Why the Dislike for Polymer Frames

[Blackhawk47]

Reading post I find many forum members have a dislike for polymer, my question is why the dislike ? I know some handguns would be out of place sporting polymer such as the 1911 and single actions but I have carried a CCW for a long time, both steel and polymer, and find the polymer frames have a big advantage in weight reduction, better conceal ability, lower cost and corrosion and rust resistance. Through the years polymer has proven itself to be a very good firearms material for rifles, shotgun and pistol and a lot of ways better then steel, aluminum and wood.

 

[CigarGuy]

<singing> Tradition......

 

[Snake45]

I don't object to plastic (calling it by its proper name) as a frame material, it's just that so many of the plastic frames seem to be unattractive...hell, just flat-out ugly. Trigger guards are almost always about two or three times as thick as we're used to in metal, just as one design point, giving the whole gun a very toylike and cheap appearance. Ruger's P345 is one of very few plastic guns I can think of that isn't cheap-looking or ugly.

 

[Cholo]

My 2 carry guns are polymer as well as my bedside Kahr CW 45ACP. I wiped most of my handguns down yesterday and pulled out my old all metal electroless nickel Kahr K40 and admired its simplistic lines and goldish hue. It just looked and felt right, and fits my hand like no other semi auto. Then I picked up my CW and put it right back where it was.

I don't dislike them, but for me a polymer gun is a tool to get a job done if needed, and they do it well. I'll never admire one though.

 

[Sal1950]

I'm am old school guy and was opposed to "plastic" guns from the very start, always felt that you can't build anything strong and long lasting out of plastic. Plastic is for disposable items like Solo cups. Also agree with Snake45 that most of the poly-framed guns are fugly. How could anybody fall in love with a weapon that looks like a Glock? Let the flames begin.

But times have changed and even an old schooler can learn a few new tricks.
Like most poly-framed guns have their slides and other moving parts running on steel inserts, and all other things being equal will outlast all the famous aluminum framed guns that came before when it comes to high round counts. Steel against aluminum just doesn't make for a great bearing surface.
And as for the fugly looks, IMHO Ruger changed all that with the release of the SR series guns. To my eyes the SR9 was the first poly framed handgun that had the smooth flowing lines I appreciate in a handgun.
A large part of the success of the SR series, LCP, and LC9 guns are that they just happen to be the best looking in their class.
Like any tool there are a number of tools for every job, some just excel on some jobs for their unique aspects.
I've truly learned to love the lightweight carry aspects of my poly guns. My TCP just drops in my front pocket and I forget I'm even carrying it. When I feel the need for more firepower my SR9c holster carries better than anything else I have. There are some days I get nostalgic and will carry my Security Six or SP101 cause I truly love my revolvers, but after a day of having the chunk of steel hanging on my pants makes me appreciate what modern weapon technology has brought.
Sal

 

[Iron Mike Golf]

I agree with Sal regarding the SR series and the nicer visual lines. Somehow, though, I don't see a poly gun becoming a family heirloom.

One thing about using polymers on anything more critical to the gun's functioning than, say, grips is the effect of solvents. You have to be careful what you use.

Another thing about polymer frames (and to a lesser extend alumininum alloy frames) is it shifts the slide to frame weight ratio way more towards the slide. This results in making a gun more prone to short cycling from "limp wristing". For that reason, I'd prefer not to carry a poly framed gun in a hostile fire zone. Civilian carry is another matter, of course.

 

[Ruger Packer]

I don't object to plastic (calling it by its proper name) as a frame material, it's just that so many of the plastic frames seem to be unattractive...hell, just flat-out ugly. Trigger guards are almost always about two or three times as thick as we're used to in metal, just as one design point, giving the whole gun a very toylike and cheap appearance. Ruger's P345 is one of very few plastic guns I can think of that isn't cheap-looking or ugly.

I'm with Snake on this.

And, another thing... a fella can't put custom grip panels his grip frame the way these plastic toys are made!!! :roll:

 

[roylt]

I find poly is OK but I like to dress her up with different clothes.

I'm a grip whore.

I do have a couple different sleeves but they are not the same.

 

[Doc TH]

Poly frames have many practical advantages. Esthetically, they are not appealing. My solution is to have a polyframe SA as a nod to practicality, and a traditional S&W revolver (wood grip) as a bow to tradition.

 

[exavid]

I like poly frames. Light, corrosion free, durable and they reduce the price of guns. I've got a few of 'em, LCP, LC9, SR40c and P345 and think all of them are good looking guns. I don't keep weapons as heirlooms, I have them as tools. I always have my S&W model 28 if I want to look at one that is an old school gun, but wouldn't want to carry it nowadays.

