Why am I not happy with alloy frames?

[TTSH]

Then you probably would faint seeing this one, TTSH too. I just picked it up recently, bruised and battered but still chuggling along. no safe queen

What was it I was just saying? Oh yeah!

And here I take an awful ribbing from some members of Team 3rd Gen on the issue of cosmetic appearance just because I like my 3rd Gens looking clean and "as-new" rather than the proverbial "used and abused" beat-to-heck look!

I rest my case!

 

[trailmix]

Then you probably would faint seeing this one, TTSH too. I just picked it up recently, bruised and battered but still chuggling along.

no safe queen

Beautiful. I would be proud to own this gun.

 

[Sevens]

Yeah, your last paragraph. We may all get along BETTER, in fact, when we all realize that generally speaking in the larger picture, we are like fans of the same "team" while we focus directly on particular players we like.

I could make a long list of little bits from all the 1-2-3rd Gens of my very least favorite parts and things and models, but all that tends to do is rile up fans of those bits and parts.

In the end, we all still come here to share the passion for the larger group of these guns.

 

[Cyrano]

My 39-2 with alloy frame, feels like an extension of my arm. Few other guns feel as well in the hand. My steel frame 39 (Yes I have one of the 927 made) feels awkward and cumbersome.

 

[ca survivor]

Beautiful. I would be proud to own this gun.

all the guns in my carry rotation have some kind of scar or finish wear.

 

[kaveman]

I consider the alloy framed pistols to be 'light duty' meaning that I wouldn't choose one for 10's of thousands of rounds. That's partly because the all steel pistols are more pleasant(and easier)to shoot but also because every damaged frame I've ever seen was an alloy frame(.40 more often than 9mm)and not just S&W. Alloy frames are structurally weaker than steel frames,......that's just the nature of the material.

All pistols are a combination of compromises. Steel is heavy but shoots and wears well. Aluminum(and polymer)are light, but don't hold up as well. Sometimes that matters and sometimes it doesn't.

I tend to shy away from .40 cal alloy frames. I also don't like .40 cal in super small pistols, partly for the wear and tear of both shooter and firearm, but also due to perceived feeding reliability(the tapered case of the 9mm is more forgiving). Alloy frames make sense for concealment weapons but the tradeoff doesn't work out so well for a belt pistol. My two favorite models are the 3953 for carry and the 5946 for everything else. They're basically the same gun designed for two different purposes. The small, lightweight, low-cap carry piece where those features are desirable compromises and the larger heavier, high-cap piece where those attributes don't work against it. I've also got 6946's and 5943's in case they fit some task better, but that's cutting it pretty thin and I really don't expect to ever need them. I really think the plethora of S&W models along with the frame material choice is one of my favorite things about the Smiths. If you look at Glocks or SIGs or just about anything else you can have any size or any caliber,......but you're stuck with a relatively light weight which is a disadvantage as often as not.

 

[BAM-BAM]

Alloy frame........... = ........... carry gun......... carried a lot but not shot a lot

Steel frame............=.....................great range guns....... and bludgeons.




Note to self: can I really see an alloy frame gun carried IWB at 4 O'clock behind my right hip?????

If you are not a Owl....... then the answer is........ NO!!!!!

 

[Big Shrek]

Well, me CS45 & CS40 are pretty decent examples of the breed,
so not expecting to have to refinish them anytime soon...
but if I did find one that was pretty rough,
beadblasting with walnut shell media & a serious clearcoat after
would be the repair method I'd choose...
maybe anodize instead of clearcoat...but it all depends...

 

[Laddy Smith]

another option

Have you considered Scandium Alloy? Might be the perfect solution....

The scandium is the one in the middle.....



Lad

 

[OK Hog Shooter]

Hmmmm.... let me think about this... ok... I'm in the corner with "load the mag with any round you like, rack the slide and pull the trigger"... goes bang every time! I have some of both... all stainless boat anchors, alloy frame carry... I like em all... they both have their pluses and minuses... but at the end of the day they're still a well made and functioning Smith... what's not to like about that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DanHend]

I don't know why, but all S&W alloy 3rd Gens look funky and worse than everyone else's alloy frames. All of the Beretta Inox guns and CZ P-01s I've handled look better after longer use.

As far as the 6906, I hate it because my hand is exactly too large to be comfortable (like the 92 Compact). Are you sure it's not that part?

 

[BLUEDOT37]

As far as I can recall, there is only 1 all steel compact autoloader from Smith and Wesson and it came out of the Performance Center. I am refering to the 3566 Compact.

.

You can add the 4056TSW (pre-rail) to that list. All stainless steel, 3-1/2" bbl., only made in 1997, and ~1100 made.

FWIW, many of the 3-3/4" 45xx's are all stainless steel too.

.

Pre-rail models: 4013TSW and 4056TSW (w/Hogue grips)

.

