Why am I not happy with alloy frames?

[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.

 

[Trinidad Bill]

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.

I have to admit that I really like the way the 6906 feels and fits in my hand (I do have relatively small hands). Darn thing shoots like a house a fire!

But per Jaymo, the darn bottom end of the beaver tail looks like gray plastic!

 

[Muss Muggins]

I've never really given this issue that much thought. If it shoots, it's good . . .

 

[TTSH]

I've never really given this issue that much thought. If it shoots, it's good . . .

I swear to God... I never even knew the issue existed until this very thread.

How come it's only the bright colored aluminum frames that are suddenly so offensive? The black aluminum frames don't exactly match their black/blued steel slides all that well either. In fact, the more they age, the more they mismatch. But that's not a problem?

No one's going to spoil my 3rd Gen fun. Over three quarters of my 3rd Gen collection have aluminum frames and all but two of them are bright. With only 4 good years left, it's too late for me to sell them all and try to start over!

 

[Chubbo]

Diferent generations

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.

The era that I spoke of was in the 1940s. The S&W Mod. 41 had't been thought of yet. Now 75+ years later, when I'm much too old, i'm starting to think about the Mod. 41, and all those great S&W autos, that have come down the pike since then. I wish now, that I had paid attention to them when I could have enjoyed them. The scope, and enjoyment of my S&W hobby, could have been doubled. This would be a good lesson for all, if heeded. The old adage "Too soon dumb, too late Smart". fits my case perfectly. One of the handiest, sharpest, inexpensive tools to be found is an open mind, but one of the last to be excepted by most of us.
Chubbo

 

[kenny brooks]

Alloy frame holdsup better than Tupperware.

Sent from my C6530N using Tapatalk

 

[TTSH]

The era that I spoke of was in the 1940s. The S&W Mod. 41 hadn't been thought of yet.

Yep, I was off by a whole decade in my thinking. Sorry about that!

 

[BAM-BAM]

LOL 1947!!!!,......heck...... even TTSH was still just a twinkle in his father's eye...... my Dad hadn't even met my Mom yet....

Most "alloy frames" were still inside P-51s and B-29s........ the first alloy frame Smith didn't come along until 1955 and it was in that new-fangled European caliber 9mm!!

 

[TTSH]

LOL 1947!!!!,......heck...... even TTSH was still just a twinkle in his father's eye...... my Dad hadn't even met my Mom yet....

Funny how my senile old brain works. I had to go back into my Ancestry Account after flubbing that date thing by a decade and figure out why the heck my thinking was so far off.

I've also got to pull out Dad's Model 41 and check the born date on it. I might be off by even more than a decade!

Anyway, it's nice to know that someone in our little sub-forum is even older than me. I may or may not remember the 50's too well... but I sure as heck don't remember the 40's at all!

 

[rwsmith]

. 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

I've never heard ANYBODY say anything negative about a 1911 Colt except that they were 'big and heavy', which is a matter of taste, not capability. Oh, and maybe that they "hold only 8 rounds", but then most revolvers hold 6. Some customizing makes for a top notch target pistol, they can stop a person quick. I've never needed one though and I do well with S&W or any of several semis. .45s are fun to shoot, but even reloading the ammo costs more. You get an S&W and I'll get a Colt 1911.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

I have carried a CS45 for over 20 years. Qualified with it many times. I feel quite comfortable with it. I bought it new and it still looks and functions that way.

All I can say to that is ME TOO!!!!!

I do carry a 6906 more often these days, when I am not carrying a Model 10, but I LOVE my CS-45 and I'm pretty fond of my 6906 as well.

Acceptable for a utility gun, but nothing I would keep for the grandkids.

First, they are SUPPOSED to be utilitarian. They are everyday work guns that get the job done right every time. They are not supposed to be heirlooms. By the same token, however, I'd be totally pleased to train my grandkids on my 3rd Gen alloy frames and then give them to them when the time comes.

Of course, they're going to want my revolvers first, that's a given, but still.....

 

[mrchuck]

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.

Hand Cannon you say? I carry at times one of my Kel-Tec P-40 pistols. 40sw caliber.
Yes, it IS a hand cannon,but the perp shot does not get up anymore. And also cannot crawl anywhere.
Not a woman's purse gun, but a uniformed officer's back up.
The days of carrying a tiny Colt 25 auto in a cuff case is long gone.

