Stainless steel firearms VS Blued steel

The place to discuss the inner workings of firearms.

Moderators: Bullseye, Moderators

User avatar
Georgezilla
Master contributor
Master contributor
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:35 pm

Stainless steel firearms VS Blued steel

Post by Georgezilla » Sat Jan 15, 2011 3:05 am

I know that as firearm manufacturing processes have progressed, the alloys used to produce blued and stainless steel (SS) have improved drastically. And I also know that there is a difference in the quality of blued steel and SS between manufacturers. With that being said, all my questions below are geared toward modern firearms produced by quality manufacturers such as Spring Field, Smith & Wesson, Colt, etc.

Here are the major questions I have:

1) Does SS wear at a similar rate to blued steel? For example, if you had two quality 1911s, one SS and one blued, each with the same round count, is one of them more likely to lose its lock-up quicker?

2) Does SS wear the same as blued steel? For example, is one of the types of steel more likely to crack from use?

3) Some firearms have major parts made of blued steel which work in conjunction with major parts made of SS. Is one type of steel part likely to wear down the other at an accelerated rate? E.g., many firearms feature a blued slide on a SS frame, is the blued slide likely to wear down the SS frame at an accelerated rate?

Any knowledge/experience you guys would like to share is much appreciated. Thanks!

User avatar
Bullseye
Site Admin/Host
Site Admin/Host
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:23 pm
Location: USA

Post by Bullseye » Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:14 am

1) Does SS wear at a similar rate to blued steel? For example, if you had two quality 1911s, one SS and one blued, each with the same round count, is one of them more likely to lose its lock-up quicker?
In general SS tends to wear faster than high carbon steel. Depending on the contact/fit the wear can be minimal or excessive. Galling is a major concern with SS and this is one reason for excessive wear. Today's 416 SS used in modern firearms production is a blend of metal which has a higher carbon content and is much more resistant to galling than the earlier models of the 1980's when the process of using SS in firearm manufacturing became more prevalent. In today's firearms, the wear rate between carbon and SS is nearly the same and galling damage has been nearly eliminated. The main difference between the two is SS's ability to resistance to corrosion.
2) Does SS wear the same as blued steel? For example, is one of the types of steel more likely to crack from use?
See answer above about wear. Cracking is more dependent on the quality of the metal casting. Both can crack if improperly cast or from imperfections in the metal alloys.
3) Some firearms have major parts made of blued steel which work in conjunction with major parts made of SS. Is one type of steel part likely to wear down the other at an accelerated rate? E.g., many firearms feature a blued slide on a SS frame, is the blued slide likely to wear down the SS frame at an accelerated rate?
The metals used in production have been refined to the point where they wear at approximately the same rate. Hybrid 1911's and fully Stainless ones hold their fit and accuracy just as well as their fully carbon steel counterparts.

R,
Bullseye
Image

User avatar
blue68f100
Master contributor
Master contributor
Posts: 1997
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Piney Woods of East Texas

Post by blue68f100 » Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:24 am

If this is a carry gun, Blue will show more holster wear than SS. No finish to wear off. But I prefer my carry guns to be dark so it is less likely to show.
David

SS MKIII 6 7/8" Fluted Hunter. Mueller Quick Shot, Bushnell 2x Scope, Hogue Rubber Grips
Custom Built 1911

User avatar
ruger22
Master contributor
Master contributor
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:35 pm
Location: Virginia

Post by ruger22 » Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:07 am

I still prefer a "stainless" gun to be totally stainless, as my Mark III and Single Six are. The experience I had as an aircraft mechanic gave me some knowledge as to wear between differing metals in contact, and dissimilar metal corrosion. There is an electrical reaction between two different metals that can accelerate corrosion, though this is a minor concern in firearms compared to aircraft.

I have noticed a great improvement in current SS guns compared to early ones, especially in the bores. Early SS bores were much rougher than carbon steel, where even bits of patch would get snagged in the rifling until a considerable round count went out the pipe.

I was concerned about the SS slide and alloy frame when considering buying my "Inox" Bobcats. On actual examination, the slide is machined every bit as smooth as would be carbon steel.
* 2 Ruger Bearcat stainless, w/ EWK ejector housings & Wolff springs
* Ruger SP-101 .22LR, w/ Wolff springs
* 2 NAA Guardian .32ACP
* 3 Zastava M70 .32ACP
* S&W 15-22 Sport (.22LR AR)
* 2 Ruger SR22 .22LR pistols

User avatar
Georgezilla
Master contributor
Master contributor
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:35 pm

Post by Georgezilla » Sat Jan 15, 2011 1:34 pm

Thank you all for the replies. The reason I ask is because I am considering competing in USPSA single stack matches and IPSC limited-10 matches with a 1911. As Blue noted, holster wear is something to consider. I know on a high carbon steel 1911 the bluing will rub off and require frequent touch-ups. With a SS 1911, this is not a concern.

So for the purpose of IPSC style action shooting, using a SS firearm has a clear advantage over high carbon steel in regards to holster wear. However, I just wanted to make sure that SS did not also have a major disadvantage that is worse than having to do minor bluing touch-ups.

User avatar
Bullseye
Site Admin/Host
Site Admin/Host
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:23 pm
Location: USA

Post by Bullseye » Sat Jan 15, 2011 1:42 pm

They're pretty much even as far as component wear goes today. Holster wear is a concern if you're planning on doing a lot of draw work.

R,
Bullseye
Image

User avatar
Hardball
Regular contributor
Regular contributor
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 2:37 am
Location: Oregon

Post by Hardball » Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:46 am

I have heard bullseye pistolsmiths say they prefer machining on blue.

