Disregarding rust and exterior wear.
What are your thoughts between the two steels when it comes to the durability of the rifling, and machined areas of the action? If you shot 20000 rounds through a new 586, and a 686, do you think one would show mechanical wear before the other?

I'd be really surprised to see any difference.

__________________
Foster Positivity.

I believe (but don’t have the reference) that the stainless steel used in Smith’s revolvers is softer than the carbon steel used in their blued guns.

The blued guns would be less subject to wear as a result eg in the rifling, and cylinder stops.

I suspect many internal parts use the same metal, so I wouldn’t expect those parts to show different wear.

Kind of where my thoughts are also

In my experience with rifle shooting, stainless barrels will be more accurate than nitride barrels, all other things being equal.
Other than that, I can't imagine any difference besides that blued guns look awesome, and stainless guns are easier to work on, since the finish isn't an issue.

At 20,000 rounds you'll have spent 5 to 10x as much on ammo as what the gun cost and either one will have minimal wear. I'm not a fan of the modern Blueing on the guns but I'm sure the metal will hold up just fine.

Blued guns, pretty
Stainless guns, more practical

I actually never even think about it. Blue is prettier, nickel prettier than that, and I simply buy what I want when I want it.

^^^^^^^^ that .........

I've got both 686s and 586s as well as a 681 ....... stainless guns spend more time in the holster.

Don't think, short of abuse, I'll ever wear either one out.

I believe the "prettiness" has to do with the polish, not the blue vs. stainless.

Polished blue/stainless/nickel/chrome are all much better looking than any matte or brushed finish.

__________________
Psalm 27:2

Love the look of both. 35 years ago, the majority of my S&W revolver buys were stainless ('cause it was the *in* thang back then). Now, I'm buying pre-IL S&W *blued* revolvers exclusively... go figure!

I'll never wear out either, but undeniable evidence is that I've got to worry about corrosion a whole lot more with blued revolvers than stainless revolvers.

Stainless is harder to machine and therefore I believe it will be harder. Almost all benchrest barrels are stainless

Blue carbon steel is harder than stainless. Stainless does not corrode as easily but is softer. After thousand of rounds I expect a barrel in stainless to be more worn out.

Carbon steel is also a little more brittle. It may crack easier. That relates to stainless being called tougher. It will withstand bending and impact better but it will deform, which does not help any gun application.

When you handle older stainless guns, they turn out to even feel softer, smoother and more worn in than their blue counterparts. This is all related to the softness.

I prefer blue steel guns. I do also love my 657 no dash but again, there is for sure a metallurgical difference in the materials and I would assume that also to be related to long-term barrel life, why would it not. Will I outshoot a stainless gun, probably not. You can research the differences in steels used for knife blades. Holding the edge is well studied between carbon and stainless, Carbon holding the edge longer but harder to sharpen.

This is the only thread I have seen with no likes. I have a few of each and they would be for sale if the job didn't get done.

here you go

I know this doesn't address your question but,
Stainless is super convenient in it's lack of needed maintainace, not rusting, etc.
But nothing looks as beautiful as a highly polished expertly blued handgun.

For practical purposes I believe either will last a very long time. I carry a 649-2 although I much prefer the look of a high gloss blued gun. Stainless reminds me of my cap guns when I was a kid.

According to an article by Dick Metcalf in, Shooting Times many years ago, stainless barrel throats resist erosion better than does blued steel.

However, this may depend on the particular alloy.

When Winchester introduced the very hot .220 Swift cartridge, barrels in rifles were stainless, to better resist erosion. I think that was the first use of stainless steel in guns.

Not sure why but the X count, at 20yds offhand leaning against a tree, is higher with the blued S&Walther.
Might just be the blued gun provides a better .... Bond.

