Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
So basically "Go ahead and dry fire it, but make sure it's not loaded, and if something breaks, it's not our fault."
Last edited:
A note from FN on dry firing your handgun....
- Thread starter Hokkmike
- Start date
- Status
Walt Sherrill
Member
Mizar said:
LOL!!
One of the most easy-to-understand comments in a related discussion was from an engineer who worked with aerospace applications.
In the discussion I said something about some springs having to work harder because they were, in the case of double-stack mags, holding up a heavier column of ammo when fully loaded or when stored fully loaded..
The engineer said, in effect, that the weight of the ammo wasn't the issue -- if the springs deteriorate it's simply because the springs are compressed farther than they should be compressed, and that true whether they're compressed by weight or by someone pushing the springs down manually -- and the effect on the metal is exactly the same. (A light came on!) Cycling a spring or compressing it doesn't hurt it unless, at the end of the cycle, the spring is bent or compressed or stretched to a point that the metal begins to deteriorate.
Most guns are designed so that most springs aren't pushed that far or that deeply. But in some cases (and in some designs) when they are pushed that far intentionally (as with very compact large caliber guns or by hi-cap mags), there is no free lunch -- something has to give. That's why some gun designers apparently consider some (not all) springs to be renewable resources. And that's why some folks willingly buy guns like the Rohrbaugh R9 or hi-cap Mags: those renewable springs let those guns do things they couldn't do otherwise.
On the other hand, If you have a gun that uses hi-cap mags and never load those hi-cap 9mm mags much beyond 10 rounds (rather than the standard 15 or 18 rounds), you may never have to replace a mag spring in that gun. Then, that hi-cap mag is a lot like a 7-round 1911 mag -- the working springs are never pushed anywhere near their elastic limits.
Last edited:
Glock Doctor
Member
For as long as I've been on internet gun forums this topic has continued to be bantered back and forth; and, so far, I haven't noticed any 'expansion in our collective knowledge' data base. People are still posting the same dry-fire hokum, today, that was being posted 15 or 20 years ago. In fact, several years ago and after more than a decade of complete silence, Glock GmbH/Inc. took the unusual step of printing out a published notice that Glock pistols should NOT be dry-fired without using snap caps. (A truly unusual and straightforward warning for Glock GmbH/Inc. to have made!)
Whether the firing pin is mounted externally on a pistol's hammer, or internally inside the frame (Where it might be, otherwise, described as a 'striker'.) it's still a piece of metal, the original design of which is intended to meet with mechanical resistance (or dampening) at the forward end of its travel stroke. It should be common sense that if some form of mechanical resistance isn't present then the gun parts, themselves, are going to have to absorb a certain amount of physical shock — Usually to either the frame, or the breech face.
In the words of a Smith & Wesson engineer I put this question to: 'If the firing pin is mounted on the hammer as with our older revolvers then, no, we do not recommend dry-firing.' ' If the firing pin is internal to the frame, as it is with our modern revolvers and semiautomatics, then, yes, a certain amount of dry-firing is acceptable.'
'JUST BE SENSIBLE AND USE YOUR HEAD! '
With Glock pistols it, also, needs to be remembered that the metal parts were once Tenifer-treated and hardened against abuse; but Glock no longer uses Tenifer-treatment; and I think it is this, more than anything else, that occasioned Glock GmbH/Inc. to publish a formal warning against dry-firing a Glock without using snap caps.
What do I do with my guns? I do a lot of dry-firing; and I always use snap caps. I, also, download all of my magazines by one or two rounds; and the only time I fully compress a magazine spring is when the magazine is new, and I want the spring to take a 'working set'.
Last edited:
Walt Sherrill
Member
When Glock or another firm says don't dry-fire or always use snap caps, it's likely not because they're concerned about trigger return springs breaking. 
A related point about Tennifer and surface or case hardening:
While Glock did change from Tennifer to Melonite, those are two very similar hardening processes. Tennifer uses cyanide as a medium and its use is strictly regulated (and typically avoided) here in the U.S. Melonite uses a slightly different medium but apparently offers similar results.
Some have suggested that the differences between Melonite and Tennifer are relatively trivial and the use of one or the other allowed a gunmaker to claim a "unique" (or proprietary) process -- which may have been more important than chosing a hardening treatment that might be better than another similar process.
From Wikipedia:
I think, too, that many folks talking about these processes confuse the dark-colored finish on these guns with the hardening treatment (such as Nitron, Tennifer, or H&K Hostile Environment], which is actually directly done to the underlying metal BEFORE the colored finish is applied. Sometimes that colored finish is a form of parkerizing, ala many military weapons. I'm told, perhaps incorrectly, that when a SIG's Nitron finish gets banged up badly and the owner wants SIG to fix it, SIG sends the parts to be restored to IonBond in Greensboro, NC, and the finish on the gun looks and performs much like SIG's original Nitron finish. Nobody claims IonBond and Nitron are the same.
A related point about Tennifer and surface or case hardening:
While Glock did change from Tennifer to Melonite, those are two very similar hardening processes. Tennifer uses cyanide as a medium and its use is strictly regulated (and typically avoided) here in the U.S. Melonite uses a slightly different medium but apparently offers similar results.
