Best finish for personal carry handgun?

dmccarty · Mar 25, 2003

Bird,

Hmm, this kinda make sense on why that revolver jammed. I
always figured that the case had elongated enough to jam
between the cylinder and the barrel. But I could see a high
primer moving out a bit after firing and causing the cylinder
to jam at the rear of the revolver....

Scary anyway you look at it!!!!!! /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

I'm just glad it was not my revolver or in my hand when in
jammed. Not nice to think about all the energy from that
round getting changed into heat while there are five other
live rounds in the cylinder... /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif Once of the
range officers took ahold of the Ruger and had a heck of a
time getting it open. I backed off the line since I was next
to this thing and I did not want to be in the way if it cooked
off rounds. I really think he should have put the revolver on
the ground and had everyone back off for awhile.

On the same range but a different shooter/revolver we where
firing for qualifications. The problem was the range was in
a swamp in Florida. The humdity and temps where so high if
you moved you where drenched in sweat. Worse was that
everyones safety glasses fogged up. The head instructer
said if we thought we had to take off our glasses to see we
could. It was up to us. I took off my glasses. The very
next round the shooter to my left fired threw a piece of
something that hit me about a half inch below the eye... /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

I don't like revolvers. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

It was a very interesting range day!!!! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Our head instructer, can't remember his name,was a firearms
instructer at the FBI for a couple of decades and then retired
to Florida. He was supposed to be one heck of a good shot.

Later,
Dan

dmccarty · Mar 25, 2003

RanchMan,

The discussion is that stainless steel is shiny and thus
would be easy for the bad guy to see. The numbers I put out
there show that the bad guy can almost certainly see me
anyway much less if the gun is shiny or not. The bright
pistol in a LEO's hand or a citizens is just not a problem. The
fight is already close at hand. The finish on the pistol at this
range is just not an issue.

The military is a different ball game. They ARE trying to hide
where as LEO wear nice bright badges, buckles and in some
departments WHITE shirts. The pistol can be one of the
LEAST visible items the LEO is wearing. A citizen using a pistol
is almost certainly going to be upfront and close. Even in
most homes the longest shot is very short. I don't see how
a shiny weapon matters in almost all confronations a LEO
or citizen would face.

And sense most bad guys run from a confrontation involving
firearms I would HOPE they bad guy sees the big bad shiny
gun and RUNS. I really don't want to shoot him. I know
people who have been shot as well as shot people and the
incidents effects on them are not good.

The color of the weapon does not have a relationship with
the stress of the incident and its effect on marksmanship. Its
irrelevent if I'm shooting a black pistol or a white pistol. My
stress is going to be out of sight regardless. The bad guys
white or black weapon is not going to drive up my stress level.
The fact that he is trying to kill me will already have sent
me over the edge stress wise! /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Later,
Dan

dmccarty · Mar 25, 2003

RoyJackson,

I for the life of me can figure out why one would NOT want
the magazine to fall from the pistol.... If the mag is empty
it ain't doing me any good sticking in the pistol so I have to
jingle and jangle the danged thing to get it out so I can get
in another one!!!!!! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Do you know WHY they would want this as a design point?

Thanks,
Dan

soarkrebel · Mar 25, 2003

Bird getting old is not much fun! /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Our dept was very strict on proficient shooting. we shot every quarter and they gave us practice rounds.
we had a indoor range so if one could find a instructor they could fire. a firearm is the least used tool in a officers bag but could be the most important at a given time.

On the glock mag issue all the ones i ever messed with i don't recall any mag release problems.
a big problem with mags falling is hitting the ground hard. we had pads for them to fall on to cushion .
the only real problem that one must tend to with a semi auto is mag springs. when you leave them loaded for long periods of time the springs get weak and this causes a feed problem. you need to disassemble the mag frequently and stretch the spring.
on smiths the spring should stick about half the total mag length out of the mag when you put the spring and follower in without the butt cap. if the spring is compressed to much it will not function properly.

My opinion is that a revolver is the most dependable handgun one can have . low maint. and easy to use. simple!
people argue not enough capacity. if you can't handle a situation with six rounds you better run fast!
it's not how many shots you can get off it's how well you can place one!

my personal carry gun out of the many guns i own is a s&w 19 with a 2 1/2 bbl. yeah it's blued but someday it's gonna be nickel! i just like it. it's small ,compact and deadly at close range. most shooting situations happen within 10 ft. i want a small powerful handgun for that. and a 357 mag is perfect IMO.

dmccarty · Mar 25, 2003

soarkrebel,

Guns are such fun, everyone has an opinion who the heck
knows who is right! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I have only handled Glocks not carried one. But over the
years when I tried to drop the empty magazine it would stick
and hesitate. I did not like that at all. Maybe I've got a
death grip on the thing. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

While ** I ** don't want a revolver I think they are pretty
reliable with good ammo. With good ammo I have only had
one almost squib load in many thousands of rounds. I have
seen a few failures with cheapo reloads. A big advantage
revolvers have is that one does not need a lot of strength
unlike a pistol. I have seen quite a few "smaller" people who
have problems racking a slide on a pistol. A revolver is big
plus for people who lack the strength to rack the slide.

