Will Aluminum Frames Last?

[PRM]

I have a Walther P1, 1985 mfg that was a German military turn in, arsenal refinished. Runs like a champ.

Walther over the years did upgrade the P38/P1. They installed a hex bolt in the frame to prevent excessive wear from the locking block and beefed up the slide on later models. Mine has both, but there are a lot of post-war guns with alloy frames without the upgrades that are still in service.

Walther does recommend only using 115/124 grain standard velocity rounds in them. I have no problem doing that and fully expect to pass it on to one of my kids in firing condition.

As far as the Beretta, I work on a law enforcement academy range that trains officers from departments across the state. I have seen a number of Berettas come through over the years with no issues. Next to the Glock, the Beretta is one of the more popular brands in use in our state.

 

[HammsBeer]

Aluminum is the least durable, and offers very few advantages over steel. There is a reason plastic guns are replacing them. But for most of us it is a non-issue.

I'd say carry weight is a huge advantage. So is corrosion resistance.
Plastics have made huge strides, and can easily be molded into complex shapes for less cost, hence their increasing popularity.
But there is something about the solid feel of a metal framed handgun that just feels right.

 

[nettlle]

I have an aluminum framed Kimber with 16K+ through it. I do change out the recoil springs on a regular basis. That's why I keep a round count.

 

[sigarms228]

SIG classic P series aluminum alloy frames have been known to last over 100,000 rounds fired if well maintained meaning the recoil springs are changed about every 5000 rounds, breech block roll pins are changed at about every 5000 rounds in the older carbon folded steel slides, and the frame rails are kept well lubed. Here is a link to an individual talking about such when he used to be responsible for servicing them. I have also read about Todd Green of Pistol Forum mentioning the same. While the frame is aluminum alloy the locking insert is steel.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?17567-Got-this-from-Gray-Guns-today/page2

 

[justin22885]

SIG classic P series aluminum alloy frames have been known to last over 100,000 rounds fired if well maintained meaning the recoil springs are changed about every 5000 rounds, breech block roll pins are changed at about every 5000 rounds in the older carbon folded steel slides, and the frame rails are kept well lubed. Here is a link to an individual talking about such when he used to be responsible for servicing them. I have also read about Todd Green of Pistol Forum mentioning the same. While the frame is aluminum alloy the locking insert is steel.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?17567-Got-this-from-Gray-Guns-today/page2

there are 1911 frames that have been in service with the US military that have over 500,000 rounds through the frame, so the 100,000 on aluminum doesnt impress me

 

[justin22885]

quite simply to say aluminum is as strong or will last as long for the same volume of material used would defy the simply laws of physics.. aluminum IS a weaker material and manufacturers dont make aluminum frames pistols for YOUR benefit, as they claim when advertising they weight less, but its done for THEIR benefit, because aluminum is cheaper to machine BECAUSE its a weaker material and is easier on the tooling

polymer frames pistols are becoming more popular because theyre even cheaper yet for manufacturers to mass produce, though not going to last as long as solid steel, they still have steel reinforcements where its needed, so most your polymer stuff will most likely outlast aluminum framed pistols firing the same ammunition, all else being equal

my personal opinion, if you want strength, longevity, durability and dont care so much about weight, get a steel framed pistol, if you want something lightweight for carry, get a polymer framed pistol with steel where it matters (rails, pin holes, where the barrel impacts the frame, etc).. pick your tradeoff

now, someone whos not going to shoot tens of thousands of rounds through a pistol or abuse it probably wont notice much different.. but military does shoot tens of thousands of rounds through it, and as such theyve been noticing problems with it

 

[sigarms228]

I prefer the weight savings of aluminum alloy in a metal frame pistol as many do, including much of the military, and for me it has nothing to do with cost savings. I also have a couple steel frame pistols but I would never consider carrying something that heavy. A SIG P228 as an example is easy for me to CCW. SIG offers classic P series pistols in either aluminum alloy frame or steel frame so the user can invest in what works best for them and often SIG users own both. SIG also offers their 1911 pistol with a steel frame for a user that wants to invest in that. Choices are great to have.