Some have suggested that the differences between Melonite and Tennifer are relatively trivial and the use of one or the other allowed a gunmaker to claim a "unique" (or proprietary) process -- which may have been more important than chosing a hardening treatment that might be better than another similar process.
From Wikipedia:
Ferritic nitrocarburizing, also known by the proprietary names Tennifer/Tenifer and Melonite, is a range of proprietary case hardening processes that diffuse nitrogen and carbon into ferrous metals at sub-critical temperatures during a salt bath The processing temperature ranges from 525 °C (977 °F) to 625 °C (1,157 °F), but usually occurs at 565 °C (1,049 °F). At this temperature steels and other ferrous alloys are still in a ferritic phase, which is advantageous compared to other case hardening processes that occur in the austenitic phase There are four main classes of ferritic nitrocarburizing: gaseous, salt bath, ion or plasma, and fluidized-bed.
The process is used to improve three main surface integrity aspects including scuffing resistance, fatigue properties, and corrosion resistance. It has the added advantage of inducing little shape distortion during the hardening process. This is because of the low processing temperature, which reduces thermal shocks and avoids phase transitions in steel.
The process is used to improve three main surface integrity aspects including scuffing resistance, fatigue properties, and corrosion resistance. It has the added advantage of inducing little shape distortion during the hardening process. This is because of the low processing temperature, which reduces thermal shocks and avoids phase transitions in steel.
I think, too, that many folks talking about these processes confuse the dark-colored finish on these guns with the hardening treatment (such as Nitron, Tennifer, or H&K Hostile Environment], which is actually directly done to the underlying metal BEFORE the colored finish is applied. Sometimes that colored finish is a form of parkerizing, ala many military weapons. I'm told, perhaps incorrectly, that when a SIG's Nitron finish gets banged up badly and the owner wants SIG to fix it, SIG sends the parts to be restored to IonBond in Greensboro, NC, and the finish on the gun looks and performs much like SIG's original Nitron finish. Nobody claims IonBond and Nitron are the same.
Last edited:
Glock Doctor
Member
While accurate information IS difficult to ferret out, I’ll share what I’ve been able to glean about Glock, GmbH/Inc.’s use of ferritic nitrocarburizing: Both Tenifer and Melonite are ‘hot salt bath’ processes; and, at the present time, Glock, GmbH/Inc. is not using any form of ferritic ‘hot salt bath’ nitrocarburizing.
I suspect (and I would welcome knowing for certain) that — on both sides of the Atlantic— Glock, GmbH is not using ANY form of Ferritic nitrocarburizing: Not ‘hot salt bath’, and not the gaseous or plasma processes, either.
I could, probably, write a thesis on what I’ve learned about how much and how frequently Glock GmbH has: played around with, significantly changed and/or partially modified the original ICI/Degussa (‘hot salt bath’) ferritic nitrocarburizing process.
When I originally came across this information I learned that between 2000 and 2010, Glock, GmbH changed: the bath temperature, the heating and cooling times, as well as the: manner, chemicals, and type of final ‘top coating’.
Various top coat finishes have been used: Polymerized oils of various grades have been either added or omitted. These top coatings have also been applied differently, AND powdered (probably sprayed on) manganese and phosphate coatings — Occasionally in an either/or both fashion — have also been used.
In my opinion the most popular and durable slides — and on some production runs the internal parts too — Glock, GmbH has ever produced were the ‘hot salt bath’ treated, and manganese-phosphate coated slides of yesterday’s fame. (Sometimes, certain internal metal parts received the same series of treatments, too.) These slides were often (but not always) treated with a final coating of polymerized oil.
‘Why’ has Glock, GmbH fooled around so much with metal treatments and finishes? Because the combined Tenifer treatment AND top coat finishes are very time consuming to complete; and, personally, I think that in order to meet production schedules and SIGNIFICANTLY reduce manufacturing time AND costs all forms of ‘hot salt bath’ ferritic nitrocarburizing had to be stopped; and less expensive and much faster alternatives needed to be found. (They did; and they have been!)
The process changes seem to be ongoing; and, numerous different finishes have and are still being tried. This is, I believe, the main reason (or reasons) ‘Why’ some Glock pistols are finished better than others. Certain Glock pistols have harder slides with higher observable Brinell ratings, and may appear to be shinier or slicker-looking than others.
Then there are ‘those Glocks’ with annoyingly soft, dull looking, finishes on them that wear off quickly and are easily scratched. In my experience, NONE of Glock’s current metal treatments or slide finishes are as good as they used to be; and I suspect never will be, again.
What is more unless Glock, GmbH returns to genuine ‘hot salt bath’ ferritic nitrocarburizing along with the prolonged: heating, cooling, and applied finishing procedures that Glock, GmbH used to employ, I personally do not see Glock pistol slides, and/or certain internal parts getting any stronger, more durable, or better finished than they, once, originally were.
