Mistered
Member
Impractical, expensive and doesn't last. Just what was the thought process with this?
Why were/are guns Nickle plated?
- Thread starter Mistered
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Jack Flash
Member
You forgot gaudy looking!
Back in the olden days, nickel finish may have stood up to holster wear better than blue. Maybe it was easier to clean(?) or resisted corrosion better(?) Not to mention that some people actually like the way nickel looks.
A lot of police departments had nickel revolvers, so I have to assume it was for some of the above reasons. When stainless steel revolvers became widely available, the use of nickel revolvers dropped off.
twodog max
Member
I think in its time it was a very practical finish resistant to corrosion and rust. IMO looked good as well. I like it.
JJEH
Member
Corrosion resistance.
Only works if the plating is pure and it has a good band with the metal.
Tradewind36
US Veteran
A friend with a 19-5 Nickle was told Hoppes was not recommended for a Nickle revo, any one else heard this?
yes you do have to be careful with some some bore solvents
Absalom
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
Actually, back in the day it was none of the above. As already mentioned by others, it was more robust and longer-lasting than the early blue finishes as corrosion protection. And camouflaging a handgun's appearance is largely later 20th century silliness.
If you look through old pre-WW I catalogs, you'll frequently find that the standard finish on a lot of the cheaper handguns, like the many competing topbreaks, was nickel, and you had to pay something like 50 cents extra on a 4-dollar gun if you wanted blue.
Back in the 1800's when black powder was used, nickle guns protected the gun better than just bluing. This was popular up to about the WWI. Today it's mostly for the "pretty".
muddocktor
Member
Wrong on all 3 counts, my friend.
Impractical? It is more corrosion resistant than a blue finish on a carbon steel gun, especially the new blue finish that S&W uses. And it holds up pretty darn well unless you are a total dummy.
Expensive? If you check on the S&W site, the bright nickel finish costs exactly the same as a bright blue finish, so that argument is shot down too.
Doesn't last? Tell that to my 1973 vintage model 27. It shows usage but still looks pretty darn spiffy when it's all ren waxed up.
Looks? That is personal preference. I happen to love the looks of a nice, bright nickel finished Smith & Wesson revolver. The old blue finish on the S&W revolvers is a wonder to behold too for that matter but not so much the newer blue finish.
I may be biased, as all of my smiths are nickel except for one and I keep thinking about changing it. Skeeter had a nickel 29 and I always liked the way it looked. My first new Smith was a nickel 57 and I just kept buying the pretty ones.
I believe it was first used as protection against black powder fouling and corrosion.
I believe it was first used as protection against black powder fouling and corrosion.
OP
Mistered
Member
Well I learned something new today!
Certain solvents, hoppes included, will dissolve copper.. Some gun manufacturers copper plated their products prior to nickel plating , with the thought the nickel would bond better... If a breach occurs in the nickel plating, and the solvent gets to the copper... Katie bar the door.
IIRC I was told, or read somewhere that S&W did not copper plate their products.. no harm no foul...
JIM................
Like Spinal Tap?
JJEH
Member
Ha! Indeed. And the word we were looking for was bond
And now "Stop wasting my time..."
Here it is
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKPCtmaMl78[/ame]
Last edited:
I will add to that if you look at sales figures for older S&W's, you'll see that nickle often outsold blued models by substantial numbers, making blued versions (especially in good condition) quite rare.
One must remember that the bluing process, similar to the browning process is a form of oxidation or in simple terms rust.
Nickle is a plating process and has nothing to do with rust.
I would surmise, but am only guessing here, that the gun has to be near perfect before the bluing process whereas the plating might be more forgiving with minor imperfections. This may have a cost relationship with the manufacturing process and therefore the decision to go with plating over bluing.
I am also thinking that plating is a shorter process compared to bluing which again may affect the bottom line.
I too have heard that cleaning solvents can get under the plating and react with the copper thus turning the finish milky.
Nickle is a plating process and has nothing to do with rust.
I would surmise, but am only guessing here, that the gun has to be near perfect before the bluing process whereas the plating might be more forgiving with minor imperfections. This may have a cost relationship with the manufacturing process and therefore the decision to go with plating over bluing.
I am also thinking that plating is a shorter process compared to bluing which again may affect the bottom line.
I too have heard that cleaning solvents can get under the plating and react with the copper thus turning the finish milky.
Iver Johnsons for example.
The plating process does not cover up imperfections, rather it showcases them just like bluing will. With either finishing process, the key to a good job lies in the polishing prep before hand. Satin finishes in either case can hide very minor imperfections because the surface is sand or bead blasted prior to finishing.
So that collectors would need to get one of each
