I have two snubbies back at the factory for some warranty work. I'm debating if I should have them bead blasted (they're both stainless). Whats your opinions....bead blast or standard finish.

I voted standard but would get mine done in high polish.

I have two CS-1s with the bead-blast finish, and others with the standard finish. I wouldn't change the CS-1s simply because that's what they came with, but I prefer the standard finish. I think the bead-blast scratches easier and you can't polish it lightly to clean it up the way you can a standard stainless finish without changing the entire appearance of the gun.

I took a new 625 and polished the matte finish off as soon as I got it out of the box and fired it for function. I just never liked a dull finish on a gun.

This is roughly the explanation that Mark Hartshorne, the owner of Pinnacle High Performance, gave me when I asked him to bead blast my 686. I ultimately chose not to have it done.

I like the looks of the satin/matte finish much, much more than the looks of the standard stainless finish. However, the durability of the bead blast finish is a major concern for me.

Owning several bead blasted SS hunting firearms 20+ years, and watches, I can say without a doubt that this finish is MORE durable and less likely to show wear.

Glass bead blasting peens the surface, making it harder.

Add to this the fact that they shine less in the field and all I can say is, make mine bead blasted.

Once scuffed, the matte, bead-blasted finishes cannot be buffed out like a regular stainless gun. I'll give the bead-blasted fans their due in that this finish holds oil better on a blued gun, but this is a non-issue on a SS gun. I prefer the regular Smith SS finish. If you know what your doing, you can erase a previous owner's idiot scratches.