Will Aluminum Frames Last?

Status
Not open for further replies.
rcmodel said:
Have you machined aluminum??

It's sticky nasty stuff.

But modern cutting / cooling fluids make the difference moot in tool wear.
Justin22885 said:
yes i have, and no it doesnt
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So... you've had experience with all of the different varieties of steel and aluminum alloys used in modern firearms, and your personal experience includes the latest methods used by gunmakers to machine or process the various metals?

If greater profits are the ONLY reason gun makers have moved to aluminum -- YOUR CLAIM -- I wonder why they've haven't all just quit making steel-framed guns? If profit is their only objective, they seem to be shooting themselves in the foot!!

How about CAST STEEL FRAMES? Is that manufacturing process a cost-cutting approach too, done only to reduce costs and improve profits? Using your reasoning, why would there be any other reason to cast a frame rather than use forged steel? There are a number of handguns with cast steel frames. There are some handguns with cast aluminum frames, too, and a few with forged aluminum frames.

Someone with a lot of 1911 experience -- 1911Tuner -- has said, with regard to cast or forged steel "...assuming a good casting, the frame is neither here nor there. It's the slide that catches hell." He has had a few guns with cast slides as well, and when he talks about failed slides, he says, " I've got four busted slides here. Three machined steel and one cast. When a slide cracks in the port, adjacent to the breechface...that slide is a paperweight. Done."

How many damaged SIG frames have you personally seen and examined or heard about? (Aluminum-framed SIGs have been around for 40 years+ and some of them have pretty high round counts.) How about damaged CZ alloy frames? I've heard of problems with Berettas (which have aluminum frames), but most of the problems have typically been with the steel slides (leading to changes and a minor redesign) or locking blocks -- the locking blocks are a modest expense when it happens, and some consider it routine maintenance.

I would note, too, that the cost of guns, today, in terms of buying power ($dollars adjusted for inflation) is actually as cheap or cheaper than anything made 20-50 years ago. Prices have actually dropped. Have corporate profits dropped, too? (You can argue that modern gun finishes aren't as pretty, and I'd agree -- but modern gun finished are generally MORE durable.

Here's a link to a Consumer Price Index calculator that shows how prices are affected by inflation. It's a frightening site... http://146.142.4.24/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl . A gun you bought in 1970 for $700, for example, would have to sell for over $4,000 today, to give you comparable buying power with the money you received. Darned few things appreciate or sell that well, nowadays. Inflation is a big part of our lives and we tend to not really see it for what it is.
 
Last edited:
I've done a lot of reading about a number of handguns with alloy (aluminum) frames and I'm wondering how much is real and how much is pap. I began reading about the Beretta 92 problems and how a number of frames had cracks. Although some in the military considered it an insignificant cosmetic problem, Beretta urged the military not to accept them.
Click to expand...

Aluminum has a finite fatigue fracture lifetime. Any load carrying member that is made of aluminum will fatigue fracture given enough load cycles. This is true of the M92 Beretta, and from what I heard, the expected frame lifetime of a M92 Beretta is around 35,000 rounds. It will crack and the frame will have to be replaced.

The military bought the M92 under a performance specification and the pistol had to complete a 6000 round endurance test. The US Army did not run any 50,000 or 100,000, or 500,000 endurance tests on these pistols.

Fan boys of M1911 claim impossible lifetimes for their pistols. The US Army last bought M1911's during WW2. Those things were made of plain carbon steels, the early ones were not even heat treated. By the time the 1970's rolled around, the guns in inventory had been rebuilt so many times they were unreliable. This year I shot with the All Guard Pistol team and found they were using match pistols built with original military M1911 frames. I did not ask where they found the things, but I talked to their Armorer. As a general rule they can rebuild a M1911 four times before the frame rails are too thin. I forget the round count till rebuild, I think I was told shooting seasons, like two or three shooting years. You can figure about 2000 to 3000 rounds a shooting season. These M1911's would have frame cracks, most of them over the slide release notch. If the M1911 cracked there, they simply cut the rail away and used the M1911 until the frame rails got too thin.

Match pistols have to be tight for best accuracy. A loose pistol will function but not meet match accuracy.

As a wrap up, if you want a lightweight pistol and buy an aluminum pistol, you must accept that the lifetime of the pistol will be finite, and less than an equivalent steel frame pistol. There are very few people who shoot enough ammunition to ever find what the fatigue lifetime of their pistol. Someone ought to calculate the cost of shooting 35,000 rounds of factory 9mm ammunition. It will be large.
 
