View Full Version : Why Through Hardening Matters
http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/09/05/694ed084e1eb3b066d23583be97220ff.jpg
http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/09/05/a61287df0245106d283fbb169b9237aa.jpg
http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/09/05/753ff0e0b78f8d62ed295f1a2027bce6.jpg
http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/09/05/a61287df0245106d283fbb169b9237aa.jpg
http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/09/05/753ff0e0b78f8d62ed295f1a2027bce6.jpg
Ugh! You are definitely not making me feel comfortable with modern quality control.
KevinB
09-05-2014, 02:13 PM
Not sure you can though harden pot metal...
Jeep - its not modern QC - it is entirely a materials issue, their ME guys need to revisit what to make a slide from - sure crap is fast to cut, but 17-4 Stainless last a tad longer.
I want to make a slide out of Inconel.
threedogdad
09-05-2014, 02:15 PM
http://i1065.photobucket.com/albums/u396/threedogdad/Mobile%20Uploads/ImMelting_zps2e5fd4de.jpg (http://s1065.photobucket.com/user/threedogdad/media/Mobile%20Uploads/ImMelting_zps2e5fd4de.jpg.html)
It's melting!
Tamara
09-05-2014, 02:27 PM
Well. That's ugly.
Mr_White
09-05-2014, 02:56 PM
Wut? My Glocks don't have that feature.
That does look pretty awful.
LittleLebowski
09-05-2014, 03:13 PM
Not pot metal.
Tamara
09-05-2014, 03:13 PM
#perfection :D
41magfan
09-05-2014, 03:23 PM
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/912/KZhJor.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pcKZhJorj)
KevinB
09-05-2014, 03:28 PM
Hows the breech face look?
TCinVA
09-05-2014, 03:28 PM
Glock did have some trouble with guns issued to DOE contractors because they used some crappy metal. I was at a class with some DOE guys from Wackenhutt that had been issued G22 pistols which failed in almost every conceivable way during the 5 days of our course.
Stephen
09-05-2014, 03:49 PM
Apparently everyone is sending Bill their crappiest guns lately. I almost want to send him a Hi-Point.
I'm gonna send him a Beretta in a few weeks, hopefully that doesn't lead to pics like the last few threads.
I suspect a bad billet. Which happens. The locking surface shows 0.003" setback/peening.
I'm going to build up the area with nickel filler and re-machine it. Because I can. And the loser that owned it literally cried when I showed it to him, and seeing grown men in tactical beards cry is horrible. Demi god my ass.
FWIW, the sandblaster did the damage.
FWIW, the sandblaster did the damage.
Bill, please don't leave us hanging - bead blaster did it? or bb stripped finish that was masking? or?
I've read many times that the Tennifer finish treatment is very hard but once compromised, their metal is not. Truth or fiction?
So is there a reason he could not send it back to Glock (along with an eye test chart for their workers and inspectors)?
Not sure you can though harden pot metal...
Jeep - its not modern QC - it is entirely a materials issue, their ME guys need to revisit what to make a slide from - sure crap is fast to cut, but 17-4 Stainless last a tad longer.
I want to make a slide out of Inconel.
I would not want to make a slide out of Inconel. The Nickel content makes it gummy and not a very good material from a tribological perspective, at least in every grade I have seen in use. However, it has great oxidation resistance and strength at temperatures that turn Carbon Steel into Play-Dough. I guess you could coat it with some voodoo special coating from Bill to improve its properties.......
Perhaps Bill will correct me.... I have never tried to make something work with it below a thousand degrees F or so.
I would not want to make a slide out of Inconel. The Nickel content makes it gummy and not a very good material from a tribological perspective, at least in every grade I have seen in use. However, it has great oxidation resistance and strength at temperatures that turn Carbon Steel into Play-Dough. I guess you could coat it with some voodoo special coating from Bill to improve its properties.......
Perhaps Bill will correct me.... I have never tried to make something work with it below a thousand degrees F or so.
The copper helps with the gumminess.
This was a true metallurgical defect. It is, 1mm from the area, not registering on the C scale. I had to use the b scale. 2mm from the site, its right as rain. The problem was likely entrapped air in the casting that the bar stock was made from.
Disclaimer: I'm just a wealthy tinkerer, and I dont know how to make assumptions when it comes to kinematics and materials. :D
http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/09/05/af99fed6185f50f6462ffb50208935a1.jpg
Then again, beer and pretzels!
KevinB
09-05-2014, 06:56 PM
I would not want to make a slide out of Inconel. The Nickel content makes it gummy and not a very good material from a tribological perspective, at least in every grade I have seen in use. However, it has great oxidation resistance and strength at temperatures that turn Carbon Steel into Play-Dough. I guess you could coat it with some voodoo special coating from Bill to improve its properties.......
Perhaps Bill will correct me.... I have never tried to make something work with it below a thousand degrees F or so.
It oxides in a great black matte when heated to around 375 for an hour.
We work with a bunch of inconel for suppressors and muzzle devices -- I was more kidding about the Inconel - that stuff work hardens like a Mo-Fo leading to nasty scrap rates from broken tools
Suppressors are a great application for Inconel (I would guess I600 or I625).
Tool related...... Years ago a new guy in our tool room was trying to make a test fixture part out of some grade of Inconel..... After creating a complete mess, his comment was "what is this s#%¥????"
This was a true metallurgical defect. It is, 1mm from the area, not registering on the C scale. I had to use the b scale. 2mm from the site, its right as rain. The problem was likely entrapped air in the casting that the bar stock was made from.
Sorry to go on. I get a casting void within the bar stock, but how did it make it into a finished slide? Was the void just inside the last milled surface and not seen till the sandblaster blew that away? Nothing funny looking before blasting? Was the wear/failure on the locking surface visible before the blasting?
abu fitna
09-05-2014, 11:27 PM
Dumb question. Why mess with rebuild and not just swap slides? This is a nearly disposable item. There are a few modern sidearsm that might deserve retirement for ocassional viewing at end of useful life out of mere accumulated memories, but would not go out of the way to keep in service when replacement is easy. Nostalgia is for the gun safe, not the holster.
Unless I am missing something here.
So is there a reason he could not send it back to Glock (along with an eye test chart for their workers and inspectors)?
It is a customized gun. The customization played no role in this, nor Glocks choice of starting materials and use of finish, as much as I disagree with surface hardening over through hardening. The title of the thread is a bit misleading, in retrospect. You can't harden a massive inclusion. And the more I look at it, the more I think the little pocket is actually a void.
Let me be clear on this: this is a fluke. I'm not in any way shape or form criticizing the manufacturer.
In all likelihood, what happened is that when the foundry was cast the ingot that was used to make the bar that the slide was cut from, an air or slag pocket remained in that area. That happens.
The real lesson to learn here is this: Detail strip and inspect your guns periodically. This gun exhibited significant locking surface setback on the slide as a result of lack of effective bearing surface. I promise, this isn't the only gun out there like that. It's fun to have filthy dirty guns, and I'm guilty too. But this was a bit of nasty waiting to happen, and Glock is (liability wise) lucky it played out like it did.
Dumb question. Why mess with rebuild and not just swap slides? This is a nearly disposable item. There are a few modern sidearsm that might deserve retirement for ocassional viewing at end of useful life out of mere accumulated memories, but would not go out of the way to keep in service when replacement is easy. Nostalgia is for the gun safe, not the holster.
Unless I am missing something here.
Wasn't a stock gun. Was a very expensive custom one.
Jaywalker
09-06-2014, 07:56 AM
Do I understand that the surface nirocarburization is the only hardening the slide gets?
Alpha Sierra
09-06-2014, 08:06 AM
I've read many times that the Tennifer finish treatment is very hard but once compromised, their metal is not. Truth or fiction?
Tenifer, like all nitrocarburizing processes, is a surface hardening process. The metal under the case will be as hard as it was before it was nitrocarburized.
The hardness of the base metal is typically chosen based on the fatigue resistance properties desired out of the part in question and is achieved via a through hardening process if the material is not hard enough in its mill form.
The above is a gross oversimplification as heat treatment is a wide subject and can be done in many different ways.
TR675
09-06-2014, 08:13 AM
Wasn't a stock gun. Was a very expensive custom one.
Silk purse/sow's ear.
Tenifer, like all nitrocarburizing processes, is a surface hardening process. The metal under the case will be as hard as it was before it was nitrocarburized.
The hardness of the base metal is typically chosen based on the fatigue resistance properties desired out of the part in question and is achieved via a through hardening process if the material is not hard enough in its mill form.
The above is a gross oversimplification as heat treatment is a wide subject and can be done in many different ways.
There is a bit of confusion on FCN finishes and what they actually do.
FCN (and carburizing, and nitriding) were developed in war time to allow the machining and hardening of, literally, the gears of war. As a plus, the process made the low carbon low (none typically) alloy steels more corrosion resistant.
However, on high alloy/high carbon steels, the results can be drastically different. I never recommend this to stainless or high alloy steels. Or steels that have been heat treated.
If you desire a surface treatment for alloy or stainless, I suggest boriding.
But it won't be "bearded tactical black" rather a muted grey. Which looks better anyway. And Cerakote is always a good choice.
Alpha Sierra
09-06-2014, 10:11 AM
Bill thanks for your insights.
My knowledge comes from the mfg side of things, not from the design side. I agree that it is odd to see nitrocarburizing processes used on CRES. My aerospace customers virtually never require such treatments to their steels, preferring instead to age PH steels.
