Difference between a Glock and a Jennings, a Rohm and a S&W?


PDA






wiringlunatic
February 23, 2012, 01:24 AM
Ok, I'm probably going to start a firefight here, but I do have a serious question. I've seen guns such as Jennings, Jiminez, Rohm, etc. degraded all over the internet as junk, often citing the aluminum/zinc alloy frame. I decided to do some research, comparing the Zamak alloy used for Jiminez and the nylon 6,6 used to make Glock frames. The following data is from www.matweb.com:

property______________nylon 6,6___________________Zamak

tensile strength________6250 - 13100 psi_____________41300 psi

shear strength_________6500 - 11000 psi_____________31200 psi

melting point__________374 - 460 F_________________718 - 729 F

I've heard people on this forum I think trying to insult the Rohm by claiming you could melt it down on your kitchen stove. I'm not sure if that's possible (700+ degrees on a stove?) but if that's a sign of poor quality, Glock and other guns using a nylon frame would be even worse! Added to that is the fact that Jennings, Jiminez, Rohm, etc use low pressure, low power rounds such as .22lr and .25 ACP while guns like Glock use much larger, higher pressure rounds and the S&W Bodyguard (which uses an aluminum alloy upper frame and a polymer lower frame) uses .38+P. Why is a low pressure Zamak gun junk and a high pressure nylon gun good? Also, from what I've seen on the internet, nylon can absorb water and weaken by at least 20%. Also, many plastics weaken with time. I still shoot my grandfather's shotgun on occasion which was probably made in the 1890's. Will our grandchildren be able to safely shoot Glocks that have been handed down for 2 or 3 generations? I'm not really trying to run down Glocks as junk here, I'm just wondering why they're considered better than aluminum alloy.

If you enjoyed reading about "Difference between a Glock and a Jennings, a Rohm and a S&W?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Deus Machina
February 23, 2012, 01:56 AM
Mostly, it's in the design and craftsmanship. Jennings run on the most basic design that works, leading to stress at pins and connections--which are often made of softer or more brittle materials than in pretty much anything else.

You don't hear about Jennings' slide failing, outside of manufacturing errors. It's the trigger assembly (mild steel versus case-hardened tool steels) or the rails which are machined poorly, and the like.

Not to mention things like fatigue resistance. Zamak doesn't like being abused repetitively.

Also that nylon isn't used in the same places Jennings uses their zinc. Zamak does not wear well. Perhaps better than nylon, but Glock uses steel inserts at those points.

The TL;DR version: it's not so much what the majority of the gun is, it's selecting the right material for the right points, the design, and the minute wear parts.

As for Glocks being handed down to grandchildren... maybe. They're made of a pretty tough material, but I personally don't expect it to go without getting brittle. The first run are still fine, but fifty years down the road? I think their saving grace there might be that the stress is mostly confined to the steel rails.

jhco50
February 23, 2012, 01:58 AM
I think you have stymied the board with your chart. :o I honestly believe if Jennings would change the Zamak slide to steel they would have a winner there.

Fu-man Shoe
February 23, 2012, 02:24 AM
I think this is one of the best gun forum troll posts I've seen in a long, long time. It's unique, and it's got an interesting, fresh angle on two solid raw meat topics; Glocks and Jennings, Jiminez, et cetera.

I like the way you set up the Glock vs. Saturday Night Special argument. The convincing display of a poor understanding of materials technology and application backed by a badly formatted chart is excellent. Really an authentic touch. The apples-to-oranges hearsay comparison of "melting down a potmetal Rohm frame" and a nylon Glock frame on a stove is also a good red herring argument. A classic fallacy, expertly done. It's very subtle.

Thank you sir. This is good stuff! I enjoy your work.

I do have some constructive criticism for you though. While I like how you've rhetorically framed this post as a "just curious" type of argument, your initial pre-emptive deflection kind of gave you away. You need to touch that up, it's a little amateurish. It was too much.

Just remember: when you're trolling the right way, people won't even be sure if you're trolling at all. You don't want to make it too obvious. I'd advise building up to the argument. You don't want to come out of the gate too strong.

