fnfalman |
01-21-2010 01:42 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple
(Post 323173)
This much I knew. I wasn't sure if the M9 was somehow constructed differently or with higher quality internals or something. I often see them selling for $100 to $150 more than the 92FS.
|
Because there are morons out there that would buy anything USGI-marked for a considerable price difference.
The standard 92FS is the same as the M9. The carbon steel models have the same "bruniton" finish as the M9.
The M9A1 has rails and I think that thus far only the USMC is using it while the US Army still sticks with the standard M9.
Naturally a carbon steel unit with "magic dust coating" will not be as corrosion resistant as a stainless steel unit. Coatings get worn off or chipped off eventually. Stainless steel is stainless steel. However, unless you decide to leave your gun without ever putting on a lubrication coat then you should stick with stainless steel.
I have handguns that are 100-years old with half of the bluing worn off yet don't rust. What's the secret? Wiping the damn things down once in a great while with a light coat of oil. It ain't rocket science.
|