up. UV degradation is an example. By exposing plastics to higher levels of UV, the degradation due to UV can be increased/sped up. In a relatively short amount of time, large amounts of UV can be applied to the material under test to demonstrate what happens when it absorbs that much UV--whether it absorbs it over 100 years or several weeks.

If it were true that we knew nothing of what causes plastics to degrade, or how they degraded, then it would be reasonable to argue that accelerated aging tests aren't representative. As it is, there's really no basis for such an argument--particularly when some plastics have been around long enough to verify the validity of the tests for those who are still skeptical.

The nylon item I referenced was not subjected to sunlight...it was subjected to chemicals and age...just like guns are.

I didn't say it was subjected to sunlight. I simply gave one example of a possible source of degradation that has been studied and for which simple/cheap solutions have been found.

In short, I have no confidence in the long term surviablilty (via possible degradation), of plastic guns.

That's fine. There are certainly concerns that need to be addressed when dealing with plastics that aren't an issue when dealing with some metals. But it's really not accurate to pretend that nobody understands what happens to polymers over time or to imply that there's no way to stop plastics from degrading into uselessness in alarmingly short timeframes.

Going back to the U.V./nylon example, I know that one gun company has done accelerated aging tests to see what effect 100 years of U.V. exposure would have on their guns. It would be pretty pointless to spend the time verifying that it will last 100 years in sunlight, if a few years of exposure to gun oil and cleaning compounds is going to turn it to mush.

By the way, I'm sure, just as I did, that in the process of searching for some information on photodegrading plastics, you found that a major concern about plastics is that they tend to last a very long time. Even photodegradation isn't sufficient to address concerns about plastic waste lasting a very long time in the environment.

I find it sort of amusing that while most of the world is freaking out about how long plastic WASTE and SINGLE-USE plastic items are going to last when they are put out into the environment unprotected, there are a number of gun owners who are just as freaked out that high-value plastic items that are made to provide many years of service and that they are careful to protect, are going to degrade too quickly.

I have metal guns with steel, stainless steel, and aluminum frames. I also have guns with plastic frames. I tend to prefer the metal framed guns for the range, but the plastic framed guns for carry. They all have some advantages and they all have some disadvantages, but none of them are made up of materials with mysterious properties. It's all been pretty well hashed out by now.

 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

They won't melt in a campfire?

 

[Cosmodragoon]

The tree huggers tell me that a thin plastic grocery bag will take hundreds, if not thousands, of years to bio-degrade.

If this is even remotely true, I don't think a Glock frame will fail for at least 200 years.
Glock put steel where steel is needed and plastic where steel was not needed.

Indeed. How many of the early polymer models have expired due to break-down of the polymer?

I used to be skeptical. Now I'm not. I'm okay with polymer-framed handguns. The weight issue for recoil mitigation is real but relative. There are other factors involved such as caliber, size, grip surface, and other mitigating features such as a DPM or the rotating barrel system in the PX4 Storm.

 

[tallball]

Steel handguns are heavier (which I prefer for shooting) and absorb more recoil.

Polymer handguns are easier to carry.

If my LCP becomes brittle in a few decades, I will just buy another.

 

[Hawg]

Nuff said.

 

[DMK]

They won't melt in a campfire?

All my polymer guns were lost in a tragic campfire incident. All my steel guns were lost in a tragic boating incident.

 

[Cheapshooter]

So the problem as I see it (and have observed), is that new plasic maybe very tough, but aged plastic may or may not become brittle with age...the only way to tell for sure, is to wait those years.

First gen Glocks are holding up quite well after 30 years.
60 year old Remington Nylon 66 rifles are holding up well. In condition, and a premium price.
While I'd like to be around another 30, or 60 years to see how they are doing at double the age I doubt't I will be holding up nearly as well if at all!

 

[JohnKSa]

They won't melt in a campfire?

Sure they will. But a campfire will ruin a metal gun just as surely as it will a plastic gun. Once the metal gets hot enough, the temper is lost, and the gun can be dangerous to fire since it is no longer as strong as it should be.

Nuff said.

There are certainly things that will damage plastic that are very unlikely to damage metal. Just as there are things, like corrosion, which will damage some kinds of metals while not affecting plastics at all.