Shear_stress
February 23, 2012, 08:36 AM
There's a simple answer to this. The barrel and slide endure the cartridge pressure, not the frame. The Glock's slide is steel. The Jennings' slide is Zamak.

The Jennings also relies on die castings that are fairly porous and prone to stress concentrations.

fatcat4620
February 23, 2012, 08:46 AM
This is like trying to say your '91 dodge shadow turbo is a better race car than a new corvette because it is lighter.

parsimonious_instead
February 23, 2012, 09:00 AM
They serve different purposes, anyway. Saturday Night specials in a criminal context are ultra concealable "hideout" guns for the stickup and drugdealing set - often used for intimidation value or for pumping your rival/victim full of small slugs, leaving him bleeding out, then dumping the piece in a trashcan or a sewer.
For legitimate self-defense, they're for those who can't afford something better made, or as secondary/tertiary BUGs.
Why worry about long-term durability, when they were not even intended for that purpose to begin with?

JohnBT
February 23, 2012, 09:11 AM
"I've seen guns such as Jennings, Jiminez, Rohm, etc. degraded"

They were degraded the day they were made. If you don't believe it, go spend your hard-earned dollars and try a few out yourself.

John

22-rimfire
February 23, 2012, 09:29 AM
You make a convincing argument ( :D ), now go buy some of those zamak guns and enjoy them. I'll stick with the Glock or something else.

The Heritage Rough Rider falls into this catagory also. That's why you can buy them for $200.

I have heard that the Jennings 22 pistols actually function pretty reliably, but I don't want one.

gp911
February 23, 2012, 09:37 AM
Fu-man, you just made my morning!

lathedog
February 23, 2012, 11:13 AM
+1 on Fu-Man comments

I also enjoyed the "reason for edit"....to make the chart more readable. Maybe before the edit it was in Galactic Standard, but now it is clearly in Earth English. It could use a format makeover, though.

dagger dog
February 23, 2012, 11:15 AM
Life and death

wiringlunatic
February 23, 2012, 12:18 PM
Actually, I was interested in the fun banter that would occur on this thread, but I really did question the difference. I mean, I use tools of every description all day long, and how they feel in my hand is important. I absolutely agree that Glocks are better than Jennings (DUH!) but I think as some of you noted, the issue is how they're built, not the materials per se. Fu, yes, the melting thing is a red herring, but it didn't originate with me. Someone was really trash talking Rohm and used that argument. I was just pointing out the stupidity of that argument. I wouldn't want to try to shoot ANY pistol that had been severely heated on a stove. I probably wouldn't own a plastic gun because I like the feel of steel in my hands. I do own a Rohm that a friend gave me, and like was said about the Glock, the important parts are all steel. The cylinder and barrel are steel, what the frame is made of is rather irrelevant. If someone wants to say the gun is poorly made that's fine. I get tired of people picking on guns saying that they're unsafe because they have alloy frames when the alloy is significantly stronger than is absolutely necessary (as evidenced by the fact that Glocks don't blow up 3 times as often as Jennings) Some of you brought up excellent points like issues with the steel on the Jennings trigger group. However, some of the Jennings has stainless slides -- are those now top quality pistols? Obviously not, it's the overall design and building, not the frame material. The frame probably takes less stress than any other part of the gun besides the grips. Just my two cents.

wiringlunatic
February 23, 2012, 12:19 PM
By the way, the chart was unreadable at first because I used spaces between the columns which then got deleted when posting so I had to put the lines in as placeholders.

Mp7
February 23, 2012, 12:23 PM
plus tests have shown that the Jimenez can be thrown way more accurately!

dagger dog
February 23, 2012, 12:40 PM
A zinc frames with steel barrel and chamber liners was and is a FACT in cheap revolvers.

Wether or not the Rohm is zinc I don't know, but if it is it can be melted in a frying pan, if you can turn up the heat past the 750 degree mark and hold it there long enough.

NG VI
February 23, 2012, 07:06 PM
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1403016

Check out post #8 or 9, the one with the photos put up by Canyonman of his Glock 20.

