Marshall 357
Member
I talked to a guy yesterday and he said,'' I'll never own a stainless steel gun the barrels hold heat way too long.'' has anyone heard this before?
Stainless Steel vs Blued
- Thread starter Marshall 357
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Centenniel
Member
I've never noted any real difference between the two in regards to heat retention. Frankly, for most shooters, that isn't a real problem anyway. The guy is likely just repeating something he once heard. We have a lot of that in the firearms community. Some prefer blued for a variety of reasons, others like stainless. Me, heck, I like them both, depending on the firearm and it's intended use.
JcMack
Member
In my position, which is basically on a "fixed" income: I decided a while back that I could no longer afford safe queens other than carry guns locked up safely. As a result I've divested my self of several guns. I JUST noticed I've unconsciously left myself with only blued guns. So I guess I like blue.
Unless you've got an MG34 with the new stainless barrel, heat is a non issue.
Unless you've got an MG34 with the new stainless barrel, heat is a non issue.
Last edited:
I've heard 629 1/2 reasons from self-styled "experts" why stainless guns are no good. Obviously just a passing fad or scheme to sell shiny guns that fall apart so you have to buy another gun to please the EPA and conform to the secret plot by the military industrial complex, and.......
Always genuine third-hand information from "some guy."
This must be the same "some guy" who gives out all the imaginary creative legal advice.
Always genuine third-hand information from "some guy."
This must be the same "some guy" who gives out all the imaginary creative legal advice.
Last edited:
jframe
Member
Sounds like a gun shop tacticool commando to me.
truckemup97
Member
Blue is pretty, no doubt about it. But stainless is just that: stainless. If I'm buying something to carry or to shoot a lot, and I have a choice, I'll pick stainless.
I don't think I've ever shot more than 100 rounds at a range session out of one particular revolver, but I've yet to notice a heat problem.
I don't think I've ever shot more than 100 rounds at a range session out of one particular revolver, but I've yet to notice a heat problem.
I prefer blue over stainless as a pure aesthetic thing. It just looks better. As for durability to the elements, it's stainless hands down. As said before, I think it depends on the desired use and type of weapon.
oldfella
US Veteran
I prefer stainless, it's more forgiving, less fussy to clean, and tiny scratches can be removed,
Pete
Pete
m657
Member
Define "too long"....
and "hold heat".....????
At times I've had long range sessions that involved many hundreds of rounds from stainless revolvers, side by side with blue ones.
I was in fact trying to heat the barrels up with rapid paced rounds....to the point of not being comfortable to the touch. This was to evaluate potential change accuracy for certain loads.
Didn't notice any difference in either the number of rounds to the subjective 'too hot to hold by the barrel' or 'how fast it cooled to be comfortable to hold by the barrel'.
I believe that 'too long' business is a MYTH.
and "hold heat".....????
At times I've had long range sessions that involved many hundreds of rounds from stainless revolvers, side by side with blue ones.
I was in fact trying to heat the barrels up with rapid paced rounds....to the point of not being comfortable to the touch. This was to evaluate potential change accuracy for certain loads.
Didn't notice any difference in either the number of rounds to the subjective 'too hot to hold by the barrel' or 'how fast it cooled to be comfortable to hold by the barrel'.
I believe that 'too long' business is a MYTH.
Big Cholla
Member
I prefer stainless to the point that when a model I own in blue comes available in stainless, I will sell the blue and buy the stainless. I have to add that I am not a 'collector' as all my guns are users. I like the fact that a little effort with a scotch pad or "Mothers Polish" will return the stainless back to 'as issued' condition.
Also, as a former LEO, I know for a fact that 'bad' guys will see a bright gun in the goodguy's hands far more often than they will a dark blue gun. Every LEO that I have talked with about this has experienced the bad guy at gun point that refused to obey commands because it became clear later on that the badguy never saw the dark blue gun in the LEO's hands. Good argument for using only brightly polished handguns while arresting badguys. .... Big Cholla
Also, as a former LEO, I know for a fact that 'bad' guys will see a bright gun in the goodguy's hands far more often than they will a dark blue gun. Every LEO that I have talked with about this has experienced the bad guy at gun point that refused to obey commands because it became clear later on that the badguy never saw the dark blue gun in the LEO's hands. Good argument for using only brightly polished handguns while arresting badguys. .... Big Cholla
jj2am44
Member
As I have stated before--Stainless is for carrying and shooting-blue is for collecting.
tom turner
US Veteran
I started years ago with a strong preference for stainless guns.
Then a shiny new, nickle-plated M27-2 whispered to me in the gun case "TAKE ME HOME PLEASE."
Along the way, I bought some cool Smith revolvers in bright, mirror blue finishes and thought, "man, what beautiful guns they are."
No safe queens for me . . . so I've ended up with more of one type than the other.
My vote is for blue!
Take care of 'em . . . and they'll take care of you . . . in style!
19 year old M29-5 last month . . . my favorite hunting revolver of all time . . . still lookin' good doin' what it was made to do . . .
