Stainless or Not?

[PeteF]

I am looking for a new pistol for HD/ Range use.

Are there any benefits of an all stainless pistol over a non-stainless?

 

[Butter]

Stainless might offer a bit corrosion/rust resistance. Plus, depending on how the gun is set up, might just look pretty cool. The down side is that it is shiny and perhaps easier for a bad guy to see in a low light defensive situation.

Stainless, especially older stainless guns may not have held up so well since it'd be easier to gall than regular steel. But again, depends on usage. So you pick your poison in that respect.

But for what you described using it for, it probably wouldn't benefit you any over a blued or treated steel gun. Unless you live in a greenhouse where the humidity would be extremely high.

 

[bernie]

I live in the Mississippi River delta region of Arkansas. Think hot and humid. I buy stainless.

 

[rellascout]

No IHMO but the Bling Bling factor is a plus.

 

[NGIB]

I really like blued guns but some makers just don't do blue that well. I much prefer stainless to paint...

 

[PeteF]

Thanks for the inputs.

I'm looking at a .40 where the stainless is ~8 ounces heavier. Would the added weight be beneficial for felt recoil?

 

[gwnorth]

I like the look of blued, but I like the simplicity of maintenance with stainless. My skin just seems to generate rust more easily then others? Anyhow, I have to be much more careful about daily wipe down of my blued guns (if handled) while my stainless do not need nearly such regular attention.

And sure, all other things being equal, a heavier gun will have less recoil. The extra mass helps absorb recoil energy.

My primary HD pistol is an FNP-45 - polymer frame and stainless slide for simple maintenance, and the 42oz weight makes it a real pleasure to shoot.

 

[CWL]

I'm looking at a .40 where the stainless is ~8 ounces heavier. Would the added weight be beneficial for felt recoil?

??? Unless you are comparing stainless to aluminum frame, you won't be getting an 8 oz. (that's 1/2 pound!) difference between stainless and carbon steel pistols.

But, to answer your question, the heavier the semi auto, the better it can help to absorb recoil.

There really isn't a "best" between stainless or carbon or aluminum or polymer for that matter, it really is a matter of what pleases your eyes the most.

 

[benderx4]

Stainless looks cool and is easier to maintain. Everything else being equal, there normally is not a weight difference between a stainless and blued gun of the same model. For a first time user in your position, I normally recommend a Beretta 92 or 96.

The 92 is the 9mm version, and the 96 is the 40SW. The gun is very simple to operate and clean, it has a wonderfully smooth combat-proven design, it's not very expensive, and it has all steel construction that makes them very "soft" shooting. It also comes in an INOX finish (stainless steel), blued, or two-tone.

Whatever you decide on, remember to practice, practice, practice! Good luck with your choice and happy shooting!

 

[badbadtz560]

I'd only pick stainless for a holster weapon. It doesn't get visibly worn when reholstered many times. Sure, you might have to polish it... but you won't have to refinish it.

I wouldn't go for stainless for HD/range pistol

 

[earlthegoat2]

Stainless will not wear as fast and is good for a holster gun as well. It is overall a better investment I think. Bluing is nice if it is already beat up or you are not going to holster it much such as if it was a bedside gun or house gun.

 

[DeepSouth]

The down side is that it is shiny and perhaps easier for a bad guy to see in a low light defensive situation.

This could be a good thing. Obliviously if you are 'stalking' around your house because you thought you heard an intruder you wouldn't want him to see you. But there are people that WANT a 'shiny' CCW so that the attacker will be more likely to see that he has a firearm pointed at him and less likely to think you are throwing your hands up to protect yourself.

I don't really think the tone of the gun matters much, but I have heard people on both sides of the argument argue it to the death.

I do like stainless, mainly cuz it's pretty.

 

[RedAlert]

Something else to be aware of is that not all stainless weapons are bright and shiny.

Take my Sig 229 as an example. The stainless steel slide has been painted/coated black at the factory as its standard finish. Gun manufacturers choose stainless steel for many reasons other than just the resistance to rust. There are hardness, machining and toughness issues of the steel to consider.

Ralph

 

[pogo2]

Looks...

Besides all the practical advantages of stainless mentioned above, I like stainless because it looks better to me than black or blued.

 

[weisse52]

When I lived n a humid area I tried stainless. Really did not care for the look of stainless and would just wipe down my blued guns and be just fine.

