Old School Steel vs The Latest Thing

[GLOOB]

[polymer handgun] is reasonably accurate for self defense purposes, etc.

Completely disagree with this. I see exactly no difference between all steel handguns and revolvers compared to high quality polymer-framed handguns. I have shot 1911's, SIG's, Smith revolvers, 92FS's, and the list goes on. I own a good number of these guns, and I have owned more of them in the past. The only one I thought was above average in accuracy was a West German SIG P220. (P228's? lol, no. Not for me.) From an accuracy standpoint, a polymer frame is a non-issue to me, personally. I have good days and bad days with all of them, and my favorite polymer frame handguns are among the top performers. I do not feel any disadvantage in an accuracy contest using a stock Glock or an FNX compared to a 6" 686 or an all steel Gold Cup or a stock Beretta 92. But I suppose I would take a West German P220 or a Glock 17L, if I had the option.

Maybe I'm not a good enough shot to tell the difference that is caused by a polymer frame?

I can believe there are some all steel guns that are significantly more accurate. But I am not convinced that "combat accuracy" is an accurate portrayal of polymer handguns. Unless you include most all-steel handguns < $1000.00 under that label, as well.

 

[Deog]

Can't go wrong with a Glock 19 or 23, pick your poison .

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

There is just something about steel that gives me a tingly feeling up and down my spine.

 

[Zach S]

I prefer old school or steel. Yeah, I have to change recoil springs more often, but that goes with the territory.

The weight is a non-issue since I'm used to it. I carried my STI Spartan with a surefire X300 Ultra for a week just to see if it would bother me, and by the end of the week, it didn't feel any more uncomfortable than any other kydex holster.

I had a Kahr P9 for a few years. I sold it about a year ago, finally replaced it with a K9 a few months ago. No regrets.

I own a Glock 19. I purchased it to use as a beater. The reasons I chose it over other pistols, namely the CZ75, is because of the bulletproof finish, parts availability locally (namely magazines), and I knew the CZ would really grow on me. The Glock is ugly and and has no soul, so if I had to replace it, I could do so with a trip down the road and a few hours stippling. I would be more upset about losing the $650 in late 05 or early 06 than I would be about the pistol itself.

Edit: I didnt pay $650 for just the Glock. I also purchased a front night sight and streamlight M3.

Edit again: while poly pistols dont do anything for me, I did pick up a Sig P320 and thought "This feels good..."

 

[AustinTX]

I have shot 1911's, SIG's, Smith revolvers, 92FS's, and the list goes on. I own a good number of these guns, and I have owned more of them in the past. The only one I thought was above average in accuracy was a West German SIG P220. (P228's? lol, no. Not for me.)

This very likely had a lot more to do with you than with any of the guns.

But I do agree with your general point that a polymer frame does not in and of itself doom a gun to sub-par accuracy.

 

[tipoc]

From Mr. Borland:

I don't think anyone hit on these yet - polymer striker-fired pistols (generally) lack external safeties and decockers, so once a round is chambered, the manual of arms is simpler. And every trigger pull is the same.

As the op did not raise the issue of striker fired I think maybe no one mentioned it as a factor. A few polymer framed guns (the Ruger LC9, CZ's Omega series guns come to mind) are hammer fired. So we'd have to separate that out from the general issue.

The manual of arms is simpler which is both a strength and weakness and is not universally true of the breed. As the manual of arms for a M9 is not complex we are speaking of degrees of simplicity rather than the simple versus the complex. The decocker on the polymer Walther P99 was something I figured I'd never need to use other than for disassembly. While "every trigger pull is the same" is often cited as an advantage practical experience has shown that it is more an advantage on paper than in the world I think.

tipoc

 

[Valkman]

I own 1911's and revolvers, but I also own 3 XD45's and plan to get the new XD Mod 2 .45 when I can. I love 'em all and carry both a XD or a 1911.

 

[MrBorland]

As the op did not raise the issue of striker fired I think maybe no one mentioned it as a factor.

