Aluminum Vs Polymer ?

[117]

Just curious as to why the S&W 3rd generation aluminum framed guns have went to the way side in LEO holsters and replaced with the polymers in recent years? I mean the all stainless steel models of S&W 3rd generations are very heavy so I sorta understand those but the aluminum framed equilavent 5903TSW,6906,4003TSW, and the 3913 are nearly as robust as their all steel counter parts but lighter and in my opinion can do anything as good if not better then the polymers made by S&W and glock for that matter. I have a couple of glocks , a G-19 and 23 and ALOT of S&W all steel and aluminum framed 3 rd gen and feel the 5903TSW,6906 and 3913 can do anything the G-19 can while weighing in at a very similar weight, size and round capacity and the 4003TSW,4013 can do anything the G-23 can. I have never had any problems or malfunctions out of any of my S&W 3rd gen nor the glocks either. Just wondering why the aluminum framed S&Ws are not competing with the polymers more and why S&W would not push the aluminum framed 3rd generations more to compete with the glock,H&K,S&W M&P and the rest of the polymer craze in police agencies and the civilian markets. Not saying the Polymers are bad but the aluminum framed 3rd generations are as good and very similar in capibility,size and weight

 

[18DAI]

Money. Dollars. S&W makes alot more money off the tupperware guns.

They are cheaper to throw together. Bottom line.

Long gone are the days where a manufacturer concerned themselves about the quality and durability of its products. Now whatever they can push out the door and make the most profit off of is what their focus is on.

Regards 18DAI.

 

[TSQUARED]

I beleve it is related to production costs. It is probably less expensive to mould parts than to mill them. Supposedly ythe polymer frames flex upon shootong and soak up some of the recoil. The other plus of some polymer guns is the interchangeable backstraps which allows for customization to different sized hands - an important consideration with more females with smaller hands involved in their use.

 

[heybrowndog]

Money. Dollars. S&W makes alot more money off the tupperware guns.

They are cheaper to throw together. Bottom line.

Long gone are the days where a manufacturer concerned themselves about the quality and durability of its products. Now whatever they can push out the door and make the most profit off of is what their focus is on.

Regards 18DAI.

That would be my guess also. Business often comes down to a bottom line figure with margins probably higher on the polymer stuff. The simplicity of the M&P, and the adjustable grips make it another easy sell for departments. Especially when they come back in and buy back all their shiny guns as part of the deal. Then turn around and sell those also to people like us.

 

[XTrooper]

Money. Dollars. S&W makes alot more money off the tupperware guns.

They are cheaper to throw together. Bottom line.

Long gone are the days where a manufacturer concerned themselves about the quality and durability of its products. Now whatever they can push out the door and make the most profit off of is what their focus is on.

Regards 18DAI.

I seriously doubt the profit margin is much if any greater regarding these two pistol lines (3rd Gen vs M&P). Sure the polymer M&P pistol line is cheaper to make, but Smith also sells them for $200+ apiece less than they did the average 3rd Gen pistols (~$500 vs ~$700) and this doesn't take into account the difference in 1990s vs 2011 dollars.

But you're right. It's all about price. Polymer pistols are cheaper to make and cost less to buy. With budget-strapped state and local departments, price is becoming the determining factor in many of their purchase decisions.

 

[VTHokiesDuckHunter]

3rd gens are classic, timeless metal framed pistols

It's all about price. Polymer pistols are cheaper to make and cost less to buy.

That is the main reason- and it really comes down to market share/volume in my opinion. Their business model is based on volume.

Plus the Glock hype, and early success scared many of the bigger manufacturers to death. Beretta at least "stuck by their guns" with a metal framed 92FS - helped no doubt by it's popularity with Military & Law Enforcement. Which brings up an interesting paradox. many of the LEO's I know, and others whose opinions you can read on these pages, do not want polymer framed guns. They want to carry full size metal framed guns, but their departments make that difficult if not outright impossible.


as far as some of the other touted benefits of polymer frames such as "interchangeable backstraps", etc., I really think this is of little merit. Most people put one in, maybe tinker with it one more time and then that one stays in there.
It would actually be fairly easy to make a metal framed pistol with some type of interchangeable back-strap now that I think of it, but it wouldn't be cheap.

