Why Register?Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.
Welcome to Field & Stream!
Question by J4huntfish. Uploaded on January 31, 2010
The Stainless is a good choose for severe conditions and time when the gun cannot bekept clean.Like where i live the fog comes in off the ocean and settles on everything as it dries it leaves a salt coating and it starts rusting then and there,even though it was oiled good prior to going out.A blued gun will stand up for generations with good maintainence in conditions without salts and alkali.But remember when you handle one you have salt from persperation on your hands.Wipe it down after handling it.I have guns that i take to the swamp and some that i don't the ones that can not be replaced stay in the safe.
Stainless steel rusts much more slowly than blued steel. There is no disadvantage due to material properties.
I'd go with stainless it won't rust as fast and they are easier to clean.
the stainless would stand out a little more though if you're trying to stay concealed...
I like blued myself, it just keeps to that classic look of an old lever gun. I have hunted in all sorts of conditions with my blued guns and with good maintenance I haven't had much problems with rust. But there defiantly advantages to stainless. Its just a matter of looks for me.
If you frequently encounter foul weather, stainless (or, more accurately, stain resistant) steel is an asset. When I lived in a drier climate, it really didn't matter to me, but I live in NW Oregon now and stainless rifles get a higher priority when I purchase new sidearms and rifles. There's no difference in terms of accuracy potentials between stainless and chrome molybdenum steel.
i would get a blued barrel with a walnut stock. that's just my opinion.
Fieldandstream.com is part of the Field & Stream Network, a division of Bonnier Corporation.
Copyright © 2012 Bonnier Corp. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.