True there other polymer guns beyond striker-fired, and it's good the OP be made aware of them.

That said, while the OP didn't use the words "striker-fired", they specifically mentioned a Glock and M&P as examples, and wondered what they were missing by not owning an M&P. Sounded to me they've got striker-fired on their mind.

 

[9 fingers]

We don't carry here in NJ, so my perspective may be totally different. Plastic guns were invented because they require less machining and are cheaper to make. They, of course, are lighter so are more comfortable to carry. As for durability, comfort in shooting, overall appearance? I will take steel and walnut (or cocobolo) every time. I buy them to shoot and too collect. I like nice wood grips because the feel good and look good and I can change them if I want. Steel for me. One of these days I will get a Walther PPQm2 or an HK P30, because I like they way they look and feel (particularly the HK) but I haven't gone there yet.
9 fingers

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Completely disagree with this. I see exactly no difference between all steel handguns and revolvers compared to high quality polymer-framed handguns. I have shot 1911's, SIG's, Smith revolvers, 92FS's, and the list goes on. I own a good number of these guns, and I have owned more of them in the past. The only one I thought was above average in accuracy was a West German SIG P220. (P228's? lol, no. Not for me.) From an accuracy standpoint, a polymer frame is a non-issue to me, personally. I have good days and bad days with all of them, and my favorite polymer frame handguns are among the top performers. I do not feel any disadvantage in an accuracy contest using a stock Glock or an FNX compared to a 6" 686 or an all steel Gold Cup or a stock Beretta 92. But I suppose I would take a West German P220 or a Glock 17L, if I had the option.

Maybe I'm not a good enough shot to tell the difference that is caused by a polymer frame?

I can believe there are some all steel guns that are significantly more accurate. But I am not convinced that "combat accuracy" is an accurate portrayal of polymer handguns. Unless you include most all-steel handguns < $1000.00 under that label, as well.

I agree. Guns are individuals and I do not see that frame material has any bearing on the accuracy of the gun at all. If frame material affects anything, it would be the speed with which follow up shots can take place, since the weight of the gun impacts recoil characteristics. If a number of polymer guns were compared with a number of all steel guns in bench rest comparisons, I think some people would be surprised.

As the op did not raise the issue of striker fired I think maybe no one mentioned it as a factor. A few polymer framed guns (the Ruger LC9, CZ's Omega series guns come to mind) are hammer fired. So we'd have to separate that out from the general issue.

Berettas, HKs, and FNP/X guns come to mind as well.

Before striker-fired polymer guns came along you had to choose your poison: Same trigger pull each time meant SAO, carried cocked & locked or DAO. If you didn't want that, you had to go DA/SA and put up with a DA first shot. And in a relatively heavy platform with external safeties. Your list covers it some.

For those who are used to the DA/SA transition, there are polymer guns that do allow cocked and locked carry options as well, like the HK45 and P30 (thought there are variants lacking the safety/decocker) and also the FNX line.

It's a good time to be alive. There are so many high quality choices out there nowadays.

 

[Spats McGee]

Thanks everyone....great comments and you've given me a whole new perspective on "plastic." Going to the range this afternoon and just bringing a "new" FEG PP 7.65 clone I bought and a bunch of 9mm to run through one the their rental M&P semis. Will be looking at it through different eyes now. Again, thanks.

Please come back with a range report. I, for one, am curious to see if your assessment of the plastic fantastics changes.

 

[tipoc]

The main thing the op is missing is experiencing the guns. As folks have pointed out there is a wider variety of them today than 20 years ago. This attests to the success of the concept. That they work.

They work with hammers and strikers. There are striker fired guns with decockers, with or without manual safeties (that aren't the trigger), grip safeties, a variety of trigger types, etc.

If I don't see them at bullseye matches or IMSA yet maybe I don't get around enough. But the HK USP is hecka accurate and I don't need to say "for a polymer gun" it's just accurate period. Jerry Miculek has been working with S&W to improve the M&P.

tipoc

 

[wally]

What about aluminum alloy old school?

