wondering about apparent preference of blued over stainless

[idek]

On this forum, S&W Model 10s come up frequently as reliable, economic good buys. Far less frequently do I see mention of Model 64s, their stainless counterpart.

Likewise, I somewhat regularly see more comments and praise for the Model 19 than the Model 66 and more attention given to the 27 than the 627.

I don't know a lot about revolvers, and I'm curious as to why there tends to be more enthusiasm (in general) for the blued guns than the stainless versions. I thought that maybe the blued versions go back further, have more history, and older guns to choose from (people seem to like the older guns) but that's just a guess.

[Archie]

I just like the look of blued steel better. That applies to revolvers, pistols, rifles and shotguns.

But the historic factor could have something to do with it.

[CajunBass]

Well, I think of Model 10/64's and 19/66's as pretty much the same guns. The only difference is the stuff they're made out of. (I've never even seen a 627 that I know of.) I've owned both a Model 64, and a 66 at one time or another. Nothing wrong with them.

I thought that maybe the blued versions go back further, have more history, and older guns to choose from (people seem to like the older guns) but that's just a guess.

But I freely admit that I'm not a fan of stainless guns, simply because I think blue looks better, and generally speaking I like older guns. So I suppose you're right.

[Tom Servo]

I've never even seen a 627 that I know of.

S&W makes that model. It's an 8-shot N-Frame, but it lacks the crosshatch pattern on the topstrap. And, of course, the beautiful bluing I associate with the 27. So, really more of a 628.

I vastly prefer stainless for a working gun, but I do cherish the aesthetics of good bluing.

[Bob Wright]

I've only owned one stainless revovler, a Smith Model 625 in .45 ACP. Blamed gun looked the same after 5,000 rounds through it and tough usage. Never did age gracefully.

Now my Rugers, case hardened/blued, walnut grips. Look like they've been used but cared for with all due respect.

Any educated gunnie can look at my Rugers and think: "There's a gun that belonged to a savvy gunnie. Knew what he was about."


My blued guns just have Character.



Bob Wright

[Peter M. Eick]

Like Tom, I recognize stainless for work/abuse which is why I have a 610, and 2 357 Magnum Redhawks in stainless. I collect blued steel revolvers though. The fine polish and bluing of a pre-war S&W N frame is a thing to behold.

[Quentin2]

Most of my guns are blue, I've always liked it better and am willing to put in the extra work to take care of them.

I do have a S&W Model 19 and a stainless Model 66 so have overlap on one design. If I had to get rid of one I'd definitely keep the blue Model 19. I will say I like the looks of the stainless S&W 5906.

[jglsprings]

Bob Wright said...
Never did age gracefully.

I've been accused of that as well...

[Peter M. Eick]

Look at all these blued 38/44's. These guys have soul that a stainless gun will never have. (I need to reshoot this shot. I now have 48 of them. 49 shows up tomorrow.)

[skoro]

I'm fortunate to have blued and stainless examples in both revolvers and autos. I have a preference for polished blue, which is a rarity these days. The flat black finish on the vast majority of current production "blued" firearms isn't nearly as appealing, IMHO. That said, the finish is a minor consideration in my scheme of accumulating unnecessary handguns.

[shortwave]

The pistols I use for hunting are all stainless. Obviously due to the more durable finish.

But I sure do love the lustre and depth when looking into an old Colt or Smith blued pistol.

[pete2]

When talking a S&W or Colt revolver, SS is good, it just isn't purty.

[Sevens]

All the praise & love heaped on finely blued revolvers that have thus far appeared in replies is valid, and all well & good. However, I'd like to point out that:

On this forum, S&W Model 10s come up frequently as reliable, economic good buys. Far less frequently do I see mention of Model 64s, their stainless counterpart.

Likewise, I somewhat regularly see more comments and praise for the Model 19 than the Model 66 and more attention given to the 27 than the 627.

The Model 10 is not so often recommended because it's a blued steel revolver, it just happens to be so. The M10 gets recommended as a "must buy" because truckloads of these revolvers have been made and the bulk of them were produced before ANYONE made stainless steel handguns. Further, the very best deals on Model 10 revolvers are often former duty/issue guns, with lots of wear, dropping the price to "can't pass this up" levels. Also, the legend of the Model 10 is often a result of raw numbers: they've made like six million of them. This has happened because they *ARE* that good, and when they make six million of them, the collectible "value" and oft-associated high price tag is simply not found as often... which, in turn, makes them a fantastic purchase opportunity for anyone who loves a high quality revolver at a great price.

Model 19s are just as likely mentioned far more than Model 66 revolvers because they outnumber them by a ridiculous margin.

These guns have a reputation and get recommended for reasons OTHER than the fact that they are blued steel.

Myself? I grew up in the 80s, my first handgun was a blued Model 17-6 and the slew of guns I purchased after that... 95% of them were stainless.

I love a stainless gun and prefer them in most cases. To even hint or suggest that a stainless gun has no soul compared to the finely blued ones is a laughworthy event and suggests far more dark safe time, far more cute pictures and not near enough trigger time.

Is that fair or accurate?! Of course not. Much like veiled insults toward phenomenal stainless handguns.

[Homerboy]

I once had a model 19 and a model 13 with perfect blueing. Both bought used. They must have been sitting in somebody's sock drawer unused for 30 years. But I sold them both, because the blueing was TOO nice. I would never holster them and that rules out range or carry use. I agree blue looks great but look at a cop duty gun model 10. rarely shot but holster worn all along the barrel.

[357 Terms]

Model 19s are just as likely mentioned far more than Model 66 revolvers because they outnumber them by a ridiculous margin.

Simple as that.

I prefer stainless.

Many of my revolvers are used in the field, sometimes they are treated rough.
A blued revolver would not look too good after a few years in my possesion.

My EDC is an sp101 that would be worn to the bare steel by now if it were blue.

Now if I had the means (and not five kids) I might have a good collection of nice deep blued revolvers, unfortunatly, now all I can afford are workhorse guns that can endure a bit more "useage" and not look too used.

[PetahW]

Originally Posted by Peter M. Eick

(I need to reshoot this shot. I now have 48 of them. 49 shows up tomorrow.)

WHAT ? ? - No wonder they're not often seen, North of the Mason-Dixon ! ! ! ! .




.

[rclark]

Blued guns just look better. To 'me' the stainless revolvers look unfinished.

[bedbugbilly]

I've only owned one SS handgun and the only reason was that I got it cheap NIB and was able to resell it - made enough to buy another blue one that I wanted. I never shot the SS and turned right around and sold it to a fellow that liked shiny things. All of mine are blue - just a personal experience.

As far as "finish wear" - I love the older vintage revolvers and if the blueing is worn a little - it just adds "character" and shows good honest use. I'm kind of "plain" and don't like shiny, gaudy things whether it be guns, clothes, cars, etc. For those that like shiny guns - more power to 'em - if we all liked the same things in this life it would sure be kind of boring!