Title says it all please give me your best advice and issues to think about. I like the way both look so that's a wash for me. Thanks!

There is nothing prettier in a lot of people's opinion than a nicely blued revolver with handsome wood stocks.Stainless is great for a worry free revolver.

I like them both...prefer blued for looks, but like stainless for durability of the finish (holster wear, wet weather, etc.). I don't care for nickel guns.

__________________
No good deed goes unpunished.

If you're buying an old beat up cop trade in, stainless is the way to go. You can clean them up in a number of ways (even bead blast) at very limited expense and end up with a great looking gun.

I like both, blue is classier, stainless will only get shinner with use, blue will wear thru around the muzzel if carried in a holster I dont think you could go wrong either way, my solution, get one of each. Jeff

If looks are not an issue, I'd say go stainless every time. I pretty much agree with everything posted so far, with the addition that stainless is not rust-less, it can & will corrode , it just happens a lot slower. Now when it comes to looks, then blued is much nicer IMO.

Just my .02

-Klaus

Doesn't stainless get boring? I did prefer stainless on my ccw and hunting revolvers. Blue is cool, stainless is better but nickel is freaking awesome.
Plus there are less manufactured in nickel finish too.
I've seen stainless have surface finish problems with in the pants holsters in the hot humid summer. Stainless isn't so tough.

If you use a top brand quality leather holster thats suede lined on the inside your blued gun won't wear.

Pretty much agree with all that has been said so far. I especially agree with BigBill that "nickel is awesome". However, kind of a basic rule of thumb would be to get stainless for all your heavy users and get blued for your casual shooters and safe queens. However, that doesn't mean that a stainless can't be a queen too. And don't forget "Nickel is Awesome"!

If the gun is well maintained then there is no real functional difference between the two. If it's going into a holster then the blue will show some wear. But.... showing some wear is not really a bad thing. JMHO

The difference is in finish and the work needed to maintain a perfect looking gun, if that's your thing.

Stainless guns clean up super easy - scratches can be buffed out, the steel can be polished by hand to a high shine, and you can use a few solvents/materials that might damage the bluing on a blue gun.

Now, I can clean up my blued guns to look good as new, but it takes a bit longer, a bit more elbow grease, and they need to be kept oiled down and free of fingerprints (a fingerprint on a blued gun left alone can leave a mark that can be hard to remove).

I love blue guns. They are so gorgeous. But often when I go to the range, I will more often leave the blued ones at home and take the stainless ones to shoot. Mentally I just think, "well, I can shoot them to death and them scrub them as hard as I want," but really it isn't too much harder to clean the blued ones. I also have some blued guns that I will carry, and some that I do not want to damage their pristine finish by holstering/unholstering into a tight leather pancake.

What Jeff said! ^^^^^

__________________
-jwk-
US Army '72-'95

Blued finished guns require much more cleaning because the finish is prone to rusting if its not cared for properly.

Stainless steel does require regular and proper maintenance as well but it can stand up to rust much better

Than a blued finished or nickel finished gun.

SS vs Blue: Do what I do and have both. I’m probably in the minority but my preference is exactly 50-50. If it’s your first look for one that has been well kept with low miles. Blue or SS. #2 will need to be the other.

Blacken stainless steel such as SIG uses.

They teach here at the ccw course that a shiney gun with a big bore scares the bad guy more because he can see the weapon in the dark better.

I have a mix of all three blue, stainless and that freaking awesome nickel. The world famous S&W nickel finish that is.

That s&w nickel is so dang Purdy.

I find advantages to both. My first revolver was a stainless model 67. The finish is easy to maintain and less prone to wear. I like that you can polish up stainless to a mirror finish if you choose to do so, or create a matte finish by bead blasting. It's versatile and looks great in rosewood or with even the more modern laminate woods.

Now when you talk about blued guns, what comes to mind are the revolvers from before the mid 1980s. S&W has gotten lazy with bluing after those years and a lot of what passes for blued these days is really just a matte blued finish (like the model 442). The blued revolvers I like have a glossy finish that when oiled up looks like they were dipped in molten lava. The finish is far more beautiful than stainless and under different lighting conditions you can appreciate it even more. Blued guns belong with wood grips, no question.

Something which I don't think has been mentioned is that blued guns were also somewhat easier to conceal under the shadow of night. They also don't have the glare that sometimes gets in the way of the topstrap when shooting a stainless on a bright sunny day.

