Best finish for personal carry handgun?

Gary_in_Indiana · Mar 23, 2003

I don't want to start a long thread on everyone's favorite guns here. I'm only hoping to get an idea whether I'd be better off with a black or matte stainless finish on a personal carry handgun, all other things being equal. In this case they are each Scandium bodies and Titanium cylinders.

As with my current carry piece, I hope I never need to take from my pocket. It's not something I'll use for much target practice, either, as it's only 12 oz. empty and, as a result, is pretty tough on the hand even with .38 (with .357 it's even worse).

So, given all of the above, which would be a better choice for the finish and why? What are the pros and cons of each finish?

RoyJackson · Mar 24, 2003

I actually prefer a plastic (Glock) handgun, but even the smallest are too big for pocket carry.
I normally carry a .38 with an aluminum frame, titanium cylinder and barrel shroud. This is a matte finish (but, not stainless steel).
Depending on the type of finish (anodizing or ?), it may wear off over a few years. I'm even seeing some wear on the barrel of the .38 (finish only, not the base metal).
After that, it's strictly cosmetics....hence, personal preference.
By the way, make sure you carry in a decent quality holster!!!

Mark_in_NH · Mar 24, 2003

My in the truck and carry piece is a stainless, small frame 5 shot, 44 special D/A revolver w/ 3" barrel, a satin finish and molded rubber grips. It is a Rossi model M720. It does have a little weight to it but I find it extremely comfortable to carry in the small of my back and it carrys enough wallup if ever necessary. But like you said. I pray it is never necessary.
I have carried this handgun for approx. 9 years, most of the times it is in a nylon holster tucked under the front edge of my truck seat. Even after all the abuse I have put it through and a definate lack of TLC it showsa absolutly no discernible wear.

gerard · Mar 24, 2003

Don't know if there's a "best" finsish. Blued is the most maintenance but since your not usually exposing to weather it's not too much of an issue. Stainless is nice, very low maintenance and a lot harder that regular steel. If you buy a stainless new, be aware that the gun isn't even considered "worn in" until you run about a thousand rounds through it! Something worth doing if you want a nice smooth action, kind of like letting the valves seat on a new engine. My work gun is a glock which isn't stainless but they put a tinifer (I thinks thats what it's called if memory serves?) finish on it that has some serious rockwell hardness number. Very durable but then this is a gun that frequently is coming in and out of a holster so it gets a pretty fair amount of wear. (Not cause it's getting drawn on anyone - usually just switching holsters!!)

RanchMan · Mar 24, 2003

To echo others, they both work - maintenance is the issue.

Even if it stays in its holster 99.9% of the time, you will start to develop wear marks on the piece due to friction between the two caused by movement induced by you or your vehicle. (Even a leather holster designed specifically for a particular gun will do this.) On a blued piece it will be much more noticeable (e.g. bluing will start to wear off) - you obviously don't have this issue with a stainless or polymer based piece.

Assuming it is carried on your person, something to consider is sweat. The salts your body produces can (and will) soak through a holster - if not in a day, over time - leather or nylon. (The only one that it won’t is the polymer based holsters.) Again, blued offer the least protection in this department but it can be dealt with if you wipe it down with an oily cloth every so often.

Although leather has certainly been around forever and have some benefits, a padded nylon holster generally will wear less on the finish than a leather holster and also offers the benefit of being thinner. Of course, picking a holster is a very personal thing, so you will find those who prefer leather over nylon - I'm just not one of them.

Visibility is one other thing that most people don’t spend a lot of time thinking about when picking a sidearm. I won’t make a comment as to what is better or why in my opinion, but I will point out that at night it is much easier for someone to see a “silver” gun over a “black” gun. Obviously if it is concealed this is not an issue, but once it is drawn the question is how visible you want your piece to be. Just something to consider.

fishman · Mar 24, 2003

Going to get you a new S&W, hey?

I don't know anything about the durability of the black finish on the new scandium or titanium alloys, but it sure does look cool. I think it might tend to wear off, whereas a brushed "natural" finish will look new 20 years from now. You probably should get whichever one you like the most or is the best buy.

dmccarty · Mar 24, 2003

Gary,

Stainless. I have worn mine in heavy rain and its had buckets
of sweat poured over the pistol. It gets heavily soaked in
sweat in the summer. No rust, drips or errors. Some very
slight marks from the holster but not very noticable. But I
don't care what the thing looks like just as long as it works.

I have heard the stainless is visible argument before but I
dont really buy into the idea. The average police shooting
is either 7 feet or 7 yards or less with something like 2.5
rounds fired. 7 feet or 21 feet is very close up. The bad buy
would have to be blind to NOT see any pistol at that range
unless it is total darkness. I have fired night time
qualifications in total darkness. I can't see the person a
couple of feet to my right or left much less their shinny pistol.
Can't really see the target until rounds starting going off but
that is another story...

I have also heard that one has to put N number of rounds
down a pistol for break in. But I have never seen a pistol
jam due to break in. Its never happened to me on two SW
stainless pistols I have shot extensively new out of the box.
I have only had two failure to feeds in 8,000 to 10,000 rounds
fired through the two pistols. One was a squib load and the
other was a night time qualification and I don't know what
happened other than something did not go right so I tapped,
racked, and fired.

I have seen a revolver jam. TWICE in a row due to bad ammo.
VERY VERY VERY scary. In a firefight it would have been
fatal.

I don't see any cons with stainless only pros.

I like Glocks trigger but the pistols I have handled seemed to
have problems with the magazines failing to fall out of the
weapon easily. Maybe that is just the particular pistol I was
handling but its not something I'll spend money on or carry if
I have my choice. My understanding and it could be wrong is
that one has to pull the trigger on a Glock as part of the field
stripping procedure. If that is true that is a big no no in my
book. Triggers should do one thing and one thing only.

My two cents.
Dan McCarty

Bird · Mar 24, 2003

( I have seen a revolver jam. TWICE in a row due to bad ammo. )
( I have only had two failure to feeds in 8,000 to 10,000 rounds )

Dan, as I'm sure you know, there are lots of really strong opinions in law enforcement as well as elsewhere as to which gun is best, especially as to whether the revolver or automatic is best. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif And I'm no different. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif I was issued a S&W blue steel revolver when I started on the police department. They later started buying stainless steel models and I was offered the opportunity to trade my old gun for one of the newer stainless models at one time, but didn't do it because my old gun has always been so reliable. The only times I've ever seen revolvers jam (never mine) was with reloaded ammo with the cap not pressed in properly. Of course, I realize there have been other times that revolvers have malfunctioned.

And I've known of far too many incidents both of automatics going off when they shouldn't have and not firing when needed. I love shooting automatics for fun and target practice, but no way would I carry one if I thought my life might depend on it. And of course, lots of folks disagree with me, and I don't have a problem with that. When I took the revolver course at the FBI National Academy, two sessions were devoted to shooting the S&W automatics. I told the instructor there was no need in my wasting their ammo, since I'd never carry an automatic. He said, "You never know" and I told him, "Yes, I do; I'd resign before I'd carry one of them." /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif So he tried to convince me that the newer ones didn't jam like the old ones and I agreed to participate; the one he gave me jammed on the second round with him standing there. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

RanchMan · Mar 24, 2003

there are lots of really strong opinions in law enforcement 

You got that right! /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

autodoc1 · Mar 24, 2003

Glocks seemed to
have problems with the magazines failing to fall out of the
weapon easily.

This is true IF mags are kept loaded all the time. More so in the high cap mags. Just a slight pull or good shake gets them to fall.