IMHO worst of both worlds. Aluminum alloys have no ultimate fatigue life so cracks are always possible under oscillating stress like the frame of a pistol sees.

A properly made steel frame should never crack or break. The polymer frames are so cheap to make all the big boys (Glock, S&W, etc.) will quickly replace it to avoid bad word of mouth should you get a defective one, the second tier makers like Kahr, EAA not so much.

Jerry Miculek has been working with S&W to improve the M&P.

Don't know if this has anything to do with it, but my ~8 month old S&W Shield in .40S&W put 5 shots into 2" at 25 yards off sandbags with my carry ammo during the final sight in of the RMR optic I installed.

Despite being lighter, I generally find polymer frames shoot a bit softer than steel frames (and especially aluminum) in the same caliber because they have a little flex to dissipate some of the recoil impulse. This is not a large effect, but as I've gotten older and the joints less flexible, its become more noticeable

 

[MrBorland]

Jerry Miculek has been working with S&W to improve the M&P.

I wouldn't expect too much.

Based on the "JM" revolvers, I'd expect the JM M&P to have JM's imprimatur on the frame and a few extra bells and whistles, both of which will be aggressively marketed, but I wouldn't expect it to be much improved in any meaningful and mechanistic sense.

 

[tipoc]

Don't know if this has anything to do with it, but my ~8 month old S&W Shield in .40S&W put 5 shots into 2" at 25 yards off sandbags with my carry ammo during the final sight in of the RMR optic I installed.

The 40 M&Ps never had much of a problem it was the 9mm that had issues. It had nothing to do with the gun being polymer though. It was the rate of twist in the barrel they were using. So I shouldn't have mentioned that, doesn't really fit in this discussion.

tipoc

 

[tipoc]

Miculek on the rate of twist and discussion of the S&W CORE gun. You can watch the whole thing or forward to about 11:15 for that particular discussion.

http://pistol-review.com/?p=1592

tipoc

 

[rskent]

Old School Steel vs The Latest Thing

Redcoat, I read you post three times and I still don't see a 1911 anywhere. How can you say that you have focused 100% old school and not have a 1911.

You need to head on down to the local gun shop and pick up a 1911, like today. How an you compare pistols when you don't have the gold standard to compare them to?

What the heck are you thinking man!


Also, welcome to the high road. I don't mean to bust your b...., but come on.

 

[Redcoat3340]

OK, here's the range report and a comment about 1911's. (a bit wordy)

First, the 1911's. I had two, a Norinco (with a trigger job) and a Colt. Shot them when I was in my 40's and early 50's. Gave them to my son when he moved to WA state and I moved to NY state (from Maryland...I gave all my pistols to my kids as NY state makes it near impossible to get a license).

Cut to last year and I moved to WA state. Decided I didn't like the recoil any more, 9mm was much more manageable and ammo more affordable. So I sold one and permanently gave the Colt to my kids. In other words, I wussed out. (And decided to "collect" S&W 39 and 59's....in 9mm)

Now about the range report.

I took two guns to the range yesterday: A new to me FEG 7.65 PP copy and a .38/44 S&W HD I used to work up some handloads.

Shot them and had a fine ole time.

Then took the rented full-size M&P and worked through the better part of two boxes of ammo.

It's a nice gun. Lightweight, especially compared to the .38/44; fits my hand okay; points well; and the trigger was okay. I shot okay with it. Not great, not terrible, but okay. Which was what I expected shooting with a new gun for the first time.

But it was not a transcendent experience. As far as it being a shoot'n iron, it was no better (and compared to some of my guns) a bit worse than what I already own.

Bottom line: no sale for now. For the kind of range shooting I do, there aren't any real advantages in terms of maintenance, weight, simplicity, utility, parts replacement, or any of the other good points made by many here.

I'm happy with what I have (and just saw a S&W 39 no dash for sale which I'm going to buy).

I've got three more free rentals at my range...so a box or three of 9mm will go through a Glock. Now that I expect to be a transcendent experience. I should at least hear the Vienna Boys Choir singing it's praises as each round goes off. (Or my phone ringing...my ring tone is the Vienna Boys Choir singing Ode to Joy).

