Confederate
Member
Stainless steel handguns aren't rust proof, but they certainly are rust resistant. And since the days of the beautiful "royal blue" of revolvers and autos are essentially gone, based, I'm told, on the fact that they're environmentally unfriendly, how many people prefer their guns now to be stainless steel, and why?
What are the down sides and benefits of using stainless?
Reflections: Early on, people said that stainless would reflect light in darkness and make their users targets. So in very subdued lighting I had my brother come down the stairs with a stainless handgun in the ready position in one hand and a blued handgun, also in the ready postion in the other. We tried various lighting differences and, as far as either of us could tell, there was not a significant difference. The man-sized silhouette coming down the stairs was many times more obvious than either handgun. And neither handgun stood out from the other in any significant way in our opinion.
Corrosion: Early Navy tests on the S&W Model 60, involving salt spray, showed that while stainless resisted corrosion much greater than regular blued steel, once corrosion did start, it tended to progresss much more rapidly to destruction than standard steel. Even so, it had to really be neglected! And it was exposed to salt spray, something most handguns will not be exposed to. Tip: To those who have posted that they have experienced stainless parts rusting, normally if problem parts are polished to mirror brightness, either by hand polishing (or by a Dremel) and a polishing cream like Semichrome, rusting will stop. The more matte a part is, the more likely it is to corrode. A mirror polish will resist by far the best.
Wear/Gas Cutting: Again, early concerns that stainless would not be able to stand up to the vigors of repeating shooting initially seemed to be well founded. Gauling problems existed between stainless steels of the same types and some of the early steels were too soft. There also were some early forcing cone cracks in some stainless guns, but eventually all those problems were worked out to the extent that the stainless steels eventually at least equalled and in many cases exceeded the performance of regular blued steel.
Actions: Despite all the hype, most of the time, the "grittiness" of stainless actions wasn't a real issue, execpt with the Colt Python, where the blue version was notably better. The Ruger's actions were stainless in both blued and stainless, and S&W used flash-chromed parts in their stainless revolvers. Once a stainless action was smoothed, either by a gunsmith or by use, it tended to remain smooth.
Stainless steels were always harder on the tooling than standard steels, and they lacked the richness of the royal blues offered by Colt and Smith. The bluing by Ruger was never really that great and, oddly, it's only been fairly recently that I've seen a lot of blued Ruger revolvers. All of the ones I saw in the late 70s and during the 80s were stainless.
Despite all the advantages of stainless, some people still like blued handguns. And some people with stainless handguns have had them hard chromed to reduce wear and increase smoothness.
What are your preferences?
What are the down sides and benefits of using stainless?
Reflections: Early on, people said that stainless would reflect light in darkness and make their users targets. So in very subdued lighting I had my brother come down the stairs with a stainless handgun in the ready position in one hand and a blued handgun, also in the ready postion in the other. We tried various lighting differences and, as far as either of us could tell, there was not a significant difference. The man-sized silhouette coming down the stairs was many times more obvious than either handgun. And neither handgun stood out from the other in any significant way in our opinion.
Corrosion: Early Navy tests on the S&W Model 60, involving salt spray, showed that while stainless resisted corrosion much greater than regular blued steel, once corrosion did start, it tended to progresss much more rapidly to destruction than standard steel. Even so, it had to really be neglected! And it was exposed to salt spray, something most handguns will not be exposed to. Tip: To those who have posted that they have experienced stainless parts rusting, normally if problem parts are polished to mirror brightness, either by hand polishing (or by a Dremel) and a polishing cream like Semichrome, rusting will stop. The more matte a part is, the more likely it is to corrode. A mirror polish will resist by far the best.
Wear/Gas Cutting: Again, early concerns that stainless would not be able to stand up to the vigors of repeating shooting initially seemed to be well founded. Gauling problems existed between stainless steels of the same types and some of the early steels were too soft. There also were some early forcing cone cracks in some stainless guns, but eventually all those problems were worked out to the extent that the stainless steels eventually at least equalled and in many cases exceeded the performance of regular blued steel.
Actions: Despite all the hype, most of the time, the "grittiness" of stainless actions wasn't a real issue, execpt with the Colt Python, where the blue version was notably better. The Ruger's actions were stainless in both blued and stainless, and S&W used flash-chromed parts in their stainless revolvers. Once a stainless action was smoothed, either by a gunsmith or by use, it tended to remain smooth.
Stainless steels were always harder on the tooling than standard steels, and they lacked the richness of the royal blues offered by Colt and Smith. The bluing by Ruger was never really that great and, oddly, it's only been fairly recently that I've seen a lot of blued Ruger revolvers. All of the ones I saw in the late 70s and during the 80s were stainless.
Despite all the advantages of stainless, some people still like blued handguns. And some people with stainless handguns have had them hard chromed to reduce wear and increase smoothness.
What are your preferences?
