[guitarguy314]

Hey everyone!

What (besides color) is the difference between a blued gun and a stainless one?

Thanks

L

[jeepnik]

Stainless is more corrosion resistant. Holds up better when exposed to sweat, blood and such. Still needs proper care, but you can get away with a lot less.

Early stainless semi autos did have galling problems, but changing to using different alloys in the contacting surfaces and better lubes took care of that.

[guitarguy314]

Okay, Thanks. I also notice that blued firearms are cheaper than the same gun in stainless. Is that just because bluing is cheaper?

[dprice3844444]

machining is cheaper

[mackg]

Stainless doesn't dissipate heat as easily as carbon steel; it might affect the life span of your barrel if you blast away a lot.

http://www.schuemann.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=66qvYywiHmo%3d&tabid=67&mid=445

[Greg528iT]

Carbon steel is harder to start with can be made even harder with heat treating. Stainless is softer, thatnks to the nickle etc. The surface can scratch easier. Of course it can then be polished out easier. Is stainless strong enough? Absolutely. Technically stainless is more expensive, but as said, is easier to machine, and when you consider the cost of blueing, it is probably a wash. Mostly they charge more cause they CAN. Buy the one YOU like.

[brickeyee]

Stainless is often harder to machine since it does not form cutting chips well.

It is 'gummy' on the cutting tool and sticks.

Sulfur is added to some barrel stainless steel to improve chip formation during machining.
it has the nasty side effect of weakening the steel though by creating pints that can allow fractures to start.

Heat treatment is used to try and ensure the sulfur is evenly distributed in very small inclusions to minimize weakening (while still improving chip formation).

TIKA (IIRC) had a bad batch of barrels a few years ago that did no t have a god distribution.

Lead is added to brass to improve its machining (unleaded bras can make painfully long chips).

Stainless also has to be passivated to remove any carbon steel from cutting tools (including grinding) left on the surface.

Passivization also helps creates a more corrosion resistant chromium film on the surface
Nitric acid is a common passivation bath (around 20%) after thorough chemical cleaning (NaOH, sodium hydroxide, lye).

[Old judge creek]

To me, the biggest difference is that blued guns are not nearly as visible in low light or dark and stainless is so visible that it can look "lit up". I learned that the hard way one dark midnight when someone dumped a mag full of 45 ACP outside my bedroom window... :what: but thats another story :eek:

I make it a point to keep my defensive handguns non-stainless and my utility revolvers and SASS shooters are stainless for all the reasons mentioned here by previous posters.

Thats just this OLD mans opinion.

YMMV

[jmr40]

Worrying about someone seeing a stainless gun vs blued is an urban legand and has been disproved many times. Hunters have been successfully hunting with stainless rifles for decades and light reflecting off a polished blue surface is a far bigger concern than the dull matte finish on most stainless guns.

On rifles at least you will no longer see any serious shooters not shooting stainless barrels. They are just as accurate and seem to last longer. Making a handgun from stainless steel is one way to make them more resistant to neglect. While they still need cleaning, if you find yourself in a situation where a proper cleaning is impossible for an extended time. Such as on a backpack trip in bad weather. You are much less likely to have corrosion show up with stainless.

Early stainless was harder to work with and some early guns had some issues. This added to the cost. Most of these problem were solved years ago and today I'd not even consider most non-stainless guns for other than safe queen status. There are other ways to protect steel. Glocks Tennifer coating is reported to be more rust resistant than stainess. S&W, and some others use stainless, but coat it with a black finish on some of their guns.

[BYJO4]

I personally prefer the look of stainless guns and began switching over to them in the 80s. Everything I have is now stainless. Never any problems and alot easier to keep looking virtually new and shooting them weekly.

[brickeyee]

just keep in mind it is stainLESS, NOT stainNONE.

Chloride is especially hard on most (if not all) grades of stainless.

The chloride in your sweat.
It causes a white powdery corrosion on stainless.

You still need a thin film of oil to protect the surface long term.

[SlamFire1]

Depending on the make, you will find trigger components to be tool steels instead of stainless steels. You need wear hardness more than you need corrosion resistance on sear surfaces.

You may find “faux” stainless parts on older revolvers. This 1986 S&W M624 44 Special, the trigger parts were coated to give them that stainless look. But they are not stainless.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Smith%20and%20Wesson%20Pistols/ReducedM624rightsideDSCN5067.jpg

This later S&W 45LC, the faux coating is gone.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Smith%20and%20Wesson%20Pistols/M62545LCReduced.jpg

[jad0110]

just keep in mind it is stainLESS, NOTstainNONE.

Chloride is especially hard on most (if not all) grades of stainless.

The chloride in your sweat.
It causes a white powdery corrosion on stainless.

You still need a thin film of oil to protect the surface long term.

Very true. I mostly carry blued guns, but carry a stainless one as well now and then. I wipe both types down every few days, and neither have suffered any ill effects. Actually, I live in the muggy southeast and as an experiment went 2 weeks without wiping down my blued Ruger Police Service Six once, without detriment.

