Well, a couple have owned up to it - I am a curmudgeon about a lot of things and often decry a lot of what I perceive is being lost to our heritage in today's "culture".

But when I use the term "plastic" to describe a gun I'm using the term literally, in the traditionalist terms. A "wooden" gun is a toy I had when I was a kid - it looked like an old muzzle loader. A "steel" gun has a wood stock or grips and a "plastic" gun has a polymer frame. That's just how I think about them. No judgmental inferences. Now, when I am joking, I refer to my Glock 17 (yes, had it for years) as my "Tupperware" gun. I like it because it works, and it was primarily bought to participate in night matches and was outfitted with tritium sites from the get-go. But for carry purposes, I find a Sig 239 or a Browning HP fills my preference/needs for 9mm better. I've tried other "plastic" guns and let them go for other reasons besides the material they were manufactured from. I decided I didn't like the Springer SD's because, to me, the bore axis is too high and not comfortable to me or conducive to me doing my best shooting. I had two and traded them off. I've owned 5 Glocks of different calibers and traded them all off except the 17, mostly because I practice "Mexican" carry more than anything else and I don't recommend doing that with a Glock.

By the time the S&W M&P semis came on the scene, my stable of semi-autos was full up and though I like the way they feel, I saw no need to buy one since I didn't have a niche to fill. But it wasn't because they were plastic guns. The Sigma style guns . . . well, that's another story.

I just appreciate the artistry and workmanship of a fine "steel" gun with wood appointments; a "plastic" gun to me is a working tool.