__________________
Ephesians 6 (Armor of God)

Just a shame that S&W never produced guns in hard chrome. I like the surface prep of the older blue steel guns and the durability of the stainless guns.

__________________
The American dream is alive

I'm of the school, "Lose that nickel plated sissy-pistol..."

I just never took a "shine" to nickel.

__________________
No good deed goes unpunished.

I own both. Stainless is a little more tolerant of neglect than blued, but I actually like the well worn patina of an oft-carried blued revolver!

A periodic wipe down with Break-Free CLP has kept my EDC M36 rust free for the entire time I've owned and carried it.

Nickel all the way baby!!

Thanks for all the useful information. Lots of shooters on these forums with much experience that's good to share.

Gentlemen prefer blondes.

Attached Images

S&W N frames (1).jpg (86.0 KB, 45 views)

You guys are looking at this all wrong. If you look deep into a good blue finish and compare it to the common stainless steel, you will see wherein the soul resides.

Admittedly, I don't shoot my nickel M19 much. It's really pretty, and I know it's just as capable as my other K Frames, but it's been promised to my 13 year old son. I look at it as his gun. I've shot it a little, and occasionally wear it to court when I need a fancy gun to go with my fancy clothes (Sigs and Glocks are visually boring), but that's about it.

I love that nickel is easier to clean, as a lot of the residue will wipe off. The finish on my M19 in 2 1/2" is worn, but I carry it alot. I find something very appealing about a blued gun with a worn finish. It looks to have been there and done that. Stainless has to rely on scars and scratches to tell it's story, which can also be appealing.

SS = handguns
Blued = long guns

I'm nearly 50/50 when it comes to blues vs. stainless with a slight nod to the stainless finish. I especially like a satin finished stainless revolver. I do love the look of a finely blued revolver but I find myself babying them too much and always worry about messing it up.

Range - Blued
Carry - Stainless

Next question. As to stainless being shiny in sunlight, you can always leave the top strap a matte stainless and polish out the sides for an awesome two tone look. Looks cool when you leave the cylinder flutes matte and the rest shiny also.

Supposed SS is harder to machine as it causes tools to chatter, thereby making the action intrinsically less "smooth". Carbon steel that blued guns are made of don't have this problem and have a smoother action.

At least this was what was said in the 70s and 80s.

I'm ready to stand corrected on that.

I personally prefer blued guns for aesthetic appeal.

Thanks to all for the useful information.

They didn't have stainless steel guns when I started shooting, so I grew up with blue steel. And I like it, and sort of wish I'd kept my father's mid-50s K22. But as a woodworker who appreciates classic techniques I still like the phrase "if Chippendale had had plywood he would've used it." My gun analog is "if Colt had had stainless steel he would've built the Peacemaker (and any other black powder gun) out of it." As would every other gun maker.

Blue is beautiful but fragile (compared to stainless.) Blue was a decent anti-rust solution available for a long time, and Parkerizing is probably better, but apparently was hard or impossible to sell as a standard factory finish for civilian guns. Both are surface finishes that can be worn off and leave the underlying metal subject to attack.

If looks are a wash, as the OP says, then I'd say stainless is a clearly superior choice. My "blue" 442, when carried IWB here in the midwest, would develop rust spots on the inside of the yoke (small beads of water would show up there at the end of every day) if not wiped down daily with an oily or silicone cloth. My 638 replaced it for daily carry and is rust free after two years of nothing more than a biweekly blowing out of the lint that accumulates around the back of the trigger and in the hammer groove. (I DO clean and oil it after I fire it, every couple of months, but otherwise it just lives in its holster.)

I love blued guns in calibers like the .38, but for my 686, it gets so gummed up with lead and powder residue that I'm glad it's stainless. I feel better cleaning such a gun in stainless because even if I were careful, the blue is going to get worn.

My mod 10 had blue rubbed off the muzzle and a few other wear spots and I took really good care of it.

Stainless = takes the most wear..
Blued = classic and seem to have a soul
Nickel = as quoted, "is freaking awesome "
But....sometimes you just can't make up your mind...

Stainless vs blue...Kinda looks like a car with no paint

There...fixed it for you! (Just kidding of course )

__________________
No good deed goes unpunished.