stainless worth the extra $?

D

deucelee

New member
Looking at the Marlin 60. One is the regular model for $164, other options is the stainless for $250.

can you guys help me justify the extra cost?

why would I want to spend an extra $86 for the stainless? why would any of you guys?
 
I usually estimate between 30-50 extra for stainless which I think is more then worth it. This seems like its on the high side. I would try to barter the difference down to 40ish if the ss is really the only difference. Otherwise I would personally pass.
 
Easier maintenence. 20 years from now the stainless gun will look better and hold a much greater pecentage of its original value. Given the better long term value and less time and effort spent on mainenence it will be cheaper in the long run.
 
If it is just a range/target shooter, then I would not necessarily buy stainless. Blued steel can be kept near pristine for decades under that kind of use with proper storage in-between range trips (and good cases for transporting).

I do like stainless for firearms that are going to get carried around outdoors a lot. Those weapons are bound to get scratched up or banged up a bit, and exposed to all kinds of weather so stainless just makes life easier.
 
Blued firearms have been in use for centuries and many are still around. With proper care they will outlast your lifetime. And, personally, I prefer the appearance of blued guns. Stainless will shine and glare in sunlight, a downside in my opinion.
On the other hand, there is no denying that stainless will take whatever beating it gets and still keep going. My stainless ca. 1970 Ruger Single-Six looks as fine today as it did new. If I were buying an Alaskan rifle it would be stainless with a synthetic stock.
I love traditional guns but, fact is, we now have alternatives.
Your choice.
 
1) I just like stainless. 2) It is more corrosion resistant. That's how I justified my purchases.

Even though it's $86 more, it's still a good gun at a good price. If we were talking about a $500 or $1000 gun, for many folks would it would be a no brainer to spend $86 more and get stainless. I still say if you like stainless $86 isn't all that much more to spend if you will be that much happier in the long run.
 
In my opinion, no. Although I like stainless guns, the Model 60 Marlin is not particularly elegant (consider the "walnut stained hardwood stock" on the blued...yuck!). If I were interested in buying one of those, I would look for a used one in gun stores and on Gun Broker and pay as little as possible. It is very rare to find a modern .22 that is "shot out", or has issues that cannot be fixed. Recent Gun Broker completed auction selling prices for used Marlin Model 60s: Blue = $149, Stainless = $170.
They will never be a collectors item in your lifetime. Nor, should there be much consideration for pride of ownership. They are but a serviceable .22 rifle.
 
Last edited:
If you take care of your guns, stainless isn't a huge advantage. It is slightly easier to maintain, but with just a little attention, blued will hold up well for years / decades.
 
thanks a lot guys...appreciate the responses. this will give me some thoughts to chew on.

I was also considering the Ruger 10/22 as well. the price difference of the stainless version of that vs non-stainless is not as wide. for pure out of the box accuracy and if one's not planning on modding, the marlin 60 seems to be the one to go with regarding the general consensus

well, i'll think about it. thanks
 
Stainless all the way.If it is a range rifle (target ) you will probebly use it a lot. Stainless,besides being easier to clean,will also out last blued barrels. This in itself is a plus. Depending on your caliber ,some barrel lifes are very short. Don't need to make it any shorter. If it is a hunting rifle,then all is not important. Hunting rifle will last you ,your kids and there kids life time.

oops-never mind. I went back and saw you are talking about a 22 cal. Now it really don't matter, You will never shoot the barrel out on those things:D
 
coldbeer said:
You can always reblue a gun but scuff up a stainless gun and it's permanent.
Click to expand...

Spot repairs is very easily done to stainless, unlike blued steel that may need a complete refinish to look good.

This old Ruger was scuffed up and sold cheap because of it's cosmetic condition. I removed the Ruger Warning from the barrel while I was at it.
ServiceS01.jpg


This Ruger Old Army was very nasty from years of black powder and neglect. A 3M pad and a few hours and it's like new.
stainlessroa.jpg


The same refinish techniques can be applied to long guns as I did with these revolvers. For the average user Stainless steel fire arms are much easier to maintain.
 
deucelee said:
Looking at the Marlin 60. One is the regular model for $164, other options is the stainless for $250.

can you guys help me justify the extra cost?

why would I want to spend an extra $86 for the stainless? why would any of you guys?
Click to expand...
If the photos are an accurate representation of the products, the stainless model also has a laminated stock (versus a 'hardwood' stock) and upgraded sights. Those upgrades account for some of the price difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top