Anyone else find the look of Stainless and Synthetic more appealing than Blued Steel and Wood?

[Aim1]

When I was a young man the emergence of stainless barreled guns with stainless stocks was just starting to happen. If I recall about 1998 or 1999 or so I believe it was Layne Simpson who wrote an article in the Shooting Times magazine called "The Stampede to Stainless" which was about the emergence of this new trend.

That year my father bought my brother and I each a Winchester Model 70 stainless with synthetic stock in .338 Win Mag for a senior year elk hunting trip. Ever since then I've always loved the look of stainless steel and black synthetic stocks over blued and wood stocked guns. Not only are they more appealing to the eye my opinion they are less prone to rust or damage.

Dont get me wrong, I appreciate a beautiful wood stock, I just think stainless and black synthetic look better. I use almost all of my guns for hunting so the better they are at avoiding damage and rust the better off for me. So, form follows function which may be a part of their appeal.

I know it's probably rare but does anyone else find the look of Stainless and Synthetic more appealing than Blued Steel and Wood?

 

[WestKentucky]

MORE appealing, no, but it is very pleasing to the eye and much more durable for a gun that is used for hard hunting. The silvery tint along with the black furniture does look good due to the visual effect of the contrasting colors, but you just don’t get the warm natural look of wood grain. Similarly wood pops against a dark blued gun well and does the same thing... but with grain.

 

[LoonWulf]

I like stainless and wood, or stainless and colored stocks.
I much prefer really top end bluing and wood.
But the reality is that Im GOING to use any gun I have, even if it's worth thousands and has embellishments and fine wood.
I can live with, fix, or have fixed, any dings and dents the gun may acquire, what I don't want to have to fix is the continual rusting and finish loss on top quality bluing. Thus when I consider my end goal rifles they are all stainless. Not because it won't rust, but because it's easier to deal with.

 

[nettlle]

I will always favor blued steel and walnut. I know the newer synthetic stocks are more accurate but I am willing to sacrifice the small difference in accuracy for the looks of the walnut.

 

[jmohme]

I'll take a high quality blued steel with wood over plastic and stainless any day of the week!

There are several production firearms out there now that I would jump on if only they had nice wood instead of boring plastic.

 

[DeepSouth]

I’m gonna go out on a limb and say you want have a lot of company in the Stainless & Synthetic group.

I certainly prefer a deep blue and a glossy wood, for appearance. Durability is another story, and why I do own and really like a few stainless & synthetic guns.

Enjoy whatever you like and don’t worry about others, we’re all different and that’s a good thing..... unless you like a 25acp apparently, but that’s a different subject.

 

[fireside44]

I find the look of GLOCK more appealing. Like perfection. Yes!

Actually my very favorite guns are stainless for durability, ability to buff, and wood or synthetics for stocks. I appreciate both equally. But I buy stainless guns over blued if same model is available. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate good bluing it's just that stainless is better suited to rough treatment and that is me. I can only afford tools, not toys. Put away dirty.

There are some other high quality, rugged finishes out there besides if you can't get stainless model. Metacol is one I have good experiences with. Tough, scratch and rust resistant to a high degree.

 

[Big_Al]

Blued & nice walnut for me, and no glocks

 

[LiveLife]

Living at the coast, I prefer finish that is easy to maintain and corrosion/rust free so stainless 1911 and carry pistols for me.

Glocks, meh but the surface hardened Tennifer black finish of barrel and slide (M&P also) is very durable and corrosion resistant so I like it.

I also like Sig's Nitron black finish which has been durable and corrosion resistant so I like it too.

I would have preferred stainless finish for Ruger 10/22 Collector (Like the stainless Take Down) but at $199 from PSA, couldn't complain for blued and OD green synthetic stock which I think looks pretty good.

 

[HPCadm17]

I prefer stainless for anything I'm actually going to carry or use regularly, the only exception would be polymer-framed semi's. But you just can't beat the classic look of old-school deep bluing, imho.

 

[Pat Riot]

I really like the look of blued steel and wood.
I like the look of Glocks.
I like black guns.
I like stainless and black and I like stainless and laminates.
It just depends on what the gun is and what I want it for.
Out of all the cosmetic combinations though, I find stainless and black to be the most bland or sterile looking. But a stainless revolver with a black synthetic grip is a fantastic combination.

 

[tubeshooter]

Cosmetically, I generally prefer blued steel and wood. As do many traditionalists, I suspect...
I am fine with stainless as well. Some find it too bright for their tastes.

There are foods that I eat not because they taste great or are particularly pleasant, but because of what they provide nutritionally one way or the other. Synthetic stocks are like this for me. The utility can outweigh the (perceived) cosmetic deficiency, depending on the item in question.



Just to muddy the waters a bit - I have some items that are stainless and wood, as well as blued and synthetic. They all have their cosmetic appeal to some degree. So there's that.

