Discussion in 'Handguns: Revolvers' started by dgroff85, Sep 10, 2013.
Blue just looks right to me.
i prefer the look of blue, with wood grips, but blued finish isnt the most durable.
Like the guy in Dirty Harry said, "I gots to know!"
I like the look of blued revolvers.
If i carry a revolver, it needs to be stainless, or aluminum/stainless.
I have one nickel revolver. i would not part with it but I am not a big fan of nickel for the most part. I have no good reason though.
Colt Royal Blue 6" Python for me, I've got an S&W #15 4" thats pretty nice too, then my being polished SP 101 3" is bringing up the rear, still have some more time with Mother's mag cleaner to get the SP finished.
Okay, I've read all the opinions here and I can relate to all of them. From a looks standpoint, a beautifully polished blue is hard to beat. But with even moderate holster wear, the blue begins to show wear. That's why I'd leave a Python in the safe and only take it to the range. To some, wear translates to "character," but if you want to sell it, a stainless gun will fetch considerably more than a blued gun with holster wear.
The S&W 686 looks great, polished. But it required considerable elbow grease.
Minor dings can be buffed out and holster wear isn't a problem.
Since I can't afford a nice, blued Python, I found a gorgeous knife at a fraction of the price that has some kind of a teflon finish that I came across on YouTube. I got one and tossed it into my bugout bag, but every now and again I take it out and look at it. And I wonder why, if they can make a stainless steel knife look so incredible, they can't do the same with a stainless gun. Anyway, the knife's blade has a deep black shiny finish, and that's all I need. On my guns, I'll take stainless.
The Speed-Six pictured here used to be a .38Spc; now it's a .357.
Taurus handguns have nice finishes and look great; however, their tolerances aren't always up to snuff. (I had one M66 that I dropped JHP bullets into the chambers. In every chamber, the bullet fell through right onto the table. In my Ruger Speed-Six, which had been rechambered from .38 to .357 by a top-notch gunsmith, the bullets caught in every chamber and the gun is one of the most accurate guns I've every shot.) So looks don't necessarily mean anything. My Rugers are all pretty accurate, but they have an appetite for heavier bullets, whereas my 686 does well with the lighter bullets. Ruger's approach seems logical based on the fact that lighter bullets are generally used in close-in defensive encounters whereas heavier bullets are more often used in longer range situations like hunting.
I used to like the utaliritan blue because that was the basic finish, it reflected least and was easy(?) to repair.
Then a few years ago I realised the toughness of a nickel finish and now it's my favorite!
The minimal origonal cost of getting a nickel finish (Usually $12-$20) the nickel lasts a long time and resists holster wear and general handling like fingerprints and hand acids
If you doubt this, just look at the cheap (and thick) shiney finishes spplied to old H&R and IJ turn of the century revolvers. Normally a nick would crack the thick coating and initate corrosion. The thinner, less glossy S&W Niclel finishes were far more resistant to damage and consequent corrosion. With a good factory Nickel finish lettering and monikers remain crisp and clear to read. My pet Niclel Chief Special is a beauty! The revolver is of 180;s vintage and all lettering is clean and sharp as is the S&W logo. A pretty sight to see and there is littleglare produced with the shine.
I just wish my latest purchase, a S&W Heavy Barrel Model 10 had a similar Nickel finish! Theholster wear has taken it's toll upon lettering and if I try to touch up the holster wear From a British Bobby;s holster and English dampness ,I fear that I would just make it look worse than showing it's battle scars.
I also have a Cobra .38 dreeinger who's thicker Nickel finish is a bit gaudy, the finish ought to last literally forever1
The finish of the Cobra falls somewhere inbetween the Chief's sheen and my New Vaquero's polished Stainless Steel.
Gold as I understand is the most durable of the finishes but the inital cost is pretty high and talk about GAUDY???
Still, a deep blue of a custom shop Classic or high end Colt 's deep blue still looks good to me1 Wooden grips are really offset by a good blueing.
I can't go for the modern Parkerised look because it just looks so aftermarket!
I prefer Blued finish....
Nickel is so-so...
Stainless is OK but least favorite
Blue and wood
Blue and Ivory kinda works too.
This ol thing will have to do for EDC.
If stainless is an option, it is always my first choice.
No question, blue.
I don't give a rat's behind regarding what my firearms look like. I far more am concerned with how they function.
I prefer the deluxe polished S&W Blued Carbon Steel
the poll is rather limited in that
the revolvers I HAVE are Stainless Steel but
that's a material not a 'finish'
S&W Model 617 it has what S&W calls
the 'bright' finish i.e. it's polished smooth.
S&W Model 60 3" Bbl. .357 Mag "Bright'
S&W Model 625 5: Bbl. .45 ACP and it has
the S&W 'Matte"" finish i.e. it's bead blasted
for a 'flat' non reflection
Everyone who has seen my revolvers
prefer the 'mtte' finish
FYI the S&W 1911 I have is also a 'Matte' finish
so, I checked Other, I'd llike to send my
Model 60 for the newest Robar finish. The
MMMMmmmm Loves me some blue steel & wood!
Here's just a couple of my examples.
I like blue, nickel and stainless steel all the same.
But because the poll included Duracoat (which is not desirable to me) I voted Other.
Now if the O.P. had listed Ceracoat instead of Duracoat I would have voted for all four.
My first choice is stainless, my favorite gun is a Dan Wesson 15-2 that I had refinished to Nickel a few years ago
I prefer blued, no question. Matte stainless is second.
I really like the look of stainless and over the years have switched all my guns to stainless with no regrets.
Stainless for the most part
Separate names with a comma.