SlamFire1 said:
Aluminum has a finite fatigue fracture lifetime. Any load carrying member that is made of aluminum will fatigue fracture given enough load cycles. This is true of the M92 Beretta, and from what I heard, the expected frame lifetime of a M92 Beretta is around 35,000 rounds. It will crack and the frame will have to be replaced.

The military bought the M92 under a performance specification and the pistol had to complete a 6000 round endurance test. The US Army did not run any 50,000 or 100,000, or 500,000 endurance tests on these pistols.

Fan boys of M1911 claim impossible lifetimes for their pistols. The US Army last bought M1911's during WW2. Those things were made of plain carbon steels, the early ones were not even heat treated. By the time the 1970's rolled around, the guns in inventory had been rebuilt so many times they were unreliable. This year I shot with the All Guard Pistol team and found they were using match pistols built with original military M1911 frames. I did not ask where they found the things, but I talked to their Armorer. As a general rule they can rebuild a M1911 four times before the frame rails are too thin. I forget the round count till rebuild, I think I was told shooting seasons, like two or three shooting years. You can figure about 2000 to 3000 rounds a shooting season. These M1911's would have frame cracks, most of them over the slide release notch. If the M1911 cracked there, they simply cut the rail away and used the M1911 until the frame rails got too thin.

Match pistols have to be tight for best accuracy. A loose pistol will function but not meet match accuracy.

As a wrap up, if you want a lightweight pistol and buy an aluminum pistol, you must accept that the lifetime of the pistol will be finite, and less than an equivalent steel frame pistol. There are very few people who shoot enough ammunition to ever find what the fatigue lifetime of their pistol. Someone ought to calculate the cost of shooting 35,000 rounds of factory 9mm ammunition. It will be large.
Click to expand...
35,000 rounds is 70 boxes of 50 rounds. The cost at $13 per box (average current cost of 9mm) that comes to $910.

Several Canik handguns utilize aluminum frames and they claim to meet NATO specs and test their frames to 50,000 rounds.

That said, I think a full size steel gun in the same caliber would outlast it.
 
Kiln said:
35,000 rounds is 70 boxes of 50 rounds. The cost at $13 per box (average current cost of 9mm) that comes to $910.

Several Canik handguns utilize aluminum frames and they claim to meet NATO specs and test their frames to 50,000 rounds.

That said, I think a full size steel gun in the same caliber would outlast it.
Click to expand...
very true, and it will.. however your math is wrong, it would be 700 boxes of 50 rounds.. cheapest i find 9mm is like $0.20/rd which is about $7,000 over the life of the pistol... MOST people probably wont spend this much money on ammo for a single pistol and will never see that limit so to them, aluminum is fine

myself, im personally not one of these people to go from one gun to the next.. im trying to consolidate and put my money and effort into just a few items i can rely on... i WILL see that limit with most of what i have and have zero interest in a pistol that cant go WELL beyond that limit so to someone like me, aluminum frames pistols are useless and quite frankly inferior

so it depends entirely on shooting habbits and what you intend to use it for.. for a brutally reliable "go-to" pistol you plan to have around and rely on decades into the future, go steel.. if you want something lightweight primarily for carry with occasional practice, aluminum is fine
 
Already over 10,000 on one of my polymer frames. ($2500, +3 recoil spring assemblies $100) During that time I've learned that it just doesn't matter. Ammo is expensive, guns are cheap.

If it cracks, just get another frame. Polymer is $100 tops, aluminum is what? $300 tops for a good fitted 1911 frame?
 
I don't think there's much question that steel-framed guns will outlast aluminum framed guns -- that really wasn't the point being discussed. Aluminu-framed guns can have a long service life -- and will likely outlast any one or two owners, if proper care is taken. Most of the folks participating here have a number of guns (I think I'm down to 15, now), and that means that some of them aren't getting shot a lot...

I also made the point very early in this discussion that aluminum wasn't as resilient as steel. But aluminum can be much, much lighter while offering comparable strength -- and if you carry, that can matter.

Someone else mentioned that they spend a lot when they buy a truck, and they keep it up as best they can. Eventually, however, they replace it. That truck is a tool. When they get a replacement, it's either a relatively recent used truck or a new one -- it's NOT with a reconditioned old truck. It's something newer, safer, more economical, and more comfortable to use. Trucks are a lot more expensive than guns -- but, like gun, they wear out, too.

If you want to buy a gun that you can pass on to your grandchild's grandchild, you can do that with any gun: keep it in the box it came (along with the manual and papers) in and store it in the gun safe.

