I found this description by Don Williams on another blog: "The late Jim Clark Sr. preferred carbon over stainless for barrels, and IIRC, he thought they lasted longer and stayed accurate for a longer period of time. Most barrel makers have been using 416 stainless for the barrels for some time now, and I believe they are all using barstock. As Farscott mentioned, Wilson is an exception using a 17-4 forging. I would prefer a forging if possible for strength purposes, and even Schuemann states on his website that 416 isn't necessarily the best material, though I don't recall if he opines as to what is in his opinion. Think of barstock as wood rather than steel. If you split a tree trunk lengthwise, it splits pretty easily. Then think of that same tree and the forging is where a branch comes out of the trunk and think about trying to split through that - not so easy, as the grain runs in random directions, which adds strength. Perhaps a lame comparison, but you may be able to get the idea. Best, ". I tend to believe that the high-carbon blued steel revolvers (my main interest here is smith model 29's, and the 629's) are stronger. However, indications are that the stainless frames, cylinders, and barrels are not hammer forged. Other commentator's seem to think that the cylinders are cut from bar-stock? It would seem to me that cylinders - taking the brunt of the force should be hammer forged? Same for barrels. So far, I have not been able to find the definitive explanation of the steel formula's, or the forging process for current manufactured S&W model 29's and 629's. Knowing this would be of great interest to me - and I am sure others. I have both 29's, and 629's. But, I tend to think that the 29's are a stronger steel! While I have not had any metal fatigue failures in either model, I do see some cylinder wear on the latching notches of the 629's that I don't see on the 29's.