A bright, shiny stainless or nickle handgun might be great in a cop's hands to warn the thugs that the LEO had drawn his weapon . . . BUT for me as a non-LEO, if I draw mine it should never be as a threat, lest I be arrested for brandishing.
No, if mine is drawn it is to deal with an immediate threat to my life and I must feel in "imminent danger." Thus, a blued gun ain't a bad idea . . . for no sense in letting a thug know I've got a weapon in my hand just before I must pull the trigger.
Food for thought,
T.
Then a shiny new, nickle-plated M27-2 whispered to me in the gun case "TAKE ME HOME PLEASE."
Along the way, I bought some cool Smith revolvers in bright, mirror blue finishes and thought, "man, what beautiful guns they are."
No safe queens for me . . . so I've ended up with more of one type than the other.
My vote is for blue!
Take care of 'em . . . and they'll take care of you . . . in style!
19 year old M29-5 last month . . . my favorite hunting revolver of all time . . . still lookin' good doin' what it was made to do . . .
A bright, shiny stainless or nickle handgun might be great in a cop's hands to warn the thugs that the LEO had drawn his weapon . . . BUT for me as a non-LEO, if I draw mine it should never be as a threat, lest I be arrested for brandishing.
No, if mine is drawn it is to deal with an immediate threat to my life and I must feel in "imminent danger." Thus, a blued gun ain't a bad idea . . . for no sense in letting a thug know I've got a weapon in my hand just before I must pull the trigger.
Food for thought,
T.
44forever
Member
There was a time
when stainless was first being used in guns, that the manufacurers didn't quite understand how to work with it, how to prevent galling, how to avoid the tool marks of working with an alloy that is, for want of a better word, somewhat "stingy". Some of the same problems were encountered when knives were first offered with stainless blades. They just didn't seem to hold an edge like the high carbon steel.
The result is the material gets a bad rep before the bugs are worked out of the processes. Having grown up with blued guns and high carbon steel blades, these are what I usually prefer but my every day carry gun is a 629 so go figure. Functionality of the finish wins out when carried close to the body.
As for small scratches and the wear of honest use, I consider them "character". As with people, scars are part of the identity.
when stainless was first being used in guns, that the manufacurers didn't quite understand how to work with it, how to prevent galling, how to avoid the tool marks of working with an alloy that is, for want of a better word, somewhat "stingy". Some of the same problems were encountered when knives were first offered with stainless blades. They just didn't seem to hold an edge like the high carbon steel.
The result is the material gets a bad rep before the bugs are worked out of the processes. Having grown up with blued guns and high carbon steel blades, these are what I usually prefer but my every day carry gun is a 629 so go figure. Functionality of the finish wins out when carried close to the body.
As for small scratches and the wear of honest use, I consider them "character". As with people, scars are part of the identity.
cussedemgun
Member
Stainless steel's conductivity is lower than moly steel. How much lower for the alloys used in guns, WHOM KNOWS!
Ask a cook or welder, they will tell you once heated stainless will hold a hot spot, as in not dissipate the heat to the whole mass.
The stainless in firearms manufacturing is not really stainless, but rather stain resistant. It's index of conductivity probably is not that much different from the moly steel of blued guns.
"Hold heat" is a misconception, what works is disipation to spread the heat over the largest area possible so more area can radiate it away to the atmosphere. This is why the fluted barrel came into being.
In conclusion, I don't see heat being a problem other than in varmit rifles or full auto.
Jim
Ask a cook or welder, they will tell you once heated stainless will hold a hot spot, as in not dissipate the heat to the whole mass.
The stainless in firearms manufacturing is not really stainless, but rather stain resistant. It's index of conductivity probably is not that much different from the moly steel of blued guns.
"Hold heat" is a misconception, what works is disipation to spread the heat over the largest area possible so more area can radiate it away to the atmosphere. This is why the fluted barrel came into being.
In conclusion, I don't see heat being a problem other than in varmit rifles or full auto.
Jim
oldRoger
US Veteran
+1 for the difference in conductivity being negligible.
I would suggest that if it were put to the test, using two guns exactly the same except for material, firing the same ammunition at the same rate, it would take very sensitive equipment to tell the difference if there was any. Except for our prejudices you and I would never know. It may well be that any difference would be due to the color rather than the material, then we would have to look at the same test with Nitron coated SS. Any one interested in funding such a study?
Some of the barrel makers say that SS might out wear carbon steel, but only might.
I would suggest that if it were put to the test, using two guns exactly the same except for material, firing the same ammunition at the same rate, it would take very sensitive equipment to tell the difference if there was any. Except for our prejudices you and I would never know. It may well be that any difference would be due to the color rather than the material, then we would have to look at the same test with Nitron coated SS. Any one interested in funding such a study?
Some of the barrel makers say that SS might out wear carbon steel, but only might.
truckemup97
Member
OP
Marshall 357
Member
Well I think some guns look better blued and some look better stainless. I guess I'll let ''some guy'' worry about the heat!
greyhawk178
US Veteran
I have owned stainless, but I really love blued. Personal preference only. Same with wood grips. They are what I was raised with. What I still opt for.
