stainless vs blued 357's?

[twoblink]

So I'm reading about how the blued steels are a bit harder than the stainless steel ones. I do like stainless because well.. it's stainless!! Easy to clean, not too worried about rust.

While (according to Jim March) we actually don't know if it's possible to wear out a Ruger revolver; I do own a Sp101 in stainless, anybody know of /heard of someone shooting a Ruger stainless to it's death, vs if had it been blued it would have survived?

And am I REALLY losing that much in picking a stainless over blued?

 

[stans]

I think the stainless vs carbon steel thing is way overblown, at least for the current crop of stainless firearms. S&W introduced stainless revolvers in the 1960's and the first ones did have a reputation for being ever so slightly soft, but alloys and heat treatments have improved, so I would not sweat any differences. Honestly, I have never heard of anyone shooting a Ruger to death. And seeing as how most of us would not shoot 100,000 rounds through any one gun in our lifetime, it probably is not a concern.

My Pythons are blued, they look best that way.

My Rugers are stainless, they look best that way.

I have both blued, stainless, and one nickel plated S&W, I like them all.

 

[Nightcrawler]

I honestly don't think you'd notice the difference. I think the durability of carbon steel vs. stainless, in practical terms, is purely theoretical, as most of us will never, ever shoot a pistol enough to notice.

 

[ruger357]

These days it is a matter of choice not a question of durability. .

 

[priv8ter]

From what I understand

You would only be losing about $30. That's what the price difference seems to be comparing a blued GP-100 to a Stainless GP-100.

I think I like my snubbies shiny, and larger ones dark...not sure.

greg

 

[Highland Ranger]

Stainless, hands down, no contest.

If you want it coated to change the aesthetics, go ahead . . . . . no reason for carbon steel now unless you are building a bridge or making a tank.

 

[Ala Dan]

I'd have to ditto my friend stans comments on
this issue.

The only thing I see as a drawback to stainless is
the later years production of Colt Pythons. They
just do not seem as sweet as their "hand honed"
blued counterpart's!

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

 

[Checkman]

I like them both. Stainless is better for wear, but I like blue steel because I like it. It appeals to me on an emotional level. But if you're one of those practical people who sees handguns strictly as tools then stainless is the way to go. I own a 686P for that very reason - it's my working gun.

 

[Majic]

Most stainless steel alloys are in fact harder than carbon steel. As far as a firearm it just becomes a matter of choice. A finish will wear off carbon steel with usage, but the stainless is left in the raw for nothing to wear off. Durability of both will out last all of us.

 

[cratz2]

I like stainless and shoot stainless guns without hesitation. Having said that, I prefer the look of a blued gun and if I were going to have some big name convert a Super Blackhawk or Redhawk to some ungodly chambering, it would absolutely have a blued finish.

Actually, in general, I think DA revolvers with full lugs often look best stainless while guns with a partial or no underlug look better blued.

 

[SteelyDan]

I don't believe stainless is harder than carbon steel, but it may in fact be more "durable." Someone can correct me here, but that's certainly true for knife blade steel. In either case, I'll chime in with everyone else: it's largely a matter of personal choice. The stainless will hold up better in "all weather" conditions, but the blued models just have something cool about them, and if properly maintained aren't likely to rust anyway. If I lived in, say, Seattle, I'd probably prefer stainless. If I lived in the desert, I'd probably prefer blued. Wherever I lived, I'd like some of each.

 

[BluesBear]

If I lived in, say, Seattle, I'd probably prefer stainless.

And why is that?
The relative humidity here is much lower than say, Kentucky. I only have 2 stainless S&W and those only because I couldn't resist the price.
I have absolutely no problem with blued guns rusting here. In fact I had to be much more vigilant of that back in Kentucky.

 

[Ben Shepherd]

Twoblink, you worry too much. I have a sp101 for my "always" gun. It seems to be durable enough:

I shoot it once a week on average, have since it was new. It is now approaching the 60,000 round mark. I don't keep exact records but IIRC fewer than 100 of those were 38 special. As I practice with and carry handloads almost exclusively, I can assure you that the 357 loads I run in it are not weak, by any standard.

I had one problem at around the 20,000 round mark:
The barrel twisted . I just got a funny sight picture one time, on closer inspection the barrel had moved. It was a little wierd, I carefully shot the rest of the ammo I had planned on, the barrel didn't move any further. Anyway a trip back to ruger and my baby was back with the sight standing straight up and a cylinder gap of .002-.003" .