Picture any other pistol taking that kind of catastrophic damage, and ask yourself what the frame would look like. The slide is basically unharmed, the frame appears completely intact with no damage, the only thing that was actually damaged was the chamber portion of the barrel, which found it's way out of the ejection port and stayed in one (split) piece instead of becoming shrapnel.

That's the difference between a Glock and a Jennings. Most other quality, modeern service pistols wouldn't have any problem with a major blow-out either, because designers have put a lot of work into making sure their weapons are safe for the end user.

evan price
February 24, 2012, 04:49 PM
Simply comparing materials is not going to prove anything. People dissing a gun for having a Zamak slide are wrong.

It's the design and execution of the Jennings, Raven, Bryco, Lorcin, etc that make them crap. Jennings J-22 used to have the interesting 'feature' that they could not be chambered unless the safety was off. If you tried you could force it to chamber a round with the safety on- but it when you switched the safety off it would then fire the round. Nice feature, eh? (Yes, I owned an early J-22)

You could also draw the same conclusion that a Daewoo Leganza is a better car than a Toyota Corolla because the Daewoo uses more metal. Thus, you ignore the crap engineering and design and parts fitment issues entirely.

Apples >< Pineapples

LT.Diver
February 24, 2012, 06:27 PM
I don't buy cheap parachutes, cheap scuba gear, cheap climbing ropes, cheap ladders or cheap guns. All for the same reason.

FROGO207
February 25, 2012, 10:42 AM
In the free market every product has a place.:) Now I have purchased a few examples of those and other offending firearms, more for the curiosity of finding what they really would behave like or when feeling sorry for the previous owner and helping them recover a bit of cash to buy a better example.:D My take is any of them WILL fire a round safely and with SOME accuracy when new but they will not hold up in the long run compared to a 3X or more expensive example. I will say that the Jimenez J9 has way too many parts inside for the price. Ever take the grips off one and try to clean it??:D

deadasslast2004
February 25, 2012, 10:44 PM
or is it the number of potential pieces that could fail. i bet glock is lowset in this department as well.

Deltaboy
February 25, 2012, 11:12 PM
I had a Jennings back in the 1980's that I bought new for 40 bucks. But you could only hit a pie plate at 12 feet. I sold it later and got 70 bucks for it.

trex1310
February 25, 2012, 11:13 PM
You are trying to compare apples and oranges. Materials are just
one element out of the many hundreds it takes to produce a
finished product.

wiringlunatic
March 1, 2012, 01:08 AM
Ok, this is making more sense. Now people are coming up with better arguments than "it's zinc alloy, it must be junk." I fully agree that the Glock and S&W are better guns than Jennings and Rohm. My Rohm serves the slot of being an incredibly cheap gun to shoot and thus I can get a lot of practice for not a lot of money. That along with a little practice with my CCW (a 4" steel frame Taurus 85) should keep me ready.

I disagree with those who say that these cheap guns are only good for crime. That sounds like an argument straight out of the anti-gun lobby's playbook. That was what led to the '68 law that basically killed the Rohm in this country and made Jennings, etc. so big (they were domestic and thus not blocked by the law) No gun is only good for crime just the same as no gun is a criminal. a Rohm with the barrel sawed off shorter in the hands of a law abiding citizen is not a criminal weapon, and a $3,000 semiautomatic trap gun in the hands of a criminal is. Again, what you perceive a gun's purpose to be does not make it good or bad any more than the material it's made from.

I do find it interesting that people keep thinking I'm using the materials argument to claim Jennings and Rohm are better than Glock and S&W. I've clearly stated that I'm not. I'm just trying to make people think and make better arguments in the future.

Fishslayer
March 1, 2012, 03:07 AM
I think this is one of the best gun forum troll posts I've seen in a long, long time. It's unique, and it's got an interesting, fresh angle on two solid raw meat topics; Glocks and Jennings, Jiminez, et cetera.

