Stainless Vs Blued

P

Pack_Wolf

New member
I am going to buy a Ruger Mark 4 .22. The stainless version is $100 more.

I hardly think it is worth it. What do you say?
Thanks,..
 
Originally Posted By: pahntr760I prefer the look of blue on wood. Otherwise, coated stainless is for weather resistance, and that's where I use it.


Me too by golly. I want my rifle to look like a rifle a man should be using. A pre '64 Winchester Model 70 kinda look looking rifle. I live in a pretty dry area and dont need stainless too much. Oh, I got some sure. But that's just the way some barrels come these days. And as long as they shoot...well fine. But a deep dark blue on a well figured walnut stock? Pretty sure that was the way God wanted them to look. I like to think so anyway.
 
I am one of those fools that pay extra for stainless, typically with synthetic furniture, but if it has to be wood, I go with gray laminate. For some reason I never got sentimental about the wood and blued look. Probably because my first shotgun was a pretty Remington 1100, blued and nice walnut, and the first dab of rust was traumatic. In the hands of a well intending 13 year old, even with all of the kindly gun maintenance advice from my father and grandfather, it still pitted. So I gravitated to stainless, just to be less likely to rust before I got to proper maintenance.

To each to their own. That is probably why they commonly offer both blued, and stainless.
grin.gif


Squeeze
 
In north central Colorado, you've probably got low humidity.....
correct? Then the price difference is probably not worth it.

Here in eastern Iowa, it's worth it!

Certain "purdy" laminates on stainless do look very appealing,
but there is something about the classic look of good grade
walnut and blued rifles.
 
I'm a huge fan of blue and nice walnut, but the practical fact is that a modern stainless and composite stocked rifle will hold up significantly easier in rough extended hunting situations.

for rifles that I plan to "hunt hard" with, stainless is always the answer that in the long run prevents unwanted refinishing to get rid of rust, etc., to keep the rifle looking good and functioning well. The difference in money is insignificant to me.

I'm not a laminate fan due to the fact that I can't see a good reason to carrying around a heavy stock that is 60%+ glue. And if someone wants to call me a sissy and not a man for carrying a stainless rifle, I probably wont lose any sleep over it.
 
I really like blue/wood and have some very deep blue ones.
But--when it comes to pistols I sometimes choose Stainless.
When a pistol gets holster wear or use wear the blue wears and it shows and rusts easily.
The stainless keeps looking good much longer.
 
Originally Posted By: MotoHunterBlued steel is more accurate than stainless steel on average.

I had a gunsmith tell me the exact opposite of this just a few weeks ago. I think it has more to do with the quality of the barrel than the steel.

I love blued guns with beautiful walnut stocks, but it does cause much anxiety when I scratch one or get a bit of rust on one. I guess it adds character to the firearm. Get whichever you prefer and be happy with it. If it's the blued version, just wipe it down after using and it will be just fine.
 
Had to make this decision myself, went with the stainless after handling both models.
The aluminum lower on the blued model with a steel upper ,just didn't feel as balanced as the stainless .
worth the extra $ IMO
 
Originally Posted By: MotoHunterBlued steel is more accurate than stainless steel on average.

Is that why the F-Class guys routinely shoot stainless? I've never seen a full blown benchrest rifle with a blued steel barrel.

None of my blued steel AR's are as accurate as my stainless guns. Of course I only shoot occasionally.

Greg
 
Originally Posted By: MotoHunterBlued steel is more accurate than stainless steel on average.


No it isn't. Exactly the opposite is true.

Ask any custom barrel maker which is easier to get the material quality consistency, machined tolerance and finish they want in a barrel with. It won't be the ChroMo it'll be the 416R.

- DAA
 
Originally Posted By: MotoHunterBlued steel is more accurate than stainless steel on average.

That was true at one time. Carbon steel barrels were much easier to work with than SS was for barrel makers. Had something to do with cutting the rifling I remember.

Stainless was so hard to work with at one time that you never saw firearms or any part of a firearm made of it. For example, when I started buying guns in the early 70's there was not a single offering in SS from S&W or Colt or Ruger or anyone else that I'm aware of. Wow. Look at them now!
 
Originally Posted By: GLShooterOriginally Posted By: MotoHunterBlued steel is more accurate than stainless steel on average.

Is that why the F-Class guys routinely shoot stainless? I've never seen a full blown benchrest rifle with a blued steel barrel.

None of my blued steel AR's are as accurate as my stainless guns. Of course I only shoot occasionally.

Greg

+1
At least not since the 1950's when the 22/250 ruled the benchrest circuit.
 
Originally Posted By: ackleymanOriginally Posted By: GLShooterOriginally Posted By: MotoHunterBlued steel is more accurate than stainless steel on average.

Is that why the F-Class guys routinely shoot stainless? I've never seen a full blown benchrest rifle with a blued steel barrel.

None of my blued steel AR's are as accurate as my stainless guns. Of course I only shoot occasionally.

Greg

+1
At least not since the 1950's when the 22/250 ruled the benchrest circuit.

Careful. You are giving away our dinosaur secrets. Lol

Greg
 
It's a hoax. Everyone knows the Triple Deuce ruled the BR roost in the 50's!

- DAA
 
Back
Top