 

[bannockburn]

In a rifle, shotgun, or single action revolver i'm going to prefer blued steel and wood stocks. Now in a semi-auto pistol I like the same but I'm also more open to stainless steel, hard chrome plating, synthetic stocks, and aluminum/polymer frames.

 

[rust collector]

Aesthetically, I love the browned/blued metal and the amazing woodwork of the old guns. As a practical matter I appreciate the ruggedness and stability of stain-less metal and synthetic stocks. There is plenty of room for improvement in the metal, through coatings and nitride treatment. There are also many coatings, finishes and treatments that can improve the appearance of a stock. Makers will do better if they need to, and I think ultimately they will in order to sell more goods.

 

[WheelGunMan]

I like them both!!

 

[nettlle]

In a rifle, shotgun, or single action revolver i'm going to prefer blued steel and wood stocks. Now in a semi-auto pistol I like the same but I'm also more open to stainless steel, hard chrome plating, synthetic stocks, and aluminum/polymer frames.

View attachment 884119
View attachment 884120
View attachment 884121
View attachment 884122
View attachment 884123
View attachment 884124
View attachment 884125
View attachment 884126

....you like everything! Nothing at all wrong with that.

 

[jmr40]

I can appreciate GOOD wood. But given the choice between cheap wood and plastic I'll take plastic. I burn wood by the truck load in my wood stove every winter that looks as good or better than what is on most firearms. Since I can't afford the good stuff I generally prefer synthetic, especially the better quality aftermarket stocks.

If trying to put together an all weather rig the synthetic stock is far more important than stainless metal. I've seen wood go from perfect to useless in moments with nothing that could be done to prevent it. Even in perfect conditions wood stocked rifles will change point of impact as the seasons change while sitting in the safe. You don't have those issues with even the cheapest synthetic. I find function more appealing than form.

I'm neutral on SS vs blue finish on rifles. I'm about half and half SS and blue. There are other ways to protect metal. I view SS as requiring a little less maintenance, but a little surface rust won't effect function. Any issue with weather related failures involving metal parts of guns is really neglect that could have been prevented.

 

[SwampWolf]

The op's question only concerned the "looks" of a firearm and, for me, blued steel and nicely figured walnut has no competition; certainly not boring looking black stocks and silver finishes.

 

[Flintshooter]

The op's question only concerned the "looks" of a firearm and, for me, blued steel and nicely figured walnut has no competition; certainly not boring looking black stocks and silver finishes.

Yep

 

[Deus Machina]

Like many other things, it depends on the gun.
For the bench or something to show off, I like polished blue and wood. It's beautiful. A much preferred look.
If it's something I'd intend to leave in the vehicle or drag around hunting in Florida's swampland or even the sand and 90%+ humidity ubiquitous to everywhere else, I'd want stainless. I prefer it because in that case, it looks like I won't mind using it.
It's kind of like household stuff; blued and wood is nice furniture or artwork, stainless and polymer does work in the garage.

 

[theotherwaldo]

I think that a gun has to be designed for stainless and plastic to look good in stainless and plastic.
Otherwise they tend to look bland and flat with highlights in all of the wrong places or utilitarian like inexpensive power tools.

 

[Waveski]

Bannockburn -

If you don't mind - what model Beretta is that? Sa trigger , target rear sight ...? The mag release should give it away but I'm stumped.

As to the OP , stainless has it's appeal , but synthetic stocks , while having some practical merit in terms of certain applications, cannot approach fine hardwood for eye appeal.

 

[film495]

for what it's worth - I find dark wood stocks on semi auto pistols to look rather odd. don't know why, it just seems wrong to me as far as how it looks. a lighter wood, like a maple - for the contrast, or just a bakelite or plastic grip of similar tone, looks better to me than walnut. I've never owned a stainless firearm, but if it was the right price I might - however, the newer guns look sort of fake to me, like squirt guns - and actual guns of quality, in my mind anyways - are blued, and nice deep deep blue that you can polish up and appreciate even if it is a little worn or aged, it is the finish that guns really should have IMHO, but to each their own, they make all kinds - if you prefer stainless and synthetic, enjoy them.

 

[MikeInOr]

I bought my Beretta 92 INOX in about '93 if I recall correctly. I have pretty much always preferred stainless to blued and have never had a problem paying a premium for stainless. I guess I have always appreciated the functionality of stainless.

I have dozens of blued and parkerized weapons (mostly mil surplus) and the finish just doesn't hold up over time like stainless does. I like guns that will look as nice when my grand children own them as when I own them.

To me a beautiful wooden stock with a stainless action is just as beautiful as if the action was blued.

I do believe that Chrome-Molly steel is usually several points harder than most stainless which can be an advantage for several types of actions.

 

[earlthegoat2]

Why does it have to be stainless with synthetic?