Best finish for personal carry handgun?

RanchMan · Mar 24, 2003

I have heard the stainless is visible argument before but I dont really buy into the idea. The average police shooting is either 7 feet or 7 yards or less with something like 2.5 rounds fired. 7 feet or 21 feet is very close up. The bad guy would have to be blind to NOT see any pistol at that range unless it is total darkness. 

I'll stick by my statement and also point out that adrenaline has strange effects on vision. (There are various experiments that have been run over the years that have proven this.) It also has a detremental effect on targeting ability. (Look up the hit/miss ratio in those stats you cite.)

I'd also point out that the military doesn't use a glossy blue or nickel/polished stainless but instead chooses finishes like parkerization because shiny stuff is more visible - at distance or close up. (e.g. look at the venerable 1911 - or it's replacement, the M9)

Oh well.....

DavidD · Mar 24, 2003

I carry a small matte stainless .45 ACP made by AMT, I have carried it in a nylon "bellyholster" for quite a while without any noticeable wear to the gun.Very concealable even in shorts and a t-shirt left untucked.
I was more concerned with concealability and sweat resistance. All the blued weapons I have tried to conceal suffered from my own salts.
As far as visibilty, I believe once it is drawn, it probably is too late to worry about hiding it.
Just my opinion
David

Gary_in_Indiana · Mar 24, 2003

First, let me say "Thank you" to everyone for their input. Once again TBN comes through. I'm going to order the matte stainless finish tonight as that seems to be the consensus winner here.

For anyone who cares, the gun is the Smith & Wesson model 340 I'm getting through a friend whose father is a dealer. I think I'll be happy with it and pray I'll never have to use it. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

chim · Mar 24, 2003

I also have gone the plastic route (KelTec and Glock), but if you're looking for a "real metal" gun, you may want to check into hard chrome or something like this. It is a Springfield Compact that I did some bodywork on and sent it away to Robar for their NP3 finish. This is a teflon-impregnated nickel plating that has been holding up pretty well................chim

Phred · Mar 24, 2003

Stainless.

Thats my favorite over blue or plastic.
Very tough and easy to maintain.

But with that said I have developed a fondness for the compact Sigs. P239.
Small light frame, handy size, decocking lever.
40 cal is adequate for most problems.
Only bad news is its blue and the mag is only 7 rounds.
I would be a lot happier with one of the preban 15 round mags.

Fred

RanchMan · Mar 24, 2003

matte stainless finish 

Sounds like a winner. You'll like not having to baby it to keep it looking nice. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Turfman · Mar 25, 2003

My friend has an NP3 gun done by Robar. It is very nice. The finish is really holding up and he shoots it a lot, like 20-30,000 rounds per year. I've had Springfield compacts and don't much care for them, I could never get much accuracy out of the two I've had. But my current duty gun is a Springfield full sized loaded and is very accurate and reliable.

soarkrebel · Mar 25, 2003

Hey bird that "cap " is a primer. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

I reload and have done that once. not seat the primer completely. and i have seen some reload ammo that is used by the ark. law enforcemant academy do that. a "cap" not seated properly that is.

I prefer stainless . some people think stainless is maint. free. not true . it will corrode if certain things are allowed to stay on it. i saw one once that had been wrapped in a red shop towel and boy it ended up ruined from pitting.
ever seen a stainless muzzleloader that wasnt cleaned quick enough? pit!

plastic? while i once said i didnt like them i have found glocks shoot very well. but they to need attention. those barrels are carbon steel . the liners for the slides are still. all subject to corrosion.

revolver or semi auto? i love both!
years back i was getting ready to go to firearms instructor school. i had shot my s&w 686 very well but i had carried my s&w 4006 for four years . i ended up taking my 4006 and shot very well . by the way you have to shoot a 85% on thier choice of course. if you don't they send you packiing home with no love shown. so you shoot very well.
i could have done it with either. preference is what it really boils down to . same with material or finish as you may.
all are going to require some care often.
show your guns love and they will not let you down when they are needed. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

RoyJackson · Mar 25, 2003

"Glocks seemed to
have problems with the magazines failing to fall out of the
weapon easily."

Actually, they're designed that way...

Americans are used to the magazines dropping freely from the butt of the gun, but the Austrian (military or police, I think) requirements are for the magazine snug enough to require pulling them out.

Not a defect, just part of the design.

Bird · Mar 25, 2003

( that "cap " is a primer )

Right. Another one of those "senior moments" when I couldn't think of the right word. Maybe the only good part about getting old is that it gives you an excuse for all your mistakes. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

( you have to shoot a 85% )

I'm not surprised that it would be that high for a firearms instructor, and of course, I think it should be. That's another thing that's changed over the years. When I started in law enforcement, we had a certain amount of firearms training, but there was no pass/fail score. If you couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, it didn't keep you from graduating from the academy, and there was no penalty later if officers failed to shoot 70% on the semi-annual "qualifying" course. And an officer could use any gun he wanted to for the qualifying rounds; didn't have to be the one he carried on duty, so long as it was a Colt or S&W, .38 caliber or larger. The head of the academy told the class that if an officer couldn't shoot 70, he ought to go to the range on his own time and practice until he could, but it was not required.

But later, with the so-called "vicarious liability" which meant, in the event of an accident, a person could sue the department and its head for failing to properly train, supervise, manage, or whatever, all that changed, so officers had to qualify with a minimum score of 70 with the gun(s) he/she would be carrying (make, model, and serial number). For a marksmanship bar, to be worn on the uniform, you had to shoot 90 or better on 3 consecutive 6 month apart qualifying rounds. I have never considered myself to be a very good shot, and only got 4 of the marksmanship bars, but I can't recall ever shooting less than 86 on any of the courses.