If you're lucky, and you've stashed the right gun away, you might even make someone in your family a bit of money, long after you're gone. It hard to predict which guns will be desirable 50-100 years from now. If you're lucky, pick right, and keep the gun in collectible condition, someone might benefit. Otherwise, e, that gun will be like most guns and used cars or trucks: an expensive artifact that sits, unused, or towed away or sold.

If you pass on a "shooter" (not "collectible") you or your son or daughter (or whomever inherits it on down the road) will be fixing and repairing and replacing all sorts of parts over that guns long life. If parts can be found.

Some folks seem to consider their guns to be something other than tools -- they treat them as though the guns are religious icons. If you want to do that, you can: just put the guns in some shadow boxes and hang them on the wall; then put some candles on the table below them, and make the whole display a shrine.
 
Last edited:
Everybody on the internet shoots so much they wear out their guns.

Also worth noting, as mentioned, aluminum does not have a fatigue limit, but a fatigue limit for steel is not necessarily a guarantee either. It only applies if stress stays below certain thresholds. A good historical example is that on the early Berettas, it was the steel slide, not the aluminum frame, that was cracking and failing. The stresses imposed will depend on the load as well as the form and thickness of the parts. The relationship is logarithmic too, so it changes in orders of magnitude. With a little tweaking a part that might fail in 10,000 cycles could be made to last 100,000 just by making it a bit beefier, eliminating stress concentrations/risers, etc. Planes are largely aluminum and it's thru design considerations and regulalry scheduled maintenance and inspection that the wings don't eventually fall off. Even the surface finish of the part (like rust) can serve to nucleate cracks that can grow until complete failure occurs.

In short, a good design is more important than the material alone. Ask one of the guys who got hit in the face by the back-half of a steel Beretta slide.
 
35,000 rounds is 70 boxes of 50 rounds. The cost at $13 per box (average current cost of 9mm) that comes to $910.
Click to expand...

If you will sell me 35,000 rounds of 9mm for $910, I will buy it.


Planes are largely aluminum and it's thru design considerations and regulalry scheduled maintenance and inspection that the wings don't eventually fall off. Even the surface finish of the part (like rust) can serve to nucleate cracks that can grow until complete failure occurs.
Click to expand...

I really enjoy the National Geographic series "Seconds from Disaster". http://natgeotv.com/me/seconds-from-disaster/about Off the top of my head, at least four of the shows were about airplanes who did come apart in the air, precisely because of aluminum metal fatigue. The most common theme was a cash strapped airline, deferred maintenance, and old planes. Old planes have lots and lots of crack problems and they get to be very expensive to maintain.
 
There's only so much a plane can handle. Google the C130 that had a wing mounted life raft inflate, mid flight, and get stuck on the tail. Plane inverted a few times, but they landed it. Went from a perfect $14,000,000 aircraft to scrap metal in just a few seconds. Over G stress.

My Al 1911 frame is fine, but the 30 lpi checkering is toast. It's all crushed and deformed. Lost a bit of grip as well.
 
Zerodefect said:
Already over 10,000 on one of my polymer frames. ($2500, +3 recoil spring assemblies $100) During that time I've learned that it just doesn't matter. Ammo is expensive, guns are cheap.

If it cracks, just get another frame. Polymer is $100 tops, aluminum is what? $300 tops for a good fitted 1911 frame?
Click to expand...
most polymer frames have steel on the areas that actually take stress.. a couple may use aluminum but for the most part i see stainless steel pieces put into the moulds when those polymer frames are made.. so they should last just as many rounds as a steel framed pistol
 
Zerodefect said:
There's only so much a plane can handle. Google the C130 that had a wing mounted life raft inflate, mid flight, and get stuck on the tail. Plane inverted a few times, but they landed it. Went from a perfect $14,000,000 aircraft to scrap metal in just a few seconds. Over G stress.

My Al 1911 frame is fine, but the 30 lpi checkering is toast. It's all crushed and deformed. Lost a bit of grip as well.
Click to expand...
so you wore off the checkering with your own hand?
 
justin22885 said:
so you wore off the checkering with your own hand?
Click to expand...
The front strap checkering on my S&W 469 is getting worn off. The finish in that spot is long gone, and there are obvious wear marks. The frame is an aluminum alloy, and my wedding band is Tungsten. Being a lefty, my ring wears the aluminum frame unless I remove it or wear gloves when shooting. I've had no such issues on poly framed guns, but I don't put near as many rounds through my Kel Tec or Taurus as I do the S&W.
 
Lets clear up this nonsense about the Tomcat. Yes, there is a part inside prone to crack. It's a purely cosmetic part, that covers where the trigger bar comes through the frame. It's scalloped out underneath and is extremely thin. It has no bearing on the functionality of the pistol. Beretta suggest .32 ammo that is <130 ft lbs of energy and all will be well.
 
