Tenifer Finish

Discussion in 'General Glocking' started by norton, Jul 21, 2020.

  1. cciman

    cciman MacGyver

    Messages:
    6,983
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2009
    Hello!!! Go back to square one.
    You missed the entire basis about the "Tenifer", or subsequent treatments, are not what you can physically see!!!....it is the treatment of the metal before the visible coating goes on. The "invisible" surface treatment of the metal.

    Testimonials, and internet posts are not proof. Anyone can post claptrap opinions. No one knows which one of the treatments was applied to their gun-- mostly they guess or assume, nor have they done PROPER (blinded) side by side analysis testing to confirm WITHOUT BIAS.

    "Frying pan finish" is not Tenifer.
     
  2. quantico

    quantico 1911 lover Millennium Member

    Messages:
    10,131
    Likes Received:
    7,437
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 1999
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Been trying to explain for decades that metal treatment is not a finish.. and never was. People generally cant figure it out.
    I like gen 2 glocks most because they used tool steel parts. And had no finger grooves. And had better metal treatment and more durable finish than some other generations of glocks.
    I dont own any gen 4 or gen 5 glocks. Yet. If they come out with gen 5 glocks in ten mm and 45 acp. And 357 sig I would love to try a new glock or two.
     

  3. Made in Austria

    Made in Austria

    Messages:
    2,012
    Likes Received:
    186
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV

    Yes that sounds like the article I read in German back in 2010 I believe. Translation is correct. I have two well used early gen4 Glocks (G19&23) and none of them show any signs of corrosion. I still carry them in an IWB leather holster and sweat all over them in the summer. Glock probably had to go through a learning curve when they switched to a different nitriding process and not all Glocks were nitrated correctly.
     
    GlockyQ and boilergonzo like this.
  4. fuzzy03cls

    fuzzy03cls

    Messages:
    3,073
    Likes Received:
    206
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    Location:
    Florida
    Yes I DO KNOW.........
    If the treatments were good slides would not rust. But whatever.....If I buy another Glock it will be a 2005-2009 one.
     
  5. Walter Bishop

    Walter Bishop

    Messages:
    1,448
    Likes Received:
    1,077
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    People in the thread have said the Gen 5 Glocks are still nitrided under the nDLC. If that is true then why is the finish more prone to rusting than the Gen 4 which also had a generic nitride with a phosphate coating. The nDLC is supposed to be more corrosion resistant than phosphate. My suspicion is the Gen 5 guns are not nitrided and the nDLC is the only protection.
     
  6. boilergonzo

    boilergonzo

    Messages:
    4,899
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    Indiana
    I have been curious about this, but thoughts about immersion -vs- gaseous is speculative, and this is an even more speculative leap. But I do think it is a fascinating question and topic of discussion.

    I don't know if nDLC that Glock uses refers to nitrogen-doped carbon loading (the "n", in "nDLC", which would annoy fans of capitalization and Mendeleev's periodic table abbreviations!).

    If it DOES specify nitrogen, work has been done to deal with hardness and tribological properties of steel in this realm (including plasma nitriding with DLC). Could Glock forego traditional hardening with a single protocol that does a minimal hardening AND finish application? Perhaps! I don't know. Any finishers here to add their thoughts?!?

    But certainly there is a lot being learned and presented about these carbon/DLC-type coatings. They do reduce friction. And they do harden the finish surface compared to many other approaches.

    Studies seem to show that prior hardening (with subsequent DLC application) yield a deeper diffusion layer, and more hardness/corrosion resistance. Whether Glock felt they could do away with traditional hardening as a step, and that the less intense nitrogen-based hardening would be offset by a durable, hard, and low friction external surface is something I don't know. I can see it going either way, but I don't know enough about the process or Glock's application to speculate beyond noting it is an active field of work.

    Some papers exist on the topic. Whether all this is suitable for firearms and the needed corrosion resistance and hardness, I don't know. If the DLC finish remains intact, the corrosion part is not of concern. But if it wears and exposes the metal below, the metal treatment becomes much more critical! Which is better? A low chance of finish breakdown and a higher chance of corrosion, or a higher chance of finish breakdown and a much lower chance of corrosion? Or are they more concerned with friction (reduction) versus corrosion protection? Is this part of Glock's math regarding the choice to start using nDLC? Dunno!

    It does seem possible that Glock is now utilizing plasma nitriding in combination with the DLC finish for Gen5 guns, but that is pure speculation. It may be the next amazing treatment for firearms, but that will probably depend upon how the DLC finish holds up over time. If they do crack or wear, the metal below will absolutely be more vulnerable than older, immersion (Tenifer) treatments. But will it wear? Or are they still doing a full metal treatment below the DLC? I am confident Glock won't reveal much! Time will tell.

    Here are a couple of many papers discussing various details of this type of finish (DLC with ancillary nitrogen/plasma surface treatment).

    https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-14392016000501180

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2238785418305933
     
  7. BBMW

    BBMW

    Messages:
    3,128
    Likes Received:
    3,078
    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    The question is, would you rather have a nitrided carbon steel slide, a raw stainless steel slide, or a nitrided stainless steel slide?
     
  8. cciman

    cciman MacGyver

    Messages:
    6,983
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2009
    Many grades of stainless, depends on your purpose...research stainless barrels-- too many variables to discuss here. Pick your stainless based on use.

    For defensive, general use, pistol/AR/AK - Nitrided is best for general use-- obviously one is dependant on the manufacturer picking the best process, and carbon steel to make their product the best at that price point. In general, nitrided is equivalent or better than chrome lined.

    Nitrided stainless = there are that certain types of stainless and certain types of nitriding that are a step backwards-- if not done right is worse than either alone.
     
    boilergonzo likes this.
  9. GlockyQ

    GlockyQ G43 Fanboy

    Messages:
    1,573
    Likes Received:
    1,612
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2017
    Location:
    Where America still exists
    Having seen some gen 5 Glocks developing rusts under normal conditions, I also wonder about the same thing... I personally have not seen old gen 2 and gen 3 Glocks with Tenifer treated slide and barrel rust under normal conditions...
     
    boilergonzo likes this.
  10. boilergonzo

    boilergonzo

    Messages:
    4,899
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    Indiana
    Agreed. Nitriding stainless adds complications. Well done carbonitriding will harden and protect, and applies better to non-stainless steel.


    I'd take a stainless slide (400 series) and be happy. And I'd also take a nitrided carbon steel slide and be happy!

    How would I decide?

    A pretty gun (SIG 226 in stainless) and a stainless slide would be awesome and hold up great.
    A gun that isn't built for "pretty", but is a duty gun, or basic firearm like a Glock is great with a nitrided slide.

    In the end, both will last, and neither should rust (both technically CAN rust, but they are both very, very rust resistant).