While looking over prices for actions at MRC I was wondering why everything looked stainless. Then the planets aligned and I figured it out, chrome moly isn't blued. Boy do I feel stupid. Anyway, I was planning to get a chrome moly action/barrel because it was cheaper, but upon learning I'd have to get it blued, I think it might be cheaper to go with stainless steel. First off, am I correct in my findings, chrome moly is silver color? If this is the case wouldn't stainless steel be better as I wont have to pay $125 for blueing and it is more weather resistant. Secondly, does chrome moly need to be blued in order to protect it from the elements. This probably sounds really stupid, but since guns were sent blued to gunshops, I guess I figured they were sent blued as just actions/barrels.
Sevens

Chrome moly in it's raw form is silver much like stainless steel. A lot of the stainless used in guns and gun barrels will rust but it is much harder for this to happen than with raw chrome moly or even blued chrome moly. Raw chrome moly (even blued) will rust in a day in a wet climate so it definately needs some form of coating/protection. If the difference in cost of the two actions was less than the cost of bluing I would get the stainless one.

Just my .02
Nathan

Blueing comes at many different prices - I have seen from about 60$ quoted, but the 125$ you mention does not sound totally out of line. Stainless is certainly not a bad way to go in terms of lower maintenance requirements, BUT stainless as it comes from the factory will be pretty darn shiny - too shiny for my taste in a hunting rifle. So, compare the CM/blueing combination to SS/beadblast costs.

Also, if you have a chance to look at either the blue or beadblast before you decide. There are a ton of different nuances both in blue and beadblast, and it would be nice if you got a finish you knew you'd like before comitting your hard earned $$$.
- mike