One of our customers is a well known earth moving machine company. They specify straight nitriding (not nitrocarburizing) used a lot on drive shafts made of high carbon content (4140 equivalent) steels. In their experience through hardening then nitriding yeilds superior fatigue life on splines over through hardening and selective induction hardening.
Pup town
09-06-2014, 10:16 AM
Wasn't a stock gun. Was a very expensive custom one.
Very expensive custom Glock? These exist?
Savage Hands
09-06-2014, 10:35 AM
Very expensive custom Glock? These exist?
Have you been living in a cave that past 5 or so years? :cool:
Pup town
09-06-2014, 10:50 AM
Have you been living in a cave that past 5 or so years? :cool:
:o I do know about Salient and Vez, though I try to forget.
Savage Hands
09-06-2014, 12:09 PM
And Boresight, Robar, Taran, Atei etc...
Magic_Salad0892
09-08-2014, 12:26 AM
There is a bit of confusion on FCN finishes and what they actually do.
FCN (and carburizing, and nitriding) were developed in war time to allow the machining and hardening of, literally, the gears of war. As a plus, the process made the low carbon low (none typically) alloy steels more corrosion resistant.
However, on high alloy/high carbon steels, the results can be drastically different. I never recommend this to stainless or high alloy steels. Or steels that have been heat treated.
If you desire a surface treatment for alloy or stainless, I suggest boriding.
But it won't be "bearded tactical black" rather a muted grey. Which looks better anyway. And Cerakote is always a good choice.
I've started to recommend against it as well, when I started doing my research again. (Because of you.)
I really like everything I've learned about IonBondDLC over carbon steel.
CompressionIgnition
09-09-2014, 10:28 PM
I actually like surface hardening over through hardening in a lot of situations, especially where you have a lot of impulse loading. If you start out with a nice ductile material and surface harden it you a part with a hard, wear-resistant surface and a ductile shock-tolerant bulk.
I actually like surface hardening over through hardening in a lot of situations, especially where you have a lot of impulse loading. If you start out with a nice ductile material and surface harden it you a part with a hard, wear-resistant surface and a ductile shock-tolerant bulk.
Isn't this carburizing or case hardening - like say a '98 Mauser? Is this the same as low carbon steel with Tennifer coating?
CompressionIgnition
09-09-2014, 11:30 PM
Isn't this carburizing or case hardening - like say a '98 Mauser? Is this the same as low carbon steel with Tennifer coating?
Yep, a loved child has many names :) Though achieving a hard surface can be done in many ways.
I actually like surface hardening over through hardening in a lot of situations, especially where you have a lot of impulse loading. If you start out with a nice ductile material and surface harden it you a part with a hard, wear-resistant surface and a ductile shock-tolerant bulk.
That generally works for moderate strain rates. Anything faster needs proper alloying and through hardening.
It's true, surface techniques can improve fatigue resistance though, when done correctly.
That generally works for moderate strain rates. Anything faster needs proper alloying and through hardening.
As in what happens with an overloaded cartridge? Those old case hardened bolt actions ran well at 50,000 CUPS. Hardened surface meant a bolt could be smooth and not gaul during normal manipulation and the package could handle the sustained "abuse" of containing that normal working pressure. But subjected to 75,000 or even 100,000, from bad ammo and the underlying low hardness yields, deforms too the point things don't work - bolt can't open, etc - that sorta thing?
It's true, surface techniques can improve fatigue resistance though, when done correctly.
If I have that right, could you elaborate on the second part of the quote.
Are you asking why "kabooms" all look like they have a significant element of brittle failure?
Tamara
09-10-2014, 11:57 AM
Are you asking why "kabooms" all look like they have a significant element of brittle failure?
In the .40 (and .45) Glocks, where the chamber hood is peeled back like a banana?
From Bill Riehl - "Are you asking why "kabooms" all look like they have a significant element of brittle failure?"
From Tamara - "In the .40 (and .45) Glocks, where the chamber hood is peeled back like a banana?"
Not exactly, though sorta. I’m trying to nail down the proper technical terminology and the correct engineering principle. I was concerned that what Compressionigniition wrote, was correct for the applications he knows of but maybe not exactly correct for a firearm design.
He said, "I actually like surface hardening over through hardening in a lot of situations, especially where you have a lot of impulse loading. If you start out with a nice ductile material and surface harden it you a part with a hard, wear-resistant surface and a ductile shock-tolerant bulk.”
I asked if he was talking about carburizing/case hardening and does Glock’s low carbon steel (Bill’s surmise) with Tennifer coating act similarly.
Then Bill wrote, "That generally works for moderate strain rates. Anything faster needs proper alloying and through hardening.
It's true, surface techniques can improve fatigue resistance though, when done correctly."
We’re going from lay language that attempts to describe why guns are built the way they are to proper engineering language while at the same time we’re trying to explain how these things work.
By referring to carburizing, or case hardening and specifically naming a 98 mauser as an example, I was trying to provide an example of what I guessed Compressionignition was describing. In these old rifles, ammunition was a relatively fixed thing. Ammo was built in government arsenals to a closely controlled standard. There wasnt 23 different factory loadings - from 10 different companies, citizen handloads or even rebarreling to some non standard caliber to contend with. As such, probability suggests “bad ammo” was relatively infrequent and not particulalry catastrophic - not much chance of somebody filling an 8x57 case full of Bullseye, for instance. A hard action exterior, would allow for smooth operation of the mechanical parts and they would stay that way for a very reasonable length of time. The softer core of the base steel, would distort in the case of an ammo overload, on the order that might possibly, if rarely, occur from arsenal ammo, say, I dont know…. a 1.5 times overload. A bolt might lock up, even an extractor might go flying, but the thing wouldnt blow into pieces. The term impulse loading I guessed referred to the normal pressure peak of a 9x19 pistol at 27,000 psi on a bolt action rifle, 30-06 experiencing 50,000 psi.
When Bill replied with the term “strain rate” the more correct engineering term I suspect, I wondered if indeed these two - “impulse loading” and “strain rate” were indeed the same thing? When Bill went on to say “Anything “faster” needs proper alloying and through hardening”, I was thinking my understanding was probably correct, but in this case the use of the term faster meant a more sudden or larger pressure excursion. Right? With the older case hardened actions, rebarreled to a caliber with a higher established working chamber pressure and then a reloading miscue, pressures could go to 150% to 200% higher than the action was originally designed for. The faster/higher impulse/strain takes the metallurgy beyond its “elastic limit” (how’m I doing Bill?) and things dont just distort they come apart. Have I got the language matching the events?
Modern guns built with proper alloys and through hardening, provide a significant improvement in these instances - I believe this is what Bill is trying to say. A modern action submitted to a more common yet unwanted ammo overload, might temporarily lock up, but after a bit of gunsmithing, the parts are fine and the gun still works. A catastrophic overload is more apt to act like the older case hardend action did with moderate overload, things get bent but no bombs accure. The Kaboom, thing you guys asked about wasnt on my mind and I think is different. In that case we have a cartridge case head improperly supported. The head - the place where the thick web at the base of the head thins into the sidewall of the case is not supported by the steel barrel's chamber and even with normal working pressures, the elastic limit of the brass is exceeded. In this case its the case failure not an action failure. Thats different, methinks.
I'm still curious if anyone thinks low carbon steel with a Tennifer coating acts like the older carburized/case hardened material?
Tamara
09-10-2014, 07:15 PM
I'm still curious if anyone thinks low carbon steel with a Tennifer coating acts like the older carburized/case hardened material?
Where I used to work, Gunsmith Shannon took a perverse delight in referring to Glock slides as "case hardened" in earshot of Glock fanbois. (And we had one customer with the Glock logo tattooed on his arm. Not even lying.)
Customer: "It's Tenifer!"
Shannon: "Tenifer, case hardening, to-may-to, to-mah-to..."
Where I used to work, Gunsmith Shannon took a perverse delight in referring to Glock slides as "case hardened" in earshot of Glock fanbois. (And we had one customer with the Glock logo tattooed on his arm. Not even lying.)
Customer: "It's Tenifer!"
Shannon: "Tenifer, case hardening, to-may-to, to-mah-to..."
Funny....
CompressionIgnition
09-10-2014, 07:46 PM
To address a few things;
"Strain" has two components, normal and shear. Normal strain refers to a change in dimension divided by the original dimension. For example, when I hammer on a nail, it briefly compresses lengthwise, then usually returns to its original length. When it was briefly compressed, it was strained lengthwise.
(Shear strain refers to a change in some angle relative to an original angle. For example, if I have a square plate, grab it by the upper left and lower right corner, then pull straight to the left on the left corner and straight to the right on the right corner, I am essentially trying to turn the plate into a parallelogram. I am causing shear strain to happen.)
Back to the nail. The hammering is an impulsive loading upon the nail. The rate at which the nail briefly compresses, compared to its original length, is the strain rate.
The elastic limit for a material is the stress (force / area) it can handle before it permanently deforms (ductile materials) or flies apart (very brittle materials, such as ceramics).
As far as slide vs. chamber, these are experiencing very different things. The slide is a moving part that sees sudden motion and also surface wear. The chamber is essentially an impulsively loaded pressure vessel.
Surface hardening a chamber (and other things) will basically not get you anything but "scratch protection", but I am loath to recommend through-hardening of a chamber, as hardening in many cases gives you a more brittle component.
Where I used to work, Gunsmith Shannon took a perverse delight in referring to Glock slides as "case hardened" in earshot of Glock fanbois. (And we had one customer with the Glock logo tattooed on his arm. Not even lying.)
Customer: "It's Tenifer!"
Shannon: "Tenifer, case hardening, to-may-to, to-mah-to..."