I would honestly say that either one, if cared for properly, will outlast the shooter. Rifles have a tendency to cause more throat erosion due to more gas pressure and higher powder loads. Most handguns don't operate at that level, so aren't prone to barrel wear like rifles are. There are handguns that have tens of thousands of rounds through them with minimal wear. If anything, the cylinder/yoke/extractor area will exhibit wear but as long as the barrel has been taken care of ( no bulges, proper cleaning etc. ) it shouldn't matter which material is chosen.

__________________
1st smiles,lies.Last,gunfire.

I still like my stainless guns for carry, though my blue ones are more pretty. As far as wearing out? I have been trying and haven't worn one out. Maybe it military use it will happen.

I do believe the stainless will be a harder metal with a higher chromium and nickel content...so I would imagine the stainless would outlast the blued gun if you really want to get technical.

My guess would be that the carbon steel might be a bit harder than the stainless, but there are are about 50 ( to pick a number) different grades of stainless. i would have to bet that whatever grade of stainless S&W uses, it would be matched to a like and similar hardness of their standard carbon grade.

As for finishes, shiny blue is nice, stainless is OK, I am not a fan of nickel, but I am drawn to the matte finish of an old M28

__________________
Pete
I ain't no fortunate son

Well. I was wondering about the machining on the cylinder. Star, etc. How these areas hold up.

Back when they first started offering stainless revolvers there was a lot of discussion of smoothness. The argument was that carbon steel cut cleanly while stainless tore. The result was, at least in theory, that a new blued revolver would function more satisfactorily than a stainless one.

Ed

I also, from welding experience, know stainless transfers heat much faster.
So...a stainless gun possibly might cool down faster?

Stainless is harder to machine because it is softer steel and has a tendency to Gaul and gum up the tooling.This was a frequently discussed topic with concerns back in the early 80's when most interest was on stainless revolvers.

Carbon steel is harder than stainless, so I expect a carbon steel barrel to hold sharp rifling longer than stainless. I know with machine gun barrels you are not likely to find them made in stainless steel, but in carbon steel with a hard chrome lining.

I really like the looks of blued carbon steel, but stainless wins in terms of ease of maintenance and corrosion resistance. Nickel plating is nice, but S&W's polished nickel looks a bit gaudy to me (I do own a nickel plated 29-3). Perhaps the best is carbon steel with hard chrome plating. You get the durability of carbon steel with the corrosion and abrasion resistance of chrome.

Best of both worlds, blued (19-4) carbon steel gun with Industrial hard chrome finish.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

I've come around to this way of thinking too.

__________________
Psalm 27:2

The 300 series stainless is gummy to machine, but the steel in guns is a hardenable 400 series with a bit of sulfur added to increase it machine ability. Probably close to a toss up. Loadings bullet selection will probably effect life more.

I still have the letter I wrote to Smith & Wesson back in 1990 asking about their stainless revolvers vs. blued and they stated there was no difference in durability. Of course that was exactly what I was expecting to hear but I thought it was worth a try.

Former Guns & Ammo writer Jan Libourel stated more than once about his "suspicion" that the stainless revolvers were not as durable. Writer Dick Metcalf stated stainless guns were stronger - neither ever gave any real evidence to support their claims.

Still you look at Smiths most potent revolvers like the 460 or 500 Mag and they are all stainless. Not really worried about the durability of my stainless S&W guns.

When Remington built 264 sun mag with stainless barrels painted black did they do this because they wanted a softer steel on their big belted magnums ? This was years before they ever produced the stainless model 700 ????

You’re shooting a lead or jacketed projectile through a carbonsteel/stainless steel barrel, the softer metal, bullet, will wear and have a small effect on the harder barrel. Keep shootin’

Ya got to get both...
Blue is beautiful,
Steel is forever..

My professional background was science....now retired.

However, this is stated without science:

In owning, shooting, and handling many Smith revolvers from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and a few in the 90s, the trigger pulls and overall actions seem to be smoother in blue steel models. Is this my imagination?

Also, I have a SC Wildlife Officer's service weapon, a model 66, that has rust and pitting under the grips.... so SS is not bomb-proof to sweat and other elements.