Manufacturing tolerances of the polymer parts are most likely pretty loose, and therefore cheaper. Certainly there is a big savings on material cost, machining, heat treating, and finishing.

On the other hand, there seems to be a resurgence of desire for quality metal framed guns, which is now being met by the smaller volume, higher quality manufacturers. Look at the Kimber Solo.

I also notice that as cheaper polymer framed guns get people into the sport (i.e., they buy a M&P or Glock), many of these same people, if they stay with the sport, will start gravitating to 1911's, Browning Hi-Powers, 3rd gen S&W's, Sigs, Beretta 92's, and other higher quality metal framed guns.
(please -I'm not trying to start a war with the Glock fanatics and am not necessarily referring to their ability to shoot decent groups on a target)

In many cases these people will move all of the way up to semi-custom or custom guns. But many others want a quality metal framed gun in the $600-$1000 range.

S&W can fill the former niche somewhat with a few of the custom shop and performance center guns, but I think they're leaving a lot of highly profitable market share on the table in the upper mid-range.

Now Ruger is coming out with a very nice Stainless 1911 in the $700 range. I think they will sell a lot of them. Time will tell.

Quite frankly a lot of us don't want any polymer framed guns, or maybe will just buy one for kind of all-around utility use. Like when it's raining heavily, we expect to sweat heavily, or to throw in a tool box........

I still can't believe S&W doesn't make yearly runs of at least the 5906, 6906, and 3913. These could be "aspirational guns" for folks that start out with polymer guns.

I think they would sell out readily and be real brand enhancers for S&W. Kind of like the Corvette/Chevy thing.

I can think of 2 or 3 more guns that I want to buy in the next year or two. None of them are polymer framed guns. So therefore I will either buy another manufacturer's gun, like a Sig, Kimber, or Beretta, or I'll look for a LNIB or NIB 3rd gen - which nets S&W NOTHING in new sales. (but keeps getting me awesome guns for $500 or so)

Quite frankly, the only S&W's I'm interested in (new production guns) are the new 1911SC and a 952. But I really don't want to pay for what a 952 will cost. Other than that, I'll be looking for another compact 3rd gen 3913 or 4013, and maybe a compact DAO 3rd gen since I don't have one of those, and a Shorty Forty, or other scandium framed pistols. Plus maybe another 6906.........After that though, maybe a Hi-Power, Sig, and a Ruger 1911.

Is there anything "wrong" with a polymer framed gun? No. They just handle, shoot, and feel differently. I'm sure you can make a polymer framed mountain bike sometime, or horse saddle, that would work. It would just feel very differently. Some things are very nice when made of high performing plastic. Like some Kayaks and Canoes. Other things just appeal to many of us better when they are made of metal, wood, and leather. We're not Luddites either!

While there are some pocket revolvers now sporting polymer frames, can you image if they all started going that way? Can you imagine if most of the S&W revolvers were polymer and you could no longer buy a new 686 or 29? That would be heresy.

On the S&W website, there is a category of handguns titled "classic revolvers".

Why isn't there a category titled "Classic Pistols"?

Come on S&W- bring back the 3rd gens!

 

[vista461]

As much as I like my 4003 and want more 3rd gens, I think they are a harder sell now with the abundance of used police trades . I know personally I saw a brand new 4006TSW at gander for over $800. I couldn't justify spending that much when you can find good used ones for under $400. My 4003 was in great shape with low round count and I paid $375.

Would I like the chance to buy a new 3rd gen? Yes if they were down in the 6-700 range and it would still take me a while save up to buy. I just don't have the extra budget to buy $800+ guns.

I have a 4003 and M&P9 Pro. I like them both, but the 4003 just has a certain something extra about it.

 

[tgwillard]

It would be interesting to see the demand if S&W brought back some "classic" 3rd generation semi-autos. I just got a 5953 to add to my collection (6906, 4003).