CZ sells boatloads of their aluminum alloy frame P01 and PCR compact and can hardly give away their CZ 75 Compact steel frame that is significantly less in cost than the aluminum frame P01 and PCR.

The SEALS use the aluminum alloy SIG P226 MK25 even though a steel frame P226 is and has been available.

If I wear out one of my aluminum alloy frame pistols after spending $30,000 on ammo so be it and I would gladly buy another one being an insignificant investment in the total cost of ownership for me.

 

[Fiv3r]

I used to fret about such things. The fact of the matter is that based on my volume of shooting, my $600 Beretta is statistically going to outlive me, and I'm only in my mid-30s. I might need to replace the springs every few thousand rounds as a routine maintenance, but I seriously doubt I'll wear it down to a nub or even remotely stretch the frame. The last pistol I part with won't be made of plastic or steel. It will most likely be that Beretta because I enjoy it so much.

A big ol' chunk of aluminum is pretty tough. If I feed it mostly standard pressure 115gr, I fully expect my grandkids to find that old beast oiled up in a gun sock at the bottom of a drawer after I bite the big one. My guess is that it will probably still shoot just fine.

I'm just not going to worry about it. I will drop 100s of dollars a year on maintenance and repairs to my $25,000 truck, and I fully plan to trade that in for something new within 10 years as it begins to fail. Even durable goods still wear down and need replaced.

I never understood why we expect a machine purchased for a few hundred dollars to last generation after generation if it is used hard year after year. Don't get me wrong. It's cool when it happens, especially when the gun has made a historic mark on family history.

If I ever get so rich and lucky to be able to kill an M9/92 series by wearing out the frame, I'll die a happy man.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

there are 1911 frames that have been in service with the US military that have over 500,000 rounds through the frame, so the 100,000 on aluminum doesnt impress me

While the 1911 has been around 60+ years longer than SIGS (1911 vs. 1975). The vast majority of them were built in the 1940s -- and were slowly removed from service as the Beretta replaced many/most of them by the late 1980s.

For any gun to shoot 500,000 over a 40 year period (1945-1985), that gun would have to shoot an average of almost 12,000+ rounds a year for each of those years. The military typically doesn't give most troops that many opportunities to shoot handguns. And while 1911s did see combat in Vietnam (after WWII), a long gun was the primary weapon for most combat troops. 1911s haven't been widely used since Vietnam. Berettas and SIGs have done the bulk of the handgun duty since the mid-late 1980s.

I don't doubt that many 1911s have been very durable, but I haven't heard a lot of horror stories about SIG or Beretta frame failures, and they both have alloy frames -- and have seen a lot of service over the past 15 years.

While that 500,000 round count may be a true, I find that figure a bit hard to get my mind around.

 

[justin22885]

all i can say about sig is if im paying $800 for a pistol, they had better not cheap out and give me something made of substandard materials.. they had better give me steel.. but heck, for that price at least they give you metal, H&K gives you plastic for $800, probably have about $50 worth of materials and production costs per pistol

 

[mjsdwash]

ive read the 500,000 round count for 1911 were all from training models, and the counts documented officially FWIW

 

[rcmodel]

they had better not cheap out and give me something made of substandard materials.. they had better give me steel..

If you understood firearms design better.
You would understand that the frame of a properly designed pistol is just a handle to hold onto, and a race track for the steel slide and barrel to run back & forth on.

Yes, they sometimes crack after thousands of rounds, with little or no maintenance or spring replacement.

But what they are made of has less to do with how durable they are, then how the breach locking system was designed to transfer the pressure from the barrel, to the slide it is locked into momentarily during firing.

if you could figure out a way to fire it?
You could hold any 9mm or .45 ACP slide & barrel in you hand and fire it without injury.

