Nickel Plating: Where do you stand?
- Thread starter mattw
- Start date
- Status
A BBQ gun is a showpiece, a high class gun worn at holiday barbecue or politcal gathering in the southern tradition.
As to why wear a gun to a BBQ, some of us never leave the house unarmed, must be a 2nd Amendment kind of thing.
As to why wear a gun to a BBQ, some of us never leave the house unarmed, must be a 2nd Amendment kind of thing.
While I personally do not perfer nickel plated guns, I won't knock someone if that is what they prefer and I expect them to extend the same courtesy towards my preference for blued (or black) guns. As long as the owner is happy with their choice I see no harm in it because in the end the only person who's preference matters is the owner.
I like nickel. When it starts to flake and peel it looks awful, worse than a worn blued gun. But when in good shape I find it very attractive and own a fair number of shiny guns.
Here are a few:
Here are a few:
In terms of function, there is a case to be made for nickel on at least a couple of points. Where the argument breaks down is when it drifts into aesthetics-highly subjective and predicated on personal tastes.
From a functional standpoint I favor the processes which utilize an electrochemical bond with the base material over those where it's essentially mechanical, as it is in 'traditional' electroplating.
Even where no substrate material such as copper is used, the adhesion of the traditional electroplated finishes is relatively tenuous and peeling/flaking can result from nearly microscopic defects in the surface finish due to the infiltration of moisture, solvents or oils. Their practicality as an aftermarket option on machinery with typically close and critical tolerances, such as firearms, is limited to a great extent by the comparatively large dimensional changes inherent in the process and the difficulty in obtaining uniform application to all surfaces, IMO.
The 'electroless' processes offer vastly improved adhesion, more easily controlled uniformity of application, and better longterm resistance to both corrosion and wear. However, it is almost impossible to get the true 'mirror' finish found on articles using the older processes. It can come close when applied over a first-rate polishing job, but any surface imperfections will be easily seen as the contrast will be emphasized rather than hidden. IMO, that's a primary reason why most factory and aftermarket electroless finishes are generally applied over a 'brushed' or 'bead blasted' surface.
I have a couple of handguns with some form of proprietary electroless finish on them. While I don't know the exact compositions, there seems to be little difference in how well they've held up under use so far as there's been virtually no deterioration from either corrosion or wear under extended firing and carry. My Star M-43 has their "Starvel", my full-sized EAA Witness their "Wonderfinish", and an older Colt "Combat Commander" has straight electroless nickel. I also have an old customized S&W 1917 with Armolloy and a Keltec P-11 with the 'hard chrome' slide. All of them are holding up just dandy. The only thing I have with the 'traditional' mirror finish is a replica 1858 Remington .44. It's holding up well so far with limited use, too. The main reason that I use my blued replicas more often is that the way light reflects off of the nickeled one makes it tougher to shoot well as the 'sights' virtually disappear even in relatively overcast conditions.
Won't offer an opinion as far as 'decorative' value goes. All I can say is that those who like the flashy mirror finish find it to be the sort of thing they like, and if that's the way they roll - Roll On!
From a functional standpoint I favor the processes which utilize an electrochemical bond with the base material over those where it's essentially mechanical, as it is in 'traditional' electroplating.
Even where no substrate material such as copper is used, the adhesion of the traditional electroplated finishes is relatively tenuous and peeling/flaking can result from nearly microscopic defects in the surface finish due to the infiltration of moisture, solvents or oils. Their practicality as an aftermarket option on machinery with typically close and critical tolerances, such as firearms, is limited to a great extent by the comparatively large dimensional changes inherent in the process and the difficulty in obtaining uniform application to all surfaces, IMO.
The 'electroless' processes offer vastly improved adhesion, more easily controlled uniformity of application, and better longterm resistance to both corrosion and wear. However, it is almost impossible to get the true 'mirror' finish found on articles using the older processes. It can come close when applied over a first-rate polishing job, but any surface imperfections will be easily seen as the contrast will be emphasized rather than hidden. IMO, that's a primary reason why most factory and aftermarket electroless finishes are generally applied over a 'brushed' or 'bead blasted' surface.