Regarding mag springs. The only problem I have had is on a
cheap magazine. But age had nothing do to with the problem
it was just a cheap piece of junk. For whatever its worth
the latest issue of American Hangunner just had an article
on mag springs and their main point was that good quality
springs should not have a problem.

Other than my cheap magazine I have never had any problems
with a spring. They still are strong and a PITA to put rounds
into! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif However my department did replace the springs last
year. Why I asked. Armour said just because and to be safe
and sure.

Later,
Dan

RanchMan · Mar 25, 2003

Dan - Another one of my infamously long retorts....

The discussion is that stainless steel is shiny and thus would be easy for the bad guy to see. 

Yes. And other non-combatants local to the situation.

The numbers I put out there show that the bad guy can almost certainly see me anyway much less if the gun is shiny or not.

I see no information with regards to visibility in the stats you cited - only that the "average" encounter takes place @ such-n-such a distance such-n-such number of shots take place. You may believe that close distances have 0 effect on visibility (e.g. everything is visible), but I saw nothing in your stats that said "X% of encounters were with 'shiny' arms" or had a chart outlining the various 'visibility timeframes' associated different finishes.

The military is a different ball game. 

Yes. The reason I raised it was to illustrate the fact that there IS a difference in visibility between finish types and the military seems to concur - even when it comes to sidearms (short range weapons) - not to say that the armed officer or armed citizen is equivalent to a person in the military.

I don't see how a shiny weapon matters in almost all confronations a LEO or citizen would face. 

The two examples at different ends of the spectrum where visibility would have an impact. One would be where one desires his target to be fully aware (e.g. you have drawn and are executing commands to the opponent) to help to ensure compliance. The other is where one desires his target to be unsure or unaware that a weapon has been drawn/prepared but not been aimed. This can happen in such circumstances where someone wishes to "prepare" for combat but is in the final stages of "sizing up" the situation to determine if it is a life-threatening and if there is another route of egress before deadly force is employed. (e.g. you don't want to instill panic or aggravate a situation but still be prepared to deal with it if necessary - call this "pseudo-concealment" if you like.)

Both of these situations happen quite frequently, although the uniformed officer is far more likely to encounter the first situation due to their overall visibility (shiny stuff, etc.), the average "Joe Citizen" is more likely to encounter the second situation. Yes, there are certain times you want something ready but haven’t committed the final step of targeting & shooting.

BTW, since you couldn't think of any "common" situation where visibility would “matter” to "Joe Citizen" - here's one that is very common: "Joe" waking up in the middle of the night hearing somebody in his house. For whatever reason (no ready access to a phone, protect children in the house, delay times associated with police response, etc.) he decides the most prudent course of action is to "clear" the house himself. Does visibility work in his favor or against him in this scenario? Suffice to say, standard tactical training does not favor loudly announcing yourself in such a situation.

And sense most bad guys run from a confrontation involving firearms I would HOPE they bad guy sees the big bad shiny gun and RUNS. 

Funny - I specifically said in my first post that I was not taking a position either way as to if "shiny" was "good" or "bad." You seem to imply I was saying blued was "better" with regards to "visibility" because it is harder to see. I never said any such thing. Again, I only stated that there is a difference in visibility between various finish types and this is something to consider. I never even said how important it was or where I would rank it on a list of things I would look for in a sidearm - just that it was a factor - and since this thread is about finishes on sidearms, well..... Strange how something that seemed to be such a benign and obvious statement to me has become so controversial. /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

The color of the weapon does not have a relationship with the stress of the incident and its effect on marksmanship. 

Never said it did and never addressed this point - but I will. Restated, my original comment was if you are in a stressful situation, your visible acuity and marksmanship are impacted. Period. End of story. Lots of data to back that up.

If these abilities are already operating at less than peak, you are far more likely to not see something - yes - even at close range. "Tunnel vision" is real and most people have experienced it at one time or another in their life - not necessarily due to a life threatening scenario, but it is not uncommon by any stretch. The whole point I was making is that if one is already in a stressful situation is that they are less likely to see things that seem obvious to a calm person due to the level of "go juice" running around in their system - be it "bad guy" or "good guy."