40,000 rounds later, no problems. Just a quick wipe-down daily, range trip weekly and a good cleaning monthly.

 

[standingbear]

stainless is definatly more corrosion resistant than blued steel...perhaps even heavier in the weight dept helping with recoil(or some dont like the extra weight).ya dont have to worry about holster wear or scratches.if you get them wet..just wipe them off and go.

 

[Old Fuff]

I believe that S&W stainless steel revolvers still use carbon steel hammers and triggers, that are then flash-chromed to match the gun cosmetically. While there have been improvements is the stainless alloys used in guns I still prefer blued (or Parkerized) guns. They are easier to shoot in bright sunlight (of which we have a lot in Arizona) and are less likely to attract attention under low light and circumstances where I don't want them noticed. I don't believe any military service is using stainless small arms (other then internal components), and Gaston Golck for one refuses to touch the stuff. If rusting is a percieved problem there are a lot of finishes on the market that will provide necessary protection while keeping the "black look."

 

[SteelyDan]

Blues, I wasn't trying to pick on Seattle, but I thought it rained there about as often as it's cold here. Meaning that if you do a lot of shooting outdoors, your gun is gonna get wet.

 

[James Bondrock]

Finish durability and rust resistance (bearing in mind that many internal parts are not actually stainless) are the advantages of stainless steel. If you have a blue steel gun that you handle, carry and shoot a lot, you have to accept that there will be some finish wear.

 

[Brian Williams]

Here is a pic of my 357's and I will let it speak for me.

This is what I prefer, but I would like to find a S&W 65-1 or2 3" that is P&R and put a 4" tapered barrel that I have that was produced for a Pinned Mod 64.

 

[hansolo]

Perfessr's threesome

Eye candy, for sure! I have a 1956 S&W M/P with the original blueing and just a tich of wear on the front of the muzzle and backstrap.

I have just bought my third autoloader(S.A. 1911 .45 Loaded)and it's great, but......I'm thinking it's time for another wheelgun......Semis are fun, but I see a S&W 686 in my future.....thanks for the family photo!

 

[twoblink]

My Ruger 22/45 has a few reholstering marks... and it's blued.

I'm just wondering if "reflection" from a stainless will be a problem.

Also, I do recall one of the "know-it-all" gun sales guys that told me that having a stainless gun as your CCW is suicide because the reflections give you up as you draw

 

[pauli]

and Gaston Golck for one refuses to touch the stuff.

i think that's the best endorsement of stainless steel i've seen yet

 

[James Bondrock]

IMO, only in military combat or hunting is a non-reflective finish of any consequence. If you are facing an assailant at close range, there are plenty of other visual cues that you are drawing a gun besides the glint of stainless steel. And unless it is brightly polished, e.g., a Colt Python Ultimate Stainless, it isn't that reflective. Besides, if the situation warrants drawing your gun at all, don't you want the assailant to see it?

 

[twoblink]

I think they have watched one too many sniper movies..

heheee.. Pauli, I'm with you there, if Gaston won't touch it, I probably will buy it

 

[BluesBear]

When I was still a rookie I was riding patrol one night with an older officer in one of the more troublesome sectors. We received an unknown trouble call at one of the more problematic watering holes. Hole was an understatement.

Upon arriving he first went into the cruiser's trunk. He put his 6" blued S&W into a empty gun rug and then pulled an identical 6" nickled S&W from another. It was polished like a mirror! He placed it in his holster and proceeded towards the door.

I asked him what that was all about and he told me, "Boy, In a place like this, if I have to pull my pistol, I want to make damn certain every "Mother's Son" in the whole #*@&%^$ place can see it."

He had a point, in a dimly lit room a bright nickle 6" N-frame looks absolutely HUGE!

 

[valnar]

There's no question blued guns done right (like classic S&W deep blue) are beautiful, but I spend more time shooting and cleaning guns than looking at them. Note: Cleaning is like death and taxes. There is no choice.

It is much easier for me to tell when a stainless gun is cleaned, and I have more opportunity to use other solvents. I may have a dirty blued gun in my collection and not even know it, which could possibly lead to rust...sure.

I prefer stainless for most of my guns, but a couple (like, 2 out of 10) blued guns are always nice for looking at. For me, they tend to become safe queens because I don't want to ruin them. At that point though, it becomes less of a gun and more of a collectable. So if I had to pick one over the other - stainless it is.

-Robert