Make your best case why todays firearms are better...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gus McCrae said:
I am shocked that some people seem to think that the polymer used in firearms is the same that is used in a lawn rake.

You have yet to cite your source or provide evidence of these crumbling Glocks. I bet next you will swear that leaving one in a car in direct sun light will cause it to melt too... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
polymer is polymer. It all has the weakness to UV rays. It doesn't all have the same melting point or the same tensile strength. You sir are being ridiculous and no longer worthy of serious replies.
 
Not all metal is the same either. Some corrodes worse than others in different environments, and they all melt at different temps too... what is the point? Not all metals are the same; not all plastics are the same.
 
You sir are being ridiculous and no longer worthy of serious replies.
Click to expand...
translation: I have no evidence but it sounds like it ought to be true.

Plenty of ranges have Glocks on their rental program with 2-300,000 rounds through them. They run just fine. No crumbling frames. The PD here issued Glock 22s about 15 years ago and are just now trading them in. I have never heard anyone complain about a crumbling frame, despite the fact that these guns have been wet, dry, hot, cold etc etc.
In fact I have never see a Glock frame crumbling or deteriorating in any way.
 
I am shocked that there are still people in this day and age that are not aware of the weakness polymer(plastics) have with regard to UV rays and sunlight. Have you never seen a cracked and crumbly piece of plastic lying on the ground? Or a part of a yard implement? Have you never seen checking of old car tires?

Sheesh, this isn't rocket science. You'd think I was telling everyone the sky is green and grass is blue. Read a book people. educate yourselves. Either that or just open your eyes and look around.
Click to expand...

You've made extraordinary claims about the durability of polymer-framed guns. Extraordinary claims require documentation and proof in order for them to be taken seriously.

You can finger-wag all you like, but without actual proof to back up your claims (all of which I've heard before, but have never seen verified) I'm going to have a hard time buying what you're trying to sell.

If polymer-framed guns are well and truly so inferior, then it should be no great feat to produce verifiable evidence of this claim.
 
I don't think he meant cracking. Cracks in polymer frames is not at all an unknown issue. I'll assume he's referring to degradation, i.e. DECAY... on a smaller scale.
 
I am not against any polymer gun, some of them are great guns. However, I dont view them as possible heirlooms to hand down over time. They are a disposable item to me.
 
Ok, so that's a step in the right direction, at least.

Though the article makes it fairly plain that the failure was, in this case, due to a manufacturing defect that was presumably taken care of.
 
I'll assume he's referring to degradation on a smaller scale.
Click to expand...


The article was about possible heat degradation as a culprit. The gun was stored in a van during its life cycle.
 
To be honest, I didn't read the article. Clearly I should have, but I saw the crack in the side and figured it didn't really apply here. But, as to the topic of this thread, it certainly does. Metal frames obviously don't fail like that. It's a good example for the thread, certainly.

But the quote from Bubba was one, that I thought, was referring to a form of decay.
 
Extraordinary claims require documentation and proof in order for them to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...
+1
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Pete
 
Metal frames obviously don't fail like that. It's a good example for the thread, certainly.
Click to expand...
Metal frames certainly crack. The guns in the article were the result of a manufacturing defect, not an inherent characteristic of polymer frames.
 
I certainly know that metal cracks. That's basically all I deal with in my industry. The qualifying words were "like that". A metal frame would not have cracked... like that... under those circumstance.
 
My only answer is that todays fire arms are more readily available to me. I can drool over the old guns that are being collected, but I can purchase a Kimber or a Wilson or have a smith build me a 308 with a Panda action, . I believe that today we have a more diverse selection than we had years ago. apples to apples
 
I wont be caught dead buying a Smith from after 2000. Usually it is from before 1980 even. New stuff really is useless. The evidence is overwhelming.
Click to expand...

+1 to that.
You won't catch me buying ANY gun newer than 1980, to say the least. I prefer my guns to be metal, not plastic. I do not care for items currently made from or imported from japan. Guns with chincy or cost-cutting features are unacceptable to me. I refuse to pay $1000+ for a piece of plastic, or $1000+ for a new Smith & Wesson when I pay half of that for a WWII era Smith that is much more durable, and whose value will only increase over time.

I'm not talking out of my rear end, because I inherited a few guns that were newer than 1980. I sold a few, and kept a few.
Not meaning to insult those who have newer guns, just saying that I am more of a collector and prefer my guns to be of a certain vintage.
 
Old is better because gun-nuts are typically conservative.

New is better because all the marketing guys say so.


No point in making generalizations here. This specific gun is either better than it used to be, or not. I don't think there's any debate, for instance, in whether the old mini-14's are more accurate than the new 580+ models. Sometimes though, old is good specifically for collector reasons, whether there's a mechanical reason for its price or not.
 
unaffected by sun damage
Click to expand...
That was never the issue.

If one is going is going to make a claim, then it needs to be backed up. You have posted a very coherent looking, I have not read to whole thing, article that on the first skim looks very interesting. That is backing up your claim with a source. And a good one.
 
One word - Precision

Just for fun at the range yesterday I swapped top ends on my pair of Glock 19s. I couldn't even tell a difference in point of impact. My 1911 though will require extensive fitting to have a new slide or barrel. Heck I had to spend an hour or so once when I had to replace the slide stop. Don't get me wrong I'll have that 1911 when I shuffle off this mortal coil. It will probably be the one they pry from cold dead hands, but technology has brought just such a degree of precision that it is simply hard to say that older is better.

Granted Glocks are ugly as home made sin, and my 1911 is work of art, but as to function and serviceability the newer design wins hands down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

1
  • Locked
Remington 1911 Observations
2 3
Replies
59
Views
5K
tipoc
tipoc
Palladan44
  • Locked
5 oldest guns i own- "Modern firearms in good working condition"??
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
mac66
M
Mr. Mosin
  • Locked
Today's Investigation
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
UncleEd
U
wally
  • Locked
Maybe Colt will make a comeback.
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
TimboKhan
TimboKhan
spartacus2002
  • Locked
Why I support Bushmaster
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
wingnutx
W
Back
Top