stainless steel guns for carry, refinishing ?s

[yerasimos]

I suspect this has been discussed here before, but here goes anyway . . .

What are people's thoughts on highly-reflective, "in the white" stainless steel guns for carry? I figure such weapons are much more visible when drawn---for the person on the business end, for anyone to the side, and possibly for the person behind the trigger.

Personally, I do not buy into the idea that pointing a bright firearm at a threat is more effective at discouraging misconduct than using a darker firearm. I am more inclined to try to reposition myself relative to a threat, or simply draw and let the movement of my upper body and partial facial occlusion lend credence to the fact that I have the threat in my sights.

Can the functional downsides for the user associated with a "bright" weapon be mitigated by simply keeping the sights blackened appropriately---or would refinishing all exterior surfaces (beyond bead-blasting) to a dark-matte color be worthwhile to eliminate any potential distractions? Does anyone have any suggestions for (or experience with) refinishing stainless steel to a dark matte finish? Are there any reasons why such refinishing would not be desirable?

Admittedly, I have a few preconceptions of my own, but I want to try to refine my thoughts on the matter.

Thanks.

[WildBill]

My thoughts are that it doesn't matter. Since you're not going to be "stealthing around" it really doesn't matter if your gun is more visible. A CHL gunfight will be over before any body notices or cares about the color of your gun. Some people like bright finishes and others don't. A lot of guns are available in different finishes so I would just buy the one I wanted, rather than worrying about refinishing a gun. I think factory finishes would be better than after market.

I am not sure about whether a dark or light gun or matted gun would be easier to sight at night. I am also interested in some other opinions.

[The Annoyed Man]

I've purchase a couple of stainless/alloy carry guns for the practicality of their increased resistance to the ravages of sweat combined with decreased weight (Kimber Ultra Carry II, and a S&W 642). Otherwise, purely as a patter of personal aesthetics, I tend to prefer dark finishes on a pistol, and all my other pistols are dark.

I have no opinion one way or the other about whether or not a BG perceives a bright metal gun as a bigger threat than not, but to be honest, I don't really care what his perception is. If I've already drawn the pistol, then it's already pointed at him (or on its way to being pointed at him), and he knows what's about to happen if he persists in his threat to me. If he isn't already unmanned by the sight of a pistol being aimed at him, then he's crazy, and the color of the gun isn't about to push him over the edge into abject fear.

That being said, I used to know a guy back in California who believed in putting stainless barrels in all of his dark finished 1911s, and then keeping the muzzle of the barrel brightly polished. It was his belief that the bright polished muzzle in a dark background emphasized the size of the hole in the end of the barrel and would be more intimidating to the person on the viewing end. Personally, I thought it was a little silly, because my purpose with a gun is not to intimidate anybody, but rather to defend myself against an attacker. If I have to point a gun at an attacker then we are already well beyond the point of intimidation and he is entering my kill box, and the color of the gun is rapidly becoming irrelevant.

As to sighting in at night, my Kimber has night sights which are nice and bright, and the 642's sights are negligible under almost any lighting conditions anyway.

[yerasimos]

I think I can rephrase my enquiry more succinctly as follows:

Typically, when an individual holds a handgun in front of them at full or partial extension, there is a part of the handgun visible between the rear sights and the hand. From what I have read, it is preferable to keep the rear sights dark. Is is also worthwhile to darken the portion of the handgun visible between the hands and the rear sights? Which optimizes pickup of the front sight---or is the difference so small, it is not worth worrying about?

[TDDude]

I don't see how the finish would matter. I carry a stainless because in Houston it's hot and I'm sweating and if it's not hot, it's wet and I'd rather my pistol not rust.

Granted not all pieces on a stainless are actually stainless but at least the major parts are and it's a good way to keep things in order.

Other than that, just make sure you have a good set of tritium night sights and you should be OK.

I only have one nickled gun and it's my Python. I don't carry it but the "shiny" surface does nothing to distract or to make seeing the sights any harder. My 48 year old eyes do that quite well on their own.

[TDDude]

I think I can rephrase my enquiry more succinctly as follows:

Typically, when an individual holds a handgun in front of them at full or partial extension, there is a part of the handgun visible between the rear sights and the hand. From what I have read, it is preferable to keep the rear sights dark. Is is also worthwhile to darken the portion of the handgun visible between the hands and the rear sights? Which optimizes pickup of the front sight---or is the difference so small, it is not worth worrying about?

I will say that since the sights on my Python are the same color as everything else, they are harder to pick up. But, that also may be because the front sight is so fat compared to the rear that when they are lined up, the sight picture literally makes a solid bar so one has to be careful or the aim point could be left or right of center and the shooter not know it.

I've been considering putting a dab of paint on the front sight and if I ever get to the point that I can afford to shoot it more often I will.

I hope this helps.

[flintknapper]

That being said, I used to know a guy back in California who believed in putting stainless barrels in all of his dark finished 1911s, and then keeping the muzzle of the barrel brightly polished. It was his belief that the bright polished muzzle in a dark background emphasized the size of the hole in the end of the barrel and would be more intimidating to the person on the viewing end.