I have a couple of handguns with some form of proprietary electroless finish on them. While I don't know the exact compositions, there seems to be little difference in how well they've held up under use so far as there's been virtually no deterioration from either corrosion or wear under extended firing and carry. My Star M-43 has their "Starvel", my full-sized EAA Witness their "Wonderfinish", and an older Colt "Combat Commander" has straight electroless nickel. I also have an old customized S&W 1917 with Armolloy and a Keltec P-11 with the 'hard chrome' slide. All of them are holding up just dandy. The only thing I have with the 'traditional' mirror finish is a replica 1858 Remington .44. It's holding up well so far with limited use, too. The main reason that I use my blued replicas more often is that the way light reflects off of the nickeled one makes it tougher to shoot well as the 'sights' virtually disappear even in relatively overcast conditions.
Won't offer an opinion as far as 'decorative' value goes. All I can say is that those who like the flashy mirror finish find it to be the sort of thing they like, and if that's the way they roll - Roll On!
Don't like nickel finishes, but do like the kind of stainless steel used on Ruger P-Series pistols. They don't show any fingerprints like a blued pistol, and don't get scratched like plated or shiny stainless finishes.
It's just personal choice.
One of my 1911's I'm going to get plated just to have a "contrast" with the others. But I like 'em both.
One of my 1911's I'm going to get plated just to have a "contrast" with the others. But I like 'em both.
Cocked & Locked
Member
I think it's OK to have a few for attending BBQ's, Church Picnics, Deacon's Meetings and such...
Dirty Bob
Member
It's useful!!!
I've had the slide of a P-11 nickeled. I carry IWB in the appendix position, and I had to oil the gun every single day, yet I still had occasional rust stains on my undershirt in summer. The nickel job ended that problem.
I like it!
Dirty Bob
I've had the slide of a P-11 nickeled. I carry IWB in the appendix position, and I had to oil the gun every single day, yet I still had occasional rust stains on my undershirt in summer. The nickel job ended that problem.
I like it!
Dirty Bob
I've hesitated to post this but here goes:
I picked this 1903 Colt up in November. Made in 1920. It had about70% finish. I figured that since nickle was a factory option in those days it wouldn't be too much of a sacriledge. Ahlmans did the work.
Even with a frosted bore and teeny weeny sights it is one of my most accurate handguns.
(That's not a three digit serial #, I blotted out the last three.)
The photo's are not the best but you get the idea.
I picked this 1903 Colt up in November. Made in 1920. It had about70% finish. I figured that since nickle was a factory option in those days it wouldn't be too much of a sacriledge. Ahlmans did the work.
Even with a frosted bore and teeny weeny sights it is one of my most accurate handguns.
(That's not a three digit serial #, I blotted out the last three.)
The photo's are not the best but you get the idea.
Attachments
In the day it was most popular, that was not the case. It was the most corrosion finish available. The classic blue was and still is troublsome unless properly cared for. Stainless guns did not exist as well as many of the Buck Rogers / newer finishes like Tennifer, etc. Today, the people that desire Nickel finishes are the older folkes who can remember seeing them as they were and are often collectors, like myself.
My grandmother had an old .38 S&W not a .38 Spl. that laid under her pillow. My family was visiting, we lived in another state, and one Saturday morning she was making her bed when I grabbed the gun and ran into my gradparents living room. My Dad, my uncle and my Granddad where all there. My Granddad just stood up and said, "Let me see what you have there, Tommy." I surrendered the gun and went on about playing, never knowing what I done. That .38 was the most beautiful nickle finish and it caught that 5yr old eye. The gun is long gone, who knows where; but I'd give a pretty penny for it now, 50 yeras latter.
That reflection is or maybe the thoughts of many who desire what you now consider "TACKKY".
NO SMITH & WESSON IS TACKKY ESPECIALLY THE OLD ONES!!!
Regards Pistol Toter
Comes down to it, I prefer stainless steel, but I have a nickeled .357 Magnum. I don't think of any .357 Magnum as a "sissy" gun.
I think I'll find some pearlite grips for that nickeled gun.
I think I'll find some pearlite grips for that nickeled gun.
wcwhitey
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 2,814
Some guns just look good with a Nickel finish. Some guns don't. I like the BBQ gun concept. Most of my guns are well cared for shooters, but I think everyone should have at least one showpiece. My personal preference is for deep blue and rich wood but Nickel is in no way tacky. Some beautiful photo's, nice collections. Bill
- Status