Wait. You mean there are some people who don't have the Glock logo tattooed on their arms? Or at least a heart saying "Glock Perfection?"
... Surface hardening a chamber (and other things) will basically not get you anything but "scratch protection", but I am loath to recommend through-hardening of a chamber, as hardening in many cases gives you a more brittle component.
Was concerned you were saying that. Hardening is a controllable process. We harden to some value, usually in the case of steel, expressed via Rockwell hardness - C scale. Engineers, like Bill, and engineering as portrayed in the article he attached the other day, specify the hardness requirement depending on the application. Manufacturing processes are established so that the specified hardness is created. Those little tiny divots you see inside guns on areas of concern are Rockwell test marks to ensure the right hardness.
Very hard, through hardening, is done with knives, chisels, plane blades, various cutters where the requirement is for edge holding and resistance to wear. There are no impact concerns with these tools so very hard is good. Its also why playing mumbldy-peg or dropping a chisel onto a concrete shop floor are bad ideas. Indeed, we wouldn't want that degree of hardness for any of the action's locking components or the barrel. Thats why a lower Rockwell is specified. There has to be some hardness to resist deforming on firing from pressure. There has to be enough to resist deformation and allow things to recover if there's a bit of overload. But there cant be too much, as should a serious overload occur barrels burst, locking lugs shear, stuff like that.
To address a few things;
"Strain" has two components, normal and shear. Normal strain refers to a change in dimension divided by the original dimension. For example, when I hammer on a nail, it briefly compresses lengthwise, then usually returns to its original length. When it was briefly compressed, it was strained lengthwise.
(Shear strain refers to a change in some angle relative to an original angle. For example, if I have a square plate, grab it by the upper left and lower right corner, then pull straight to the left on the left corner and straight to the right on the right corner, I am essentially trying to turn the plate into a parallelogram. I am causing shear strain to happen.)
Back to the nail. The hammering is an impulsive loading upon the nail. The rate at which the nail briefly compresses, compared to its original length, is the strain rate.
The elastic limit for a material is the stress (force / area) it can handle before it permanently deforms (ductile materials) or flies apart (very brittle materials, such as ceramics).
As far as slide vs. chamber, these are experiencing very different things. The slide is a moving part that sees sudden motion and also surface wear. The chamber is essentially an impulsively loaded pressure vessel.
Surface hardening a chamber (and other things) will basically not get you anything but "scratch protection", but I am loath to recommend through-hardening of a chamber, as hardening in many cases gives you a more brittle component.
The slide sees impulse loading every time the gun is fired, normal to the breechface and on the locking surface, at a minimum.
The chamber, on the examples we are (probably) talking about also have a good deal of in plane shear due to the locking lugs.
Surface hardening the chamber/barrel can increase the fatigue life of the part. Though, on a practical level, I'm not sure this is even an option on the steels in question at the thickness in question.
To be honest, I don't really like the "impulse loading" term, as I think it leads confusion and misinterpretation of the system. But, no matter.
Was concerned you were saying that. Hardening is a controllable process. We harden to some value, usually in the case of steel, expressed via Rockwell hardness - C scale. Engineers, like Bill, and engineering as portrayed in the article he attached the other day, specify the hardness requirement depending on the application. Manufacturing processes are established so that the specified hardness is created. Those little tiny divots you see inside guns on areas of concern are Rockwell test marks to ensure the right hardness.
Very hard, through hardening, is done with knives, chisels, plane blades, various cutters where the requirement is for edge holding and resistance to wear. There are no impact concerns with these tools so very hard is good. Its also why playing mumbldy-peg or dropping a chisel onto a concrete shop floor are bad ideas. Indeed, we wouldn't want that degree of hardness for any of the action's locking components or the barrel. Thats why a lower Rockwell is specified. There has to be some hardness to resist deforming on firing from pressure. There has to be enough to resist deformation and allow things to recover if there's a bit of overload. But there cant be too much, as should a serious overload occur barrels burst, locking lugs shear, stuff like that.
True, I was sloppy in the use of the term "hardened." There are different levels of hardening/hardness, tempering, annealing, and so on. And each alloy and metal reacts differently.
FWIW, I cannot think of a barrel or slide that doesn't have some sort of strengthening measures.
I harp on strain rates to be sure - that's a leading cause of failures. Not really "impulse loading" as that doesn't imply a time constant, just a mode of loading. Strain rate implies a time constant.
One last point to consider - hardness and strength are intimately related (with a few exceptions). Discussions on hardness and strength should be maintained within alloys/materials, not across them.
Bill,
Is this: http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?12993-A-Salient
what became this: http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?13305-Why-Through-Hardening-Matters
Alpha Sierra
09-12-2014, 09:34 AM
Tenifer is not a coating. You can't rub it off. In simple terms, it's the diffusion of nitrogen into the lattice structure of the steel at a temperature that keeps the steel in the ferritic phase.
Tenifer is not a coating. You can't rub it off. In simple terms, it's the diffusion of nitrogen into the lattice structure of the steel at a temperature that keeps the steel in the ferritic phase.
Carbon, nitrogen, oxygen
Tamara
09-12-2014, 10:36 AM
Tenifer is not a coating.
Who said it was?
Who said it was?
Actually, most of these types of finishes have a clearly defined diffusion zone. You can see the diffusion "front" like a weather front moving into a part. And extending this logic, is chrome plating a "coating"? Metallic bonds and all create room for interpretation.
When I teach tribology, an exercise we do is calculating the concentration profile differences between the major brand name players.
What's the difference if you deposit a different material or convert an existing material into something else?
And does it even matter?
Slater
09-12-2014, 04:56 PM
Is Steyr's "Mannox" treatment essentially the same as Tenifer?
Actually, most of these types of finishes have a clearly defined diffusion zone. You can see the diffusion "front" like a weather front moving into a part. And extending this logic, is chrome plating a "coating"? Metallic bonds and all create room for interpretation.
When I teach tribology, an exercise we do is calculating the concentration profile differences between the major brand name players.
What's the difference if you deposit a different material or convert an existing material into something else?
And does it even matter?
Is there any comparison to the heat effected zone from welding?
OK, how bout a bit of shift. Cant help but play in my mind with this thread and "Random Thoughts on Pistols" - http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?13295-Random-Thoughts-on-Pistols. Specifically Bill's first line, "1. The 1911 and Glock are the best designed guns out there. This is subjective, feel free to disagree. I consider the 1911 a rebuild-able item, and the Glock a throw away item. The 1911 is a marvel of efficiency of design, as is the Glock. I'll give the nod to ease of disassembly to the 1911. The Glock trigger itself is a bit of a PITA. Economy of function is an art, and JMB was a master."
While JMB designed around the material limitations of his day, can we say the same about Gaston Glock? Better alloys and heat treating were well in place in the '80s. Glock gets kudos for bringing a low cost-low price, highly functional product to market. But why now would we think it good to sacrifice the protection and long life serviceability for lowest cost?
Glock was targeting government purchasing agencies and processes. In this arena, performance sacrifices for budgetary concerns are notorious and indeed Glock gets high marks for his "Marketing" to this target market. That's the Sam Colt comparison, isn't it? But to an individual purchaser the slight additional cost to acquire better metallurgy, all other things being equal, seems like a small price to pay. With this discussion of Tennifer, the "throw away item" part is clear. Ironically there is value, (utility) in throw away things. But, I for one, would pay for the better materials and therefore question whether the Glock should be on the same pedestal as the 1911???
OK, how bout a bit of shift. Cant help but play in my mind with this thread and "Random Thoughts on Pistols" - http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?13295-Random-Thoughts-on-Pistols. Specifically Bill's first line, "1. The 1911 and Glock are the best designed guns out there. This is subjective, feel free to disagree. I consider the 1911 a rebuild-able item, and the Glock a throw away item. The 1911 is a marvel of efficiency of design, as is the Glock. I'll give the nod to ease of disassembly to the 1911. The Glock trigger itself is a bit of a PITA. Economy of function is an art, and JMB was a master."
While JMB designed around the material limitations of his day, can we say the same about Gaston Glock? Better alloys and heat treating were well in place in the '80s. Glock gets kudos for bringing a low cost-low price, highly functional product to market. But why now would we think it good to sacrifice the protection and long life serviceability for lowest cost?
Glock was targeting government purchasing agencies and processes. In this arena, performance sacrifices for budgetary concerns are notorious and indeed Glock gets high marks for his "Marketing" to this target market. That's the Sam Colt comparison, isn't it? But to an individual purchaser the slight additional cost to acquire better metallurgy, all other things being equal, seems like a small price to pay. With this discussion of Tennifer, the "throw away item" part is clear. Ironically there is value, (utility) in throw away things. But, I for one, would pay for the better materials and therefore question whether the Glock should be on the same pedestal as the 1911???
tomr: Let me start out by admitting that I am totally unqualified to speak about engineering or metallurgy. However, I think I can say that 9mm Glock pistols are notorious for their "long-life serviceability." Thus, I think giving them even longer-life serviceability at a higher cost would be a classic case of overbuilding a system. Cheap is good if it doesn't sacrifice reliability. I will admit that the .40's and .45's raise more questions, and I think there you might have a point.
Anyway, I agree with Bill about JMB and Gaston Glock--though we will have to wait to see whether any of Gaston's creations are used by militaries 96 years after their initial roll-out--which is the case with the M2 .50 cal, or 103 years, which is the case of the M1911.
