I Don't Like Polymer Guns Because....

[BobWright]

I don't like polymer handguns because they are ugly as a mud fence, don't take color case hardening nor high polish blueing.

They usually can't be dressed up with exotic hardwood or ivory grips. Have never seen one with a barrel as long as 7 1/2".

Bob Wright

 

[45tex]

The original Glock 17's had metal mag locks that grooved the cheap plastic magazines. But the mags did not fall out because a full load of ammo caused them to bulge so much.
There you go, a 30year old answer to a 30year old discussion. Except I was there and saw it. I own plastic guns today and don't give them a second thought.

 

[armoredman]

Same old stuff....hmmm...


So, do you think NiCad or Lithium Ion batteries are going to be the wave for coil style magnetic accelerator pistols in the future?

 

[GrandmasterB]

I REALLY LIKE this polymer gun.

 

[Spats McGee]

I didn't like them for a long, long time. I finally got one after ~25 years, and I'm coming around to liking them. After a few years of carrying a full-sized steel pistol, I can't deny that my G19 is lighter and, hence, easier to carry. Is polymer pretty? No, there are a few (but not all) that are just as ugly as hammered sin. That said, just about everything I own is a little on the worn side. I call them "well-loved," and I guess I like 'em that way.

 

[mgmorden]

Love polymer guns myself. They're lighter, just as durable, cheaper, and IMHO look better (using polymer allows companies to mold in designs/patterns that would be prohibitively expensive to machine).

Don't get me wrong, I have plenty of metal framed auto-loaders too, its just that most of them are bought because they were classic designs that I wanted. Any new designs that come out it kinda puzzles me why a company would use anything but polymer.

 

[maxxhavoc]

You left "I dont really like or dislike them" from the poll.

100% of the guns in my safe and the guns that go to the range are metal. I enjoy collecting them, shooting them, and owning them.

I carry poly guns 95% of the time because they are light, just as reliable, and a rust spot, scuff, or holster wear on them doesn't even irritate me. Yes, the triggers all suck for target practice, but on a pistol without a decent thumb safety I prefer a stiff trigger pull. Especially since I know how light an 8lb trigger feels in stressful situations. In contrast, trying to make a striker pistol into a light-trigger target gun for range use to me is like taking your pickup to the track. Sure, you can mod it to make it something it isn't designed to be, but it compromises it's ability to do its intended task.

I expect the metal guns to outlive me and still look as good as when I bought them. If the plastics get too roughed up, I will buy another one. They are disposable. Better yet, I'll pass them on to a new shooter and recycle that plastic.

 

[Drail]

I never liked "disposable" tools. (or top heavy pistols) A steel 1911 balances much better in my hand and has considerably less muzzle flip. But sadly most men have evolved into wimps today and cannot deal with the weight of an all steel pistol or the idea of a pistol that they can't just drop into their pocket because they can't deal with a real belt and holster rig. But they seem to have no problem dealing with the muzzle flip of a plastic gun that shoot small high velocity projectiles.

 

[kokapelli]

I never liked "disposable" tools. (or top heavy pistols) A steel 1911 balances much better in my hand and has considerably less muzzle flip. But sadly most men have evolved into wimps today and cannot deal with the weight of an all steel pistol or the idea of a pistol that they can't just drop into their pocket because they can't deal with a real belt and holster rig. But they seem to have no problem dealing with the muzzle flip of a plastic gun that shoot small high velocity projectiles.

Wow! When I grow up I want to be just like you.

 

[Drail]

No, you really don't. Trust me.

 

[huntsman]

But sadly most men have evolved into wimps today and cannot deal with the weight of an all steel pistol or the idea of a pistol that they can't just drop into their pocket because they can't deal with a real belt and holster rig.

There's been a demand for pocket pistols long before the plastic craze so were these also lesser men?

I agree that the .45acp is at it's best coming out of and all steel gun. But going plastic isn't the only option in going lighter, one can always go to other JMB creations, a .32 or .380acp.

 

[Fatelvis]

I don't care for most polymer pistol's striker fired action. It makes for a springy trigger. I have learned on and have been using crisp breaking triggers for years, and the "glock type" trigger is a little hard to get used to.