 

[tjtoolbox]

Alloy frames

Purchased a 439 from a local guy. Not to my knowlage that the frame was cracked. I went through a bad time with the seller, sent back to S&W factory for repair, Could not be done. Sold all the Parts on this Forum.
Be careful with second Gen Guns , if the brake will loose on your investment. They are not covered inder the 3rd gen Warrenty.

Granted, I am relatively new to the S&W semi auto game.

I just purchased a 6906 and while I like the size the pistol I just do not like the alloy frame. I don't like the look, especially the older dogs with wear, and I don't like the feel. The frame always looks different and just looks like a point of failure and wear. Although I am sure I would never wear one out.

This is my second alloy frame, I also have a 439 and feel the same about it.

Conversely I have a 5906, 4006, 4506, and 1006 all stainless. I love their look, feel, and shootability. They will be shooting for my grandchildren's children.

Am I missing something? Do these alloy frames grow on you?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[99savage308]

I like the air weight guns. Like 'em bunches. If you want to get rid of your air weights let me know. I'm smiling,real big Smile.

 

[otis24]

I felt the same way for a very long time. Then, utility started to win me over. After struggling with trying to carry heavy steel frame revolvers, I was awed by how comfortable and easy alloy frame revolvers (642) were to carry. A 642 can be droped in a shorts pocket and you hardly notice it. For the same reason, I finally warmed up to "hammerless" revolvers. Now, I am finally coming to reluctantly accept tupperware. The Glock has been on the street for a long time and is generally accepted as one of the most reliable autos out there and has held up when firing more rounds than I will ever send down range in a lifetime. My next ccw piece will probably be a Glock. Internally, I still like the looks of a good steel frame revolver (preferred) or auto. With a limited budget, practicality will win the day.

 

[Brian in Oregon]

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

It's funny, but guns from different manufacturers often do not wear the same. The black gun is my 30 year old P220 .45. The finish on the slide is almost gone. But the frame looks almost new. There is no fading or wear through on the anodizing, and the slide rails look brand new.

Someone mentioned that steel frames will outlast aluminum, but with the exception of very early SIG frames, which were corrected with a machining alteration, they just don't wear out.

The biggest advantage to an aluminum frame is less weight for carry. The biggest advantage to a steel frame is more weight for more comfortable shooting. If and when SIG makes a stainless frame version of the P227 .45 (the tan gun), I'll get one. It would be ideal for gun games, at least for me.

 

[ParadiseRoad]

...FWIW...alloy doesn't only refer to aluminum...steel used in firearms is alloy also...7075 aluminum is alloyed with zinc and is strong as many varieties of steel...4130 steel is alloyed with chromium and molybdenum and those alloying metals provide very high strength as well as other beneficial properties...alloy means the metal has been modified by adding other elements to the base metal...

 

[andyo5]

Am I missing something? Do these alloy frames grow on you?

Only if you carry them. For a range gun, alloy is unnecessary.

 

[0849]

Oh no ! This is bad news. Just when, after my most recent acquisition I thought I had all of the Smith & Wesson Compacts I could ever possibly need, you have to put on display a picture of that beautiful 3566, the hunt is on once again.

Alloy frames have their place. They drop the weight for carry guns, but I agree usually they are not pretty. You do not need to worry about failure due to the frame being alloy. Alloy frames have proven themselves in the many, many decades they have been in use.

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

The 3566 Compact is the same size as your 6906 but heavier. Magazines are interchangeable between the two firearms

When the 3566 Compacts were in production, you could send your firearm in to the Performance Center and they would fit a 9MM barrel to it. This gave you the option of shooting 9MM Parabellum or the much more powerful 356TSW

 

[18DAI]

Since the last time I posted in this thread, Ive put 1500 more rounds through my 4513TSW carry gun.

Its still not going to win any beauty contests and its still not broken!

Its also still superbly accurate and bet your life reliable. I do with it everyday. And I am well pleased. YMMV Regards 18DAI

 

[GaryS]

Isn't the 4516 all steel and a compact?

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