What's Wrong With Polymer Framed And Striker Fired Guns
- Thread starter kokapelli
- Start date
- Status
Bohemus
Member
It just feels better to handle piece of steel with proper hammer.
Hurryin' Hoosier
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 635
Správný!
spm
Member
Esoxchaser
Member
When I was a kid growing up in the 60's, firearms were made of metal. Good toys were made of metal. Cheap toys were made of plastic.
verdun59
Member
Well we are not in the 60s anymore ......thankfully.
jimbo555
Member
They work fine for me!
Blue Brick
Member
Wish I was….. Women shaped like Joan Holloway are Hot! Gota love that red hair…
Back to the topic
I have had both features, but never at the same time. Right now I have an aluminum framed striker fired pistol.
I love a good poly gun.
No problems with strikers.
There are a lot of traditional gun owners out there who cling to steel and wood, and can't/won't join the 21st century.
'If a 1911 was good enough for my daddy, it's good enough for me' seems to be a common mantra.
No problems with strikers.
There are a lot of traditional gun owners out there who cling to steel and wood, and can't/won't join the 21st century.
'If a 1911 was good enough for my daddy, it's good enough for me' seems to be a common mantra.
MachIVshooter
Member
Because they have no soul.
USAF_Vet
Member
Of my two semi aurto handguns, one is a polymer framed striker fired, the other is a metal framed hammer fired. I like them both. Don't have a real preference of one over the other.
Revolvers are another story. Don't think I could bring myself to own a polymer framed wheel gun, but even that isn't set in stone.
I like all guns I guess, and don't hold a prejudice against them based on their color or materials or their internals.
Revolvers are another story. Don't think I could bring myself to own a polymer framed wheel gun, but even that isn't set in stone.
I like all guns I guess, and don't hold a prejudice against them based on their color or materials or their internals.
bikemutt
Member
I own them both and while I don't really care for my Glocks the way I do for good 'ole steel guns, there's a lot to be said for a G17 with 18 rounds on board, or a G21 with 14, that much ammo in a full size steel gun would be pretty heavy to pack around. The polymers seem plenty accurate and run on a diet of even junk food.
For me they are my Star Wars blasters; the steel guns are my light sabers
For me they are my Star Wars blasters; the steel guns are my light sabers
CajunBass
Member
Nothing really. I've owned both, but like most here I just happen to prefer steel/aluminum and wood. Probably has something to do with being for the most part, a "revolver guy."
I've never really felt I "needed" a gun. I just happen to "want" them. If I thought I "needed" one, a Glock or something like it would be just fine. But since I'm buying what I "want", I want blue steel.
I've never really felt I "needed" a gun. I just happen to "want" them. If I thought I "needed" one, a Glock or something like it would be just fine. But since I'm buying what I "want", I want blue steel.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
For me it is a performance thing. The longer I watch shooters making accurate hits in a hurry, the mo' faster they seem to be with the plastic fantastic striker guns.
I've been convinced through slow, inexorable, piling up of evidence at every match I attend, that they are the "bestest for the mostest" and the old steel and hammer guns really just don't keep up, no matter how much soul they have or how beautiful they are.
If fast hits are the goal, and no other goal really ranks as nearly so important, then most shooters tend to do better when they train with one of the polymer/striker guns.
I've been convinced through slow, inexorable, piling up of evidence at every match I attend, that they are the "bestest for the mostest" and the old steel and hammer guns really just don't keep up, no matter how much soul they have or how beautiful they are.
If fast hits are the goal, and no other goal really ranks as nearly so important, then most shooters tend to do better when they train with one of the polymer/striker guns.
el Godfather
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,847
I think OP actually wants to see the discourse on Glock
Not at all, I'm just curious to see if there is a technical reason to prefer one over the other.
So far it appears that the all metal crowd just like the looks, or feel, or tradition of all metal guns.
I personally am quickly moving to polymer because they are lighter, frames don't rust and recoil seems to better absorbed by the polymer frame, but I do own a few all metal guns that I like very much and will probably never carry or sell.
I hate the looks and feel of polymer but they are what I would choose if I had to carry them all day and use them frequently.
I find glocks to be light weight, rugged with high round capacity coupled with reliability and accuracy.
They work and they work better for me from a useful tool standpoint better than the pistols I like. How ironic is that.
I find glocks to be light weight, rugged with high round capacity coupled with reliability and accuracy.
They work and they work better for me from a useful tool standpoint better than the pistols I like. How ironic is that.
huntsman
Member
OregonJohnny
Member
When I carry, it's either a Ruger LCP, Kahr CM9 or CW9, or Glock 20SF - all polymer guns.
When I want to pull a gun out of the safe just to fondle and appreciate, it's a 1911, Beretta 92, Sig 220, or one of my revolvers.
So, for "working" guns - polymer.
For "firearms appreciation" guns - steel or aluminum.
But I have no hate at all for any good semi-auto, no matter what it's made of.
When I want to pull a gun out of the safe just to fondle and appreciate, it's a 1911, Beretta 92, Sig 220, or one of my revolvers.
So, for "working" guns - polymer.
For "firearms appreciation" guns - steel or aluminum.
But I have no hate at all for any good semi-auto, no matter what it's made of.
Ok, but what seems to be the problem with them?
I notice you carry an LCP polymer pistol.
- Status
Similar threads