Again, thanks to all who commented here. I still like my old school steel (and aluminum/pot metal/alloy guns, but now I have a much better feel why.

 

[Pilot]

I no longer have any polymer framed guns. My only one was an HK USP .45 Tac that I sold a while back because I rarely shot it. I prefer all steel, or aluminum ally framed guns for HD, range, and carry. My CZ PCR (compact lightweight alloy frame) is as compact, and light as a Glock G19 so I am not losing anything to polymer. I just don't like how polymer feels, but that doesn't mean I won't pick one up in the future. There are a lot of great polymer pistols on the market, but they just don't have the same feel to me as a metal framed gun. The guns stores, and kiddies love them though.

 

[ku4hx]

I like polymer framed guns and have several. I like all steel guns and have a few of those too. I like guns that have brass grips and a big single action hammer. I like guns with Aluminum alloy frames and have several of them. I even like guns that have wooden frames and one is a pistol.

I just like guns. If I like the gun and it fits for the particular need (or want) I have then it's the favored one at that moment and I'm satisfied.

 

[jad0110]

Old school steel is fine, but when a part breaks on an out-of-production handgun, you might have some more down time while you find a replacement.

GLOOB, that is actually an advantage. Don't you see, it is the perfect rationale to buy more guns !

Despite being lighter, I generally find polymer frames shoot a bit softer than steel frames (and especially aluminum) in the same caliber because they have a little flex to dissipate some of the recoil impulse.

Interesting, my personal observations are the exact opposite. I'm not saying that you are incorrect ... it just goes to show that like Ford and Chevy, we each have different tastes. That "flex" / high frequency impulse or vibration in a polymer frame on firing is precisely why I prefer steel. To my hand, a steel CZ-75 or Hi Power has significantly less felt recoil than a Glock 19 or XD. Other than my wife's Ruger SR-22 (polymer), my S&W 642 (aluminum/steel), Heritage Rough Rider (Zinc alloy / steel) and possibly H&R 622 (?), all of my handguns are steel framed. Unless my lower back is giving me fits (maybe a few days a year), weight never bothers me (I have been known to carry a 4" S&W Model 28 that probably weighs close to 3 lbs loaded).

I don't dislike polymer frame guns, to each his own, I just have a preference for others.

 

[HoosierQ]

Polymer is just a material. A material that came into its own in the second half of the 20th century...and which came to firearms in the last quarter of that same century.

John Moses Browning would probably have made use of it had it been available to him.

 

[tipoc]

Redcoat,

Thanks for the report. Have fun with the M39!

tipoc

 

[Spats McGee]

Thanks for the range report, Redcoat3340. You may never like polymer better than steel, and there's nothing in the world wrong with that. Enjoy your other rentals!

 

[AustinTX]

Interesting, my personal observations are the exact opposite. I'm not saying that you are incorrect ... it just goes to show that like Ford and Chevy, we each have different tastes. That "flex" / high frequency impulse or vibration in a polymer frame on firing is precisely why I prefer steel. To my hand, a steel CZ-75 or Hi Power has significantly less felt recoil than a Glock 19 or XD.

Yeah, that argument has always felt more like a neat theory to me than descriptive of anything real.

Of course, it's possible for people do differ substantially in their perception of felt recoil, so I suppose it really is that way for some people. To me, a Beretta 96 or a Sig P229 in .40 is far softer-shooting than a Glock 22, and still softer-shooting than even the beefier poly service pistols. Like you, I find the extended and pronounced high-frequency vibration of the polymer frame to be an unambiguous negative. None of my shooting friends and acquaintances would take the contrary position here, which I guess is why I was quite surprised the first time I saw someone make that case on the internet.

The only regular service-size poly pistol I've found to be similar to a competing metal-framed pistol in recoil is the Beretta PX4, with the recoil-dampening effects of its rotating-barrel action, but even then I still give the edge to the metal-framed pistols.