Why are many earlier rifles considered superior by some people?

Ignition Override

May 21, 2012, 01:35 AM

Having owned several milsurp types in the last few years, but nothing else other than a Savage .22 from the 40s, I'm puzzled as to why people refer to the workmanship etc from decades ago.

Are they talking about the fit, finish, or ruggedness? Maybe the quality of components?
It might not be valid to compare older military rifles to later civilian types, if that is what they are doing, but this is a primary reason why the topic was started.

Maybe the topic is a very naiive question, but my experience is very limited compared to many gun owners who are also middle-aged.

dmazur

May 21, 2012, 01:44 AM

Read this -

History of the Winchester Model 70 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_70)

While there is quite a bit to the history of this rifle, it is probably a "poster child" for what happens when design and quality are sacrificed to create a rifle at a lower price.

IMO, it wasn't that lower-priced rifles were bad, but rather the sense of betrayal conveyed by Winchester that they would change the design of a successful rifle, rather than raise the price to keep up with the rising cost of skilled labor.

Raising the price would be unpopular, but understandable. Changing the design was, simply, a crime.

I'm sure there are other examples, but this is one of the better-known.

courtgreene

May 21, 2012, 01:48 AM

Because, in the minds of many, modern and mass produced rifles are made by the lowest bidder or made by the same players in a new and corner cutting era where speed and numbers trump quality. With some products, those that hold that opinion may be onto something, and with others they may just have a bias that is unfounded. There's no law that every new product is crap, and there's no law that new is better. I can see, though, how many would look at remington and winchester's history and come away with negative views. These companies have seen their share of amazing rifles and that is why they are so big and recognizable. At the same time, to make themselves competitive with the savages and tikas of the world, they changed designs that purist did not like. It's the nature of the free market. That is not to single out remington and winchester... all manufacturers have to weigh the cost vs benefit of how they produce what they produce. I used them as examples because they're mentioned often and they have both undergone vast changes in the last few years that have caused noticeable changes in their product lines.
Some people love wood stocks and blued guns and feel insulted that rifles with iron sights are becoming rare (although I think that will change as quick handling guns rise in popularity, see savage hog hunter), and others (myself included) like the old stuff and the new stuff and just use what works.

jmr40

May 21, 2012, 06:55 AM

Don't blame Winchester or any other company when quality drops. The fault lies with consumers. I don't care what product you are making, companies make what sells.

I'll use Winchester as an example since it has already been brought up. The pre-64 style 70 was an expensive rifle to make. Other companies such as Remington developed rifles that were cheaper to produce yet offered equal accuracy and reliability. Winchester had no choice but to find a way to produce a gun that cost less to produce. They couldn't make a quality pre-64 and sell it at a price point anywhere near a Remington. They had 2 options, keep making the same rifle and keep cutting corners, or redesign a new rifle that could be produced for less money which meant more profit. I don't blame a company for making a profit. That is why they are in business.

Most people don't understand this, but the quality of Winchester 70's had been steadily dropping since WW-2. The post 64 guns were actually better, they just were not CRF and that turned off a lot of potential buyers. But there is no reason to be mad at Winchester, they only responded to how consumers were voting with their money. The same is true today. This is why the only guns that companies can make a profit on are the Remington 770, the Savage Axis, Marlin XL-7 etc. Remington still makes and sells a quality 870 Wingmaster that sells for a fair price for the quality, but 99% of consumers buy the Express and then complain about Remington quality.

With modern CNC machines we have better quality guns today than was imaginable years ago. The new Winchesters are far, far, better quality than any pre-64. They have gone back to the CRF actions because with todays computer operated machinerey they are no longer any more expensive to produce than a PF action. Winchester is not the only company making quality guns, but most of the good ones are setting on dealers shelves while consumers snap up cheap disposable rifles.

May 21, 2012, 07:17 AM

I have said many times in many places that I felt that older firearms were made to a higher level of quality. Rifles and handguns. The actions were smoother and the triggers were better.

