Charon
Single-Sixer
We must also remember that the traditional materials - steel, wood, brass, bronze, aluminum (and its alloys) aren't perfect, either. Wood was used for stocks from the first, because it was available, cheap, and easy to work with common tools such as saws, chisels, and scrapers (sandpaper is relatively new). Early guns were bronze, because it was easy to cast. Bronze had a bad habit of exploding, so it was replaced by cast iron and later, steel. But steel has a habit of rusting, especially in early times before smokeless powders and non-corrosive primers. That led to stainless steel, which can also rust or corrode although not as easily. Stainless led to gripes from folks who think the traditional blued steel is better (note that bluing is also a form of rust). The Confederacy used brass for revolver frames, not because it was better but because it was "good enough" to replace scarce steel. Later aluminum and its alloys were (and still are) used both for easier machining and lighter weight. Aluminum led to complaints about "cheapening" guns, quite apart from complaints because it doesn't accept bluing. Enter plastic, by whatever name. It usually replaces aluminum or steel in handgun frames. It can be molded much more closely to final form than metal, appears to be adequately strong, and is usually lighter. In quantity it also reduces cost to makers, although it would be essentially impossible for an individual to reproduce (unlike wood). We have heard comments about the lack of "100-year-old plastic guns," but that's because plastic has not yet been in use for that long. I do not expect to be alive fifty years from now, but I bet my Nylon 66 will still be working just fine.
To have something of what you want of each, for pete's sake. There just isn't a single, all-encompassing silver bullet answer to this question.