User avatar
Bullseye
Site Admin/Host
Site Admin/Host
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:23 pm
Location: USA

Post by Bullseye » Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:43 am

Yes, that is true. You have to machine very slowly with Stainless, and use generous amounts of lubricant, as the cutting tools will cause heat and promote galling the metal. The same is true for lapping, if you have too much friction between the parts galling will occur. But once the parts are fitted, the metal wear is consistent with its carbon steel counterparts.

R,
Bullseye
Image

User avatar
bigfatdave
Master contributor
Master contributor
Posts: 705
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 7:22 am
Location: near Camp Perry

Post by bigfatdave » Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:52 am

You could simply never worry about holster wear again?
It doesn't take hardware to accomplish that, just stop caring ... right ... NOW!

See how easy that was? Now that you understand that holstering a gun will cause some degree of wear no matter what materials are on either side and no matter how gently you put it in the holster, your life will be much more pleasant.

User avatar
Georgezilla
Master contributor
Master contributor
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:35 pm

Post by Georgezilla » Sun Jan 16, 2011 12:48 pm

Hardball wrote:I have heard bullseye pistolsmiths say they prefer machining on blue.
I had thought that this might be the case, and Bullseye's explanation makes sense. I noticed that Les Baer (and RRA when they made 1911s) does not offer their higher accuracy models in SS. I knew there must be a reason. I suppose the extra care that must be taken during the extra fitting time was too time consuming.

Bullseye, is it safe to say that a SS 1911 being fired out in the sun for an extended period will not generate enough heat to gally?
bigfatdave wrote:You could simply never worry about holster wear again?
It doesn't take hardware to accomplish that, just stop caring ... right ... NOW!

See how easy that was? Now that you understand that holstering a gun will cause some degree of wear no matter what materials are on either side and no matter how gently you put it in the holster, your life will be much more pleasant.
It is not really aesthetics I am worried about. I live in an area that can be somewhat humid and I am worried about rust forming on the areas which have lost their bluing. Also, it is my understanding that none of the cold bluing solutions available offer any real resistances to rust or holster wear.

Do you guys think this is a legitimate concerns?

User avatar
bigfatdave
Master contributor
Master contributor
Posts: 705
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 7:22 am
Location: near Camp Perry

Post by bigfatdave » Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:22 pm

Georgezilla wrote:I live in an area that can be somewhat humid and I am worried about rust forming on the areas which have lost their bluing. Also, it is my understanding that none of the cold bluing solutions available offer any real resistances to rust or holster wear.

Do you guys think this is a legitimate concerns?
Wouldn't parkerized be the way to go then?

User avatar
Bullseye
Site Admin/Host
Site Admin/Host
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:23 pm
Location: USA

Post by Bullseye » Sun Jan 16, 2011 4:18 pm

Once the parts are fitted properly there's little chance of galling with 416 SS. All you have to do is keep the slide and frame properly lubricated. It's the process of getting everything fitted that takes lots of time and extra care. I have one in stainless, its a match wadcutter gun I built with a Caspian slide and frame. It took twice as long to match the two together because I had to go very slowly in fitting and lapping the slide-to-frame fit. It is a great shooter!

R,
Bullseye
Image

Tony S45
Regular contributor
Regular contributor
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:23 pm
Location: Virginia

Post by Tony S45 » Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:55 am

Georgezilla:

My 1911 gunsmith is also a mechanical engineer. Confirming Bullseye's explanation, he also stated that the latest stainless will resist galling; however, I now use Rig+P Stainless Steel Lub (from Brownells) on all my stainless guns.

I shot IPSC for many years using a Springfield 1911 single stack for Limited 10 and a S&W "Super Nine" for (double stack) Limited. Both are stainless frame/slide guns. After many thousands of rounds through both guns, the Springfield did develop a bit of galling which was addressed by my gunsmith when he checked over the gun before fitting a new unrelated part. The S&W didn't show any galling. The Springfield was not a well fit gun. Perhaps that contributed to the galling. BTW, the galling slowed down the slide movement a bit and when hand cycled you could feel that it wasn't sliding as smoothly as it should. That's when I switched to Rig+P.

I used a felt lined Safariland #560 holster for both guns and the wear was minimal. Honestly, I had so much fun shooting IPSC that a bit of wear was worth it!

User avatar
Georgezilla
Master contributor
Master contributor
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:35 pm

Post by Georgezilla » Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:00 pm

Thanks for the insight Tony! I am glad I decided to make this thread and that you all shared your knowledge with me regarding SS.

I have been wondering about the differences between SS and carbon steel, in regards to firearms, for a long time. I thought I knew a good bit about it because one of my other hobbies uses a lot of cutting tools, and there is a big debate about SS tools VS carbon steel tools. But in that case, most of the problems are caused by poor manufacturing processes and adding the wrong amount of carbon to the SS alloy. A few months ago I started thinking to myself that the manufacturing processes and the material used for SS firearms MUST be of a better quality than the tools I knew about. And sure enough, it is.

Tony S45
Regular contributor
Regular contributor
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:23 pm
Location: Virginia

Post by Tony S45 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:41 pm

Georgezilla:

On page #36 of the March/April 2011 American Handgunner magazine the noted gunsmith Alex Hamilton wrote that he would never use grease "... on any internal working surfaces of a firearm." Therefore, I am compelled to explain my above Rig+P comments a bit further.

I use Rig+p on the slide/frame of the above referenced guns but not on any internal workings of any gun. It's not that I knew better before this article, it's just the habit that I developed over the years of competitive shooting. Moreover, I cleaned the IPSC, IDPA and carry guns that I shot after EACH trip to the range. Can't say the same for my rimfire guns, however.

Post Reply