As long as they are locked together, there would be no harm done to you, or your hand
(the substitute frame.)

rc

 

[justin22885]

trust me, i know firearm design pretty well, i probably have the largest collection of firearm blueprints here, an education in mechanical engineering and have even designed a few of my own from scratch.. so i know firearm design and theres no magical formula thats going to make softer, weaker materials like aluminum hold up when being grinded and impacted by much harder, denser materials like steel..

for 90% of handgun owners out there, theyre probably not going to shoot enough to see something break or to see the rails so worn the slide doesnt fit right anymore.. but for the other 10% that do, you are going to see problems in the life of an aluminum pistol before you will in steel

what people need to understand though is these firearm manufacturers, they dont care how long your gun lasts, they dont care how durable it is, they dont care how lightweight it is either, what they care about is convincing you to buy a product at a price high enough to make profits.. this of course is true for anyone in the business of making money and aluminum frames is a low cost option to machining steel, or tooling up for injection moulding for polymer frames and those manufacturers that can afford it have all mostly switched to plastic framed pistols for even more savings per pistols produced and sold.... so just remember, gun manufacturers are in the business to make you money and if they can sell you something cheaper but convince you that its just as good, they'll do it in a heartbeat

 

[Steve C]

Aluminum frame guns will last a long time and while you can find instances of failures like with the Beretta 92's where some unit in the military was shooting foreign very high pressure SMG ammo in, it isn't the frame material at fault but operator error.

Like bannockburn, I have 2 Walther P1 Manurhin West German Police pistols made just after WWII with aluminum frames that still shoot fine and have no frame issues. They have been in service for 60+ years and don't have the "upgrade" hex bolt to avoid frame cracking from the use of NATO ammo. When shooting these pistols I use standard pressure only and have replaced their springs with new. I expect they will continue to shoot for annother 60 years as long as they're run with the right ammo and serviced once in a while.

 

[justin22885]

Aluminum frame guns will last a long time and while you can find instances of failures like with the Beretta 92's where some unit in the military was shooting foreign very high pressure SMG ammo in, it isn't the frame material at fault but operator error.

Like bannockburn, I have 2 Walther P1 Manurhin West German Police pistols made just after WWII with aluminum frames that still shoot fine and have no frame issues. They have been in service for 60+ years and don't have the "upgrade" hex bolt to avoid frame cracking from the use of NATO ammo. When shooting these pistols I use standard pressure only and have replaced their springs with new. I expect they will continue to shoot for annother 60 years as long as they're run with the right ammo and serviced once in a while.

its not so much the chronological age thats an issue, but the repeated abuse of constant use, how many rounds have been fired through yours?

and when beretta is having frame cracking issues on their aluminum pistols that would not be cracking if they used steel frames, then its pretty safe to say its not the ammo, but berettas choice in materials

 

[Walt Sherrill]

what people need to understand though is these firearm manufacturers, they dont care how long your gun lasts, they dont care how durable it is, they dont care how lightweight it is either, what they care about is convincing you to buy a product at a price high enough to make profits...

You say this based on WHAT evidence? Sounds as though you have NO confidence in any gun maker. Or any other business out to make a profit. That said, I would remind you that if these companies didn't make a high enough profit, the people running them would be job hunting or the companies would fail. Sounds as though your real complaint isn't with gun makers, but with the Capitalist system that underlies most of the world's economy.

Part of the problem is inflation. A gun that sold for $600 in 1980 would have to sell for $1700 or more, today, to be comparable. That's due to the drop in the dollar's buying power. You don't see the deep blue high gloss finishes like we once saw on Colt Pythons and S&W revolvers any more, but that's probably because only a few buyers are willing to pay for the highly-skilled hand polishing needed to get that wonderful "deep" blue finish. (They can always have it done later, if it's really important, or spend big dollars for a "custom" gun.)

CNC machining has made a big difference in the quality and cost of handguns, as has MIM and Ruger's investment casting technology. Rugers IC parts are so good that Ruger apparently makes some parts for their competitors and for the aerospace industry!