Sav .250

May 21, 2012, 07:26 AM

Back in the day, it was more "hands on" pride in the finished product type of thing. The worker may have stayed with the unit till it`s completion. Making corrections along the they way when needed.
His Henry" (name) was afixed to the finished unit when it had been inspected and ready for the final acceptance.......his name.

Today,it seems like the motto is, make it cheap and get it out the door.
Plus, customer service is a thing of the past! J s/n.

JohnBT

May 21, 2012, 08:13 AM

"Why are many earlier rifles considered superior by some people?"

Because the only 100-year-old rifles that still work - and that folks talk about - are the ones that cost more back then. The mass market, less expensive, thrown together guns stopped working properly decades ago.

They made cheap rifles way back when, but nobody ever talks about them much. Stores sold the rifle equivalent of Crescent shotguns. And pistols, too.

A lot of old guns and swords and junk went to the scrap metal drives during WWI and WWII. At least in my family they did.

John

jmorris

May 21, 2012, 08:20 AM

What John said. They made cheap stuff back then and you can get better rifles today.

briansmithwins

May 21, 2012, 09:11 AM

It's called nostalgia.

BSW

CharlieDeltaJuliet

May 21, 2012, 09:23 AM

The world of firearms has evolved since then. There are calibers designed now(338 lapua,416 barrett, etc) that are beyond anything in the 60-80 year old firearm range. But that being said there were great rifles back then that still as accurate as their newer versions( Rem 700 and Win 70 for example).I think alot of the deal with people relating to them as being better is the hands on building of firearms. They are produced on a much larger scale and have less hands on.

SlamFire1

May 21, 2012, 09:54 AM

Because the only 100-year-old rifles that still work - and that folks talk about - are the ones that cost more back then. The mass market, less expensive, thrown together guns stopped working properly decades ago.

They made cheap rifles way back when, but nobody ever talks about them much. Stores sold the rifle equivalent of Crescent shotguns. And pistols, too.

It's called nostalgia.

These have to be in the top five reasons.

Let me add another reason: features.

You lose features along the way as firearm designs are cheapened. I like the integral feed lips machined into the receivers of older designs. I have had issues with the cheap stamped metal boxes used in post WW2 era bolt action rifles. The feed is not as certain and you end up bending and tweaking the box magazines.

If you looked at FN Mauser actions, they got cheaper and dropped Mauser features as the decades went on. Early 50’s sporter rifles built on FN Mauser actions were almost 100% mauser, except for the cut in the receiver collar. By the time you got into the 70’s, the bolt stop was cheapened, the firing pin and gas protection features of a M98 gone, the third lug, the bolt was hard to field strip, all these had been dropped to reduce manufacturing costs.

Older firearms had nicer wood. I do prefer the “blue” bluing. A pre War Colt is a beautiful firearm.

It is my opinion that the later the Colt the more poorly made. I have a small collection of DS’s. The pre War Colts show precise fitting inside the lockworks. Must have only taken a file swipe, or a quick stoning to make the parts fit. Seventies/eighties vintage Colts look as though the parts were filed from soap chunks. They must have been handing huge chunks of internal parts to the fitters who had to file away a bunch of metal to make the parts fit. Obviously Colt production machines had worn out. Their revolvers where still highly polished, but under the hood, it was a mess.

In this post the Winchester M70 is the whipping boy. I will say that the pre WW2 M70’s are much better built than post war. You see all sorts of file marks on little pieces on later pre 64’s. I think the latest FN made Win 70’s to be the best built M70’s to date, but I do miss the old trigger and machined feed lips.

Today's rifles are much improved in terms of bedding. WW2 era rifles, the barrels are tightly fitted to the forend, often with screws and barrel bands around them. This is not the best for accuracy.

While I believe today's barrels are better, the improved scores are more likely due to much more improved bullets. Today's bullets are the best ever.