Yes but if the action parts of the aluminum are lined with steel or other very hard material where the friction occurs you can still have a much lighter pistol that is very durable and stands up to wear just fine.

The answer is no aluminum is not used exclusively for cost savings and making a firearm with it may actually cost a lot more if the materials are high quality with a design to work well with it.
 
Someone better tell those Vietnam vintage AR's, that are still running, their days are numbered.

The B-52 post, that was ignored by the only individual arguing aluminum won't last, is the best example that aluminum will wear just fine over time. Air frames undergo a tremendous amount of stress and that stress accumulates over time.

Also, the new F150 is made out of aluminum to save weight, increase gas mileage as well as for its corrosion resistance. It is not cheaper to make trucks out of aluminum, in fact it cost Ford a tremendous amount of money to switch to making them out of aluminum. It is something called "progress".

A well engineered product made of doggie doodoo will last.
 
USAF_Vet said:
The front strap checkering on my S&W 469 is getting worn off. The finish in that spot is long gone, and there are obvious wear marks. The frame is an aluminum alloy, and my wedding band is Tungsten. Being a lefty, my ring wears the aluminum frame unless I remove it or wear gloves when shooting. I've had no such issues on poly framed guns, but I don't put near as many rounds through my Kel Tec or Taurus as I do the S&W.
Click to expand...
this is just an example of the inferiority of aluminum... if your wedding band will wear it down just by holding it, zerodefect crushed the checkering with bare hands its ridiculous for those to say that the constant reciprocating action of a hardened high carbon or stainless steel slide moving back and forth has no significant effect on the life of the frame

this is exactly why i rate solid steel the most durable, polymer with steel inserts behind that, and then aluminum at the bottom and why i will go polymer long before i go aluminum
 
"- Some of our M4's have well over 200,000 rounds down range. Barrels have been replaced, gas tubes have been replaced, BCG's have been replaced but what sets it apart from the AK47's is that upper and lower receivers continue to function. AK's get to about the 100,000+ round count and rails on the receiver will start to crack. It's an easy fix with tig welding but they crack. We have yet to lose an upper or lower receiver from cracking."
https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118...__and_how_they_have_handled_on_our_range.html

A fine example of an aluminum receiver outlasting a steel receiver. Again, it's all about the design. It's not like steel parts don't break or something. Trying to flatly say one is superior or inferior to the other is about as asinine as saying air is better than water. If you've got much depth to that mechanical engineering education, this shouldn't require that much explanation.
 
Actually, my polymer frames checkering is holding up better than steel. It gives and flexs, then just springs back.

My 25 lpi checkering on my SS 1911 is already starting to ding up. Need to get that SS melonited to see if it helps at all.
 
Tungsten is much harder than aluminium, and it'd eventually do the same thing to steel. But I can wear a hole clear though to the magazine and the gun will continue to function.

The tungsten ring wearing against the aluminum frame is a wear pattern the gun was not engineered for. A steel slide against aluminum frame rails is a wear pattern the gun was engineered for. The gun shows minor wear after four years of shooting with the Tungsten ring, but no wear after 30 years of shooters by with a steel slide.

But since steel will also eventually be worn down by tungsten, does that make steel inferior? Should we make frames p t of tungsten, instead?
 
Diamonds.

Harder then Tungsten.

Yea!
That's the ticket!!

Who wouldn't want a SIG 226 with a frame made from a real big diamond!

rc
 
do you not realize its the same type of wear whether its a steel rail sliding across one part of the aluminum frame or someones wedding ring sliding across another part... to say "it wasnt DESIGNED for that type, but it was designed for this type when the nature of both situations is pretty much identical shows a general lack of knowledge on the matter

theres quite simply no magical "design" or lubrication thats going to make aluminum not get worn when abrased by a harder material
 
why do i get the feeling those defending aluminum frames without any real knowledge of engineering or metallurgy most likely have paid $800 for something like a sig and their ego wont let them believe anything but it being able to last just as long as steel?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Cowboybebop
  • Locked
Polymer versus Steel/Aluminum drop durability
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
jon_in_wv
J
K
  • Locked
Aluminum Frames & durability
Replies
23
Views
9K
makarovnik
M
45223
  • Locked
What is a "steel alloy frame"?
Replies
8
Views
1K
RX-79G
R
J
  • Locked
Taurus 92 frame question
Replies
4
Views
622
Jeff Pinardi
J
S
  • Locked
Aluminum frame Walther P-38/P-1
Replies
18
Views
7K
PX15
P
Back
Top