I have a question for you.

Everyone likes one or the other for numerous reasons, maintenance or looks being high on the list. This is a question of a different sort.

I recently sold a 4" stainless .357 to buy the same model 4" .357 in carbon steel and all things being equal, IMO the carbon steel pistol feels different - better, smoother, perhaps a different recoil pulse.

This could be a perception thing based on the new thing being better because it's new. I'd like to know your experiences here, specifically if it's possible that the materials the pistol is made from could make the pistol actually feel different during use.

Scandium and titanium are lighter and transmit recoil differently than steel, but between stainless and carbon, is there a difference?

I have a question for you.

Everyone likes one or the other for numerous reasons, maintenance or looks being high on the list. This is a question of a different sort.

I recently sold a 4" stainless .357 to buy the same model 4" .357 in carbon steel and all things being equal, IMO the carbon steel pistol feels different - better, smoother, perhaps a different recoil pulse.

This could be a perception thing based on the new thing being better because it's new. I'd like to know your experiences here, specifically if it's possible that the materials the pistol is made from could make the pistol actually feel different during use.

Scandium and titanium are lighter and transmit recoil differently than steel, but between stainless and carbon, is there a difference?

Carbon steel has a lower coefficient of friction. The carbon parts can be finished smoother than their stainless counterparts.

Are you saying less resistance in the barrel for lower pressure and less felt recoil?

Generally speaking, grain structure for medium and high carbon steel is finer than that of so-called stainless steels. Medium and high carbon steel is much less susceptible to galling than the stainless alloys. Most of this can be compensated for by use of proper lubricants. I have one of the early Model 66's made in the first production batch out of the factory in the early 1970's. First thing I did before firing it was bounce off the sideplate and disassemble the action. Then used Gunslick on all mating surfaces and reassembled. Did lots of dry firing and have fired more than 8,000 rounds, most of them full load .357's. Today it is still the smoothest Smith I have ever owned and I have owned plenty of them.

I think this thread raises an excellent question and I don't know the answer to it. Perhaps some of you with expertise in metallurgy might. To rephrase it slightly: would two revolvers, one in carbon and the other in stainless steel (say, a 586 and a 686) of equal configuration, barrel lengths, and grips transmit a different recoil sensation to the shooter if when gripped exactly the same way and when firing identical rounds?

In my youth I was an avid cyclist. Bike frames back then came in two materials: carbon steel and aluminum (the more esoteric frames hadn't been invented yet). Carbon steel was regarded as more forgiving, that is to say, it provided a springier and more comfortable ride than aluminum. But, aluminum, being stiffer, transmitted energy from the rider to the bike more efficiently. So, cyclists faced a choice: comfort vs. efficiency.

Is carbon steel springier than stainless steel? Would perceived recoil be softer with a carbon vs. a stainless steel revolver, all other things being equal? I dunno. Maybe one of you does.

There is a very slight difference in Modulus of Elasticity (less than 10%) between plain carbon steel and common stainless alloys). This is the "springiness" of the material. Not enough to notice any difference. Every metal part distorts somewhat under load or pressure and then returns to original shape after the load or pressure is released. The density or mass per unit volume is about the same for plain carbon steel and stainless. Lock time can differ depending upon hammer and/or firing pin mass, spring compression, and other factors. Given two revolvers of equal design, configuration and mass, I would say it would be very difficult to feel the difference. One may have smoother lockwork than the other and possibly a more finely machined bore would reduce friction between the bullet and barrel and these factors combined, if they both tended toward extremes in their range, may possibly account for feeling a difference in firing.

So, perhaps it's a mental perception on my part.

Same grips, same ammo, same action work, one is SS and the other is carbon steel.

I could swear they shoot differently. Not a night and day difference, but enough to feel it.

Unless one gun has tighter throats/bore or rougher surface finish, recoil should be identical. One more comment, stainless is much more difficult to obtain a good surface finish than carbon steel. The guys in the shop where I work hate it. They buy pre-polished stainless plate when possible for our jobs.

In firing identical guns of the same model, prepped identically, over a chronograph, I have routinely found 30 fps or more differences with ammo out of the same box.

With a sample of only two guns of whatever material, I would be astounded if they were truly identical.

__________________
Science plus Art

The 30 fps variation could be bore finish, cylinder gap, bore dimensions, forcing cone issues or a combination of those. Frankly, I am not a Ruger fan, but my experience has been there is less variation from individual piece to piece of the same model in Ruger revolvers than there is in Smith & Wesson. I believe this is due to tighter tolerances in investment cast parts over the older technology of individually machined parts. This may be less true today with Smith's current production techniques.

Color me "Skeptical" and I mean skeptical, BIG TIME!

I have guns of both materials and NO ONE can tell the difference between guns of different materials.

On the other hand, two guns of the same exact model may feel differently due to the actions (which DO differ one from the other). THAT may be what the original responder feels.

I took a pistol class at Camp Perry many years ago from the great U.S. Army pistol shooter Blankenship (and tipped a beer or two with him). He had two identical 1911's built by the same gunsmith. On the Ransom Rest, one was more accurate than the other. However, his choice for MAJOR matches was the LESS accurate one - he could simply shoot it better. It just FELT better (both were set up as near the same as physically possible but he favored the trigger action on one over the other).

Most any good pistol shot has some preferences and he can't always put his finger on the reason but he believes it nonetheless!

Bottom line, use what pleases you (but do not try to convince us that one steel one recoils less than another steel one

Dale53

Not trying to convince you Dale, I'm asking a question, hoping for some insight.

Stainless and Carbon, while both steel are different and I was curious as to the properties and effects therein.

I believe every gun is a nation of its own and I take that for my answer as to why this 586 feels different than the 686.

Right after SS hit the market (I believe the first was the S&W Chiefs Special) a number of people in the gunsmithing business started the myth (and perpetuated it) that stainless was harder to work with than carbon steel. However, after several years of charging more for working on stainless guns, some of the more prominent ones "let the cat out of the bag" stating that actually, stainless was easier to "tune" than carbon steel.

Me, I don't really know. I was trained as a machinist but went into a different line of work and all of this was MUCH before stainless became the standard for working guns.

I HAVE done a number of reliable tune-ups on stainless revolvers and don't find them any easier nor harder to work with than carbon steel. My experience should not be taken as "gospel" as the numbers that I have worked on are not statistically relevant (nothing compared to someone like Clark (as an example).

Snapping Twig:
I will grant you this much, without reservations. Each and every revolver has a different "feel" but that is, in my opinion, NOT the result of different materials. There are definitely those revolvers that are "user friendly" and allow a good marksmen to shoot better. As an example of this, I had a Ruger Security Six (stainless) that had a professional trigger job done. The revolver had everything going for it - there was absolutely NOTHING wrong with it that I could discover. The only problem was, I could NOT shoot it up to its potential (or mine). I replaced it with a 686 Treasury overrun (4" barrel, round butt, matt finish). My scores immediately rose to my potential and it is one of my favorite revolvers because of its performance.

So-o-o, to sumarize, there are differences but blued or stainless is NOT the reason.

This is MY opinion, of course, and I claim no scientific distinction

I do find stainless somewhat easier to clean (barrels, I mean) as it seems "slicker" and does not seem to retain combustion by-products as chrome moly. My contention that stailess is easier to work with (AFTER a learning process, I might add) is born out by nearly ALL of the best benchrest barrels being stainless.

Dale53

You could always mount a stainless barrel and cylinder on a carbon frame.

Or a carbon barrel and cylinder on a stainless frame.

Or stainless lockwork in a carbon frame, or vice-versa.

The perception confusion possibilities are endless.

Shorty