While I wouldn't go to the trouble to put a stainless barrel in a weapon that came without one, I do actually agree with the person's belief that a stainless (and brightly polished) barrel is more noticeable and gives the "appearance" of being a larger bore than a dark barrel.

For that reason, (and ease of cleaning) I always polish the muzzle of all my handguns.

[flintknapper]

I think I can rephrase my enquiry more succinctly as follows:

Typically, when an individual holds a handgun in front of them at full or partial extension, there is a part of the handgun visible between the rear sights and the hand. From what I have read, it is preferable to keep the rear sights dark. Is is also worthwhile to darken the portion of the handgun visible between the hands and the rear sights? Which optimizes pickup of the front sight---or is the difference so small, it is not worth worrying about?

In my experience it is not worth worrying about.

Under extreme pressure/stress (actual gunfight) you'll be lucky to see the front sight at all, (let alone the rear one..or anything between).

Even when shooting in relaxed conditions (IDPA, etc) I rarely see anything other than a "ghost picture" of my rear sight...and never see any of the slide between the front and rear sight. I prefer a stainless handgun for a number of reasons and have never found mine to be distracting. But... others may be affected differently.

[flintknapper]

Personally, I do not buy into the idea that pointing a bright firearm at a threat is more effective at discouraging misconduct than using a darker firearm. I am more inclined to try to reposition myself relative to a threat, or simply draw and let the movement of my upper body and partial facial occlusion lend credence to the fact that I have the threat in my sights.

Consider "low light" conditions (under which most assaults occur) and do a little experimenting for yourself.

A stainless/nickle/chrome weapon (or bright muzzle) is "hands down" more noticeable. Too, they will appear "larger" to most folks than the same weapon in a dark configuration.

You'd be surprised what you "notice" when the weapon is pointed at YOU!

Is this reason enough to buy a weapon in stainless? IMO no...but I can see no downside to having a stainless weapon (for civilians) and I will always choose one over a blued or parkerized gun if available.

[Excaliber]

After 35 years of carrying a pretty wide assortment of weapons with most of the available finishes, here's my take on the subject:

1)Intimidation value of stainless vs. a dark finish is an "in the eye of the beholder" thing and not consistent enough to support making a weapon finish choice. I've held lots of people at gunpoint (in an LEO capacity) with many different types of weapons and can think of only one instance where this may have made a difference. In that case a stainless finish apparently helped a large angry crowd correctly identify the gun as a .45 instead of the 9mm or .38 they were expecting, and that recognition gave those particular folks enough pause to allow my partner and myself the 30 seconds we needed to extract a couple of officers in trouble.

I have no illusions about how that adventure would have gone if those folks had been a bit less intoxicated and figured out more quickly that a couple dozen .45 rounds was not tactically superior to 150 really unhappy campers, but it would have been ungrateful of me to have looked that gift horse in the mouth. That being said, it's not an effect to be counted on.

There's a growing body of anecdotal evidence that suggests that projection of the red or green dot from a lasergrip sometimes helps miscreants gain focus and reconsider their plans under circumstances when the situation allows enough time for perception and reflection. I attribute this largely to the effect of lots of TV and movie watching by the BG's, but when it works, I won't knock it. Once again, it's not something to be counted on.

2) Highly polished stainless or nickel finishes attract the eyes of even casual observers. Highly "noticeability" is a major disadvantage for concealed carry, and requires extra attention to remain unnoticed. These polished guns also have a nasty habit of producing glint from very little light in low light encounter situations. This is enough to give away your position to someone you'd rather keep in the dark.

3) Flat black (parkerized, nitride, etc.) finishes are the easiest to conceal, extremely durable, and the least likely to be noticed by a casual observer if you have a wardrobe malfunction (e.g., wind blows your windbreaker open at an inopportune moment). They also carry the least risk of position revealing glinting. Their advantages are maximized if you take care to wear a dark patterned shirt that minimizes the contrast between the weapon and your clothing. A matching holster helps a lot. (A black gun in a black holster on a black belt against a navy shirt will be noticed much less often than a black gun in a brown holster or a stainless gun in either holster with the same belt and shirt.)

4) Blued guns have almost the same observability advantages as the flat black, but the finish wears easily from holster contact and they are very prone to rust, especially in hot climates (like Texas), especially when carried inside the waistband. Unless you don't sweat or you don't carry your weapon on your body, I couldn't recommend this finish for CCW purposes when so many other more suitable ones are available.

5) Stainless guns require a lot less care to stay rust free in unfriendly climates. Please note the "less" in stainless and before the word "care." They're not called stainproof for a reason. Not enough care will eventually produce corrosion.

6) A dark but still semireflective finish for stainless weapons is marketed by Kimber, Sig, and perhaps others under the name Equinox. It's visual advantages and disadvantages fall between the plain stainless and dark finished guns. I would rate the finish as "semi subdued" and a useful improvement worth considering .

7) The baked on finishes marketed under various brand names can be had in many different color schemes, but they're relatively soft compared to parkerized and nitride finishes and much more subject to wear. They're acceptable if aesthetics aren't important to you, or if you don't mind having the finish restored on a frequently carried weapon every few years.