Walt Sherrill
New member
And that ship will probably be made of some exotic form of polymer.
Why the fuss over all metal frames?
- Thread starter fisherman
- Start date
And that ship will probably be made of some exotic form of polymer.
For me it’s about pain management. I have arthritis at the base of my thumbs and recoil in a polymer simply hurts more than steel. I like both and have had several of both but now every gun I own is steel simply due to the pain.
My EDC is a PPK in .32 because the small round in the steel frame allows me to practice... and I like to shoot.
Everyone has their own reasons for choosing but I don’t believe one is overall better than the other.
My EDC is a PPK in .32 because the small round in the steel frame allows me to practice... and I like to shoot.
Everyone has their own reasons for choosing but I don’t believe one is overall better than the other.
I understand why plastic guns exist. They are cheap to make and provide excellent service and parts cast of plastics are ready to be assembled without extra machine work.
But like a lot of you I like metal guns. No matter if its steel or aircraft grade aluminum like my well loved model 39 and 615 semi-autos. But I sure can't find a single fault with the inexpensive S&W model SD9VE I own. It works like a charm and has been my truck gun of choice.
But i do wish my truck was a lot more steel and a heck of a lot less plastic. Trucks should be all steel and I remember when they were.
But like a lot of you I like metal guns. No matter if its steel or aircraft grade aluminum like my well loved model 39 and 615 semi-autos. But I sure can't find a single fault with the inexpensive S&W model SD9VE I own. It works like a charm and has been my truck gun of choice.
But i do wish my truck was a lot more steel and a heck of a lot less plastic. Trucks should be all steel and I remember when they were.
or 
Uncle
Why don't we use plastic slides? Why not plastic barrels? Imagine the fun.
It's not that common plastic parts got as strong as steel parts. What happened is that designers got really good at identifying the low-stress, low-wear areas in their new handgun designs, and were able to substitute a weaker/cheaper/molded material for those locations (e.g. most of the frame).
So yeah, a Glock will do its job well. And there is a sense in which its tool-like character is attractively true to itself. It will probably last a very long time. But, some appreciate parts with more strength than is strictly necessary for function -- and the craftsmanship that is required to make them. At that point, it's purely about preference.
It's not that common plastic parts got as strong as steel parts. What happened is that designers got really good at identifying the low-stress, low-wear areas in their new handgun designs, and were able to substitute a weaker/cheaper/molded material for those locations (e.g. most of the frame).
So yeah, a Glock will do its job well. And there is a sense in which its tool-like character is attractively true to itself. It will probably last a very long time. But, some appreciate parts with more strength than is strictly necessary for function -- and the craftsmanship that is required to make them. At that point, it's purely about preference.
A point about craftsmanship. How much craftsmanship is in a CNC machine milling out a block of steel, or even forging? Is it more than injection molding? I guess so. But let's not pretend it's a choice between some middle aged person in a shop apron laboring for weeks (unless we're talking boutique custom work) on a pistol versus a machine popping out a polymer frame in a few hours. Take the classic P series SIGs. The slides were made from folded and welded steel and the frames we're aluminum. Or an HK MP5 that used as many stampings as possible. This wasn't about craftsmanship. It was about what was the most cost effective for the time. I can "appreciate" metal frames while still using polymer frames.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Yes, there are many degrees of craftsmanship in steel. That has been recognized for a very, very long time.
My father recently wanted a highly accurate .22 pistol, and decided on the S&W 41. It was then down to a new one from the custom shop, or a slightly used one from the era of the Apollo program. He went with the latter, because it literally was assembled, fit, and finished by middle-aged experts at the time, and the difference is stunning. Still a personal preference -- I'm sure the modern ones shoot just as well.
My father recently wanted a highly accurate .22 pistol, and decided on the S&W 41. It was then down to a new one from the custom shop, or a slightly used one from the era of the Apollo program. He went with the latter, because it literally was assembled, fit, and finished by middle-aged experts at the time, and the difference is stunning. Still a personal preference -- I'm sure the modern ones shoot just as well.
big al hunter
New member
I will wait to buy an all composite handgun until they come out with a carbon fiber system
I don't like Glock ergonomics, so I won't buy one. But that is the only thing stopping me. I do prefer the look of steel, but I feel the benefits of each type of frame have their place in my gun safe. A nice light weight poly frame for CC, a heavy steel frame for fun, and occasional CC. If it wears out when my grandkids are old, I don't care, it's not my gun anymore.
I don't like Glock ergonomics, so I won't buy one. But that is the only thing stopping me. I do prefer the look of steel, but I feel the benefits of each type of frame have their place in my gun safe. A nice light weight poly frame for CC, a heavy steel frame for fun, and occasional CC. If it wears out when my grandkids are old, I don't care, it's not my gun anymore.
Running a CNC machine is more craftsmany than running an injection mold? Okay.