Maple Syrup Actual
09-12-2014, 07:52 PM
I think I can say that 9mm Glock pistols are notorious for their "long-life serviceability." Thus, I think giving them even longer-life serviceability at a higher cost would be a classic case of overbuilding a system. Cheap is good if it doesn't sacrifice reliability.
I can't remember where this quote is from but I think it applies here:
"Economy of function is an art".
Apparently Gaston - or whoever designed their manufacturing process - was a master.
I get this is a challenging proposition...
Please note I wrote, "But why now would we think it good to sacrifice the protection and long life serviceability for lowest cost?" There's two elements to that thought.
1. On, long service life, Todd experienced 60,000+ rounds out of his Gen 4, G17. Thats more than most gun owners ever shoot. Period. full stop. Though, there are many who contribute here, whom I suspect do shoot that much, maybe not in one pistol. Still 60k is a lot. Bill Riehl has written, other places, that a 1911 built with modern steels and heat treat takes JMB's design to another level and 200,000 (I believe that was his number) is quite attainable, if albeit at a higher price. There is an argument for better materials for service life. Taken alone I get that choice, is more debatable.
2. On protection, if you've been following the discussion here on through hardening - it has been discussed that through hardening is a better way, assuming the appropriate higher quality base material, to take advantage of the properties of more modern materials and build a gun with improved built in protection from bad ammunition or other mishaps. This is the more "valuable" concern.
Much of the conversation of pistol-forum is about gun choices and training techniques for the potential or hypothetical situation where a gun will be employed in a defensive situation. Most of us will never see that. But many here train and practice towards that end. Though most never think about it, every time you shoot your gun, you are being exposed to a real risk - the risk of an overloaded cartridge, (especially if one hand loads). Better steels and heat treat provide better protection. If you go all the way back to page one you can see pictures of a rare, but real, metallurgical defect - stuff happens.
On page 3, #26, Bill wrote, "It is a customized gun. The customization played no role in this, nor Glocks choice of starting materials and use of finish, as much as I disagree with surface hardening over through hardening. The title of the thread is a bit misleading, in retrospect. You can't harden a massive inclusion. And the more I look at it, the more I think the little pocket is actually a void.
Let me be clear on this: this is a fluke. I'm not in any way shape or form criticizing the manufacturer.
In all likelihood, what happened is that when the foundry was cast the ingot that was used to make the bar that the slide was cut from, an air or slag pocket remained in that area. That happens.
The real lesson to learn here is this: Detail strip and inspect your guns periodically. This gun exhibited significant locking surface setback on the slide as a result of lack of effective bearing surface. I promise, this isn't the only gun out there like that. It's fun to have filthy dirty guns, and I'm guilty too. But this was a bit of nasty waiting to happen, and Glock is (liability wise) lucky it played out like it did.
Note the last, bolded comment. This was an inclusion and not a failure of mild steel reinforced with Tennifer surface heat treatment. But things happen and this is an example of that. High quality steels and through heat treat provide a measure of protection from other kinds of failures as described. This may be a prejudice, but I suspect things like inclusions occur less in higher quality steels and are more likely caught with a different design sensibility.
I'm not sure I've ever met an uber high mileage G17. By that I mean I've never seen one with over 100k through it. And I really suspect claims of that, given the number I've seen with 20-40k that had unusable breech faces. YMMV on that. M&P, SIGs and HK don't seem to do that nearly as bad.
Now, depending on the root cause one chooses to assign the blame for pitting and striker channel corrosion, it may or may not be a material issue or a design issue. I tend to assign it to a number of factors, including: non toxic ammo, overly generous chambers (resulting in primer slippage/gas leakage), and low alloy/carbon base steel. The "custom" Glocks I've seen that had actual match barrels didn't show this trait as quickly and as pronounced as factory guns.
Now, I've actually had occasion to visit more than a couple 1911 manufactures (believe it or not, yes, I've actually had occasion to look at more 1911s than just mine. I know, crazy. And some were even department guns! And I even got to go over them with the service guys!). I've never seen that pattern of behavior out of the 1911 (or, to be honest, any other gun) like that seen on Glocks. But no 1911 I have ever seen had a chamber cut as generously.
But again, who cares? If I had a Glock hit 25k, and go toes up, I'd smile and buy another. Looking at the gun, they weren't designed to be high round count guns. Look at the design and materials. They were designed to be cheap, simple, and as safe as possible given the desired MoA. Don't try and make it something it's not. The 1911 will never be a cheap pistol. It just will never be a $1000 and under gun. I have question as to whether it can be a $1500 gun. Maybe it's not worth that to you. That's cool. That's not a reflection of the gun, that's a reflection of your priorities.
Where the 1911 v. G17 derp comes in is the maintenance/durability/reliability/complexity claims. Which is the other thread. I have to tell you, I've been looking at the voids today. I reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally have questions about manufacturing now.
Too much time on my hands...
Merging these two threads, (and others), I'm maybe being a little cynical when I say Gaston Glock is more Sam Colt - sales/marketing/promoter, then John Browning - gun designer. If Glock recognized the "customer" for his pistol was a municipality more than an individual, then a bias towards cost/price in his design is understandable.
Assume as individuals, more or less in control of our own decisions and having some understanding of all the issues, (not just trigger pull, sights, grip ergs), which would you rather buy/own/shoot?
1. Glock with low carbon steel, Tennifer finish for $500.00
2. Glock with hi carbon alloyed steel, through hardened and coated with a good shake and bake finish for $525.00
3. #2 above for $550.00
Too much time on my hands...
Merging these two threads, (and others), I'm maybe being a little cynical when I say Gaston Glock is more Sam Colt - sales/marketing/promoter, then John Browning - gun designer. If Glock recognized the "customer" for his pistol was a municipality more than an individual, then a bias towards cost/price in his design is understandable.
Assume as individuals, more or less in control of our own decisions and having some understanding of all the issues, (not just trigger pull, sights, grip ergs), which would you rather buy/own/shoot?
1. Glock with low carbon steel, Tennifer finish for $500.00
2. Glock with hi carbon alloyed steel, through hardened and coated with a good shake and bake finish for $525.00
3. #2 above for $550.00
Which would I rather have? For me, that should be obvious. But that doesn't imply my choice is correct. I admire Glock for what it is, but I'd take a FNS any day over a Glock. But it is a more complex gun.
Which would I rather have? For me, that should be obvious. But that doesn't imply my choice is correct. I admire Glock for what it is, but I'd take a FNS any day over a Glock. But it is a more complex gun.
One problem is we don't (easily) know what material choices are made by the different manufacturers. One exception, a couple years ago we had a conversation with Wilson Combat Rep (on 1911 Forum) about the term "carbon steel" in which he named the various alloys Wilson was using in key parts in their 1911s. That was enlightening and impressive (a. that he did it and b. good choices). Companies don't offer this info. Its never mentioned in advertising. Its done in other products.
You've had your hands on the FNS, and short of a complete chemical analysis or maybe some inside information, not generally publicly available, you've seen enough to be impressed with FN's choices of materials.
We discuss continually, the differences in pistols from the only perspective we're given, ergonomics, triggers, mag capacity, functional reliability, sights. Several of these are changeable, some are not. But choices are made for somewhat superficial reasons. The materials choice is not superficial.
What do we know about the quality of materials choices in pistols competing with Glock? To keep it apples to apples, (staying with polymer frames and striker fired mechanisms as the most often preferred modern choice), how do the FNS, M&P, PPQ, 320, VP9 compare?
LSP552
09-13-2014, 11:29 AM
While JMB designed around the material limitations of his day, can we say the same about Gaston Glock? Better alloys and heat treating were well in place in the '80s. Glock gets kudos for bringing a low cost-low price, highly functional product to market. But why now would we think it good to sacrifice the protection and long life serviceability for lowest cost?
Glock was targeting government purchasing agencies and processes. In this arena, performance sacrifices for budgetary concerns are notorious and indeed Glock gets high marks for his "Marketing" to this target market. That's the Sam Colt comparison, isn't it? But to an individual purchaser the slight additional cost to acquire better metallurgy, all other things being equal, seems like a small price to pay. With this discussion of Tennifer, the "throw away item" part is clear. Ironically there is value, (utility) in throw away things. But, I for one, would pay for the better materials and therefore question whether the Glock should be on the same pedestal as the 1911???
A Glock is what it is and I wouldn't be interested in a more expensive version with "better" metallurgy. They are "good enough" for a service pistol and their service life, in 9mm, FAR exceeds most users expectations. They are also one of the most shootable platforms out there. Their simplicity is a great thing for an agency or end user. I like, own and have carried a variety of handguns but always come back to the Glock for what it is.
I agree that Glock has also done a great job with their marketing.
Ken
Slater
09-13-2014, 12:15 PM
In the "strictly a service pistol" vein, the British Army selected the Glock 17 Gen 4 over the H&K P30, SIG P-226, M&P 9, and Beretta's PX-4 in a shootoff last year. According to the Warrant Officer in charge of the program, "Glock was the clear winner", and 25,000 G17's will be acquired.
I think the eval centered more on overall shootability than reliability/durability, but the Brits seem pleased with the gun.
BLR, We need you.
Between this thread, your "Random Thoughts" thread ( http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?13295-Random-Thoughts-on-Pistols ), and an earlier one, where you offered the analysis that The M&P 9 accuracy issue related to S&W's over machining of the slide to reduce mass for the nine (from the 40) and consequent warpage and that Melonite over Stainless wasn't a good idea, I'm now wondering.
Looking past the obvious, trigger, sights, ergonomics, conceal-ability, and price - the usual stuff of pistol purchase choices - and after reading the above it seems maybe we aren't the informed consumers we ought to be. Are we guilty of assuming long term durability is good enough and protection (from ammo issues) is well taken care of?