In the end, a blued gun will generally show more holster wear. But I prefer blued finish over stainless in either mint or well worn condition. I especially like the honest, holster worn finish on my 75% or so 19-2.


http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q139/jad0110/Smith%20and%20Wesson%20Model%2019/DSC07365.jpg


http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q139/jad0110/Smith%20and%20Wesson%20Model%2019/DSC06426.jpg

[wildehond]

If you have ever heard a machinist swear when he works with stainless steel. You will understand why it costs more. It is a pain to work with.

I personally prefer blued guns.

[brickeyee]

as an experiment went 2 weeks without wiping down my blued Ruger Police Service Six once, without detriment.

The introduction of Break-Free (and other lubes that followed) went a long way.

I can remember fingerprints causing rust on blued guns before that.

Blue is still more vulnerable, but a good lube on the surface goes a long way.

[klover]

While there are Ferritic types of stainless, I do not believe those are often used in firearms manufacture.

Austenitic stainless steel is a face centered cubic lattice, which means about twice as heavy as steel. I have yet to see gun manufacturers come clean on this fact and list their stainless version with a true heavier weight. While corrosion resistant, not all stainless is stain less. Inner workings are often not very stain less because Austentic stainless is too soft for many wear surfaces. In practical terms, however, an outdoor gun is much better in stainless provided limited rapid fire can be acceptable.

Over heating a stainless barrel with rapid fire can damage it (as well as alloy steel), and accuracy will deteriorate for several reasons. Stainless expands twice as much as alloy steel, and it's ability to conduct the heat (thermal coefficent of conduction) is much less than alloy steel. For "spray and pray" choose alloy steel.

My collection is half of each, and there are different merits and aesthetics to each material.

[beag_nut]

With a couple of minor quibbles, almost all of the info posted so far has been right on the money. I had better know, since I designed and made surgical instruments, exclusively from SS. But all the tooling and fixturing was carbon steel.
I have both stainless and blued firearms, and each has its place. As the makers get better at the game (see, especially, Ruger, the hands-down experts) the SS guns often are the better choice for many of the reasons already posted.
Good luck in being able to make a choice, irrespective of your wallet.

[bergmen]

While there are Ferritic types of stainless, I do not believe those are often used in firearms manufacture.

Austenitic stainless steel is a face centered cubic lattice, which means about twice as heavy as steel. I have yet to see gun manufacturers come clean on this fact and list their stainless version with a true heavier weight. While corrosion resistant, not all stainless is stain less. Inner workings are often not very stain less because Austentic stainless is too soft for many wear surfaces. In practical terms, however, an outdoor gun is much better in stainless provided limited rapid fire can be acceptable.

Over heating a stainless barrel with rapid fire can damage it (as well as alloy steel), and accuracy will deteriorate for several reasons. Stainless expands twice as much as alloy steel, and it's ability to conduct the heat (thermal coefficent of conduction) is much less than alloy steel. For "spray and pray" choose alloy steel.

My collection is half of each, and there are different merits and aesthetics to each material.

The density of carbon steels is 0.28 lb./cubic inch, stainless steels 0.286 lb./cubic inch, an insignificant difference.

The coefficients of linear thermal expansion of:

1) Common carbon steel: 7.3 X10 -6 in/in/degree F.
2) Austenitic Stainless: 8.0-9.6 X 10 -6 in/in/degree F (depending on alloy).
3) Ferritic Stainless: 5.5 X 10 -6 in/in/degree F.

No where near twice as much.

The thermal conductivity of 1% carbon steel is about three times that of stainless in general.

These are easily looked up.

Dan

[788Ham]

Worried about wiping off every few days? Get yourself some "Renaissance Wax" and give it a light application, might show fingerprints, but won't let sweat and rusting start.

[Jim NE]

Stainless is more corrosion resistant. Holds up better when exposed to sweat, blood and such.

Don't forget "tears". This comes after I look at my targets when I'm done shooting.

It's interesting, my last gun was purchased with little consideration to whether it was blued or stainless. I'll buy whatever's less expensive or in stock. Unless you're an outdoorsman or live on the coast, I'm not sure it matters much. Blued guns get more of a patina over time, but I like patina. On vintage guns blued is definitely prefered.

[bearman49709]

You sure about that? I have 4 stainless guns from the 1980's 3 S&W and one Ruger, none have ever had any type of oil or any thing else coat the outside and none have ever had any rust or "white powerery coating". Two are carried IWB and all have been exposed to rain and snow. When wet I use a paper towel to dry them off then place them in the safe, the two that are not cc sometimes sit in the safe for months and never have any problems.

[brickeyee]

"You sure about that?"

Make a salt solution and paint it on and wait.

Chloride is hell on all stainless, some types more than others.

Sounds like you have been lucky.

I have seen a lot of 'not lucky' guns over the years.

[Fishslayer]

The earlier steel hammer & trigger were chrome plated.

I believe the hammer & trigger on the later gun are MIM parts. They don't seem to clean up very well.

Depending on the make, you will find trigger components to be tool steels instead of stainless steels. You need wear hardness more than you need corrosion resistance on sear surfaces.

You may find “faux” stainless parts on older revolvers. This 1986 S&W M624 44 Special, the trigger parts were coated to give them that stainless look. But they are not stainless.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Smith%20and%20Wesson%20Pistols/ReducedM624rightsideDSCN5067.jpg

This later S&W 45LC, the faux coating is gone.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Smith%20and%20Wesson%20Pistols/M62545LCReduced.jpg