A graybeard pointed out something in small bore. Now if you look at the most expensive Anschutz rifles, they are hideously expensive, metal frames, everything is adjustable in six degrees of freedom. Might as well add time and space.

However, the only real small bore records being set today are in the Senior class. A large number of small bore records are from the 70's when you shot wooden stocks and the round M54 actions.

CraigC

May 21, 2012, 10:15 AM

The fault lies with consumers.
Bingo, give that man a cigar!!!

happygeek

May 21, 2012, 10:38 AM

Are they talking about the fit, finish, or ruggedness? Maybe the quality of components?
It might not be valid to compare older military rifles to later civilian types, if that is what they are doing, but this is a primary reason why the topic was started.

Or some of the older rifles simply don't have a competitor, not at their price point. The last two rifles I've bought were a Yugo SKS for $300 and a Mosin for $99, both in excellent/like new condition. As a bonus I was able to have both shipped straight to me so I didn't have to pay an extra $25 for no good reason.

sage5907

May 21, 2012, 10:52 AM

When a rifle is used for a long period of time it gets a reputation for either quality or lack of quality. Problems in the design and workmanship show up that cause shooters to seek the rifles that work best. The pre 64 Model 70 has always been a rifle of quality and is an excellent hunting rifle. The accuracy is great, the cartridges feed smoothly into the chamber, they always extract, the magazine cover latch works easily, and the trigger is infallable. The 3 position safety is the best in the industry and copied by others. On the other hand, rifles like the Remington 700 have had problems such as the rifle firing when the safety was released. There are a lot of opinions on rifles but the smart and experienced hunters and shooters seem to find the better ones. People who badmouth the better rifles never seem to mention the brand and model of rifle they like. BW

Bushpilot

May 21, 2012, 10:56 AM

It's called nostalgia.

Nostalgia may play a small role in this case but it’s certainly not the whole story. Quality is the major player here, quality that goes beyond simply function. There are many guns; both high and low end, with long production histories that have demonstrated an obvious decline in fit, finish and material quality (metallurgy being an exception) over the years. The usual reason for the decline is "cost cutting." There have been a few exceptions such as the Remington 870 which hasn't changed too much over the years. But then again, by the time the 870 was brought out, some of the cost cutting methods were already incorporated into it's original design. The same goes for the 721/700. There are others such as the Winchester 70 and 94 that have declined and then improved somewhat over the years. Some gun designs lend themselves to cost cutting more than others and those that don't are often simply dropped, as was the fate of the Winchester model 12.

the quality of Winchester 70's had been steadily dropping since WW-2. The post 64 guns were actually better, they just were not CRF and that turned off a lot of potential buyers.

When Winchester redesigned the 70 they did, eventually, years later, end up with a quality gun that it might be argued was better then the pre 64 in some aspects such as strength and a counter sunk bolt face. However, in the process, quality undoubtedly took a drastic drop in 64. Even disregarding the controversial change from "controlled round feeding," many of the changes that took place in 64 were not positive in the least, the stock in particular. Yet, looking back with 20/20 hindsight, comparing the mid to late 60's model 70's to the rifles we have today, with dull finishes and plastic stocks, might make us feel as though it really wasn't as bad a rifle as it was made out to be back then and functionally it wasn't. Nevertheless, many of today's rifle buyers wouldn't even notice the change or mind if they did notice. Too bad…..

CharlieDeltaJuliet

May 21, 2012, 11:01 AM

Well when I compare my 700(sps tactical ,6months old)to my brothers (late 60's) his has a smoother action with less rounds through it too boot. But mine performs as good if not better. His was a labor of love for someone who built and assembled it, mine is more like a product created by the robot from the movie Wall-E. So its give and take. Do I think mine will last as long, probably not, but it is relativly cheaper than his was with NIB prices compared to include inflation.

Tommygunn

May 21, 2012, 11:11 AM

Most people don't understand this, but the quality of Winchester 70's had been steadily dropping since WW-2. The post 64 guns were actually better, they just were not CRF and that turned off a lot of potential buyers. But there is no reason to be mad at Winchester, they only responded to how consumers were voting with their money.