I like the way you set up the Glock vs. Saturday Night Special argument. The convincing display of a poor understanding of materials technology and application backed by a badly formatted chart is excellent. Really an authentic touch. The apples-to-oranges hearsay comparison of "melting down a potmetal Rohm frame" and a nylon Glock frame on a stove is also a good red herring argument. A classic fallacy, expertly done. It's very subtle.

Thank you sir. This is good stuff! I enjoy your work.

I do have some constructive criticism for you though. While I like how you've rhetorically framed this post as a "just curious" type of argument, your initial pre-emptive deflection kind of gave you away. You need to touch that up, it's a little amateurish. It was too much.

Just remember: when you're trolling the right way, people won't even be sure if you're trolling at all. You don't want to make it too obvious. I'd advise building up to the argument. You don't want to come out of the gate too strong.

Excellent!:D

Anytime Glop comparisons are in the title it's a pretty safe bet it's a troll.

I agree this one was at least somewhat original and interesting...

PapaG
March 1, 2012, 08:28 PM
I gotta find a discussion group somewhere so that I can ask for choices between cars: Which would you choose, a Chevy Geo or a Porsche 911, a Ford Super Duty or a Chevy Luv?
The difference is quality and performance, whether it be guns or vehicles. Put better stuff in it, make it better and likely it will be better.
We've handled(literally) all the stuff mentioned and choose to stock Glock, Springfield, Kimber, S&W, selected Taurus, Sig, Ruger, and Rock Island. We also handle some models of Beretta. We don't carry the Heritage, Jennings (even used), Hi Point, or some of the others. Our legislators also won't let us carry some guns, even though they are quite popular. There is strong hints from Springfield that the newer 22 versions won't be allowed any longer (and we've had good results with the Sig, GSG, Colt approved, and one or two others)..something about "melt test".

barnbwt
March 1, 2012, 08:49 PM
Troll post or not, it is an interesting question to ask how plastic can perform the same duties as metals, given how different their material properties are. Plastics will be more softer and more flexible than metals, and typically have weaker bearing strength. However, the plastics used in high load areas of firearms are (always?) reinforced with fibers to reduce flex and increase ultimate load capacities. Metal inserts for contact areas resolve the bearing strength issues. There are no "inferior" materials, only crummy design and manufacturing.

Very clever engineering has to be done to get a polymer pistol to work, the kind that cheapo brands can't spare a nickle for.

TCB

orionengnr
March 2, 2012, 12:25 AM
You are comparing Zamak to polymer. That is truly an apples-to-oranges comparison.

A Glock frame made of polymer is strong enough for it's design purpose, and (after many million rounds downrange) is arguably as strong and as durable as an alloy or steel frame.

Note that Glock uses quality steel for their slide--that part (along with the barrel) is the part that must absorb the combustion and recoil forces.

A Zamak frame "may" be barely adequate (for a limited number of cycles); however, a Zamak slide is a crapshoot (pun intended). I would trust a Zamak slide about as much as I would trust a polymer (or papier-mache)slide. :rolleyes:

Also, from what I've seen on the internet, nylon can absorb water and weaken by at least 20%
Gee, you read it on the Internet...must be true. :rolleyes:

tryshoot
March 2, 2012, 01:22 AM
I Have used many of them, you are right. 1 Bryco w/2 mags 1 shot all, 1 only load w/11(9mm); With 1 in chamber.

NG VI
March 2, 2012, 01:16 PM
Polymers are softer than metals, but they have great fatigue strength. The polymers used in weapons can take the maximum allowable impacts and not see any long-term damage.

Metals can't be deformed much without undergoing permanent changes to the part in question. Plastics can.

BCRider
March 2, 2012, 02:21 PM
The truth is in the details. If the Zamack or other alloy is used correctly it can be perfectly up to the job. The key is to design and use it correctly.

A .22 cartridge just does not have enough oomph to reliably cycle a full size all steel slide on a semi auto. So guns such as the GSG 1911-22 and others with full size slides are using some form of alloy along the lines of Zamack for the slides. When done well these guns seem to be standing up to regular high round count use.