 

[dsk]

I don't care much for polymer guns because I prefer fine machinery. I like car engines, racing cycles, power tools... basically anything made using machined steel or aluminum parts. Old-school guns like the 1911, Luger, SAA, and Pocket Hammerless were made from machined forgings precisely fitted to watch-like perfection. Modern polymer guns are admittedly a lot more practical in the real world, but being made of injection-molded plastic and pressed stampings means the things I admired about the old all-steel guns are missing from the equation. If you don't get what I'm talking about go examine a disassembled Luger sometime, you'll marvel at how all of those little parts were machined then carefully fitted together. There's no way to make them like that nowadays, at least not on a production level.

 

[benzy2]

The problem with this question is that the answers are always given back based on emotion, you can't reason with emotion.

I've had no function/accuracy issues from any polymer firearm I've used. I know of a handful of failures to feed that have happened when my father was shooting, though they happened with both steel and polymer framed guns (he tries to cause a malfunction, he just doesn't know it).

I like all firearms. Some I find more useful, or a better value, or more visually appealing. They all have a role and none are inherently bad. Some are made more precise and others a bit less. To qualify an entire segment of firearms as bad based on the material choice sounds like a decision based on emotion to me. Any individual option may or may not be the best fit for your selection, but the big name brands are offering a generally great functioning pistol at an affordable price.

CZ is about the only manufacturer that is making both a polymer and steel framed guns with the same general guts for the same general price. I grabbed both options and either could be justified over the other. If The big names produced a comparable featured steel or alloy framed pistol for $450-$550 I would be glad to own one as well. Sadly, most metal framed full sized guns these days run closer to the $1000 mark rather than the $500 mark.

 

[250 Savage]

Just think out loud here, but wouldn't polymer break down over time? I know some kinds really break down badly from UV, some get harder and more brittle with age. I imagine the companies that used polymer would have looked into this, but what kind of a time frame would that be?

 

[Flatbush Harry]

I have three, all SA XD. They have all worked totally reliably and show no wear after 5-700 rounds each. I trust them as much as either of my two 1911 duty pistols. I'll probably get an XD SC in .40 S&W or an XDs in .45ACP for summer carry one of these days, although at 6'1 220#, I don't have a problem concealing a full size 1911 under a loose shirt.

FH

 

[kokapelli]

That is probably true, but metal also eventually develops stress cracks and can break too over time.

I guess the question is which fails first?

I had the backstrap on a 347 pistol stretch to the point that the pistol was no longer useable, so metal has it's limitations too.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Just think out loud here, but wouldn't polymer break down over time? I know some kinds really break down badly from UV, some get harder and more brittle with age. I imagine the companies that used polymer would have looked into this, but what kind of a time frame would that be?

I don't here of older GLOCKS spontaneously falling apart.

That is probably true, but metal also eventually develops stress cracks and can break too over time.

true. My bet is on metal lasting longer. But I base that on nothing but a preference for metal guns, and the reality that there are many many old metal handguns still in service with maintenance of course.

Polymer handguns just haven't been around long enough to make it a fair comparison.

 

[benzy2]

The other consideration would be if a polymer gun costs half what a metal pistol costs (sig 2022 vs 226), even if it lasts half as long it may be a better value from a strictly length of service stand point. I would guess most well designed and manufactured steel firearms will last longer than a similarly well designed and manufactured polymer pistol. As of yet though, durability between the two doesn't seem drastic and the more popular brands haven't run into an expiration date, if you will.

 

[BLU]

I never use to like Tactical Tupperware. Then I shot a Glock. I will admit it shot great. I still don't like Tactical Tupperware. I can't dress up something that ugly by changing the grips or maybe jeweling the metal, etc. and unlike my steel guns, every Glock at the range looks just like every other Glock at the range! Wow! How boring. If I nick my steel gun, I carefully sand it out, polish it and you're hard pressed to know it ever happened. Nick a TT and it's there for life-unless you're good with a soldering iron. If, (God help me), my house burns down, at least I'll only have to replace, (maybe), the grips! Not everyone can afford a fire-proof safe! Oh... I never have to worry about the UV's degrading the integrity of the plastic either. And lastly... I doubt I ever have to worry about my 1911 breaking into two pieces the way one Border Patrol agent had his TT break when he fell on it. Go ahead and buy your TT's. I'm perfectly okay with it. Just don't waste your breath convincing me to buy one.