Specifically, what do we know about the metallurgy, and heat treat (of the significant parts), and dimensional control of the alternatives to Glock and S&W? Specifically how good are the materials (and execution) used in FNH-FNS/FNX, H&K-VP9/P30,HK45, P2000, Sig P226/9, 320, Walther-PPQ, etc?
41magfan
09-30-2014, 10:00 PM
Just a few years after the Glock 17 was introduced to the U.S. market, there was public range on the West Coast with a rental gun that had reportedly logged well over 100k rounds without major component failure. The round count was reported to be plausible since this range had a policy that only their store bought ammo could be shot through the rental guns. I recall them relating that the rifling appeared very shallow to the naked eye but the gun would still shoot @ 4" at 25 yards.
Tamara
09-30-2014, 10:03 PM
I recall them relating that the rifling appeared very shallow to the naked eye...
All polygonal rifling looks like that. :)
Just a few years after the Glock 17 was introduced to the U.S. market, there was public range on the West Coast with a rental gun that had reportedly logged well over 100k rounds without major component failure. The round count was reported to be plausible since this range had a policy that only their store bought ammo could be shot through the rental guns. I recall them relating that the rifling appeared very shallow to the naked eye but the gun would still shoot @ 4" at 25 yards.
The mythology around Glock is prodigious and fun. What are the facts?
I was talking with a really good gunsmith, last week, one known to some folks here, who would meet Bill's definition of a real smith, as he possesses and runs the requisite milling machines, lathes, grinders, etc and also has serviced several police agencies for quite some time. His history with various LE weapons is impressive. We were talking about this thread and he described some of the mods he was doing in the earlier days with Glocks. Specifically, he described tearing up conventional end mills trying to mill Glock slides till he figured out the Tennifer/case hardened thing. After switching to diamond cutters, and breaking through the "exoskeleton," (my word), I believe he used words like "hot knife through butter" to describe what lay within. If the target markets are police agencies and military, reliability and simplicity are good things, as well as low cost/pricing to win the bidding wars. The added benefit to a manufacturer is these customers are most likely to use factory ammunition, where things are very highly controlled. The risk we've been discussing is mitigated.
Todd green's G17, abused as it was, didn't make it that far. Does anyone have first hand knowledge of Glocks making it to 100,000 rounds?
But a larger point, we have some knowledge of construction considerations, that depending on one's requirements, might be important, (potentially equally as important as the usual criteria) - for Glock and M&P. There's a growing number of Avis-like we tried harder pistols out there and we evaluate them based on the usual criteria, trigger, sights, ejection patterns, ergos. Some like H&K and Sig charge more. Is this just good marketing as in - "gee they charge more, therefore they must use better stuff"? We don't know - do we? I'm willing to pay more, to get more, but I'd rather not be guessing at that.
I was thinking about one of the recommendations I often see here. It goes something like "Buy three - one to prove and carry, one to train hard with, and one for backup." I wondered if this is the result of things not being made quite as well, (durable) as they could be?
GardoneVT
09-30-2014, 11:49 PM
I know less then nothing about materials science , but in the subject of economics I'm less ignorant . Simple math would determine that the cost of the ammunition required to render any modern day quality service pistol hors-de-combat by useage wear would long since eclipse the cost of the weapon itself.
In plainer speech, at $.30 per round x 25,000 rounds we have an ammo bill of $7500. Allocating $1100 for TWO Glock pistols represents only 14.7% of the cost of the ammo. If $7500 for ammo is 'disposable income', the firearm price is virtually irrelevant. Even if one is a casual shooter and spends only $100 per month on shooting expenses, at the end of the year its a $1200 bill. The gun costs $550. By comparison, some people have car payments in excess of $600 per month-and unlike a handgun, a car cannot be used for 24/7 personal defense.
So, even if one comitted to building skill encounters a lemon, its economically akin to getting a bad bag of chips at the vending machine. Buy another and chive on.
Again, that's an economic perspective which leaves out factors like sentimentality, personal preference, potential safety hazards , etc.
So, I just Googled H&K P30 and got to Wikpedia, where I found this quote,
"The cold hammer-forged barrel has hexagonal right-hand polygonal rifling while the slide, having both front and rear serrations, is made from a solid bar of nitro-carburized steel. Besides metals the P30 makes extensive use of impact-resistant polymers to reduce weight and production costs.
Major metal components like the steel slide are treated with a protective surface treatment. Heckler & Koch refers to this treatment as the "HE" (Hostile Environment) finish, which is an extremely hard, nitro-gas carburized, black oxide coating. It aids resisting wear and corrosion, including exposure to salt water, making the pistol particularly suitable for individuals carrying the pistol concealed as the highly chloride-resistant finish allows the pistol to better endure the effects of perspiration. and
Curiously and I guess its understood, different people contribute to Wikpedia, But isn't a "slide made from a solid bar of nitro carburized steel" and the steel slide treated with hostile environment finish an extremely hard, nitro-gas carburized black oxide coating double dipping? I believe nitro carburizing is not the older carburizing/case hardening. But beyond that I don't know what it is. Whats the base steel alloy that gets this treatment? Is it through hardened?
I know less then nothing about materials science , but in the subject of economics I'm less ignorant . Simple math would determine that the cost of the ammunition required to render any modern day quality service pistol hors-de-combat by useage wear would long since eclipse the cost of the weapon itself.
In plainer speech, at $.30 per round x 25,000 rounds we have an ammo bill of $7500. Allocating $1100 for TWO Glock pistols represents only 14.7% of the cost of the ammo. If $7500 for ammo is 'disposable income', the firearm price is virtually irrelevant. Even if one is a casual shooter and spends only $100 per month on shooting expenses, at the end of the year its a $1200 bill. The gun costs $550. By comparison, some people have car payments in excess of $600 per month-and unlike a handgun, a car cannot be used for 24/7 personal defense.
So, even if one comitted to building skill encounters a lemon, its economically akin to getting a bad bag of chips at the vending machine. Buy another and chive on.
Again, that's an economic perspective which leaves out factors like sentimentality, personal preference, potential safety hazards , etc.
I'm not sure I follow. Indeed the ammo can easily cost more than the gun over its life, (unless like most guns, they don't get shot much). Given this analysis it seems the argument for a gun that costs 10, 20 or even 30% more is really no big deal in the total investment - right? And if that little extra investment buys you reliability, service life and protection from say an errant hand load, isn't that money well spent? Whats the total cost of gun, ammo and medical bills, plus lost income do to a gun/ammo problem? If we're worried enough to train for the gun fight that'll most likely never happen, unless you're a cop working some dangerous neighborhoods or a soldier, isn't a small investment to protect against another potential problem worth it? Sorry if thats what you were trying to say and I missed it.
GardoneVT
10-01-2014, 01:58 AM
I'm not sure I follow. Indeed the ammo can easily cost more than the gun over its life, (unless like most guns, they don't get shot much). Given this analysis it seems the argument for a gun that costs 10, 20 or even 30% more is really no big deal in the total investment - right? And if that little extra investment buys you reliability, service life and protection from say an errant hand load, isn't that money well spent? Whats the total cost of gun, ammo and medical bills, plus lost income do to a gun/ammo problem? If we're worried enough to train for the gun fight that'll most likely never happen, unless you're a cop working some dangerous neighborhoods or a soldier, isn't a small investment to protect against another potential problem worth it? Sorry if thats what you were trying to say and I missed it.
One can interpret the math as they see fit. Put it like this; as Todd Green mentioned long ago, if a Glock sold for $50,000 it would still be a worthy investment. When discussing ones life, money really isn't an object-after all, how much is your life worth to you?
The answers to those questions will depend on an individuals priorities. As the market is now, it costs more money to gain skill with a firearm then it does to acquire one. $2000 can buy a Glock, a Sig, a Rock Island 1911 -or it can buy one Glock and a weekend class. Most choose skill as their opprotunity cost .
Perhaps we would be better off with a Truth in Lending type document attachment , with each rifle and pistol sold having a data sheet stapled to the price tag illustrating how much ammunition and training is required to achieve acceptable proficiency.The overall state of things would be better if the average Joe knew from the get go his Glock 17 will cost $1200 ($550 for the gun + $550 in ammo) to adequately defend himself with it.
1slow
10-01-2014, 08:17 AM
I agree about the gun vs. ammo costs. Most people look at me like I am speaking an unknown language when I bring this up. Maybe logic and math are foreign languages to them ?
Ammo and training required depends a lot on the individual.
There is one more factor. The cost of vetting each new gun: ammo to test for function, reliability and accuracy.
I agree about the gun vs. ammo costs. Most people look at me like I am speaking an unknown language when I bring this up. Maybe logic and math are foreign languages to them ?
Ammo and training required depends a lot on the individual.
There is one more factor. The cost of vetting each new gun: ammo to test for function, reliability and accuracy.
That point on the cost of vetting is a very good one, which I think we often tend to overlook when we only price in the cost of the pistol and mags.
In plainer speech, at $.30 per round x 25,000 rounds we have an ammo bill of $7500. Allocating $1100 for TWO Glock pistols represents only 14.7% of the cost of the ammo. If $7500 for ammo is 'disposable income', the firearm price is virtually irrelevant. Even if one is a casual shooter and spends only $100 per month on shooting expenses, at the end of the year its a $1200 bill. The gun costs $550. By comparison, some people have car payments in excess of $600 per month-and unlike a handgun, a car cannot be used for 24/7 personal defense.