 

[117]

amuminum VS polymer

Thanks for the replies guys and please keep them coming. What yall are saying does make since I guess. I do have to agree with Xtrooper that the cost between aluminum and Polymer is not that big of differance and departments are cash straped and also like another post stated Why cant S&W at least do a minimal yearly production of some of the 3rd gen and maybe even throw in a curve ball occasionaly and do a run of the integral railed 4566 TSW melonite or simlar 5906TSW. Even if they cost $800-$1000 dollars and say they did a run of 500 each yearly or bi-yearly and alternate a few differant models over the years it would build up excitment and anticapation for the next models to be released. I feel they would sell them fairly well. It would be sorta like chevy bringing back the camero as stated earlier,even if S&W didnt make a huge profit off of these limited runs it would at least keep their name out there,fill a much needed void and create a little excitment in the old company that no plastic gun cant create. Plus S&W already has all the needed machinery and tools to do all this. Why not do it?

 

[Dot_mdb]

I have both aluminum alloy and stainless steel 3rd gen guns. I carry either my 457 or my 3913 every day. They are wonderful guns because they are slim single stacks and they conceal very well. However, I think that over the long term as a gun wears polymer will look better than alloy with the anodizing that seems to wear easily. If S&W made a polymer gun that could conceal as well as my 457 or 3913 I would likely buy it.

Bill

 

[blujax01]

VaTech, that was a solid analysis.

The M&P is a rousing success with LEO's , part of the "Made In USA" Renaissance that has gained considerable traction these past few years. High volume low cost production is the only way to survive the 21st century and the M&P fits that mold (pun intended).
I doubt S&W will bother to bring back the 3rd generations, even on a limited basis and I have to wonder if they are making any money on the Classic revolvers. If I am to believe the no-MIM no-IL's around here, they certainly aren't selling any to the members of this board.

 

[AkSaber]

What I don't like is that S&W is downplaying the 3rd gens, while hyping their 1911 series.

In this country, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a company that manufactures 1911s.

And yes, there are some of us who don't like 1911s.

 

[blujax01]

The bru-ha-ha over the 1911 will calm down next year. You can't find a gun magazine that isn't touting the anniversary.

 

[VTHokiesDuckHunter]

I like 1911's a lot and also Hi-Powers, but think the 3rd gen. S&W's are a big improvement over both.

Someone mentioned getting a 4006 TSW at Gander, new for $800? That may seem high compared to an M&P - but is not necessarily high compared to any certain, similar Kimbers and Sigs, and other high quality metal framed guns. (Plus Gander is always high - at least the ones I've been to).

If S&W were to make a larger run of 4006 TSW's and they hit the market, especially with web based sales, the market would price them fairly. My guess is $600-$700, for lets say a 5906, and $100 more for a TSW version. Just a guess but even at $700-$800 retail I think they could sell every 3913/4013 they could make.

As far as Polymer framed guns "wearing better" over time vs. "alloy framed guns losing their anodized finishes"- that has not been my experience. Plus you can always bead blast and refinish a metal framed gun.

 

[heybrowndog]

Vatech:

Man you hit a lot of things on the head. I too was one of those people starting my collection with the M&P, but gravitating toward the metal guns. I still think the stainless steel are the nicest looking guns. Personally, my initial purchase of the M&P came down to feel in the hand....plain and simple. Coupled with it being American made, lifetime warranty only sealed the deal. Really happy with it.

Now a days, all I seem to drool over are the shiny ones now. That Kimber Solo I can't help to think about adding to my collection. The new Ruger 1911, I think your right they are gonna sell quite a few of those. I might buy one myself.

Ultimately, I almost wonder if it comes down to price. A M&P45 goes out the door at what...550-600 maybe lower if you buy it right? In the Smith and Wesson lineup your talking revolver or 1911 in metal. What's the cheapest SW 1911....700-1000? Something to think about.

 

[think-mac]

Exactly what 18DAI says.
Bottom line... dollars.
Cheaper to manufacture (like Glock) and still charge about the same price. Mucho profit compared to manufacturing steel or aluminum frames).