Do you have any info on relative costs of producing a steel vs. aluminum frame? Both can be cast or forged, and some are both. I'm don't know that aluminum frames are all that much cheaper to produce than steel frames, but I do know that aluminum is a lot lighter than steel, and for weapons that are carried, that's a big selling point.

That we're still able to buy good quality guns that perform well for under $600 is simply amazing to me -- given how much the prices of others things have gone up over the years. Cars, food, clothing, houses, rent, etc. Just the cost of going to college is outrageous, nowadays. I paid my own way and did it while working and still finished in four years -- and no student loans from a state university; that's almost impossible, nowadays -- it's so damned expensive! I also do most of the grocery shopping for our household, and I'm absolutely stunned by how food prices have increased over the past couple of years.

I don't think today's gun makers are quite as bad as you make out. They're just doing what the rest of us are doing -- trying to make enough to stay afloat.

 

[MIL-DOT]

Well ^ said.

 

[bannockburn]

justin22885

All that glitters is not gold or put another way, sometimes guns that are all steel may not be better than ones that are not.

I seem to recall that some years ago S&W made a limited run of all steel semi-autos, the Model 559 I believe, primarily for the law enforcement market. A friend of mine who was with a police department at the time that had them, told me later they had to send them all back to S&W as there was a problem with the slide and frame rails basically chewing each other up. Don't know if there was a problem with the steel they used for both pieces or if there was a problem with the heat treatment. At any rate they replaced them all with alloy framed models and everything was good to go after that.

 

[justin22885]

You say this based on WHAT evidence? Sounds as though you have NO confidence in any gun maker. Or any other business out to make a profit. That said, I would remind you that if these companies didn't make a high enough profit, the people running them would be job hunting or the companies would fail. Sounds as though your real complaint isn't with gun makers, but with the Capitalist system that underlies most of the world's economy.

Part of the problem is inflation. A gun that sold for $600 in 1980 would have to sell for $1700 or more, today, to be comparable. That's due to the drop in the dollar's buying power. You don't see the deep blue high gloss finishes like we once saw on Colt Pythons and S&W revolvers any more, but that's probably because only a few buyers are willing to pay for the highly-skilled hand polishing needed to get that wonderful "deep" blue finish. (They can always have it done later, if it's really important, or spend big dollars for a "custom" gun.)

CNC machining has made a big difference in the quality and cost of handguns, as has MIM and Ruger's investment casting technology. Rugers IC parts are so good that Ruger apparently makes some parts for their competitors and for the aerospace industry!

Do you have any info on relative costs of producing a steel vs. aluminum frame? Both can be cast or forged, and some are both. I'm don't know that aluminum frames are all that much cheaper to produce than steel frames, but I do know that aluminum is a lot lighter than steel, and for weapons that are carried, that's a big selling point.

That we're still able to buy good quality guns that perform well for under $600 is simply amazing to me -- given how much the prices of others things have gone up over the years. Cars, food, clothing, houses, rent, etc. Just the cost of going to college is outrageous, nowadays. I paid my own way and did it while working and still finished in four years -- and no student loans from a state university; that's almost impossible, nowadays -- it's so damned expensive! I also do most of the grocery shopping for our household, and I'm absolutely stunned by how food prices have increased over the past couple of years.

I don't think today's gun makers are quite as bad as you make out. They're just doing what the rest of us are doing -- trying to make enough to stay afloat.

based on what evidence?.. you really dont think gun manufacturers are in the business to make money?... you actually believe theyre non profit organizations that exist to give you the best product available whether it puts them in the red or not?

 

[justin22885]

justin22885

All that glitters is not gold or put another way, sometimes guns that are all steel may not be better than ones that are not.

