What is the Best Alloy for Various Revolver Parts?

L

Lee Enfield

New member
I know that what's "best" is subjective and depends on a number of criteria such as overall weight, balance, application, etc. However, specifically to a 4" .357 magnum revolver carried or handled by the average or bigger guy who shoots regularly at the range and regardless of cost, what would be the best alloy for each part of such a revolver? I know that there are far more variables to consider, but I thought that this would be a fun thought exercise, and I am curious about seemingly random things like this.

If 4130 or 4140 carbon steel is a common one for firearms, along with 4340, then are they common simply due to really good performance while the cost is low due to economies of scale - but they may not be the best alloys due to the cost prohibitiveness of better alloys? If so, then what would be these steels or non-steel alloys? Why not say, a knife "super" steel heat treated to a much lower Rockwell hardness than typical for knives, such as Bohler M390 or a tougher blade steel like S7? Overkill or not, would it be objectively better across the board with respect to corrosion resistance, durability, etc.?

If the industry's current titanium-cobalt with steel liner offerings make for a great or excellent gun barrel material, then what about say, titanium 6.6.2 with a given tougher steel liner? Why not say, a Seawolf class nuclear submarine steel such as HY-180 steel? The aforementioned alloys are very specific examples that may not actually be ideal (or may in fact be worse!) for the application of a revolver's use, but they're used to illustrate my larger question of "Is there a superior alloy or material to construct a revolver out of?"

I understand that there are many caveats to this very broad question, but I do hope that what I'm getting at comes across to open ears. Thanks in advance for any thoughts on the inquiry - I look forward to getting my curiosity scratched a bit. :)
 
Last edited:
I think it's a good question. I don't doubt that there may be some superior alloys that are seldom used when there are more usual alloys that are adequate while being more economical at the same time. For instance, lead has long been a standard component metal in bullets and the few metals that could be substituted cost more. The best replacement would likely be gold or an alloy thereof if cost were of no consideration. Yet gold makes bismuth look cheap.

But getting back to gun alloys.... One of the most pertinent questions where you can actually choose an option is whether to use Stainless Steel, which will cost more, or not. Why would you spend more? In this case, there are obvious advantages to paying extra.
Aluminum will not be as wear resistant as steel, but it weighs a lot less. You can't make the whole gun out of it, but it is adequate for many parts. Taken a step further, A great many guns today have replaced much of the metals with plastics. I like mine made of steel.
 
Different alloys do things differently. Sure the differences are small seeming to the regular user, but that's because the user only seen one part of the whole picture.

Not only does the alloy need to be strong enough to do the job, durably, it also has to be "flexible" meaning resilient in the right amount. Too much is bad for some things, too little is bad for others.

And added to that, it has to fit both the raw material cost and the cost of manufacture within the desired economic model.

For example, the "toughest alloy on Earth" to make the "strongest guns!" but even if the base cost of the metal is acceptable it has to be able to me cut & machined at a bearable cost. If making the gun wears out tools at 6 times the rate of normal steel that cost has to get passed on, and the public only sees the gun costing more for no "real" advantage, and so they don't sell well, and it becomes a vicious circle.

Are there better alloys than the 4point carbon steel series in common use, probably, but there isn't a more practical one, as far as I know, ...yet.
 
https://www.thebalance.com/steel-grades-2340174

"According to the World Steel Association, there are over 3,500 different grades of steel, encompassing unique physical, chemical, and environmental properties."​

Anyway, with a few exceptions, most gun parts are quite soft, as steel goes. Any run of the mill knife blade is a lot harder than even the hardest gun barrel. I poked around once and found that some rimfire barrels have steel that's actually softer than some of the harder bronze alloys.

I think Korth used very hard steel in some of their revolvers. At least I'm assuming that's why they had to grind the parts to shape instead of being able to use conventional milling/machining techniques.

I think it's safe to say that almost any firearm on the market could be made out of tougher/harder steel if cost/manufacturing time weren't considerations.
 
Hardness

As previously mentioned. Working the metal is key to manufacturing an item that tics all the boxes.

The material is but one cost in the equation, and it is unlikely that it is the greatest cost. Sure, it is significant.

The cost of labor may be the highest cost. That increases if it takes longer to make the item.
I once heard on a tour of the sub base up in Hood Canal that the steel from those retired nuke subs was sold to a farm equipment manufacturer. That hard steel made excellent plowshares.

And we literally beat our swords in to plowshares. Kinda cool if true, good story just the same.
 
I had an article by Phil Lichtman giving his preferences for steel. I don't recall the alloys but 4000 Series chrome moly was not included. He was very specific on heat treatment, too. His preference for Compact guns with small cross-section parts made material strength important.

Jeff Cooper once called for a "tool steel snubby" that would last with frequent practice with heavy loads.

Chic Gaylord was of the opinion that Colt used better materials than Smith. Which might be taking it a bit far from a holster shop.

I have a pistol barrel of 17-4 PH but the maker has gone to the usual 416.

I have read cautions against taking a Featherweight 416 barrel polar bear hunting. Type 410 is said to have better low temperature properties... if you can find it.

So, yes, better materials are possible, but designs are figured for the common stuff and they do ok if not pushed beyond design limits.
 
I doubt, pound for pound and, dollar for dollar, guns can be manufactured “better” than they are.

All the parts are made of the best material and heat treated to what the manufacturers believe is best. On a revolver, the hammer, trigger, hand etc are all harder than the parts they are surrounded by.

