GunTalk-Online.com

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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?

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?

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

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!

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.

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.