Stainless vs. Blued

Given the choice I prefer

  • stainless

    Votes: 118 57.8%

  • blued

    Votes: 86 42.2%
  • Total voters
    204
  • Poll closed .
D

dayman

New member
My own preference - all else being equal - is for SS. I like the rust resistance, the ability to buff out scratches, but mostly I just prefer the way it looks.

This is not to say all - or even most - of my guns are stainless. But, given the choice, I'd generally choose the SS version of a gun.
 
Really depends on the style of the gun. Revolvers I like stainless. 1911s blued. Bolt actions blued. Levers stainless.
 
Hard to say I agree it sort of depends on the style of the actual gun. Truthfully very few of my guns are actually blued, but either stainless or some other type of coating.
 
I prefer blued for a couple of reasons. First is that the gun is less conspicuous in ordinary carry.

Second is that the stainless gun always looks brand new. When I was a soldier, nobody wanted fresh OD fatigues, the faded fatigues gave one that "old soldier" look. Same way with a blued gun~it has CHARACTER when it begins to show a little honest wear.

Bob Wright
 
Stainless all the way for me.

If it is being carried concealed no one is gonna spot 'til it comes out anyway (the cat's out of the bag, afterall) and I like the durability and corrosion resistance of the finish over conventional bluing.
 
I buy em to use em. Stainless, or some other type of tough finish such as Glocks Tennifer, parkerized etc.
 
I generally preferre stainless for the newer guns. The quality of most newer blue jobs isn't near the same as the old Colt's, Rugers, etc. On older guns it's not a deal breaker either way but a real deep blue job will catch my eye.
 
My opinion is pretty much the same as yours dayman, in fact, pretty much exactly! I generally like SS over blued, sometimes blued just works better (aesthetically) on a certain gun, but usually I prefer the SS, and think similarly about the maintainability of it.
 
I prefer bluing. Sometimes I'll see a stainless rifle with a killer piece of walnut that is crazy beautiful, but almost everything I own is made out of blued steel and walnut.
 
If it isn't that deep lustrous Colt bluing, I don't really care much about the finish but I prefer blue or black even though I've got a couple stainless handguns. However, for a carry gun, definitely not stainless or nickel. I want covert carry as much as possible and save for my Kimber CDP Compact, all my carry guns have always been blue/black in black holsters.
 
Stainless looks silly! For newbies!
Click to expand...

I guess I've been a newbie for about forty years now.

I prefer the look of stainless, but I own way more blued (or otherwise black-colored) handguns. The point about black being somewhat more concealable seems valid to me, and there are other pistols that I own that are either not available or at least harder to find in stainless. As a result, about 80% of my pistols are blue.
 
I agree with Bob Wright, the one thing that makes me sad about my SP101 is that it will never attain the beautiful holster-worn look of my Beretta.

When new, I think stainless looks better, but a worn blued finish tells a story. I prefer blued for handguns and stainless for rifles. As for the extra maintenance, well I clean and oil my handguns more often than they need anyway. No chance of rust either way.

So since this is in the handguns forum, I vote blued.

Ivan
 
If I'd seen a good Smith Model 40 before I found my fine 640 no-dash I'd have bought it. But I didn't, so the 640 has ridden in a holster in my pocket daily for going on thirteen years. Being unobtrusive is not a problem. I once briefly owned a Ruger GP100, and for a short time a Rossi 87, but all my other revolvers have been blue.

Stainless rifles have never appealed to me, either for appearance or visibility in the woods.
 
You missed one -- case hardened. Some guns, no other finish is appropriate, like certain revolvers.

But SS or blued depends on the style and use of the gun. A well used hunting rifle, I prefer SS,(oops, this is the handgun forum) as well as my common shooters. The classics that were originally blued, stay blued.
 
Blued. Never really cared for stainless. Nickel even looks better with some wear. I understand the supposed advantages of stainless, just can't enjoy them like a blued gun. A dedicated pocket gun may be worthwhile to have in stainless, or for someone living in a humid environment, but I've not been all that kind to my blued guns through many years of hard use, and they've always worked just fine. So long as a little surface rust now and then doesn't make you have a cow, blued is fine.


Like Bob, I like the honest wear that comes with use on blued guns.
 
I prefer stainless on most any gun. Thy being said, I don't hate blues finishes, and buy them now and again.

For my money, though, nothing beats a case-hardened look on a single-action or levergun
 
I dug this gun out for a range session this morning. Bought in 1987, CCH in 1989, 19,641 fired through it after this morning's work out. Cleaned and oiled after each range session. Protected by my 50/50 mix of Three-In-One oil and automotive motor oil.



And this Ruger .44 Special (bottom gun) has been carried in a leather holster daily for over two years, has around 6,500 rounds fired through it.



Same treatment.

Bob Wright
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top