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

[PapaG]

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]

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]

Disclaimer--I am not a Glock owner or fan

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.

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.

 

[tryshoot]

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]

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]

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]

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


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

 

[EVIL]

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]

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]

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

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....

 

[orionengnr]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I would literally pay money to find out how many of the posters that screamed "TROLL!!!!" are Glock owners.

 

[wiringlunatic]

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]

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.

:

 

[shiftyer1]

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]

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]

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]

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.