"CRF"? Sorry, but I don't understand this abbreviation.

dmazur

May 21, 2012, 11:12 AM

I believe the "outrage" that occurred with regard to the redesign of the Model 70 was that Winchester used the same model name to try to sell something that was, then, inferior.

Of course a company has to react to market and design accordingly. But Winchester could have brought out another line to remain competitive and just put the Model 70 in a limited production status.

Orvis is an example. Their top of the line graphite rod is around $750, and probably outperforms their bamboo rods. Which are still available, for a price which reflects the cost of production, at $2100. Orvis did not ignore new technology, but neither did they abandon their roots.

sage5907

May 21, 2012, 11:14 AM

Bushpilot, the success of the Remington 870 and the fate of the Winchester model 12 are easy for me to understand. I think the original 2 3/4 inch 870 is the best shotgun that has ever been built. The slide is smooth and the barrels change easily. On the other hand, the Model 12 failed because of the lack of quick change barrels. Another point that I really didn't like was that if you snapped the trigger on the model 12 on an empty chamber you had to push the slide forward before it could be pulled to the rear. BW

dmazur

May 21, 2012, 11:23 AM

Bushpilot

May 21, 2012, 11:29 AM

CRF"? Sorry, but I don't understand this abbreviation.

CRF is Controlled round feeding. The cartridge case is constantly held by the extractor from the time the case leaves the magazine to the time it is ejected. It's not simply pushed into the chamber.

Bushpilot

May 21, 2012, 11:45 AM

the success of the Remington 870 and the fate of the Winchester model 12 are easy for me to understand. I think the original 2 3/4 inch 870 is the best shotgun that has ever been built. The slide is smooth and the barrels change easily. On the other hand, the Model 12 failed because of the lack of quick change barrels.

First of all, I like the 870 a great deal, I have one and I use it all the time and have since I was a kid. I would also agree that it is one of the best shotguns there is. But, I don't think it is the "quality" equal of the model 12. Second, the slide on a model 12 is the smoothest, "slickest" pump slide on the face of the planet. You can point virtually any model 12 up and hit the slide release and have it completely open on it's own and this is not from wear. And third, the model 12 did have quick change barrels, quicker than an 870 actually, not that the difference really matters.

CharlieDeltaJuliet

May 21, 2012, 11:52 AM

Its kind of a nest of bees. Mainly because the argument is so broad. If you said are they better fitted? What make a rifle superior to me thou is reliability and function. Craftsmans ship does not go unpraised but, the newer alloys in firing pins, extractors, and composite stocks make them a better suit for me. I want a rifle as light and dependable as possible. To compare older rifle to newer ones is kind of like comparing the egyptian pyrimids to the luxor in Vegas. Just my $.02. The older rifles usually have WAY WAY better craftsmanship.

Edit: my point is like comparing a 55 Lincoln to modern day 2012 Lexus. One might be better built but the other is better designed or refined.

CountryUgly

May 21, 2012, 11:55 AM

I just look at it like this...They just don't build them like they used to.... and I'm glad they don't cause if they did it would price me right out of the hobby. Nighthawk's are awesome guns built by an individual 'smith just like the good 'ol days but they cost 3-4k. Now you take a company like Savage that can churn out the Axis for dirt cheap but at the same time the quality is still there, I mean that Axis can out shoot most of the people that will ever shoot it. I have no problem with the cheaper to build parts as long as the QC within the company is there. Likewise I have no problem with the custom stuff that only use the high grade hard to build stuff for the people that can actually afford it. The good 'ol days aren't gone they just cost more......

sage5907

May 21, 2012, 11:56 AM

Bushpolot, you missed my point. It's true that the model 12 slide was slick and smooth and it would open easily when the slide release was pushed. On the other hand, if you snap the trigger on an empty chamber you have to push the slide forward to get the bolt to release. I was so used to a 870 that this feature caused me to sell my model 12. Also, quick change barrels on a model 12 came in an assembly with everything in front of the receiver. Not practical and half the cost of another gun. BW

tk1971

May 21, 2012, 12:12 PM

Part of the issue is that when someone picks up a 50 year old gun that's been moderately shot, it is likely that there are no issues with it, and it is well and completely broken in. What ever "new gun" issues it may have had, were in the past. It is also likely that the sights are tweaked and good to go for the new owner's first shot.

