dullone
Member
Are all stainless guns, all stainless? You know the internal metal bits, levers, pins, pivots, etc.
Inquiring minds want to know...
- Thread starter dullone
- Start date
- Status
Vern Humphrey
Member
Nope -- it's very hard to make stainless springs.
tryshoot
Member
Most roll pins are not either
dullone
Member
So........the parts most susceptible to rusting (those in enclosed areas that inhibit quick drying, nor easily accessible for inspection and/or cleaning/treating) are not stainless.
Seems that the "benefits" of a stainless gun are minimized because of this, unless external visual appearence is the prime concern.
Seems that the "benefits" of a stainless gun are minimized because of this, unless external visual appearence is the prime concern.
MachIVshooter
Member
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Sure, but most of those parts are shielded from sweat, rain, and hand oils because they're tucked inside the gun. You can oil them, install them, and be fairly certain they're safe until the next service interval.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Most are not. On guns like the Ruger 10/22, only the barrel is stainless. Every other internal part including the bolt, pins and trigger parts are carbon steel. Which to me kinda defeats the purpose. Far as I can tell, Ruger comes closer than any other maker with their handguns. On their stainless revolvers, most internal parts are indeed stainless steel.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Yup.
You don't really "want" a gun that is made of nothing but stainless. Parts like locking bolts, hammers and sears will give longer service when made of high carbon steels than if made of stainless. Just keep it dry and oiled and rust is not really a problem.
dullone
Member
Then why whould I want a gun that's got any stainless at all? If I'm going to the effort to keep all the internal parts dry and oiled, why not the external parts also. Will high carbon barrels (are any stainless?) provide longer service life than a stainless barrel? What's the rational of paying more for a partially stainless gun?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Because the outside of the gun takes FAR more abuse and exposure than the inside. Your finger oils don't get on the inside of the gun every day. A little rain shower doesn't splash into the interior of the gun. A bit of moisture inside your holster doesn't sit against the finish of the inside parts.
Sure you have to be careful after a serious dunking, but you have to with stainless parts anyway. Generally the better the steel alloy the less stainless it really is -- and it is (almost) all stain-LESS, not rust-proof.
Sure you have to be careful after a serious dunking, but you have to with stainless parts anyway. Generally the better the steel alloy the less stainless it really is -- and it is (almost) all stain-LESS, not rust-proof.
When S&W first offered stainless revolvers the sights were stainless also (not blackened) as well as the hammer and trigger. That didn't last long. The other big problem with stainless is it is harder to machine cleanly. Instead of cutting cleanly it tends to tear off in chunks. Ask anyone who has done it. Stainless has advantages in certain applications but it is not "better" than carbon steel. I much prefer carbon steel for a knife blade also even if it requires a little more care after using it.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Amen.
I've carried the biggest Swiss knife them make for at least 45 years -- but of all the tools on the knife, the blades are the worst. They are stainless, soft, hard to sharpen, and won't stay sharp.
I've carried the biggest Swiss knife them make for at least 45 years -- but of all the tools on the knife, the blades are the worst. They are stainless, soft, hard to sharpen, and won't stay sharp.
Unless a gun is dunked directly in water or openly exposed to rain on a constant basis, why not use the better steel for the internals. Like stated above the outside is exposed to everything the inside parts are and then some.
I prefer nickel and stainless for carry because they seem to resist corrosion better if taken care of but that's just my opinion. Stainless guns are an option in my book, like grips and sights.
I prefer nickel and stainless for carry because they seem to resist corrosion better if taken care of but that's just my opinion. Stainless guns are an option in my book, like grips and sights.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Ruger builds most of their revolvers with stainless steel internal parts and it doesn't appear to be a problem. Cast parts at that. Personally, I agree with the OP and think it's just laziness on the part of the manufacturers. You shouldn't have to worry about the carbon steel hammer on a stainless handgun rusting. Nor should you have to have everything plated to get full corrosion protection.
The Old Fuff is not a fanboy when it comes to stainless steel, and notes that this material is seldom seen in military small arms. The first Smith & Wesson model 60's were "total stainless," but this soon changed when in particular, hammers and triggers didn't hold up. Generally I prefer blued or Parkerized high-carbon steel, but if corrosion is a special concern, electroless chrome or nickel plating will provide all the protection I need.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Agreed.
Anyone who has brought a firearm out of an air conditioned house into a hot day knows how quickly condensation forms -- and not just on the outside.
Some people have advocated carrying a gun under a coat in cold weather -- the humidity under a coat when you're outdoors and active can run upwards of 90%.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I'm not a big fan of stainless either, although I have two stainless custom Rugers and one hard chromed. I need more finely blued and case colored guns in my life and I rarely if ever have any issues with rust so it'll be a long time before I buy any more stainless. The fact remains, most "stainless" handguns should have a higher stainless content than they do. My stainless New Bearcat was bought strictly to carry while fishing and its high stainless content was a deciding factor over virtually any S&W J-frame.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Again, though, the most stain-proof alloys don't generally have the best mechanical properties. I don't know all that much about gun steel, but that's a factor in knife steel, certainly. Some tool steels or spring steels are surprisingly rust-resistant and some "stainless" alloys will rust MUCH faster than you'd expect, though they have tremendous toughness and edge-retention capabilities. It's all a balancing act.
440A is a very stainless knife steel, but it makes a lousy knife.
I'm sure the gun manufacturers have discussions about this with their metallurgists and engineers all the time.
440A is a very stainless knife steel, but it makes a lousy knife.
I'm sure the gun manufacturers have discussions about this with their metallurgists and engineers all the time.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I think one issue with gun steels is that the best stainless steel alloys are, intuitively, the most expensive. That's why you only see 17-4 on Freedom Arms' guns and BFR's. Ruger uses strictly 400-series. More corrosion resistant than 304 but tougher.
It's not a bad idea, if you want the ultimate in corrosion protect, to have a stainless steel handgun nickel (more corrosion resistant, plates more even but is softer) or hard chrome (harder surface, wears better) plated.
It's not a bad idea, if you want the ultimate in corrosion protect, to have a stainless steel handgun nickel (more corrosion resistant, plates more even but is softer) or hard chrome (harder surface, wears better) plated.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Ooooh! Hard chrome is nice.
Funny thing, though, if Ruger or Smith offered it standard and bumped up the price a couple hundred bux, people would probably reject them based on price. But paying $200-$300 aftermarket for the same thing doesn't bother some folks.
Funny thing, though, if Ruger or Smith offered it standard and bumped up the price a couple hundred bux, people would probably reject them based on price. But paying $200-$300 aftermarket for the same thing doesn't bother some folks.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Exactly! People want what they want and they want it now.....and cheap. 
And I take this opportunity to post a pic showing the difference in color between hard chrome and nickel.
And I take this opportunity to post a pic showing the difference in color between hard chrome and nickel.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Nope...you just wanted to show off the difference between BEAUTIFUL and GORGEOUS. Or was it the other way 'round?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
