Polymer vs Steel frame...which do you prefer?

Polymer or Steel?

  • Polymer

    Votes: 36 26.3%

  • Steel

    Votes: 101 73.7%
  • Total voters
    137
  • Poll closed .
Can't say I prefer either. In general, I seem to shoot more accurately with the heavier steel pistols. But, not always; several of my "plastic" guns are very, very accurate, as good as steel ones.
 
Steel or Plastic?? or Alloys??

Some for the style...lot of good to be said for Lugers and 3rd Gen S&W's :)

Some are great tools...Glock 20sf makes a nice hunting sidearm w/ a 9" Lone Wolf barrel!

Some for fun...I can think of no better way to absolutely waste ammo than a good .22 ;)

Some for CC...starting to find that a good rotation of pistols is a nice thing...

The only downside of plastic that I see is longevity...eventually they will degrade to uselessness.
Just the nature of the beast...the only question is exactly how long these new plastics will last??
 
Last edited:
I like the classic steel 1911 and BHP designs for range use. In the real world I'll take plastic every time. Almost any of the plastic guns provide the weight reduction of aluminum, but with far better durability, longevity, and better prices.

I've never cared for any of the aluminum framed guns all that much although I have some. They are simply tools that don't look or feel any better than plastic. Neither fish nor fowl.
 
Well based on what I actually OWN it would go like this:

1. Poly frame
2. Aluminum alloy frame
3. Steel frame

6 out of the last 7 pistols I have bought have been poly frame.

I love them all.
 
I voted steel, and the single polymer frame "pistol" I own is an old TEC-9 (bought to help a friend who needed some cash, ages ago). The frame is cracked in two places, almost meeting, and would snap if I twisted it just a little bit. NOT a serviceable gun.

I don't have any of the "combat Tupperware" (I do like that name, though), not because of the poly frames, but because all the designs either lack the features I like, or have features I strongly DISLIKE.

I have shot several, GLocks included, and don't care for them at all. I wouldn't have a Glock, even if it had a steel frame.

Its a personal thing. The guns I have, have served me well over my lifetime, and I see no point to shooting something I don't like just because someone else loves it.
 
It depends on the situation but if I was forced to pick one it would be the steel/alloy. There's no comparison for me as far as the tactile connection to an all metal gun but of course there is more to it than that.
 
Functionally polymer is superior IMO so it's what I usually carry.

But metal frames are nicer to shoot so that's what I spend the most time with at the range (and keep in my nightstand box).
 
Steel. The reason is because all of my handguns are solid steel: the WW2 Mauser Hsc, Sauer 38H, Sig 232, three Makarovs, two Polish P-83s and a Czech CZ-82.
I've only carried a few times-as an initial exposure-in an IWB Bianchi around the neighborhood at night.

Will post results about impressions when my first actual 'carry holster' finally arrives: the Remora OWB for the Sig 232, possibly using the Russian Mak in .380 (single stack).
 
Last edited:
There is another point for steel that I forgot to mention, and indeed, is seldom mentioned or talked about.

We hear all the time about how steel is heavy, plastic is lighter, easier to carry, and I won't argue that at all. But there is another side to the coin, beyond one's "ease" of carry.

And that is, when absolutely everything goes wrong, your pistol is an impact weapon.

I have no proof, but I am convinced that if it came down to it, the heavier steel gun would serve better than the lighter polymer frame one as an impact weapon.

If you feel steel is too heavy, grow stronger, or chose something else, its still (mostly) a free country.
 
There aren't as many STEEL-FRAMED guns out there, nowadays, as once was the case. A surprising number of the non-polymer framed guns have aluminum frames, which are noticeably lighter. Many of the metal-framed SIGs and Berettas are aluminum, not steel.

I'm happy with polymer, steel, or aluminum -- but it depends entirely on the gun and how it is to be used. I typically don't carry a steel-framed gun, as the extra weight gets noticed as the day wears on. That said, I pay more attention to the "action type" than frame construction: striker-fired, hammer fired, and whether the action has a safety or decocker, is DAO, SAO, DA/SA or a hybrid, like the Modified Double Action (used in some striker-fired guns, and some of the metal-framed Third Gen S&Ws) which requires slide movement to partially power the action.
 
I voted steel, really like the weight, balance, recoil absorption they give.


But for CC, poly wins for the lower weight and thinner section.
 
If you feel steel is too heavy, grow stronger, or chose something else, its still (mostly) a free country.
Click to expand...

This is sort of a bizarre comment. In the first part you imply people that don't like steel framed weapons are obviously weak, in the second part you remind them that this is still a "free" country and to choose what they want. I missed the part of this poll or thread for that matter where someone who was a fan of polymer framed handguns said that people shouldn't be "allowed" to own steel framed handguns or were angry about their presence on the market.
 
Polymer for anything defensive and competitive. They work very well for me in all the categories that matter across the board. This does not mean I have anything against steel-framed pistols, I own several, they just serve different purposes.
 
I had to vote polymer. Oh, I prefer steel alright and my steel CZ 75 is phenomenal, but at the end of the day I carry plastic around with me on my CCW. It's just so much lighter...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top