Steel, aluminum or polymer?

Cslinger,
Just as a note on my view: My dad was an engineer for Boeing Aircraft. He would not set foot in a new model of plane until they had a million miles on the model. That was what it took to convince him that the design was trustworthy. I know that aircraft are built with large margins and maintained based on the number of cycles for each part. My dad was very conservative in everything he designed and made. I guess I inherited that mentality because I am constantly reminded that I "over-engineer" everything.
In my defense, none of it ever failed. :)
 
In addition to weight the plastic guns are a lot cheaper to manufacture. As to long term durability steel is probably the longest lasting, but plastics are right there with them and MAY last longer. Not enough data say for sure. I know there are lots of documented steel framed guns with in excess of 100,000 rounds though them. There are Glocks that have documented 200,000 or more rounds. At least one is over 300,000 rounds. I'm not saying steel won't do it, but I've not seen anyone test the theory and document it. My guess is that steel should at least match it.

Aluminum alloy guns will have the shortest life. Most data I've seen says to expect 35,000-50,000 rounds before they are worn out. But you can pay for several guns for the cost of 50,000 rounds of ammo. Most people will never shoot near that much so for most people the difference is not an issue.
 
I'm partial to plastic. I don't like worrying about the frame corroding and I don't really see a reason for the added weight. I hear that steel absorbs recoil better but I've never shot a gun where recoil has been a problem so that's lost on me. I don't hate steel though and plan on maybe adding one in the future. I'd rather not get into the aluminum game though.
 
I'm also partial to plastic. Cost, weight and ease of maintenance, along with selection are my reasons. I don't care if my guns last for centuries. Tools wear over time and if my socket sets or pistols aren't pristine for my great grandkids great grandkids, I'm good. As tools they are bought for a purpose and polymer framed pistols​ meet that need. I expect they will serve me as long as I need them and probably someone long after.

I have steel guns that I like as well, and if the right deal comes up on an aluminum framed DA/SA I might be persuaded to add one. I will never shoot it enough to wear it out.
 
If I remember correctly, there has been some problems with Aluminum Alloy frames for 1911's in 9MM (maybe in .45 too?),where the feed ramps become battered by the bullet noses.

Aside from that, over my lifetime I have observed several different plastics becoming brittle when exposed to sunlight and chemicals ( a nylon distributor gear shattered on a car I owned), despite that plastics being pliable and strong when new. Therefore, I have no faith that a plastic gun made today will last 100 years as has the steel 1911's from WWI have. The only way to know if the current plastic guns will not deteriorate is to wait and see...so being a traditionalist, I stick with non-plastic, all steel guns. However, I were magically transformed into a young police officer, you bet your butt that I would be happy carrying a department issued Glock.
 
I prefer polymer and steel.

Specifically, for most applications I prefer polymer guns; most often Glocks.

For 1911s (my other favorite style), even for carry, I prefer steel frame.

Aluminum and Scandium lead to too much increased recoil vs saved weight. When I get a 9mm 1911, this preference may change.
 
I have had all three over the years and all have been just fine - durable and function perfectly. If designed properly - any of them will work. if not . . then it will be like ay poorly designed product.
 
In reference to the polymer and alluminum handguns, with exception to a few firearms eg. my HP-22a, aren't they steel where it counts? The only examples I have/had are M&P's, a Glock and a Kahr CM9, all have steel slides, barrels and rails, I don't see where polymer would be detrimental at all, wouldn't aluminum framed handguns have steel rails as well? If so, how would they be any more stressed than a steel framed handgun? As for alluminum/alloy, I have a Mossberg 500 that has a alloy receiver but the lockup is between a steel bolt and barrel, again, I dont see where durability issues could come into play.
 
If I remember correctly, there has been some problems with Aluminum Alloy frames for 1911's in 9MM (maybe in .45 too?),where the feed ramps become battered by the bullet noses.
Click to expand...

That's a problem created by using the 1911 design in a way it wasn't meant to be used.

Most alloy subframes now have a steel insert for the ramp.
 
Thanks People for your info.

I would like to hear more about aluminum Frames of the Beretta 92 and Taurus PT 92 in 9mm.
It's durability, Problems, etc.

The Thing is I bougth one of the above guns relying on the US Military has Chosen the proven design. Only to hear now aluminum is weak.

Any experience of Military personell with the Beretta 92/Taurus PT 92 is much appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind that at least some aluminum frame guns such as SIGs use a beefy steel locking insert that take the blunt of the force. Not sure about Beretta but I think something similar.
 
Last edited:
Strictly a steel and walnut man, even though I am on the large size I prefer the recoil absorbing quality of steel. I note that Bullseye shooters have always used steel frames.
 
The aluminum alloy featherweight revolvers from both Smith and Wesson and Ruger have experienced cracked frames at the bottom of the barrel frame interface with very few rounds of appropriate factory ammunition. This is the point that absorbs the most work in a revolver and having threads tends to weaken the union even more. I haven't paid much attention to the auto feeding pistols, mostly because I dismiss them, but there is wear reported in the aluminum and plastic lowers for the AR platforms at the disassembly pins. This is where recoil is transfered to the grip, even though most of the recoil travels back into the butt stock. I have plans to use a steel bushing to repair those holes when they wear. I would have rather had a steel lower but I couldn't find any.
 
shootistprs said:
I have plans to use a steel bushing to repair those holes when they wear.
Click to expand...

Seems like a lot of work to save a $40 part. Kind of like worrying about making your own recoil springs. How many hundreds of thousands of rounds do you expect to shoot? Why not just pick up a couple of spares if you really believe that you will wear them out?
 
I have made springs - a lot of them - for use in automatic transmissions. I have the knowledge and tools to repair the frame for less than $40 so I will likely repair it and never have problems where it was worn. It is nearly always better to repair the problem than it is to replace the part which will suffer the same fate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top