In any case I do not believe it is correct to say that Glock has switched from the Tenifer to the Melonite metal treatment process. These two processes are very similar; both are ‘hot salt bath’ types, and both are very time consuming, multi-step, heating and cooling, and combined top-finish processes.
Now, as I initially said: At any given time it’s very difficult to find out exactly ‘What’ Glock, GmbH/Inc. is doing. Right now, Glock manufacturing plants might be using some form or another of either gaseous or plasma metal hardening; but the older and heavier polymerized oil top coats are out; and, it doesn’t take genius to recognize that Glock slide finishes are, at present, the very lowest quality that they have ever been. In a way: ‘Your guess is as good as mine’; but I do think that both Tenifer and Melonite ‘HOT SALT BATH’ metal treatment processes are, permanently, gone forever.
I suspect (and I would welcome knowing for certain) that — on both sides of the Atlantic— Glock, GmbH is not using ANY form of Ferritic nitrocarburizing: Not ‘hot salt bath’, and not the gaseous or plasma processes, either.
I could, probably, write a thesis on what I’ve learned about how much and how frequently Glock GmbH has: played around with, significantly changed and/or partially modified the original ICI/Degussa (‘hot salt bath’) ferritic nitrocarburizing process.
When I originally came across this information I learned that between 2000 and 2010, Glock, GmbH changed: the bath temperature, the heating and cooling times, as well as the: manner, chemicals, and type of final ‘top coating’.
Various top coat finishes have been used: Polymerized oils of various grades have been either added or omitted. These top coatings have also been applied differently, AND powdered (probably sprayed on) manganese and phosphate coatings — Occasionally in an either/or both fashion — have also been used.
In my opinion the most popular and durable slides — and on some production runs the internal parts too — Glock, GmbH has ever produced were the ‘hot salt bath’ treated, and manganese-phosphate coated slides of yesterday’s fame. (Sometimes, certain internal metal parts received the same series of treatments, too.) These slides were often (but not always) treated with a final coating of polymerized oil.
‘Why’ has Glock, GmbH fooled around so much with metal treatments and finishes? Because the combined Tenifer treatment AND top coat finishes are very time consuming to complete; and, personally, I think that in order to meet production schedules and SIGNIFICANTLY reduce manufacturing time AND costs all forms of ‘hot salt bath’ ferritic nitrocarburizing had to be stopped; and less expensive and much faster alternatives needed to be found. (They did; and they have been!)
The process changes seem to be ongoing; and, numerous different finishes have and are still being tried. This is, I believe, the main reason (or reasons) ‘Why’ some Glock pistols are finished better than others. Certain Glock pistols have harder slides with higher observable Brinell ratings, and may appear to be shinier or slicker-looking than others.
Then there are ‘those Glocks’ with annoyingly soft, dull looking, finishes on them that wear off quickly and are easily scratched. In my experience, NONE of Glock’s current metal treatments or slide finishes are as good as they used to be; and I suspect never will be, again.
What is more unless Glock, GmbH returns to genuine ‘hot salt bath’ ferritic nitrocarburizing along with the prolonged: heating, cooling, and applied finishing procedures that Glock, GmbH used to employ, I personally do not see Glock pistol slides, and/or certain internal parts getting any stronger, more durable, or better finished than they, once, originally were.
In any case I do not believe it is correct to say that Glock has switched from the Tenifer to the Melonite metal treatment process. These two processes are very similar; both are ‘hot salt bath’ types, and both are very time consuming, multi-step, heating and cooling, and combined top-finish processes.
Now, as I initially said: At any given time it’s very difficult to find out exactly ‘What’ Glock, GmbH/Inc. is doing. Right now, Glock manufacturing plants might be using some form or another of either gaseous or plasma metal hardening; but the older and heavier polymerized oil top coats are out; and, it doesn’t take genius to recognize that Glock slide finishes are, at present, the very lowest quality that they have ever been. In a way: ‘Your guess is as good as mine’; but I do think that both Tenifer and Melonite ‘HOT SALT BATH’ metal treatment processes are, permanently, gone forever.
Last edited:
Walt Sherrill
Member
Most of the recent complaints about Glock's new "finish" seems to focus on holster wear and scratches, which seem to be superficial blemishes on the topmost layer which arguably covers the metal that (previously?) received the Tennifer treatment. Lots of complaints!! S&W apparently uses something similar to Tennifer, as does SIG. There doesn't seem to be as many complaints about those gun finishes.
Is the problem REALLY about the "new" Tennifer treatment (or lack of it), or is it really with the colored finish which is or was, at least for a time, similar to parkerizing?
Is the problem REALLY about the "new" Tennifer treatment (or lack of it), or is it really with the colored finish which is or was, at least for a time, similar to parkerizing?
Mizar
Member
This tread shifted in a most bizarre way, but it's becoming more and more interesting with every post. Back to your question - I don't seem to recall any real evidence showing the new heat treatment failing, or being inferior to Tennifer. People complain again and again about the new finish and concluding that the overall build quality to be lower, but without any real data to back it up. New Glock pistols keep on running and breechfaces keep on cracking with dry fire... Just like it supposed to be.
gc70
Member
- Status
Similar threads
