Why new metal frame versions of polymer pistols ?

T

tonyboo109

New member
Is it just me or does this seem like a step backwards ? I remember when Glock was introduced in 87 and all the talk about it then, and then in the 90s polymer pistols showing up here and there and then into the 2000s up until now how lighter to carry and more durable has been the answer. Now with SIGs 320 and the M&P metal I don't understand the reasoning for them . I've carried steel frame, aluminum frame, and polymer pistols since I was 18 years old and prefer the light weight and durability of polymer pistols .

Sent from my SM-A536V using Tapatalk
 
While there may be more specific reasons for making the same gun in steel, here is my take:
"Heavier is better." For some reason, Americans think bigger, heavier, etc. is higher quality.

A perfect example is Ruger's genius marketing of the LCP pistol- they made an almost exact copy of the Keltec P3AT pistol, but they made it just a little bigger; heavier; and smoother. To this day it outsells the Keltec, even though it is mechanically the same.
 
Metal is more rigid and all other things being equal, will be easier to shoot consistently. Polymer just feels cheap
 
Most forms of target shooting favor heavy pistols.
So the makers are playing the stock car game, win on Sunday, sell on Monday.

But I fear a lot of people are learning that a heavy smooth shooting gun is not pleasant to carry for defense or duty.
 
Novel thought, not every person wants the lightest slimmest gun made for carry. Not every gun produced is meant for CCW.

I own far more pistols that are purpose built competition guns than pistols meant for carry. Even my carry gun is an alloy framed CZ PCR.

Owned a Sig p365, hated that thing and sold it real fast.

I have next to ZERO interest in polymer framed striker fired pistols, and am not alone.
 
Metal typically means less bulk if the parts are under any sort of stress.

If you are out of ammo the metal pistol makes more of an impression as an impact weapon.

I don't think I've ever seen an engraved plastic part. So if you want certain types of decoration you may want to go away from polymer.
 
tonyboo109 said:
Is it just me or does this seem like a step backwards ? I remember when Glock was introduced in 87 and all the talk about it then, and then in the 90s polymer pistols showing up here and there and then into the 2000s up until now how lighter to carry and more durable has been the answer. Now with SIGs 320 and the M&P metal I don't understand the reasoning for them . I've carried steel frame, aluminum frame, and polymer pistols since I was 18 years old and prefer the light weight and durability of polymer pistols .

Sent from my SM-A536V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I don’t get the consternation and handwringing I’ve seen from some people over this. You understand that the polymer-frame versions are not being discontinued, right?

Boring plastic will continue to dominate in sales. Don’t worry.
 
I have had a few HK polymer/steel pistols, did not like them. I must have 10 or more pistols, all hammer fired, all steel, no alloy, and never any plastic.
I don't carry, except in my range bag-for target, 40oz is just right.
 
I typically carry a polymer framed gun.

For home defense, in competition or for fun at the range, the weight savings is pointless. Might as well have the extra weight in those situations.
 
I just got rid of my last "plastic" pistol a few days ago. I guess I just never really cared that much for them. Lord know I tried enough of them.

I certainly don't care if someone else wants one of course. It's OK with me.
 
I have plastic CCW pistols because they're light, reliable, and corrosion resistant. They're ugly but functional tools. I'm a sucker for 3rd gen S&W's because I think some of them are great looking guns, as are 1911's and some Hi-Powers. Plus, if I'm buying a race gun, I want some weight behind it, like a CZ Shadow, or a Beretta 92X Performance.
Plastic has its place, but there's still alot of shooters that want alloy or steel framed handguns.
 
I typically carry a polymer framed gun.

For home defense, in competition or for fun at the range, the weight savings is pointless. Might as well have the extra weight in those situations.
Click to expand...

To expand on the unsaid part of what JohnKSa said, both have their advantages.

Polymer (and alloy) are best in a carry gun where the weight savings is most meaningful. A polymer pistol lets you carry a larger gun with less weight (or the smallest and lightest possible options), which is more comfortable when carrying and can lead to you being less likely to leave it at home.

The extra weight of a metal gun (especially steel) is an advantage in the applications he mentioned. You don't need the lighter weight for carry or in a range gun. The extra weight means it is more comfortable to shoot, which equals more rounds at the range which means you will get better faster. Being more familiar and accurate with a gun (due to more practice time) means you are better prepared if you ever need to use it. In the moment, the extra weight means less felt recoil, and less muzzle flip. This means you will be quicker getting back on target, and thus, you will have faster follow up shots. At the range, a gun you can shoot more comfortably and more often is generally more fun. For home defense or competition, a gun that can be more easily and more fully controlled, and that has faster follow up shots, can make a huge difference in your effectiveness.

I get it, I like polymer too (I didn't use to). While I love a wood and metal revolver or 1911, and CZ 75 based CZs and classic P-series SIGs are among my favorite guns, I probably have more polymer guns at this time. When I carry, it is mostly polymer or alloy (certainly they are metal, but quite a bit lighter than steel). However, I love having more choices, and there is no doubt that metal (and especially steel) guns are better for some applications.
 
I have a Walther Q5 polymer and Q5 Steel Frame. So same gun.

The SF feels really nice and heavy.

In reality, I didn't see any difference in the bang/recoil part other than the SF starts to feel less comfy after a while.

The SF sits better, but it's a cost of long time at the range.


All and all, I think a short visit to the range the SF is more pleasant. Anything longer than a bit, I actually like the polymer better.


Since I have an apples to apples gun, I personally do not feel a "recoil impulse" is any different between the two.

Demographics is probably most of it. Older folks are the gun buyers and they have an affinity for metal framed. I know I'm never going to carry a metal framed gun.
 
Meant to say you're seeing large framed metal guns. People probably aren't carrying many of those.

So given the demographics and that most don't carry full sized, the metal makes more sense than not having them.

The aluminum M&P? that one makes zero sense to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top