Wednesday, October 27, 2010


JayG asks, “which do you prefer, Stainless or Blued steel?”

Oddly, my preference for stainless revolvers happened because of Soldier of Fortune when I was a kid, and long before I even thought about buying a gun.

The big new thing on the one or two issues I managed to pick up was reviews of the new stainless revolvers, like it was only just then introduced in the mid-80s, and I decided there and then that I could do a lot worse than to one day get a Colt Python .357 revolver.

Fast forward 15+ years and after trying a few models of MBtGE including a stainless .44 magnum, I settled on… A S&W 686. Colt Pythons weren’t made so much at that point, and the Smith was in the case.

Not that I don't LIKE blued steel revolvers. Blue looks better, stainless is easier to maintain... whatever. The differences are minor. I just had a little intertia down the stainless path. But I own 3 stainless revolvers. Blued 1908 Pocket Hammerless, and some blued stuff in the rifles, too.

Now that I think of it... Saucy Trollop got a big ol' stainless .44...


Old NFO said...

I'm just the opposite... Course I'm an old fart! Blued is the only way, and I've actually turned down some pretty good deals because they were stainless. (color me stoopid)

Boat Guy said...

Blued - IF it's old. My new Model 22 just doesn't look as good as my mid-60's Model 27. If I could find a 4" Python in blue I'd own a Colt revolver. When I find old Smiths (in blue, natch) at a decent price I buy them.
I do own stainless revolvers, generally the more "utilitarian" tools in the box, but don't find the maintenance any different. I've some experience with both Parkerized Model 10's (Victory Model) and 686's in a maritime environment. The stainless guns might rust at a slower rate, but that's about the only difference I could discern - we really weren't about seeing our pieces acquire rust at all. That said, when I buy new production, I most often opt for stainless.