Right, but at that point we're talking about more than the difference between just frame materials. We're talking about a significant difference in the time put into a firearm. I made a comment about hand fitting above. Just because a firearm has a steel or aluminum frame doesn't mean it was handfit. It can indeed be handfit, and I mention that above, but then again we're talking about more than materials differences. You even noted that he had to go with an older model to get that. That labor intensiveness isn't typically done today, even on most metal framed firearms. Now is that in part about the bottom line? Sure, although relatively firearms are quite cheap now (in terms of the dollars of the time) and more people being able to afford firearms isn't a bad thing, nor am I saying that's what you're implying. We can also argue if that difference in hand fitting versus the tolerances capable in CNC work really make a measurable difference in terms of accuracy or reliability, and then how significant of a difference. I get how and why people see the value in that, but I do think there's a strong element of nostalgia in it as well.
Last edited:
Walt Sherrill
New member
xandi said:
All metal-framed 1911s are not made to the same level of precision/fit, yet when people talk about 1911s, they always seem to hold up a well-fit 1911 as their standard. About the only thing found consistently across 1911s is a unique trigger, which is generally better out of the box than other options. But the many other characteristics of the various 1911s can vary widely.
The same is true of polymer-framed guns.
If the frame of a polymer frame is properly designed and made -- and that can happen with some all-Polymer frames (ala the Ruger P95 or P97) the fact that polymer is used in the frame can be meaningless. If the polymer gun has steel frame inserts within the polymer, that can also be meaningless.
What seems to matter most is that the top assembly of the gun -- the barrel and slide -- lock up with the same precision with each shot. That matters far more than what the frame is made of. If you use the sights, and the slide and barrel lock up consistently, and the other things are reasonably well done, the bullet is going to go where it's aimed
One exception: if you have frame-mounted optics, then metal frames can do better than most polymer frames. Some of the newer slide-mounted optical systems make that a non-issue.
On the S&W Forum, Randy Lee, the Apex designer who created an improved M&P barrel for the series 1.0 and 2.0 M&Ps, made design changes to the barrel design and how it locks up. Now, gunsmith-fit Apex barrel for M&Ps that shoot, when tested from a Ransom Rest (with the sights aimed for each shot ) can perform like a top-level bullseye gun. Even drop-in Apex barrels based on the same redesign perform much better than the factory barrel. Frame material is not necessarily a problem.
.
Last edited:
sigarms228
New member
I have both poly frame and metal frame. I like both a lot. I will never go back to a metal frame pistol for CCW. Another huge advantage of poly frame pistols is they need minimal lube compared to my metal frame pistols to stay 100 percent reliable. Poly frame pistols, like my Glock 19, also have lower bore axis compared to modern hammer fired metal frame pistols which often results in a more compact design which I like in a CCW pistol and combined with poly frame can have advantages in perceived recoil characteristics. Some of us, maybe most of us firearm enthusiasts, who buy poly frame pistol are doing so due to such advantages and not cost savings. If there is a cost savings for a particular purchase, that is a nice bonus.
Last edited:
Lube requirements and bore axis have nothing to do with the polymer -- simply the design of the gun. You could replace a plastic glock frame with a steel one, and it would operate the same way with exactly the same lube requirements as before -- it would simply be stronger and heavier.
I find it amusing that a “metal” gun can be a work of art just because of the material it’s made of.
to be a Classic “work of art” it had to be made the old way as in prior to WWII, including those manufactured after the war with old equipment.
I don’t consider the 92FS or current production Sigs Classic, fine firearms yeah but so is Glock.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
to be a Classic “work of art” it had to be made the old way as in prior to WWII, including those manufactured after the war with old equipment.
I don’t consider the 92FS or current production Sigs Classic, fine firearms yeah but so is Glock.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Onward Allusion
New member
For the average gun owner who shoots once or twice a year, polymer = steel = aluminum = Zamak. Heck, for the average gun owner the accuracy of a Hämmerli = Glock.
For the enthusiast (me) who shoots a couple of hundred rounds a week, it still doesn't matter. I haven't seen any noticeable difference in wear with steel or polymer. I think it's all about personal preference. Steel just looks prettier and feels better in the hand. However, as for performance, I haven't notice a difference.
For the enthusiast (me) who shoots a couple of hundred rounds a week, it still doesn't matter. I haven't seen any noticeable difference in wear with steel or polymer. I think it's all about personal preference. Steel just looks prettier and feels better in the hand. However, as for performance, I haven't notice a difference.
sigarms228
New member
Sorry I was editing my post while you were responding to include Glock 19 which is striker fired design that definitely had a design advantage in compactness/low bore axis compared to external hammer fired pistols. All my metal frame hammer fired pistols (SIGs, 1911, CZ) , as I referred to, have full length metal frame rails that need to be keep fairly well lubed to be 100 percent reliable. Glock is never going to come out with a metal frame Glock 19 and if they ever did by some miracle I would not buy one anyway because I don't want the extra weight and frame prone to rust/corrosion for a CCW pistol. Since there are documented cases of Glocks with over 300,000 rounds fired I also don't see any advantage in strength of having a Glock with a steel frame.