 

[Conn AK]

Carried my stainless steel S&W 639 for years. Like carrying a cinder block. The SR9 has replaced the 639 with more than twice the mag capacity and much lighter to carry. The 639 floors the SR9 in workmanship and attention to detail, but progress means more flexibility. Both flawless mechanically, I couldn't rationalize 17 rounds versus 8 rounds in a much lighter package that is nearly as accurate as the 639. Oh, yeah, the SR9 in 2011 is less expensive than the S&W 639 was 1988. But the 639 is a beautifully made hunk of steel.

 

[Ruger Packer]

Carried my stainless steel S&W 639 for years. Like carrying a cinder block. The SR9 has replaced the 639 with more than twice the mag capacity and much lighter to carry. The 639 floors the SR9 in workmanship and attention to detail, but progress means more flexibility. Both flawless mechanically, I couldn't rationalize 17 rounds versus 8 rounds in a much lighter package that is nearly as accurate as the 639. Oh, yeah, the SR9 in 2011 is less expensive than the S&W 639 was 1988. But the 639 is a beautifully made hunk of steel.

Wanna sell me your Smiff & Wishin' 639??? :wink:

I have a Smiff 39. Love it! 8)

 

[Sal1950]

And, another thing... a fella can't put custom grip panels his grip frame the way these plastic toys are made!!! :roll:

I find poly is OK but I like to dress her up with different clothes.

I'm a grip whore.

I do have a couple different sleeves but they are not the same.

I can on my 22/45RP
And going by availability they've been a huge success for Ruger, cause I keep hearing how hard they are to find.
I'm hoping Ruger looks at the sales numbers and does something like this for the SR series.
Rumors are in circulation on an upcoming SR45, how about a SR45RP :shock:

Sal

 

[FergusonTO35]

Theres a place for both in my safe and in my holster. If its made by Ruger I probably want it!!

 

[DDDWho]

Its all about money. Plastic is cheaper to produce and form than metal. Time will tell on the durability factor but there are metal guns over 100 years old that still work.

This S&W 686 is heirloom quality while I'm not so sure of plastic guns.

 

[Snake45]

Time will tell on the durability factor...

It sure will. I wonder about the long-term effect of oils, solvents, ultraviolent rays, and other chemical factors on the plastic frames. Not long ago I discovered a polymer piece in a gun that had, over the course of several years, simply crumbled into chunks, apparently due to absorbing common gun oil. Disturbing. :?

 

[DDDWho]

Time will tell on the durability factor...

It sure will. I wonder about the long-term effect of oils, solvents, ultraviolent rays, and other chemical factors on the plastic frames. Not long ago I discovered a polymer piece in a gun that had, over the course of several years, simply crumbled into chunks, apparently due to absorbing common gun oil. Disturbing. :?

Simple reasoning tells me if plastic were as durable and wear resistant as steel the entire gun would be made out of it.

 

[Snake45]

Time will tell on the durability factor...

It sure will. I wonder about the long-term effect of oils, solvents, ultraviolent rays, and other chemical factors on the plastic frames. Not long ago I discovered a polymer piece in a gun that had, over the course of several years, simply crumbled into chunks, apparently due to absorbing common gun oil. Disturbing. :?

Simple reasoning tells me if plastic were as durable and wear resistant as steel the entire gun would be made out of it.

Well, plastic won't work for some parts that require mass, such as the bolts and slides of semiauto firearms. Might work for some .22s (the Ciener .22 conversion slides are made of lightweight aluminum alloy), but not much else.

We also don't hear of plastics being used for pressure-bearing components, such as barrels and cylinders. :?

 

[Verndog]

Most of the dislike is from a handful of people from what I see. I'll say this, my favorite guns are steel and the "one" that travels most with me is a lighter poly frame (SR9c). ALL have their useful best suited purpose, and ALL are reliable thus far.

 

[roylt]

If you look at a gun as a tool for work or play I think any gun made out of anything will do.

Sorta like a car. If you just need to go to work or the store any old rust bucket will make it there and you will be safe.

So a 20K car is junk after say 20 years.

So a 500 dollar gun should last at least one year to be generous. Of course guns will last a lot more than one year.

I was selling a P95 and the guy didn't realise it is plastic. When we met he said he didn't want it because it may not last. HAHA I told him his grandkids could probably use it in the future and still feel it would last that long. (at least two gens.) Maybe not 100 years but long enough to get your moneys worth for sure.