In fact a local Rent-A-Gun range has had a GSG as one of the line guns for about a year now. I know from handling it and seeing it shoot as a sometimes line RO that it's holding up very well. And it likely gets 500 to 1000 rounds put down it per week.

Two other guns that are reasonably well respected that use zinc alloy slides are the Sig Mosquito and the Walther P22.

JDGray
March 3, 2012, 08:42 AM
I had a seized up Rohm 38spl given to me. After taking it apart, freeing it up, shooting the old lead rounds that were in it, I sold it for what it cost new!!


$50:D


Actually shot a nice tight string at 25' (4" vertical line)

EVIL
March 3, 2012, 11:22 AM
Fu-Man Shoe,

That was one of the best posts I have ever read on THR or any other gun-forum. You made my day man!

Thanks!

wiringlunatic
March 3, 2012, 08:22 PM
I will be perfectly honest in saying I'm not really sure what a troll post is. I had assumed you just meant I was trying to stir up trouble, but someone told me it has something to do with disagreeing with everyone. If you could let me know what you are calling me, I'd appreciate it.

BCRider
March 4, 2012, 03:38 AM
I suspect they are suggesting that you're a troll due to the rather odd nature of your post. The guns you're discussing are really not related in any other way than the fact that they all shoot bullets downrange... well.... some of the time in some of the cases :D

The wild "out of the blue" nature of the original post along with your low post count likely made such folks very wary.

I have to admit that I'm a bit wary even now. The first rule of a troll is to come up with something on the edge but not quite obvious and then deny that they intended to "stir up the bees nest". Perhaps explaining a little more about why you chose the topic you did would help out to defuse the angry mob with the torches, pitch forks, tar pots and feather pillows.... :D

orionengnr
March 5, 2012, 12:13 AM
Simply comparing materials is not going to prove anything. People dissing a gun for having a Zamak slide are wrong.
Sorry, I cannot agree. Any manufacturer that uses Zamak as a component is not interested in prducing a quality firearm.
Period.
End of story.

BCRider
March 5, 2012, 12:31 AM
Sorry, I cannot agree. Any manufacturer that uses Zamak as a component is not interested in prducing a quality firearm.
Period.
End of story.

It's not that simple. The GSG would not be possible with a steel slide. The poor little .22LR doesn't have enough impulse energy to kick a 1911 steel slide back and cycle the gun. So the slide needs to be either cast Zamack or similar or machined from some sort of aluminium casting.

Kimber does this and their 1911-22 is up there in costs with the rest of their line as a result. Is the Kimber any better than the GSG from a shooting standpoint? From the stories I've read it's about a wash. In the case of the GSG Zamack alloy allowed them to produce a pretty good gun at an affordable price. And you'll find that many of the full size slides on some pretty well made and higher end .22 semi auto guns are also made from a similar cast alloy.

Autolycus
March 5, 2012, 04:07 AM
There might not be much difference in the material as far as I know but the design of the GLock just works. I would suggest a reliability test. How many Jennings have passed the trials that Glock has?

NG VI
March 5, 2012, 01:22 PM
It's not that simple. The GSG would not be possible with a steel slide. The poor little .22LR doesn't have enough impulse energy to kick a 1911 steel slide back and cycle the gun. So the slide needs to be either cast Zamack or similar or machined from some sort of aluminium casting.

They could always do what CZ did with the Kadet and Magnum Research did with the Desert Eagle (slide that isn't the entire top end anyway, not so much the giant gas powered part) and have a forward section separate from the actual slide.

I know that wouldn't be as cool to the purists, but they could make an objectively better gun that way. Fixed barrel, sights that don't move, sturdier material, and the ability to release an excellent .22 conversion for all the 1911s out there that don't have their name on it.

gpjoe
March 5, 2012, 05:45 PM
I would literally pay money to find out how many of the posters that screamed "TROLL!!!!" are Glock owners.