Advantages and disadvantages. I have plastic handguns. There are things I like them a lot for, there are some applications where I'm not a huge fan. I have metal handguns. There are applications where they are ideal, some others where a plastic gun would be a better choice. I like having the option of choosing--I'd be upset if I were forced to choose only one option and have to forgo the other. No matter which option I took.

 

[Jim Watson]

Perhaps a niche market, but metal guns are heavier and action competitors are liking heavy guns these days. You see 2011s with steel butts at prices hundreds of dollars higher than the original plastic. Walther went from the Q5 Match to the Q5 Match SF with steel frame instead of plastic. Sig didn't want to retool, so they use plastic with tungsten filler for their top of the line gun.

 

[elsancudo]

Use for the steel barrel after I die.

Would it be okay to have them put the steel barrel only of one's favorite pistol where his, um, private part is before burying him so when archaeologists maybe dig up his skeleton they will think his wife must have been real happy with that, um, insert? Or, maybe they'll wonder why that insert was there at all? Asking for a friend.

 

[mr bolo]

the advantage of a polymer pistol like the SIG 320 , the receiver is the trigger mechanism

not the polymer grip / frame, so you can easily replace the polymer since thats not the part with the seriel number on the SIG P320

so if your grip gets chewed up by the dog or damaged some how, you can easily replace that part.

 

[pete2]

Metal guns don't have plastic frames, big advantage right there.

 

[Hawg]

I don't like polymer frames because of the weight and most of them are striker fired and double action.

 

[Cosmodragoon]

It's a shame that there aren't more polymer options in DA/SA. We have a few gems like the PX4 but when it comes to smaller carry guns, even the metal-framed Sigs are drying up.

 

[hemiram]

Striker fired is probably my biggest dislike of most of the pol guns. I don't really like the looks of many poly/striker guns at all. I have a couple of them, a couple of Taurus PT111 G2's and a Canik TP9v2, and they are OK, i can't really say I really love any of them. I have one poly gun I do really like a lot, my Sarsilmaz Cm9 Gen2, which is basically a copy of a CZ P-07, which I also own. My p-07 is a CZ custom gun, with a great trigger and upgraded sights, but I actually like the SAR better, and for $250-300, it's a great bargain. I nearly bought a Sig 2022 a few days ago, but I bought one of my all time desired guns, an S&W 629 instead. A CZ SP-01 Shadow is a likely buy at some point in the future.

 

[Ingramite]

Say whut?

I'm an old square headed stubborn Dutchman.
Steel with wood grips in leather holsters.

Listen, it took decades before I would even try any semi-automatic. That was a huge leap for me. Still, with the semi-automatics that I shoot now I'm at ease with hammers, safeties, and long double action trigger pulls. My 1911's have short crisp single action trigger pulls but they also have grip and thumb safeties.

I have tried a couple of plastic pistols but they were hammer fired and had manual safeties. The only one that I kept was a SIG P290RS and only because it is small enough to carry in my pocket.

Now, here is the Acid Test for anyone who cares to take it.
I'll take my 1922 Colt model 1903 out of my carved leather El Paso holster and lay it down on the table. You take your Glock (whatever) model that you whipped out of your krylon holster and lay it down next to it......Now, again, what was the question?

How about showing me a plastic pistol that looks more classic than a Colt's Commander with stag grips?

Not much else in this life is as intimate and personal as a pistol that you carry close to your body everyday. I do understand that some of us like long sleeve dress shirts because that's simply the way they are "supposed" to be. Some like them only because you can wipe snot on the sleeve.

 

[44 AMP]

When I see a polymer framed Desert Eagle, then, I'll start to consider polymer framed pistols.

 

[Doyle]

When it comes to cleaning, the metal guns are easier to deal with. If it is REALLY gunked up, you can always pull of any plastic grips and spray everything with brake cleaner. That will remove all oil/grease/etc. that is oil soluble.

Also, you can safely boil it. I had to boil one once. It was a .32ACP version of the Hungarian PA63 that I decided to carry out on the boat fishing in the bay. Of course, it got wet with salt water so I pulled off the plastic grips, field stripped it, and put the whole thing in a pot of boiling water for a few minutes to dissolve any hidden salt. Worked great.