Blued vs stainless steel finish?

I still havnt purchased a revolver (im taking my time choosing one) with Rugers or S&W is one better than the other? Whats the pros and cons here?

I vote for Smith&Wesson in stainless.
I own both and to be honest the smith has the Ruger beat on fit and finish.

1 Like

I was actually curious how stainless compares to blued not Ruger vs SW(I did a thread on that already lol). If I got a Ruger what finish is better? Or if I got a Smith what finish is better?

I’ll chime in here even though I’m not a big revolver guy. Of the revolvers I’ve seen and handled I will say, to my eye nothing beats a blued Finish. I’m speaking only about the cosmetics. Care and maintenance need to be considered but blued revolvers are beautiful.

1 Like

I have both and with care they both will last. But for a gun that will be carried and used I go with the stainless.


Blued for me. Stainless is nice aesthetically and the finish lasts longer if you don’t take care of it like with blued firearms–that aforementioned point is moot if you do take care of a blued finish.

I do like blued over stainless for a variety of reasons. And not having reflectivity in low light situations is one of them. :wink:


All solid valid points, with stainless some of the signature can be eliminated with a quality media blasting some of it obviously not all. I like both finishes, it very much depends on which firearm I’m interested in, Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder.


@Caw, I’d like to ask a question is durability of the firearm important to you?

1 Like

Yea I am not very gentle with my firearms when using them.

1 Like

@Caw, I own Smith & Wesson revolvers and I own Ruger revolvers. I like both very much! with that said ruger’s build quality is superior to Smith & Wesson as far as durability goes this has been my experience over the course of the last 20 years of shooting both brands. I like Smith & Wesson revolvers a lot! i feel they’re not as durable as the rugers they’re both fine quality but the Ruger gets the nod for being able to handle more abuse.

1 Like

When given a choice, I always go stainless steel.

Some S&W’s - even new - have a lot of fine scratches on them. Not aware of that occurring on Rugers. That did not stop me from buying S&W’s, though.

Although Ruger and S&W do have various models they compete against each with, some models like the X Frame revolvers, only S&W has. Alternatively, if you are looking for single action revolvers, I don’t think S&W is even in that market at all, but Ruger is in a big way and their (Ruger’s), single action revolvers are generally very nice.

I believe S&W will generally be a little pricier (more expensive) than Ruger for guns they compete on.

So, all depends on what features you want, or don’t want (such as internal locks), looks of the gun, and price.

Good luck!

1 Like

When I run across a dilemma such as this, I always take the safe choice, I buy 1 of each !!!


^ Now this guy has the idea!


Not practical for me at this point . Sounds like Stainless is more durable though.


Nothin to it! All you have to do is convince the little misses to go donate plasma & bone marrow a few (dozen) times. I hear it pays well… or plan B, she really doesn’t need both of her kidneys… I mean, don’t she really really love ya?:rofl::joy:

1 Like

Yea but I dont like the couch as much as I used too.


I’m a fan of the stainless. The stainless SAO Ruger Vicaro is a hands down beautiful piece.



I agree - beautiful! Just wish the new Vaquero’s in .45 Colt could handle +p ammo safely


I marginally like the trigger better on my 686 than the one on the GP-100 I had. Both single and double-action. But I got used to the Ruger so that isn’t a deal breaker. I love a good blued finish as much as the next guy but if you are going to carry and use a revolver a lot then SS is the way to go.


IMHO stainless is easier to take care and restore (just a bit of polishing) …
however, if we discuss old production, both are beauty.

66, 686