The bad guys white or black weapon is not going to drive up my stress level. The fact that he is trying to kill me will already have sent me over the edge stress wise! 

I wasn't really talking about the impact of visibility on you, but your opponent. If you want someone to see you have a weapon, I think it is probably safe to say we both agree that increased visibility and would be considered a positive. There is also the intimidation factor - which I consider a positive as well (others may not). You may not be intimidated more by a “shiny gun” over a “dull” one, (or a small one vs. a big one, etc.) but I’d disagree with your statement, ...color of the weapon does not have a relationship with the stress of the incident... - especially when it comes to the general public. Just look at all the “ugly” guns that have been banned because of looks and not because of function due to folks being intimidated (or more accurately - scared).

It all boils down to the fact that different situations call for different “features”, and those situations may change dramatically in a very short time. High/Low visibility is one of them. Of course one has to accept that: (1) there is a difference in visibility between “shiny” and “non-shiny” guns, (2) accept that stress situations have negative impacts on human physiology with regards to visual acuity, and (3) even in short distance situations, it is possible to overlook “obvious” things and even more so if the “visibility quotient” is low. (e.g. ever set something down and a little while later start looking for it only not to immediately find it - and then when you do the old adage of “If it was a snake it would have bit me” comes to mind?)

Since you simply don’t accept these points, I’m afraid we will never agree on this subject. Oh well, at least I've stated my case.

RoyJackson · Mar 25, 2003

Do you know WHY they would want this as a design point?

I read about this requirement on one of the handgun BBS's (Glocktalk?). Derned if I can remember why...I just do remember it was a designed in thing.
Sorry I can't give you the exact reason...

Anonymous Poster · Mar 25, 2003

WOW! So many comments and points of view. I've always considered finish to be a matter of personal preference. And regardless of what you preference, unless you take the time to get intimate with your chosen weapons, the finish will not the issue. Personally, I usually carry one to two different weapons, either a .45 ACP compact or a .45 Colt wheeler. The semi-auto has a power type coat and the wheeler is parkerized. In the dark I use the wheeler, only two levers, hammer and trigger, yes it's an SA but we won''t go there.

dmccarty · Mar 25, 2003

lonesome,

Agreed with everything you said. The finish is a personal
preference. It just does not matter that much as far as I'm
concerned. I think stainless is a better over blued since I
have had rust on blued firearms but none that I can think of
on stainless. Parkerized seems to be ok and I'm real curious
about Robars NP3. But as long as they go bang when you
need them to and they hit at the aim point, that is what
matters. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Later,
Dan

RanchMan · Mar 25, 2003

Lonesome -

I've always considered finish to be a matter of personal preference. And regardless of what you preference, unless you take the time to get intimate with your chosen weapons, the finish will not the issue. 

I will agree 100% with your point that there are other aspects (such as familiarity, reliability, etc.) that should rank far above finish in importance when choosing a sidearm. But since this thread was specifically asking about +'s & -'s regarding different finishes, that's what my posts have spoken to. After all, the individual who started this thread specifically made the statement, “I don't want to start a long thread on everyone's favorite guns here. I'm only hoping to get an idea whether I'd be better off with a black or matte stainless finish on a personal carry handgun, all other things being equal.”

As for it simply being a matter of preference - I agree - however I would add though that most folks build their preferences based on what they've learned in life - be it training, past experience, or information presented to them. I am no different in this respect in that my preferences are built on a variety of factors (I don't just "prefer" something willy-nilly without reasons - to do so would be foolish in my book.)

All else being equal, I find it amazing that someone would choose to argue against the point that a matt black/non-reflective finish is harder to see at night regardless of distance - be it 5 feet or 50. Forget the purpose. Forget the desire to be seen or not. Forget that we're discussing guns here. Doesn't matter - are dark items harder to see at night? YES! Invisible? No, but definitely harder to see.

How many times around Halloween do they present safety tips strongly suggesting NOT to allow your kids to run around in black or other dark colors because they are hard to see? if something is bright/reflective, it IS easier to see at night - that's why they put all sorts of reflectors on things - be it reflective paint on steps from a building to a dark parking lot or be it signage used to attract business. This seems like an incredibly obvious point to me and I have serious doubts as to the sincerity of anyone who would argue against such a point. If someone chooses to say that apples are blue and won't change their mind in the face of common sense, it doesn't do any good to argue.

If someone wants to go stainless - fine. If someone wants to go parkerized - fine. If someone wants to go blued - fine. I have no problem with any of these finishes. It's their decision and if they use good reasoning instead of "it looks cool," I have no problem with it as each type of finish has benefits and drawbacks - but to say that the color of an object at night has nothing to do with visibility - even at a short distance - flies in the face of common sense.