SS versus Carbon or Alloy Steel with a coating

W

Will Beararms

New member
Folks I have extensive experinence in the sale and use of metals. Carbon Steel or Alloy Steel like 4140, costs pennies per pound whereas Stainless Steel costs dollars per pound.

If a given manufacturer is willing to spend the money to buy a high grade of Stainless Steel material, then the Pistol will have significant advantages over a Carbon Steel or Alloy Steel offering. However, if a pistol is made from inferior material, you are better off to get a Blue Steel or Coated Steel weapon if rust is a concern.

Bottom line: you can't take shortcuts with SS. I have witnessed first hand the poor rust-resisting characteristics of bad SS. Ruger's "Terrhune Anti-Corro" is a joke. I have a P90 that rusted from day one. I would constantly clean and use a copper brush and solvent to get it off bit it would always come back. I looked at a new P97 this week and I saw rust forming on the slide in the display case!

The subject of rusting stainless steel keeps coming up and I can tell you that if a given handgun made of SS is not priced higher than like carbon steel choices, don't go there. You do get what you pay for.

------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
 
Will Amigo!

You are as right as can be. The flip side to the "Stainless" issue is those steels that are way too soft for durability although they resist rust very well! (had a ppk like that. Sold the gun bought another in Carbon and Nickled it, though I shoulda' chromed it...)

The only stainless that I liked was done by Colt..( my gunsmith tells me they have their own foundries..) I would still buy a Ruger if it was cheap... I'd just treat it like Carbon...

Peace
IZZY :cool:
 
I agree Will.

I wish that the companies would take what they save in a good hard carbon steel and offer a good hard chrome option like Metalife or a durable bake on coating instead of offering stainless steel at a bigger cost. Like you said, I would rather pay more for a good plated carbon, than pay more for a stainless. I guess they just usually go with the market and look at the bottom line.

robert

PS: BTW, While on the subject; have you had much experience with the durability of Al alloy, (ie. Caspian lightweight, etc.), and its durability after plating. I've heard some say, carry lots but shoot little. A couple say, they've shot them lots n lots for many years and no cracks or wear out. I want to try a TiCN or Metalife hardchrome. The first gets the temp pretty high (I'll need to look it up and get back about degrees).
------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)
---------------------------
"Reasonable gun law?............There's No such critter!" --EQ

[This message has been edited by EQUALIZER (edited April 13, 2000).]
 
Will;

I've only been a member of this forum for a short time, but I've noticed that you have made it your mission in life to denigrate Stainless weapons, especially Rugers, or anything investment cast.

My suggestion is: get some real metallurgical knowledge before you pontificate.

ANY steel, and I mean ANY, will rust, stain, or otherwise corrode if maltreated (and maltreatment can be as slight as--like you have noted---storing the gun in a leather holster, which is as sure a recipe fo corrrosion as anything I could suggest for a gun. This fact has been documented and WELL publicised for 20-plus years, and I've got the 'Gun Digests" to prove it.

Cast or forged or milled--doesn't matter. No, stainless castings are NOT porous, nor does their cast nature lead to accelerated corrosion. (Not that having a graduate PhD metallurgist confirm these facts, on this forum, made any difference in your opinion).

My next suggestion is: get some other issue to rail about, and try rubbing a film of gun oil--any brand will work--on your "stainless" guns every now and then. They're "Stainless", not "invulnerable".
 
Weegee:

PHD or no PHD, I and others on this bulletin board have noticed that Ruger SS slides have a propensity to rust-----much more so than a Walther, S&W or Beretta Autoloader. I do not have a formula for this tendency only personal experience. My Walther has not always been totally reliable but it has been abused and rust hasn't even thought about starting. With the P 90, you could look at it and corrosion would begin.

Yes, grade does have something to do with the rust-resistant capability of SS. Consider the 410 grade SS used in Oilfield applications: it is highly resistant to to heat treating but it will corrode quickly and severely. I sold hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of it during the later part of the last oil boom to heat treaters and I have lived it and breathed it.

As to the density of poured metal castings versus slides and frames machined from a solid mass of material, each to his own. I am certain that there is nothing wrong with the integrity and strength of a Ruger Auto. The jury is in and they are one tough pistol. Furhtermore, Dollar for Dollar, they are the best value on the market. However, I have noticed that corrosion attacked my P90 more than the Sig, Taurus or Makarov which all were not ss. Piece of mind also comes into play. I feel better about something pointed in front of my face that is constructed from a solid mass of steel versus a pistol formed by a method which came about in the first place as a cost reducing measure. If I mentioned anything about the porosity of investment casting in this post, please point it out to me. You are correct in stating that our resident PHD Metallurgist stated that there is no porous nature to the investment casting process. You have failed to point out that he did elude to the fact that improper surface treatment of investment castings during the finishing processes can lead to corrsion later. BTW, this can be found in the Smithy archives.

Cleaning is not even up for debate. With the exceprtion of the PPKS, I clean each weapon after firing, desicants are used in the safe and I periodically wipe down each weapon for good measure. I have always avoided storing a handgun in any holster while secured much less one constructed of leather.

As to my railing on Ruger SS slides, it is in order. Not everyone,like myself has an endless amount of disposable income. When you shell out your hard-earned money on a firearm that is supposed to be made of a material that resists corrosion if cared for properly and it doesn't, it is only proper to warn others before they fall into the same trap. Nevertheless,I respect your opinions and will take your thoughts constructively.

------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."

[This message has been edited by Will Beararms (edited April 14, 2000).]
 
Since my posts have been referred to (and this thread was emailed to me), I feel I should reply. Will Beararms reply just above this one (unless someone else posts before I finish this) is a fair summary of my previous post on the issue. Alloy content is the most important factor in determining rust resistance, although finish also plays a role. It is difficult to design stainless steel alloys that are both rust resistant and hard, and within those that are both there is considerable variation. There is normally a tradeoff between high strength, rust resistance, and cost, and a manufacturer will try to use the least expensive material that will do the job. Otherwise every pistol would be hard chromed and the moving parts coated with a dry film lubricant like gearkote. The difference in stainless steels from different manufacturers is mainly a difference in what they think does the job.

Also, I have a lot of respect for investment casting; quite good parts can be produced for low cost, if everything is done correctly. As an engineer, I admire efficiency, and it has always seemed wasteful to hog out slides from bar stock, etc. But just because I like the process doesn't mean that every investment cast part is perfect. From the posts on this newsgroup, I would guess that Ruger probably doesn't use a high enough grade of stainless to prevent rust in aggresive environments, but Kahr's also seem to have this problem, and all of their parts are CNC machined.
Not to say anything bad about Ruger (or Kahr), but it sounds like they could make some customers happier by looking at the grade of stainless they use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top