As SM covered, blued is also more durable as the additions to create stainless steel reduce some of its desirable properties, but blued is more corrosion susceptible.
A carbon steel blade for example can be made much sharper and hold an edge much longer than any stainless blade.
It is more than just the finish, the durability is also impacted. However that might be a suitable sacrifice for a firearm requiring less maintainence in some environments. The best of both worlds would be a carbon steel with a corrosion resistant coating (though it wouldn't wear as well, and would have to be redone on occasion) at least until it wore a little and was a pain to have redone.
Blueing is easy to redo, as long as you do not let the firearm get too bad prior.
Most of the thread focuses on asthetics or rust prevention, but many other qualities are different in the alloys as well.
Stainless will scratch, ding, or bend easier than blued carbon steel. It is easier to damage a SS firearm than a blued carbon steel firearm. An impact that might change the dimensions of a stainless firearm ruining it, might only cause a scrap or superficial damage on a quality carbon steel blued one.
Not all carbon steels are the same however and speaking in too great of generalities is misleading.
SM said it well though. Softer steels produce less wear on the tools used to shape them. So firearm manufactures actualy benefit from using softer steels like most stainless because they can make more firearms before replacing parts. Cutting tool steels with tool steels( or high speed steels) leads to rapid wear on the manufacturers tools. However it leaves you with a firearm that is much more durable.
If the average customer won't know the difference, why would they reduce thier profits? They will just use softer steels that wear out thier shaping and cutting equipment less, all while thier customers gleefuly exclaim about the improvement and of thier firearm's superiority over traditional ones.
There is some steels I would like to see firearms made from that are never used because they create too much wear on the tools. Since the average customer wouldn't appreciate them, they have no real incentive to appease my desire
A carbon steel blade for example can be made much sharper and hold an edge much longer than any stainless blade.
It is more than just the finish, the durability is also impacted. However that might be a suitable sacrifice for a firearm requiring less maintainence in some environments. The best of both worlds would be a carbon steel with a corrosion resistant coating (though it wouldn't wear as well, and would have to be redone on occasion) at least until it wore a little and was a pain to have redone.
Blueing is easy to redo, as long as you do not let the firearm get too bad prior.
Most of the thread focuses on asthetics or rust prevention, but many other qualities are different in the alloys as well.
Stainless will scratch, ding, or bend easier than blued carbon steel. It is easier to damage a SS firearm than a blued carbon steel firearm. An impact that might change the dimensions of a stainless firearm ruining it, might only cause a scrap or superficial damage on a quality carbon steel blued one.
Not all carbon steels are the same however and speaking in too great of generalities is misleading.
SM said it well though. Softer steels produce less wear on the tools used to shape them. So firearm manufactures actualy benefit from using softer steels like most stainless because they can make more firearms before replacing parts. Cutting tool steels with tool steels( or high speed steels) leads to rapid wear on the manufacturers tools. However it leaves you with a firearm that is much more durable.
If the average customer won't know the difference, why would they reduce thier profits? They will just use softer steels that wear out thier shaping and cutting equipment less, all while thier customers gleefuly exclaim about the improvement and of thier firearm's superiority over traditional ones.
There is some steels I would like to see firearms made from that are never used because they create too much wear on the tools. Since the average customer wouldn't appreciate them, they have no real incentive to appease my desire