I seem to recall that some years ago S&W made a limited run of all steel semi-autos, the Model 559 I believe, primarily for the law enforcement market. A friend of mine who was with a police department at the time that had them, told me later they had to send them all back to S&W as there was a problem with the slide and frame rails basically chewing each other up. Don't know if there was a problem with the steel they used for both pieces or if there was a problem with the heat treatment. At any rate they replaced them all with alloy framed models and everything was good to go after that.

we're not comparing two different brands or types of weapons when the comparison is made, eliminate all variables, pick two guns, same model, same manufacturer, the aluminum is quite simply a cheaper made product that will NEVER hold up as well as steel.. if it could, youd be seeing slides and barrels made out of aluminum too, but you dont because when it comes to structural components of similar dimensions, aluminum is inferior to steel and anyone who claims otherwise quite simply doesnt understand basic physics or metallurgy

 

[bannockburn]

justin22885

Okay I have two Colt Governments; one is all steel, the other is the Lightweight Model with an aluminum alloy frame. Nothing cheap about either one of them but for me the all steel version is mainly for range use and load development. I really have no interest or desire to carry it because of it's weight. The Lightweight Model on the other hand can be used for both range use and concealed carry, primarily because it weighs less than it's all steel brethren and is more comfortable to carry for long periods of time.

Physics and metallurgy really don't figure into my equation, nor does how much money I think Colt is saving by using aluminum alloy in manufacturing it's frames. I just want a 1911 that can fulfill certain requirements that I have and the Lightweight Government does that very nicely.

 

[JDGray]

Its kind of silly to say the gun manufacturers make them as cheap as possible. If Glock were to make all their guns from steel, they would loose a bunch of business, probably go out of business. They make them to sell and make money, but most of all they make them light so they will sell, consumer demand....

They could probably make them from titanium I suppose, in that case you would be right

 

[Walt Sherrill]

based on what evidence?.. you really dont think gun manufacturers are in the business to make money?... you actually believe theyre non profit organizations that exist to give you the best product available whether it puts them in the red or not?

I don't believe they're non-profit, but you apparently feel they should be. Why else would you claim they only want to convince their customers to buy their products at a price that offers their company a profit? A company that isn't intent on making a profit isn't going to stay in business. And, if they cut corners and build crappy products, they'll run themselves out of business.

So -- I ask again, what is your evidence that gun makers

1. don't care how long your gun lasts
2. don't care how durable it is (isn't that the same thing?)
3. don't care how lightweight it is,
4. and only care about convincing customers to buy their product at a price high enough to make profits.

The only evidence you've offered to support your claims is .... well, you haven't offered any. It also seems that you have a pretty crappy opinion of any companies focused upon being profitable.

It would be a pretty stupid business that didn't sell their product at a price high enough to make a profit...

 

[eldon519]

Everyone always uses "basic physics" to explain everything. This is a material science/material mechanics issue.

SIGs are good enough for the Navy SEALs. I have a feeling they'll be aqdequate for most civilian use. The other gun they recently adopted is the HK45 Compact made of "inferior" polymer. Imagine that.

 

[rcmodel]

The OP was mistaken from the get-go that alloy frames were invented to cut costs, or increase profits.

Both S&W and Colt pioneered forged alloy frames at great expense in the early 1950's in an effort to reduce firearms weight to meet military requirements.
(Colt Cobra -1950, Colt LW Commander - 1949, S&W Model 39 - 1957, Chiefs Special Airweight - 1952.)

They both used the technology invented during WWII to produce alloy frame small revolvers and military autos in demand by police & civilian concealed carry demands post WWII in the early 1950's.

None of it was cheap, and none of it was done to reduce costs of the guns.

It cost them more to develop the high strength aluminum alloy's then they could hope to recoup without large government orders.

Which never came.

S&W went on to pioneer Scandium alloy 'air-light' frames.
Scandium is one of the rarest and most expensive metals on earth.
They didn't do it to make cheaper guns.

If you think firearms manufactures are using aluminum alloy frames to save money??

You need a better understanding of firearms history then you think you already think you know.

rc