This is a discussion on Why Were Polymer Pistols Created? within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Of course tacticool is tacticool - and it also has nothing to do with effectiveness or efficiency. I like weight. I like steel. I dislike ...
Of course tacticool is tacticool - and it also has nothing to do with effectiveness or efficiency.
I like weight. I like steel. I dislike double-action-only trigger designs. I'm grateful that I predate polymer. I shoot better with the single action triggers on 1911s and Hi-Powers than I will with many of these polymer guns.
Polymer pistols are fine and I'm glad they are a draw to gain more shooters. They don't however offer any brilliant new effectiveness to devices that throw projectiles. Its all been done before. They aren't uniquely reliable either. Other older designs can be just as reliable, "even out of the box." It is great fun to hold discussion devoted to the topic of firearms designs and materials. Folks can argue over the fine points of the firearm delivering the projectile but it really isn't as important as hitting one's target. As far as I know all the commonly desired design features wrapped within the currently popular modern handguns predate World War II. Only the polymer doesn't. When ray guns supplant metallic cartridge arms then we'll have seen a real break through in firearms. Until then polymer is just another way put firearms into the hands of the shooter.
Charter Member of the DC .41 LC Society "Get heeled! No really"
“No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”
Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893
According to the Brady Bunch, it was so that we could get around metal detectors and kill everyone.
Why were they created. Why not. We have many different types of autos, washing machines, furniture, and everything else under the sun.
Many of them use different materials to do the same job. Why should guns be any different. Are polymer guns lighter, yep, are they less costly to manufacture, yep, resist rust, yep. Shoot better, well that is probably more dependent on the person holding the gun than what it is made out of.
When new materials come along, it isn't long before folks try to use them in different products. Guns just happen to be someplace where polymers stuck and the market accepted them. As seen in the designs however, steel still has its place when it comes to firearms as well, and it will be a long time before it is gone from the gun all together.
Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
Texas CHL Instructor
Texas Hunter Education Instructor
Actually with Glock I think it was more weight reduction than anything else. Because they never decided to cut down on the time/labor and investment cast their slides.
The reason I say that is though Glock frames are molded lightning fast Glock sure does not skimp on the man/machine hours required to fully machine their slides.
I'm not a Glock expert (for sure) but, I remember reading that it takes a super long time to go from "Start To Finish" on the Glock slides & barrels.
Polymers came about to save weight.
Heckler Koch primarily produces arms for the military and law enforcement agencies and the military in particular is very, very weight conscious. Anything to effectively reduce the weight troops have to carry is a good and valuable change. I imagine Polymer use in pistols is just the natural evolution started by the AR15 family of rifles use of plastic. HK developed a polymer that could withstand the forces involved and produced the VP70. It wasn't very popular at that time, but began the trend.
Glocks came about shortly thereafter and were hailed for their high capacilty and low weight. Police forces took to them in droves because they were easy to carry, safe and well made.
Polymer is the future of arms IMHO.
I remember when Glocks came about and if IRC they were first developed for the Austrian Military and then slowly spred out.There was a lot of paranoia at first that because they were "plastic" that they could not be detected by metal detectors and thus was the ultimate weapon for plane hijackers.It lead to some states to ban sales of them for a while.It probably was more than decade before they became widely accepted and trusted.
IIRC Glock's first product was the steel and polymer entrenching tool, thus Glock built expertise and critical mass in metal/polymer science, and thereafter expanded to the pistols. That's only the Glock answer.......
"He went on two legs, wore clothes and was a human being, but nevertheless he was in reality a wolf of the Steppes. He had learned a good deal . . . and was a fairly clever fellow. What he had not learned, however, was this: to find contentment in himself and his own life. The cause of this apparently was that at the bottom of his heart he knew all the time (or thought he knew) that he was in reality not a man, but a wolf of the Steppes."
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." Ted Nugent
IMNSHO each to his own, polymer pistols are perfect for some people, but not for others.
Me, personally I'll take a steel frame revolver over a plastic bottom feeder anyday.
I carry what I'm comfortable with and what I shoot well. Sure my 686 Plus is hefty at 36.8 oz empty and only carries 7 rounds, but with 6 more in a speed strip, I think I'll have all the stopping power I need.
Disclaimer: The posts made by this member are only the members opinion, not a reflection on anyone else, nor the group, and should not be cause for anyone to get their undergarments wedged in an uncomfortable position.