New Model Blackhawk blued verses stainless?

Blued alloy steel verses stainless steel? I plan on getting one in 357mag in 4.62" to go along with my Marlin 1894C 357mag lever-gun. Several years ago I past on a Ruger 357mag blued Bisley and regretting ever sense. Would like the shorter barrel length to ride in a cross draw holster for riding in truck and John Deere Gator. Intended use would be for ranch and woods use. Your opinion would be appreciated.

I like the trouble free maintenance of stainless steel, and the ability to withstand finish wear. Blued revolvers will show holster wear over time.

If you get caught in the rain, no worries, just wipe the revolver down with an oily rag when you get home.

I have a 4 5/8" barrel Stainless Blackhawk in .357, and a companion rifle for it, a Rossi 92. Makes a nice utility combination for use on my property.



My side by side, a Kawasaki Mule, Rossi 92 carried in a nylon scabbard:

Other than the obvious cosmetic aspects, the main difference would be weight.
The blue Blackhawk comes with an aluminum grip frame and will run 5-6 oz less than the stainless version.
Something to consider since you'll be carrying it.

The other pertinent point is front sight attachment. Blued guns have a one piece base/blade that's sweated on.
The SS is a base with a pinned in blade, much easier to modify blade height/geometry if desired.

Nice set up Magnum Force,you are correct on holster wear and rain.

Sugar River,good point on front sights,

Thanks for your opinions.

For looks, blued with wood gets my vote. For utility, stainless has it's advantages. Holster wear is like patina. I'd like to see Ruger use the pinned front sight on their blued guns as well.

I live in a damp, salty environment. My guns are stored in a safe with dessicant and a Golden Rod and I still have to keep after my blued guns. Not so with stainless.

Jeff

Being on the wet side, stainless is my #1 choice, nearly always. On your side of the hill, blued wouldn't be nearly the issue it is here. And blued is always nicer.

Now a rhetorical question. Would you be any more concerned with a blued Blackhawk than you are with your wonderful Marlin?


WAYNO.

I have a blued Blackhawk. I chose it over stainless mainly for looks. Yes, the bluing wears, but I suppose if it ever gets really worn I could always get it refinished. At my age, I'm pretty sure I won't be worrying about that ever.

WAYNO said:

Being on the wet side, stainless is my #1 choice, nearly always. On your side of the hill, blued wouldn't be nearly the issue it is here. And blued is always nicer.


WAYNO.

Click to expand...

This. I live at the beach, and the humidity and salt here are wicked. I do stainless.

Stoots said:

WAYNO said:

Being on the wet side, stainless is my #1 choice, nearly always. On your side of the hill, blued wouldn't be nearly the issue it is here. And blued is always nicer.


WAYNO.

Click to expand...

This. I live at the beach, and the humidity and salt here are wicked. I do stainless.

Click to expand...

Howdy. :mrgreen:

In my younger days, when stainless guns were a novelty, I was completely anal about cleaning and protecting my blued guns. The Northwest coast is always wet, and I often imagined I could hear my guns rusting :shock: . In spite of my endeavors, I have rusted two guns while I was using them. Once stainless guns became so common, and so available, I've never looked back.

WAYNO.

Well I'll be,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
WELCOME BACK Stoots! Long time,,, since you poked your nose in the door here!

s4s4u said:

For looks, blued with wood gets my vote. For utility, stainless has it's advantages. Holster wear is like patina. I'd like to see Ruger use the pinned front sight on their blued guns as well.

Click to expand...

Its no big trick to have your gunsmith mill off the blade, slot the ramp, and insert a pinned blade, or even drill and tap the ramp for a screw.

Bob Wright

contender said:

Well I'll be,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
WELCOME BACK Stoots! Long time,,, since you poked your nose in the door here!

Click to expand...

I'm glad someone noticed.

Were I to get another it would be stainless.

Bob Wright said:

s4s4u said:

For looks, blued with wood gets my vote. For utility, stainless has it's advantages. Holster wear is like patina. I'd like to see Ruger use the pinned front sight on their blued guns as well.

Click to expand...

Its no big trick to have your gunsmith mill off the blade, slot the ramp, and insert a pinned blade, or even drill and tap the ramp for a screw.

Bob Wright

Click to expand...

True, but money that needn't be spent if Ruger would just do the same on their blued guns as stainless.

I believe Blue shoots better than Stainless. I traded off a blue Old Army for. SS. That does not shoot as well. I posted a target of my 1975 Super BH that shoots better than my new Stainless Super BH. And it is scoped!! I would buy blue Blackhawk. Who cares about holster wear. My blue MarkII bull has wear, but I can shoot the eyes out of a bull frog with it!

Blued guns are for showing, Stainless guns are for hunting. The exception is my No 1 KA in .257 R. It's for both. lol

Blued guns are for showing, Stainless guns are for hunting.

Click to expand...

I hunt with a blued Bisley 45 Colt ;-)

Clovispup just got an SP101 in stainless. My first experience with SS. If you saw the thread I started on it, there is an issue with powder residue buildup on the cylinder face and around the forcing cone.

Not that big a deal, but not something I have to worry about on my blued revolver.

One other thing I like about HCS is that it is tougher than SS, as I understand it.

All my single actions are blued. If I wanted a new Ruger single action bad enough, I'd now have to go with SS. I find their stainless triggers and hammers on their blued guns an abomination., absolutely hideous.