I suppose you could build a gun out of D2 tool steel with tungsten internals. But, why? I don’t think the end user would notice the difference. Except when it costs 6 times more than one made of “normal” steels and alloys.

I suppose it would be interesting to see what could be made though.
 
Anyway, with a few exceptions, most gun parts are quite soft, as steel goes. Any run of the mill knife blade is a lot harder than even the hardest gun barrel. I poked around once and found that some rimfire barrels have steel that's actually softer than some of the harder bronze alloys.
Click to expand...

Howdy

Just curious. Can anybody provide Rockwell hardness numbers for some of these parts?

Curious what a typical steel barrel might be, curious about those 'soft' rimfire barrels, curious about what is the typical hardness for lockwork parts inside a revolver.

Also, what is the hardness of a typical knife blade, for comparison?

Thanks
 
The steels like 4130 and 416 (stainless) used in firearms are low carbon, (about .3% and .15% respectively). Typical knife steels are in the .7% to 1.5% range.
The higher the carbon content, the higher attainable hardness (and wear resistance).

But brittleness increases with hardness. Some gun parts require low brittleness and can't be made very hard because they would fracture under the stress of firing.

I think some of the smaller components in guns could be made out of harder alloys (and some are), but it seems most parts are made from the lowest cost material that can be fabricated to meet the wear/durability and weight requirements at a low cost.

Typical knife blades are hardened to between low 50s and mid 60s (Rockwell C)

4130 and 416 steels are much softer and their hardness is typically expressed in a different hardness scale. Might be something like the low teens if converted to Rockwell C hardness.

A basic metal file isn't very effective at removing the steel from a knife blade. But the same file is quite effective at removing steel on something made from 4130 or 416.
 
Thanks for the reply.

I do understand the compromise between ductility and hardness, it is nice to see some numbers assigned.

P.S. That's why the iron and later steel frames of the Colt Single Action Army were Case Hardened. Case Hardening hardened the surface to cut down on wear, but did not affect the ductility of the metal.
 
Caspian says their slides are 37-41 Rockwell C. Receivers not specified but are usually not as hard.

Lilja says RC 24 for barrels, some brands go up to 32.
 
I should have been a bit more specific about the hardness numbers. The knife blade hardness range of low 50s to mid 60s (Rockwell C) were after heat treatment. The low teens Rockwell C hardness of 4130 and 416 was before heat treatment. 4130 can be hardened into the upper 40s, and 416 into the upper 30s. The final hardness is a trade-off of desired properties.

Correctly heat treated knife blades have impressive properties. Being able to take a very keen edge, retain that edge after considerable wood cutting, and survive being bent 90 degrees without breaking is no easy task.

I believe many guns could be made from better materials... At a cost. But many guns today out live their owners with the materials currently used.
 
There is no "best" anything.
A run of the mill knife blade needs to be tough so it won't break, but still hold an edge with repeated use. The typical chef's knife blade is hardened to 57 to 63 Rockwell. The harder it is, the less well it'll hold an edge and it'll be more prone to chipping, etc.
Firearm parts do not need to do any of that. Parts need to be tough enough to not have excessive wear when moving against each other. Most of 'em are not hardened. Think MIM. There's nothing wrong with MIM parts though.
The steels used in firearm parts must have a balance of toughness to resist wear, be relatively inexpensive and easy to machine.
 
I wonder why we don't see more titanium used in handguns. I have a couple of the 'total titanium' series from Taurus, and I wish they would bring them back.
 
Cabot makes guns out of a ton of exotic and random materials. Most are for decorative purposes. The materials used probably aren't the greatest for durability and reliability, and for hard use (i.e. military and law enforcement purposes). That said, they'd still need to be able to shoot for some duration and if the material was so bad that you can actual shoot the gun without serious problems, then they probably wouldn't make it with that.

Anyway, maybe I need to get more granular with my question. Below is a chart showing the various specs for AISI 4340 steel (assuming that this is the exact type of steel used in guns). Does anyone know what the ideal values are for each property?

https://i.imgur.com/AckcmMW.png
 
The best material is going to depend on the function of each part, how much it can weigh, and the desired appearance.
 
I am confused. You mention military and law enforcement use as they are both the same and are high volume shooters.... I though most law enforcement people rarely fire their guns.

Am I wrong?
 
OneFreeTexan said:
I am confused. You mention military and law enforcement use as they are both the same and are high volume shooters.... I though most law enforcement people rarely fire their guns.

Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
It gets expensive to do it and I'm not sure how often some LEOs have to go to qualify with their sidearms, but I figure the range and any live firearms training for certain LE types. But my bigger point is that I figure some of these alloys we're talking about may work for irregular use purposes, unlike with applications that see a lot more use and abuse in the field.
 
and for hard use (i.e. military and law enforcement purposes).
Click to expand...

People say this all the time, kind of a stock phrase, but really, back when the military and police primarily used revolvers, the "hard use" involved wasn't shooting them, It was them being constantly carried and often in harsh environments. Getting knocked about, and exposure to the elements was the "hard" use. Being fired a lot was rare, even for police.

Many, if not most police only had once years qualification shooting. Some twice a year. Military (outside of actual combat use) a yearly qual, and often that got skipped...
 
titanium is just as strong as steel and only weighs 60% of it by volume. however, it is more expensive and harder to machine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top