Attempting to marginalize firearm expenses by looking at ammunition expenditure just doesn't work for me. 14% sounds small, but for someone spending $7K on ammo, $1K is a lot of money. As for the car comparison, it's actually the other way around. A vehicle gets used daily, sometimes for hours at a time, for its exact purpose of transportation. For many of us, very little meaningful work (shooting people) is done with firearms on a daily basis.
psalms144.1
10-01-2014, 10:21 AM
At my last team, we had issued G19s of 2005 vintage. Our per member annual training ammunition allocation was 7,000 rounds, EXCLUSIVE of external training courses, wherein we typically contracted the ammunition. We attended one or two intensive external training courses every year - say an extra 5,000 rounds/pistol/year. We did NOT turn back any ammunition at the end of the year, and no one ever suggested that our allocation should be reduced because we weren't shooting it up.
When I left the team in late 2012, our pistols were still chugging along with just routine spring changes. So, using AVERAGES (because certainly we didn't allocate every bullet to individual team members and some folks missed training due to operational commitments), I would say that each of our pistols had, at the time I left the team, fired over 80,000 rounds, with no "catastrophic" failures. We were at the point where we talked about replacing barrels out of an excess of caution - even though there was no noticeable diminishment of accuracy or any key-holing - but that hadn't happened before I left.
Now, two years+ later, the same pistols are still in service. I can't speak to the volume of training, and I believe that it's dropped off a bit since I left, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit to hear that one or more of those pistols had reached or broken the 100K mark.
Again, I'm NOT a fanboi, everyone on here knows my constant search for something that can take the place of my G19. But, that's MY experience with the long-term reliabilty of a specific number of Glocks.
Regards,
Kevin
Hmm, I'm still not tracking, sorry. What does ammo cost have to do with this thread "why through hardening matters" and the couple others that relate to what Bill posted about gun construction/durability?
At my last team, we had issued G19s of 2005 vintage. Our per member annual training ammunition allocation was 7,000 rounds, EXCLUSIVE of external training courses, wherein we typically contracted the ammunition. We attended one or two intensive external training courses every year - say an extra 5,000 rounds/pistol/year. We did NOT turn back any ammunition at the end of the year, and no one ever suggested that our allocation should be reduced because we weren't shooting it up.
When I left the team in late 2012, our pistols were still chugging along with just routine spring changes. So, using AVERAGES (because certainly we didn't allocate every bullet to individual team members and some folks missed training due to operational commitments), I would say that each of our pistols had, at the time I left the team, fired over 80,000 rounds, with no "catastrophic" failures. We were at the point where we talked about replacing barrels out of an excess of caution - even though there was no noticeable diminishment of accuracy or any key-holing - but that hadn't happened before I left.
Now, two years+ later, the same pistols are still in service. I can't speak to the volume of training, and I believe that it's dropped off a bit since I left, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit to hear that one or more of those pistols had reached or broken the 100K mark.
Again, I'm NOT a fanboi, everyone on here knows my constant search for something that can take the place of my G19. But, that's MY experience with the long-term reliabilty of a specific number of Glocks.
Regards,
Kevin
Thanks Kevin, Was there any of that breech face erosion, that Todd saw and Bill has written about? To be clear, the catastrophic failures I muse about are not caused by high volume routine shooting but ammo problems, that rarely occur with factory stuff, but manufacturers worry about with hand loads.
psalms144.1
10-01-2014, 10:42 AM
Thanks Kevin, Was there any of that breech face erosion, that Todd saw and Bill has written about? To be clear, the catastrophic failures I muse about are not caused by high volume routine shooting but ammo problems, that rarely occur with factory stuff, but manufacturers worry about with hand loads.Tomr - we did fairly thorough and recurring maintenance on our G19s, and neither I nor any of the other armorers on the team ever noted breech face erosion. Doesn't mean there wasn't ANY, just that it never appeared in a way that caught our attention.
Regards,
Kevin
Tamara
10-01-2014, 12:09 PM
While it's not a 17, I may have mentioned before that the Glock 21 I retired from the rental case (and sold to a customer with full disclosure) back in '06 was the same one that the previous owners had gotten as their very first rental 21 more than a decade earlier. Assuming that the patterns I saw tracked back over the years, it would not be out of line to assume the gun had more than 100k rounds through it.
While it's not a 17, I may have mentioned before that the Glock 21 I retired from the rental case (and sold to a customer with full disclosure) back in '06 was the same one that the previous owners had gotten as their very first rental 21 more than a decade earlier. Assuming that the patterns I saw tracked back over the years, it would not be out of line to assume the gun had more than 100k rounds through it.
Did you ever see any high-round-count .40 cal. Glocks?
Tamara
10-02-2014, 03:45 PM
Did you ever see any high-round-count .40 cal. Glocks?
Well, there were .40s in the rental case, if that counts. The rental 32 is the only Glock I've personally seen crack its slide, FWIW, right below the ejection port. No idea what the round count was, but it couldn't have been all that high.
In the "strictly a service pistol" vein, the British Army selected the Glock 17 Gen 4 over the H&K P30, SIG P-226, M&P 9, and Beretta's PX-4 in a shootoff last year. According to the Warrant Officer in charge of the program, "Glock was the clear winner", and 25,000 G17's will be acquired.
I think the eval centered more on overall shootability than reliability/durability, but the Brits seem pleased with the gun.
Then why do the guys who shoot their pistols the most, the SAS & SBS, continue to issue the P226?
Mike C
10-03-2014, 12:03 AM
Specifically, what do we know about the metallurgy, and heat treat (of the significant parts), and dimensional control of the alternatives to Glock and S&W? Specifically how good are the materials (and execution) used in FNH-FNS/FNX, H&K-VP9/P30,HK45, P2000, Sig P226/9, 320, Walther-PPQ, etc?
Those are some damn good questions, I would absolutely love to hear about the FN, HK, & Sig lines in terms of materials and mechanical execution. That would be an awesome educational experience.
KevinB
10-03-2014, 01:03 PM
Then why do the guys who shoot their pistols the most, the SAS & SBS, continue to issue the P226?
They are changing - as is Canadian SOF who have 226R's as well (Canadians are still not finished theirs - so it may be Glock or M&P).
They are changing - as is Canadian SOF who have 226R's as well (Canadians are still not finished theirs - so it may be Glock or M&P).
Kevin: Interesting. Any idea why the Brits and Canadians are changing?
Those are some damn good questions, I would absolutely love to hear about the FN, HK, & Sig lines in terms of materials and mechanical execution. That would be an awesome educational experience.
Got any recommendations for how we can inspire this discussion? Ive asked the question a couple times now in different places and ways. Either it gets lost in the flow of the started thread, folks aren't interested, or they don't know???? Any ideas?
NerdAlert
10-04-2014, 07:32 AM
Got any recommendations for how we can inspire this discussion? Ive asked the question a couple times now in different places and ways. Either it gets lost in the flow of the started thread, folks aren't interested, or they don't know???? Any ideas?
Tomr if you look at Bill's started posts you can find a good amount of discussion and pics on the FN (tactical hobo's) and sig offering in compact 9mms. Not sure
On the others. If I recall Bill was impressed greatly by the FN and considered sig's quality a bygone conclusion. Check it out. I've read every technical thread Bill has posted, because I'm a nerd like that. :)
Sent from my iPhone, I apologize in advance for typos.
LittleLebowski
10-04-2014, 07:38 AM
Got any recommendations for how we can inspire this discussion? Ive asked the question a couple times now in different places and ways. Either it gets lost in the flow of the started thread, folks aren't interested, or they don't know???? Any ideas?
You need to be patient when asking a PhD with two jobs to sit down and answer your questions. Judicious uses of the below typed in Google would help as well.
my search terms site:pistol-forum.com
KevinB
10-04-2014, 08:48 AM
Kevin: Interesting. Any idea why the Brits and Canadians are changing?
Guns wear out, so they decided to explore other options -- DA/SA issues aside, the SIG and exposed hammer designs are not doing well in green side operations.
From my understanding of both programs the SIG's did not do as well as some other guns in testing for replacements.
Guns wear out, so they decided to explore other options -- DA/SA issues aside, the SIG and exposed hammer designs are not doing well in green side operations.
From my understanding of both programs the SIG's did not do as well as some other guns in testing for replacements.
What I found a bit surprising about the British big-army decision for the Glock 17 is that they didn't chose the 19, simply because it is a bit lighter and more compact. A few ounces don't make a difference for most troops, but they do if you are carrying the better part of 100 pounds of gear while walking all day and night, or at least it always seemed that way to me. Our SF units seem to have mainly gone to the 19; I wonder if the Brit specialist units will make the same choice or will stick with the 17?
KevinB
10-04-2014, 09:48 AM
My guess is they will do both -- 17's for Green side ops (they are free from large Brit Army) - and 19's and 26's for times where the larger gun is not applicable.
The same way that they and the Canadians had 228s and 239's for certain missions.
As I expect the S&W M&P will win the Cdn trial - I would expect that they will pick up the 9C and Shield for those roles. Unless Glock finally released their MRDS Slide - I see most entities going M&P CORE who have a domestic CT requirement - as shooting in a GasMask - the MRDS kicks ass.
Mike C
10-04-2014, 09:53 AM
Tomr if you look at Bill's started posts you can find a good amount of discussion and pics on the FN (tactical hobo's) and sig offering in compact 9mms. Not sure
On the others. If I recall Bill was impressed greatly by the FN and considered sig's quality a bygone conclusion. Check it out. I've read every technical thread Bill has posted, because I'm a nerd like that. :)
Sent from my iPhone, I apologize in advance for typos.
