Blued vs Nickel vs Stainless

Blued vs Nickel vs Stainless

  • Blued

    Votes: 62 52.1%
  • Nickel

    Votes: 10 8.4%
  • Stainless

    Votes: 47 39.5%

  • Total voters
    119
for me its Blued > Stainless > Nickel. I can't stand shiny guns.

For a carry piece I probably give the nod to nickel.
 
For me stainless is very practical and nickel is showy, but nothing rivals the beauty of those early Smith & Wesson N frame magnums from the mid fifties to sixties. That's one of the reasons I'm drawn to early 44 magnums and early model 57s. I have a very early Colt Python that has some nice blue as well.
 
I’ve never been a huge fan of nickel, even though it can be beautiful. Stainless is most practical for carry, and I prefer it for guns that spend a lot of time in a holster. But blue is tops in my book, especially when it shows a bit of honest wear around the edges.

I can’t say I have a single favorite example, but I think this one is pretty:

frailer-albums-frailer-pics-picture28503-pre-27-grashorns.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Nickel looks pretty but most of the ones I've seen do not hold up to honest wear down the road . Nothing uglier than a pistol with flakes of nickel peeling off . Before anybody says they have a 50 year old nickel plated pistol that looks like new , I don't care . I'm basing my opinion on what I have seen and a S&W that I personally owned .
 
I never liked stainless steel revolvers until the 686 came out in 1981. Also being a cop and just like the majority of cops that revolver needs Pachmyr or Hogue rubber grips. But I do appreciate real ivory or stag grips and nothing wrong with nickle finish either.

image
 
Even though I voted for stainless for myself I have to say nothing compares to the vintage blue revolvers, beauty and class combined.
 
Some beautiful examples of guns of all three finishes in this thread �� keep them coming! Really shows that all three are appealing for different reasons.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top