I live in a very dry area now and own very few stainless. I love the look of a nice blued handgun

Either is jut fine. Go with what you like.

 

[tlen]

SS is great for a range gun but I prefer all black for concealed carry for reasons already mentioned.

 

[jhco]

I'm not a fan of stainless for any situation, and no there's no advantage that I know of.

 

[Jason_G]

I'm not a fan of stainless for any situation, and no there's no advantage that I know of.

It's an easily renewed finish. A 3M pad and a careful hand, and your pistol looks like new again. Not a big deal as far as function goes, but it is kind of nice.

Jason

 

[Oldtrader3]

Some people do not like the look of stn stl. I live in western Washington state where we all have webbed feet from the constant drizzle. If I am going to get service out of my 1911, I prefer the low maintenance of stn stl.

 

[chris in va]

Stainless is heavier. But as someone pointed out, you can 'adjust' a non-finish stainless frame or slide like I did with my new K9. It had some really sharp edges, but some judicious application of fine sandpaper fixed the problem.

 

[Oro]

I'm not a fan of stainless for any situation, and no there's no advantage that I know of.

Then we can help you:

1) Massively reduced maintenance requirements
2) Easily repaired finish (see Jason G above)
3) Lower production costs and maintenance costs
4) equal in performance

Stainless is heavier.

I think it's about like 0.006% heavier - I looked this up once. That means a government model sized gun would be maybe 0.25 ounces heavier all other things being equal (they never are between two guns). I have two carry guns identical - an S&W 19 and a 66 both in 2.5". They weigh the same on my 1/4 ounce accurate scale.

And as already mentioned, large shiny guns often end confrontations faster. I've heard to many old-school beat and patrol cops attest to the difference it made when they handed in their shiny Pythons and S&Ws and went to black wondernines.

Come on now, who's afraid of a noisy cricket?

 

[Cards81fan]

8 ounces different? So you have it narrowed down to a Kahr PM40 or an MK40, I suppose (correct me if I am wrong).

The question here then isn't about stainless per se, but rather a metal frame versus polymer frame. Overall differences have been covered here at THR many times, but I will outline them again for kicks:

Polymer Frame:
+ Lighter and easier for pocket carry
+ Lower maintainence
+ Black, so more difficult for bad guys to see
- Higher field recoil
- The "Tupperware" factor (can feel cheap, as some report about Kel Tec)
- Many consider it uglier

Alloy:
+ Reduced felt recoil due to increased weight
+ Feels like a "Real Gun" in hand
+ Can be real pretty - just see the MK9 pic earlier in this thread
- Cumbersome to pocket carry - many claim they are only suitable for IWB save for Seecamp and Guardian and Rohrbaugh
- Can be more difficult to keep clean (i.e. prints on blued or coated finished), or requires delicate care to maintain (i.e. the 3m Scotchbrite pad)
-If stainless, can give up element of surprise due to shiny finish.


This are of course all opinion, but do seem to be the prevailing opinion. People's perceptions can vary. For example, I consider polymer easy to clean (wipe down), and stainless a pain to scrub. Oro, on the other hand, had the opinion that stainless has "reduced maintenance requirements." We can probably both agree that either are easier to care for than a fancy blued finish, or a coated finish (Tennifer or Melonite) than can chip and scratch. You just have to come to your own opinions and determine which priorties are more important for YOU.

For me, I have a polymer service pistol (XD), as I like the reduced weight on a gun with a full 4" barrel and 12-round mags. I do want to secure a metal-frame pistol for IWB concealed carry (2075 RAMI or MK, either in 40), as I gain the advantage of reduced felt recoil on the smaller but denser weapon.

So each frame material has its place. Hope this helps

 

[2nd 41]

I have a Stainless Sig 230 from 1986. Looks like I just bought it. I had a Stainless Gold Cup series 80 and had it mirror polished. Was beautiful. I currently have a stainless Colt GCT, S&W DK, SA Black Stainless Loaded.
I prefer stainless. I like the look & the way it holds up. That's just me.

 

[robphillips]

Have you looked at brushed nickel finishes. I have a S&W 1911 with it an really like it.

 

[Artic]

In the long run I think stainless is the best. As others have
mentioned about the humidity.

I still think blued guns are beautiful thought too.