4056TSW (w/factory grips)

.

 

[rwsmith]

I really like my.....

I have a 5943, aluminum frame, SS slide and I think it's great. Light but not too light. Shoots like a dream.

 

[18DAI]

While there is no question that the stainless frames will out last an aluminum frame and can be easily refinished by hand to remove holster wear and scratches, I wouldn't be too quick to underestimate the aluminum framed guns.

Way back when I recieved my first aluminum framed 3rd gen gun, a 9mm 910 "value line" pistol, I new little to nothing about the proper maintenance of an aluminum framed semi auto pistol. So I proceeded to unintentionally abuse that gun. I didn't change the recoil spring. I didn't use grease on the rails, just oil. And subsequently I cracked a rail above the slide release.......after just 19,000 rounds.

My EDC 4513TSW 6-round rail free pistol has an unknown round count. A conservative estimate would be 10,000 rounds as I have put 3000 through it and it was an LE pistol trade in. It looks a little rough. The finish is worn to the aluminum around the trigger guard and front of the dust cover. The markings are barely visible on the slide.........which is not a bad thing IMO. So its never gonna win any beauty contests.

But after carrying a 4516-3 for seven years, the real beauty of the 4513 shines through. It doesn't pull your pants down carrying it all day and it is still as accurate and reliable as its all steel siblings. That works for me. YMMV Regards 18DAI

 

[Chubbo]

Thoughts for laughs

While we are laying our souls bare, here is a predudice that I have had since I was a boy. As a boy of around sixteen, in 1947, I went through the long, complicated process of getting signatures of three area police cheifs, the signature of the Columbus, OH Safety director, Mayor, and many other character qualifications, designed, i'm sure, to discourage people like me from applying for membership to the Columbus Police Pistol range. But, I persisted, and received the high honor of a membership. I then entered a few Bullseye pistol matches. The choice of hand guns to be used, was hotly debated at that time and I decided , as most competitors did, that for .22, Rimfire matches, Colt woodsman auto was the way to go, for .32 & .38 centerfire matches the S&W revolver, for the .45 Centerfire matches, the Colt 1911 auto was the popular choice. To this day, I'v never owned a S&W auto. go ahead an laugh young folks, but that was the opinion of the top shooters of that era, and ideas instilled in a young person last. Now, if I get over the latest batch of "Old Poop" ailments, I think I will celebrate by overlooking this predudice, and trying some S&W autos.
Chubbo

 

[TTSH]

The choice of hand guns to be used, was hotly debated at that time and I decided, as most competitors did, that for .22, Rimfire matches, Colt woodsman auto was the way to go...

That certainly wasn't the case where I grew up. The Smith & Wesson Model 41 ruled and that was that.

Of course, the city I grew up in might have had a little something to do with that.

 

[BAM-BAM]

That certainly wasn't the case where I grew up. The Smith & Wesson Model 41 ruled and that was that.

Of course, the city I grew up in might have had a little something to do with that.

Nope same in "The Burgh"......... model 41.....

my Dad's is pictured in the NE Ohio Bunch picture thread........ is a shot of my Smith.22 Accumulation......post #155 3rd picture.......

.

 

[Jaymo]

Woodsman, 41, who cares? I'd take either one, gladly. Both are nice.
I'd rather have the 41 because of parts availability and the ability to have it repaired.
Plus, it'd go well with my 52-1.

As far as the alloy frames, you should see my early 6906. The frame looks like cheap gray plastic.
I hate the way it looks, but dammit, it works.
At the end of the day, I can't ask more from it than for it to work correctly (and look better than a godawful Glock).
Plus, I own a few of it's big brothers.
I have a few beer can pistols and a few Tupperware pistols.
I'm not attached to them the way I am to my steel framed guns, but guess which ones I carry most?

Even though I hate the way the frame looks like gray plastic, I love that freaking pistol and wouldn't part with it. It was a very good deal and I wasn't going to pass it up.

 

[Cyrano]

That certainly wasn't the case where I grew up. The Smith & Wesson Model 41 ruled and that was that.

Of course, the city I grew up in might have had a little something to do with that.

You're both right. The problem is dates. In 1947 the Colt Wodsman was the best. In the early 1950s (when I started pistol shooting) it was the Hi Standard Supermatic. When the S&W 41 came along, it outpaced both of them. I traded my Hi Standard for a 41 as soon as I could. I still have it.

 

[TTSH]

You're both right. The problem is dates. In 1947 the Colt Woodsman was the best. In the early 1950s (when I started pistol shooting) it was the Hi Standard Supermatic. When the S&W 41 came along, it outpaced both of them. I traded my Hi Standard for a 41 as soon as I could. I still have it.

Okay, I had my dates wrong. According to the Interwebs (which I should have checked before posting instead of going by my faulty memory), the Model 41 was introduced in 1957, not 1947. So now, everything he said makes perfect sense.