wiringlunatic
March 8, 2012, 01:57 AM
I won't deny that there was some intent to "stir up a bee's nest" although that wasn't the entire purpose. Obviously, unless one chooses their favorite guns based on drawing their names out of a hat, the Glock and S&W are in a totally different league than Jennings, etc, and Rohm. I think, however, in guns (as in politics, religion, etc. -- don't worry, I'm not going to stir those bee's nests up) people tend to come up with a few talking points and run with them, whether they can actually support their point of view or not. Some people say Taurus is junk. That becomes their religious statement. They no longer look at evidence, experience or logic. They have established their belief and will not change no matter what. People attack Jennings, not for their poor design and corner cutting manufacturing, but for their Zamak slide. This is like attacking a church because the pews are uncomfortable. It's slightly relevant, but not the main issue. A Glock is better because it's built to better tolerances and better designed, not because of it's plastic frame. My main purpose with the original post was to shoot this nonsensical argument in the foot. Jennings made some guns with stainless slides. Are those now better than Glocks? Of course not, but if one follows the belief that the materials are what it's all about, they would have to say yes. Can you see how this is a problem? Like I said before, I saw (on this forum I believe) that someone was complaining that you could melt a Rohm on your stovetop. This is a stupid argument, but no one called him on it. Again, if this argument is accepted as valid and followed, the S&W with the polymer top frame or a Glock would melt far faster. I for one, though, have never put any of my guns in a frying pan and don't intend to. I see a lot of good knowledge on this forum, but when we start to spout off the same stupid arguments that we accept as true, we'd better be able to support them

johnsack2001
March 8, 2012, 02:22 AM
I see a problem here. Zamak in any considerable amount to ensure a slide wont break weighs more than the equivalent steel. I mean hell my Hi-point slide weighs in at a neat 31.27oz. Just the slide alone weighs more than some Glocks fully assembled with a full mag.

Zamak does one thing really well it saves the manufacturer money that they can afford to offer insane warranties. But even then Zamak is not even good enough to call pot metal.

My point is both my Hi-point and a 6" Cast Iron skillet weigh the same.

http://i1074.photobucket.com/albums/w401/Jscynder/IMG_20120307_221603.jpg:

shiftyer1
March 8, 2012, 02:28 AM
I've owned several rohm single action .22 revolvers and had experience with several bryco, jennings and other lower end guns.

The rohms worked for a long time, showed the wear and not in a flattering way until they just start breaking. Bryco and jennings have a nice finish on them kinda but it sure starts to flake off quick.

If you just want to buy a gun to keep in the dresser and take out once in a blue moon, they're perfect and u won't spend a fortune.

I think Rohms make perfect truck, shed, tacklebox type guns.

NG VI
March 8, 2012, 02:48 AM
You don't think maybe comparing what the slide is made from to what the frame is made from is a little bit ridiculous? Frames and slides don't do the same thing, the durability of the materials depends on different qualities.

It's like saying a certain brand of car just better designed so it doesn't need a cast iron steering wheel. It's not exactly a useful comparison.

The flexibility and ruggedness of high strength polymers makes them excellent materials to make pistol frames from, what kind of heat is required to melt them is irrelevant because they aren't cookware, if you're putting them directly on hot heating elements you're wrong.

Sean Smith
March 8, 2012, 08:51 AM
Making high-stress firearm components out of the zinc alloy that is literally used to make cheap doorknobs and die-cast toy cars is a terrible idea, and isn't even a little bit comparable to Glocks having grip frames made of modern composites with steel inserts and slides made of high-quality ordnance steel. Zamak isn't even pot metal, because nobody is dumb enough to make a pot out of bloody zinc.

Anybody defending the guy who started this topic is too stupid to own a firearm. Seriously, you're a living argument for banning firearms and instituting Stalinism if your critical thinking abilities are that stunted. I suggest selling your guns and getting a Wiffle bat, or some of the fine products sold by Nerf. I'm not even kidding a little.

Oh, and have a nice day everybody. :)

Sam1911
March 8, 2012, 01:18 PM
Enough, and starting to get rude. No need for that.

won't deny that there was some intent to "stir up a bee's nest"
Not much need for that, either.

Our bees seem to stay plenty agitated without unnecessary help.

If you enjoyed reading about "Difference between a Glock and a Jennings, a Rohm and a S&W?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!