Bill Riehl did talk about some of his impressions but I did not find a ton of technical detail as he has provided in other postings to include the metallurgical choices and consequences there of, or things like strength, natural corrosion resistance and so forth. Bill Riehl provides a fascinating amount of detail and insight. If/when he has the time it would be awesome to hear a comparative mechanical breakdown, machining quality, MIM quality, metal quality/strength and comparison between the three staple lines of say Sig, FN, and H&K.
All that I specifically remember and after rereading some of his posts is that he talked more about the complexity of lines like H&K, SIG, and FN vs Glock and a 1911. Nothing in direct comparison with detail. He has also stated that he did not like the stamped parts in the FN but over all liked the design and was able to shoot the FN very well after some much needed trigger work.
I haven't seen a lot of people on this forum with the same technical expertise speak of these things in great detail, or at least if there are they haven't shared a whole lot. I am the type of person that is always looking at the why or how behind things so it would be awesome to either be pointed in the right direction to find the answers myself or have someone break it down for me in a language that I can better understand. For me that has been one of the great things about this forum, the amount of tactical and technical experts is so many fields gathered in one place is pretty awesome.
Got any recommendations for how we can inspire this discussion? Ive asked the question a couple times now in different places and ways. Either it gets lost in the flow of the started thread, folks aren't interested, or they don't know???? Any ideas?
I'm in a precarious position, as I have inside knowledge of a few of those, and I don't want to be the one that makes things public knowledge.
Thanks Bill, that was of course a 4th possibility......
Folks, Ive read all of Bills posts re the FNS, Sigs, Glocks and M&Ps. Those are great and in fact what inspired my interest in the question. I don't like stampings either, but they work and are a fact of life, powdered metal/MIM as well. In fact carbide end mills, router bits, lathe tools and fancy high end knives are using this stuff these days, (Crucible Steel). so for small parts there's way lots more to know.
The question being talked about here, for me at least, just falls out, after reading the "through hardening" thread and the "some thoughts ...." thread. As Ive written, all the conversation about triggers, sights, ergonomics, ejection pattern, reliability are important, but not the whole story. But as thats the only "information" we're given the conversation is corralled to just those things. Most of those are fixable, if not to one's liking, with additional expense, or, reasons to buy one platform or another. But to commit to a pistol, (as a citizen, spending hard earned cash), especially if being asked to pay more ala H&K or Sig, don't we want to know what we're being asked to pay for? Wouldn't we like to know that the fundamental parts, slides, barrels, frames are as good as they can be to warrant that commitment and the additional expense of customizing? If, they all use "polymer" for grips, (are all polymers created equal?), stamped and MIMed small parts and we find out the slides and barrels are essential the same, doesn't that then shed a different light on price?
LittleLebowski, I understand and am respectful of Bill's contributions and time constraints, as I'd bet he'd acknowledge. You should try asking this question to the search function some time - it may be revealing...
Mike C
10-04-2014, 11:19 AM
I'm in a precarious position, as I have inside knowledge of a few of those, and I don't want to be the one that makes things public knowledge.
I can absolutely respect that. On the other hand I hear and feel what tomr is saying.
But to commit to a pistol, (as a citizen, spending hard earned cash), especially if being asked to pay more ala H&K or Sig, don't we want to know what we're being asked to pay for? Wouldn't we like to know that the fundamental parts, slides, barrels, frames are as good as they can be to warrant that commitment and the additional expense of customizing? If, they all use "polymer" for grips, (are all polymers created equal?), stamped and MIMed small parts and we find out the slides and barrels are essential the same, doesn't that then shed a different light on price?
This is exactly what I am thinking. It's not like a manufacture wants to come out and say, hey buy our product though it might be inferior to whatever else your looking at and here are the technical details of why. I am typically left with more questions than answers at time but thanks for sharing what you will Bill Riehl.
My guess is they will do both -- 17's for Green side ops (they are free from large Brit Army) - and 19's and 26's for times where the larger gun is not applicable.
The same way that they and the Canadians had 228s and 239's for certain missions.
As I expect the S&W M&P will win the Cdn trial - I would expect that they will pick up the 9C and Shield for those roles. Unless Glock finally released their MRDS Slide - I see most entities going M&P CORE who have a domestic CT requirement - as shooting in a GasMask - the MRDS kicks ass.
That makes sense. I've never tried to aim a pistol in a gas mask, but I've done it with other weapons (iron sighted--this was before red dots came out) and accuracy tended to be significantly degraded. If the Canadians go with the M&P maybe Glock will get off the dime--which would be nice for the rest of us.
LL, to go on just a little....
Perhaps you didn't see it, but back in post #74, I'd already reported this from a Google search:
"So, I just Googled H&K P30 and got to Wikpedia, where I found this quote,
"The cold hammer-forged barrel has hexagonal right-hand polygonal rifling while the slide, having both front and rear serrations, is made from a solid bar of nitro-carburized steel. Besides metals the P30 makes extensive use of impact-resistant polymers to reduce weight and production costs.
Major metal components like the steel slide are treated with a protective surface treatment. Heckler & Koch refers to this treatment as the "HE" (Hostile Environment) finish, which is an extremely hard, nitro-gas carburized, black oxide coating. It aids resisting wear and corrosion, including exposure to salt water, making the pistol particularly suitable for individuals carrying the pistol concealed as the highly chloride-resistant finish allows the pistol to better endure the effects of perspiration. and
Curiously and I guess its understood, different people contribute to Wikpedia, But isn't a "slide made from a solid bar of nitro carburized steel" and the steel slide treated with hostile environment finish an extremely hard, nitro-gas carburized black oxide coating double dipping? I believe nitro carburizing is not the older carburizing/case hardening. But beyond that I don't know what it is. Whats the base steel alloy that gets this treatment? Is it through hardened?"
I went on and looked up Nitro carburizing, but did not include that, for brevity's sake. Hence my questions at the end.
Drang
10-04-2014, 12:54 PM
Green side ops
Not to derail the discussion, but could I ask you to define this term? It doesn't seem to mean what I first thought it did.
Tamara
10-04-2014, 06:30 PM
But isn't a "slide made from a solid bar of nitro carburized steel" and the steel slide treated with hostile environment finish an extremely hard, nitro-gas carburized black oxide coating double dipping?
I think what you're seeing there is an artifact of the writing at Wikipedia and not the actual manufacturing process. Pretty sure they don't case-harden the stuff before they machine it.
I think what you're seeing there is an artifact of the writing at Wikipedia and not the actual manufacturing process. Pretty sure they don't case-harden the stuff before they machine it.
Perhaps I wasn't clear, according to the other Wikpedia piece - the one I went to after the H&K one, where I looked up nitro carburizing, it was explained case hardening - the older process we've discussed before, (and Ive actually done) is not the same as nitro carburizing. After reading that article I didn't feel like I knew a heck of a lot more about what nitro carburizing actually was, hence the questions I added in the post your refer to. I was hoping, Bill as busy as he is, would notice and comment.
So while no one would carburize, (alternate term for older process)/case harden then machine, because nitro carburizing is theoretically at least "different" (?) maybe for THIS process they do? I'm trying to find that out.
To, and I believe you are correct, this is an artifact of Wikpedia reporting. By double dipping, I meant whoever wrote this couldn't mean it somehow was both the method of fabrication of the base part metallurgy AND the finish employed after. I was being a bit snide (without the appropriate post icon) about what was written and thought it confusing at best.
Sorry for the confusion and hope this helps.
Tamara
10-04-2014, 08:08 PM
Perhaps I wasn't clear, according to the other Wikpedia piece - the one I went to after the H&K one, where I looked up nitro carburizing, it was explained case hardening - the older process we've discussed before, (and Ive actually done) is not the same as nitro carburizing.
...
To, and I believe you are correct, this is an artifact of Wikpedia reporting. By double dipping, I meant whoever wrote this couldn't mean it somehow was both the method of fabrication of the base part metallurgy AND the finish employed after. I was being a bit snide (without the appropriate post icon) about what was written and thought it confusing at best.
Sorry for the confusion and hope this helps.
Here's the page (http://www.bodycote.com/en-GB/services/heat-treatment/case-hardening-without-subsequent-hardening-operation/nitrocarburising.aspx) from Bodycote, with whom we'd worked in the past, on nitrocarburizing. It is not incorrect to refer to it as case-hardening.
I hope this helps you; I'm no engineer, though.
Here's the page (http://www.bodycote.com/en-GB/services/heat-treatment/case-hardening-without-subsequent-hardening-operation/nitrocarburising.aspx) from Bodycote, with whom we'd worked in the past, on nitrocarburizing. It is not incorrect to refer to it as case-hardening.
I hope this helps you; I'm no engineer, though.
That helps, thanks. Sounds like it is indeed another form of surface hardness treatment. Wonder if its what Mavic used on their "ceramic" coated bicycle wheel rims - particularly as there was some discussion of plasma deposition with those, (a variation discussed at Bodycote) - I digress. So, it's a form of surface hardening that brings elements other than just carbon (carburizing/case hardening) to the mix. To what end I wonder.
Back to through hardening, and the better, (in my mind at least) steels required to enable that, assuming Wikpedia is right about H&K, I wonder what base steel they use for slides and barrels under the nitrocarburizing? Any ideas?
Or horror of horrors, is H&K no better than Glock in this regard?
Coatings are pretty far out of my area of expertise, but I've read that the Mavic coating is plasma electrolytic oxidation (keronite).
Coatings are pretty far out of my area of expertise, but I've read that the Mavic coating is plasma electrolytic oxidation (keronite).
