This doesn't apply just to Lugers, but all guns. It was, however, inspired by the recent thread elsewhere about the quality of the stainless Lugers as opposed to the traditional, vintage ones.
I like the looks of blue and have about half blued guns, but I prefer the "ease" of stainless for cleaning and because it just seems to me not to show "wear marks" as readily as blued guns do. All my guns get shot (the real purpose of any firearm it seems to me) . A gun which is easy to keep looking relatively nice is a plus I think.
I've read a couple of times lately that manufacturers like stainless because it is cheaper for them to produce those guns than blued ones. Does anyone have any insider info on that subject? Is that a valid assertion? Obviously, the bluing step elimination would save money, but is that the manufacturers' reason, or is it that the public prefers stainless? Something else?
To be honest, while it may be perfectly true that cost cutting is a motive, at least one poster (another board) seems to use that statement to bolster his preference for blue. He's a real cyber-friend of mine and I may be judging him too harshly.
What say ye, firearms experts, is Freedom Arms, as an example, cheaping out by offering only stainless? (I know the well-heeled gents here don't have any problems with financing purchases
, but there are those on other boards who consider the FA sixguns too expensive to buy and mentioning "cheap" and that brand in the same sentence would be laughable to them.) Reportedly, FA maintains simply that stainless is better, refusing to even consider producing blued guns.