Why the fuss over all metal frames?

Iron bottom said:
Are you saying that a plaskit gun is that slow getting on target? Are all of them that slow?

Who would want to carry something like that?
Click to expand...
You are right as no one would want to conceal carry something as big and heavy as the Walther Q5 Match steel frame but for high level competition a steel frame provides an advantage especially for those that have skills similar to someone like Michal Riha where fractions of a second often determine the winner of a match.

I can shoot my old Gen 2 Glock plenty fast for my needs for self defense purposes but I would do horrible against Michal Riha using a Walther Q5 Match Steel Frame in competition.
 
Iron Bottom said:
I read something a month or so from some guy shooting a lot of 40 S&W in a plastic receiver. Gun was wrecked.
Click to expand...

You must have an eclectic reading collection, or simply enjoy reading some really old stuff. While calling a polymer frame a receiver is technically correct -- that's where you'll find the serial number -- the part that handles all the pressure of a fired round isn't the frame, but the slide and barrel/chamber, when the slide is in battery.

I would note that Glock's problems with .40s had NOTHING to do with the weaknesses or strengths of polymer frames, but with a barrel design that had a chamber that didn't properly support the .40 casing.

Glock changed their chamber design for some of their models about 15 years ago, and you don't hear much about KABOOMS any more (the term used to describe case ruptures due to a lack of chamber support.)

On the other hand, Glock has been very successful with guns running the 10mm and .357 SIG rounds, and those two calibers have been problematic for other gun makers since they were first introduced. It was only relatively recently that SIG introduced its first 10mm handgun. And S&W has discontinued all of their .357 semi-autos, and long-ago discontinued all of their 10mm semi-autos (which had metal frames.)
 
I will never own a plastic/polymer gun because they are aesthetically displeasing to me. I do not have any doubt about their reliability and longevity.
Click to expand...

This is an honest take.

I don't think any of the plastic guns I have seen and handled have a decent trigger.
Click to expand...

The Walther P99AS says otherwise. But this is subjective, like so many other talking points in this debate.
 
I wasn't talking about a Glock getting wrecked. You will probably have to spend a bit more to have the experience of wrecking the pistol I'm talking about.
 
Iron Bottom said:
I wasn't talking about a Glock getting wrecked. You will probably have to spend a bit more to have the experience of wrecking the pistol I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

There aren't that many polymer-framed guns that are all THAT expensive (implicitly much more expensive than a Glock). A few like an H&K Mark 23 might have a price tag that is double or triple the price of a Glock, but they're still not terribly expensive.

You talked about a wrecked poly-framed gun, but what does "wrecked" mean? Was there damage to the frame? If the slide was damaged, that's not a "poly" pistol issue. A steel-framed gun's slide and frame can also be destroyed by bad ammo.

I've personally seen a number of guns that have been destroyed by bad ammo, and they've included Glocks and Berettas. The Glocks were generally damaged by bad hand-loads or remanufactured ammo. One Glock shooter's hand was numbed by the force of the discharge which vented DOWN the grip. The frame was damaged, but his hand was back to normal 3-4 days later.

The Berettas were badly damaged and couldn't be repaired, and the shooters, like the Glock shooter, had sore hands, but no other damage. They may have been very lucky. (The Berettas were duty guns for a local universities campus police, using factory ammo. The ammo manufacturer replaced those guns.)
 
As usual this topic makes for an entertaining thread! I prefer polymer pistols when it comes to concealed carry. That doesn't mean I don't love a good 1911 or all steel revolver, just that the idea polymer is somehow inferior is not supported by my experience. Just for the record, my decision is based on years of experience acquired by much training, practice and thousands of rounds fired.

With all that said, I completely support the right to keep and bear arms. Carry, shoot, or collect what works best for you whether they are made of steel, polymer, aluminum, unobtainium or any other suitable material. Polymer has proven itself as a viable choice. I appreciate the choices.
 
Polymer is here to stay.

Glock is a very good functioning gun. Easy to break down and clean and very reliable.
But damn there ugly

There like riding a moped...lots of fun...you just dont wanna be seen in one..lolol

And for the most part it seems most poly guns are just blocky and chunky looking.
I am sure there are better looking poly guns I just haven't seen them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top