Thanks JV, sorry I brought that up.
Tamara and anyone interested, re-read Bodycote's website, couple things intrigue and seem worth posting, (ill edit a bit)
1. "Nitrocarburising
Nitrocarburising is a variation of the case hardening process. It is a thermochemical diffusion process where nitrogen, carbon, and to a very small degree, oxygen atoms diffuse into the surface of the steel part, forming a compound layer at the surface, and a diffusion layer. Nitrocarburising is a shallow case variation of the nitriding process. This process is done mainly to provide an anti-wear resistance on the surface layer and to improve fatigue resistance.
Excellent scuffing and seizure resistance;
Fatigue properties improved by up to 120%;
Considerably improved corrosion resistance;
Good surface finish;
Negligible shape distortion;
Predictable growth characteristics; and
Alloy substitution - plain carbon steels replacing low alloy steels."
This latter item infers a base metal superior to the low carbon steels typically used for old fashioned case hardening and maybe some higher Rockwell through hardening is present? When case hardening we used only carbon, (don't know how pure it is) completely covering the parts in a metal box that is sealed to keep oxygen out. This is different.
2. "Process details
Nitrocarburising is carried out at sub-critical temperatures and involves the diffusion of nitrogen and carbon into the surface of carbon steel to give a somewhat harder case and soft core with a very thin compound layer on the surface.
The compound layer is wear and corrosion resistant and yet is not brittle, unlike its counterpart in the nitriding process. Since it provides an essential part of the properties required from the process it must not be removed by subsequent machining. Below the compound layer, the thin case significantly enhances the fatigue resistance of the component."
I'm particularly curious about the last sentence. Wonder if the heat effected zone from welding is a fair analogy? As in there's a bit of transition from hardest outside to less hard but still some as move to inside??
Most importantly what does all this get us?
KevinB
10-05-2014, 11:39 AM
Not to derail the discussion, but could I ask you to define this term? It doesn't seem to mean what I first thought it did.
Field operations -- originally in some units with domestic CT missions they wore a lot of black (Brit SAS influence) so field ops where green side.
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?13597-Is-the-Internet-a-Valid-Resource-for-Firearm-Knowledge
I guess Ive been on this topic for awhile....
Here's the exchange with WCR back in Jan of 2011, posted to 1911 Forum, Ive talked about earlier. This stuff matters - to some of us - I get that. And some companies, like Wilson who do it well, and are proud of that are willing to share.
"01-21-2011, 10:59 PM
Tom R Tom R is offline
Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 434
Wilsoncombatrep,
Wonder if you might elaborate a bit. There are, without attempting to look up the actual number, a couple thousand alloys of steel. All are fully described by ANSI with a numbering system that relates to the actual combination of elements in the melting pot. The gun industry likes to use terms like "carbon steel" and Stainless. But these don't really tell us much. In fact carbon steel is a pretty meaningless term as steel is not steel unless it has iron AND carbon in the pot - at least.
Additionally, its quite common to talk about the higher cost of stainless steel as you just did, being do to higher material cost and more difficulty in machining. The higher material costs have to do with the more complex chemistry. But different alloys of non stainless steels also vary widely in material cost, for the same reason.
Similarly, the machine-ability of various non stainless steels varies as well. And some stainless is down right easy to machine, without resorting to special cutters.
I get that the various alloys produce differing end product attributes like tensile strength, hardness, wear resistance, resistance to taking a set from bending, hardness. And in making the choice of which alloy to choose any manufacturer looks at processing costs vs the desired end product attributes.
What really matters to those of us looking to buy a pistol and make the choice between stainless and non stainless has to do with several factors. I suspect the original questioner, who asked about the relative accuracy may be aware of the Les Baer position that he can make 1.5" non stainless pistols but wont offer this accuracy guarantee on stainless guns. That certainly sets up suspicion in our minds. And yet Wilson makes no such distinction as you reported.
I wonder about the relative hardness of the parts and wear ability - long term durability. And might this be the reason Baer shrinks from the tighter accuracy guarantee? Wilson can make the 1" at 25 yard guarantee, for a new SS pistol, but is there some idea that this accuracy fades faster in a stainless gun, because in order to assure easy machining of stainless the parts just aren't as hard and/or resistant to wear, do to alloys chosen?
Thanks"
" 01-22-2011, 07:57 AM
WilsonCombatRep WilsonCombatRep is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 10,346
Here are the current specs. These are subject to materials availability, but this is current. Maybe a moderator can make it a sticky?
Carbon Frame 4140 Carbon forging 26-30 RC
Carbon Slides 4340 Carbon forging 38-42 RC
Stainless Frame 400 Series forging 26-30 RC
Stainless Slide 400 Series forging 38-42 RC
Stainless Barrels 416R (rifle barrel grade) forging, 40-42 RC
Aluminum frames-7075 T6 forgings, mil-spec hard anodized.
So, as you can see-the hardnesses for stainless and chromemoly (carbon) are the same. Stainless doesn't machine as cleanly, so there is more fitting required. If you fit it too tightly or improperly, it can gall.
We do a great job with stainless."
A bit further down the page, there was this:
"01-22-2011, 03:46 PM
WilsonCombatRep WilsonCombatRep is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 10,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom R View Post
Thank you WilsonCombatRep. Very nice to get a substantive answer.
Tom
Tom,
We have learned that if we provide customers actual facts that they actually like us more! Can you believe that!~
A big part of what we do here is reduce dis/misinformation. Happy to be of help.
Update:
http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y491/feral45/Gunsmithing/20141008_091818_zpsffw2xmna.jpg (http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/feral45/media/Gunsmithing/20141008_091818_zpsffw2xmna.jpg.html)
http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y491/feral45/Gunsmithing/20141008_091828_zpssqkl9mij.jpg (http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/feral45/media/Gunsmithing/20141008_091828_zpssqkl9mij.jpg.html)
http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y491/feral45/Gunsmithing/20141008_091906_zpso09owikd.jpg (http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/feral45/media/Gunsmithing/20141008_091906_zpso09owikd.jpg.html)
http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y491/feral45/Gunsmithing/20141008_091918_zpsxtbje6iz.jpg (http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/feral45/media/Gunsmithing/20141008_091918_zpsxtbje6iz.jpg.html)
Holy smokes, I blew a hole in it with a torch.
I wasn't expecting a repair for that slide.
Can we get pics after it's machined?
See the cratering on the bottom picture that didn't get fixed fixed?
This was one seriously messed up chunk of metal.
Yes, I was going to ask about that but got distracted.
Sparks2112
10-08-2014, 09:26 AM
Very strange when people are talking about you, and you don't know it. Also, my reaction when shown the original defect "huh, that sucks."
Interesting to see Bill work his magic.
Very strange when people are talking about you, and you don't know it. Also, my reaction when shown the original defect "huh, that sucks."
Interesting to see Bill work his magic.
Let's not sugar coat stuff, we were actually laughing at you and the tears you cried.
ETA, anyone want to guess the hardness of the area w/ the problem? I'll give you a hint, it's the same as the IQ of the average bromancer/boot licker.
Chuck Haggard
10-08-2014, 10:11 AM
This sort of thing makes me wonder if I should just buy a Glock lower and add an aftermarket stainless slide the next time I am in the market for a new 9mm
Let's not sugar coat stuff, we were actually laughing at you and the tears you cried.
ETA, anyone want to guess the hardness of the area w/ the problem? I'll give you a hint, it's the same as the IQ of the average bromancer/boot licker.
So what is the #4130 magic markered inside the slide?
This sort of thing makes me wonder if I should just buy a Glock lower and add an aftermarket stainless slide the next time I am in the market for a new 9mm
My question is related. While it is really ugly, with a 9mm do those defects matter? That is, is it likely they will lead to unreliability or a lack of service life?
Sparks2112
10-08-2014, 11:04 AM
Let's not sugar coat stuff, we were actually laughing at you and the tears you cried.
ETA, anyone want to guess the hardness of the area w/ the problem? I'll give you a hint, it's the same as the IQ of the average bromancer/boot licker.
What was funny was the look on The Minion's face. "Uhhhhh, did I do that?"
Wondering Beard
10-08-2014, 01:21 PM
This sort of thing makes me wonder if I should just buy a Glock lower and add an aftermarket stainless slide the next time I am in the market for a new 9mm
Been wondering exactly the same thing
Been wondering exactly the same thing
Stuff happens. Are you ready for it? We can buy based on low price, tell ourselves its good enough, (indeed, after all, good enough for 60+% of police, USPSA production, IDPA SSP, growing number of militaries), and pay the smallish incremental up charges for sights, trigger jobs, grip mods, stippling and now slides.....
Or reason to think hard about VP9, Sig 320?
Wondering Beard
10-08-2014, 05:39 PM
Stuff happens. Are you ready for it? We can buy based on low price, tell ourselves its good enough, (indeed, after all, good enough for 60+% of police, USPSA production, IDPA SSP, growing number of militaries), and pay the smallish incremental up charges for sights, trigger jobs, grip mods, stippling and now slides.....
Or reason to think hard about VP9, Sig 320?
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Sure stuff happens, to any gun, but I buy and carry Glocks because they fit me and I can shoot them well, not because they're inexpensive; I don't need to do grip mods, stippling, trigger jobs or even install larger mag releases nor slide stops, all I change are the sights. So for a gun that I like to shoot a lot, wondering about changing to a perhaps more durable slide makes sense to me.
http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/10/13/7d2b2e05d8e5ea6b830e15fc006654e1.jpg
http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/10/13/40178d10383236843743c8f048db58d3.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.