With today's "instant gratification" culture, there is no time for break-in, nor getting some range time to make the required tweaks on a new gun.

joed

May 21, 2012, 12:47 PM

Bushpilot

May 21, 2012, 12:58 PM

Shooter5907, with respect to you sir, I think I understand I just don't agree. I know the issue you had with the model 12 but I don't think it had much to do with the model's demise. And BTW, if you try and buy a spare barrel from Remington today for an 870 it's roughly half the price a new gun. In fact you can probably buy an entire new 870 express for the price of a 870 Wingmaster barrel. To sum up more to the point of the original post; the older, higher quality gun (model 12), IMHO lost out in the marketplace to the good quality gun (870) that was more economical and had more economical replacement barrels. Viola, the model 1200 was created, a lower cost replacement for the model 12 that never could compete in the marketplace with the model 870. Winchester was trying to compete with Remington at the game (marketplace) that Remington was in part responsible for creating with guns like the 721/700 and 870. Now Remington is having a somewhat similar issue with Savage... Ironic isn’t it?

Bushpilot

May 21, 2012, 01:11 PM

I do not consider older firearms superior to modern day guns at all. Look at some of the new guns like the AR and current bolt action rifles.

Those old milsurp rifles? Just me but I can't see any use for them other then tomato stakes. But if they float your boat I'm happy for you.

The AR is new? Since when is designed in 1957/58 new? New bolt rifles? The most popular current bolt guns are probably the Remingtons and the Savages. What is new about the 50 year old Remington 700 (that is really is a dressed up 64 year old 721) or the Savages that were basically designed in 1956...

I won't even bother to comment on "milsurp guns being tomato stakes... "

sage5907

May 21, 2012, 01:12 PM

Bushpilot, you're right about the Remington vs. Savage competition issue. Savage is now doing to Remington what Remington did to Winchester years ago. The consumer will buy the best product they can get at the cheapest price. As to the Winchester 1200, I think the rotating breech bolt turned the consumers off as compared to the simplicity of the 870. Winchester apparently designed the bolt after an artillary piece. BW

Tommygunn

May 21, 2012, 02:16 PM

CRF?

Controlled Round Feed (Mauser type), which when tuned properly "catches" and controls the cartridge all the way from the magazine to the chamber. The large claw extractor is engaged during the feed.

Push Feed, by contrast, strips the cartridge from the magazine and pushes it toward the chamber. As the bolt reaches the end of its travel, the extractor snaps around the cartridge.

Thanks! Got it. I actually did understand this but knew it as "controled feed" vs. "push feed" without there being a "round" in the middle of everything to muck it up.:p:D;)

sage5907

May 21, 2012, 02:42 PM

Most really great firearms of the past were designed by just a few people that knew what they were doing. John Browning, for example, came up with many designs that have lasted through the years. When Winchester decided to make the manufacturing changes back in 1964 they let the new design recommendations come from a consulting firm and look what happened. It is common today for ideas to come from a design team or committee and guns are made to sell and not to last. Kind of like decisions made by the U.S. Congress. Oh well, the public will buy anything as long as it is cheap and looks good. BW

Cosmoline

May 21, 2012, 03:21 PM

Oh there were plenty of committee designs in the past. The Commission Mauser for example. But in general the workmanship on earlier firearms was better because the makers could afford to pay people to take the time to do it. Labor costs were universally dirt cheap. So the fittings tend to be better, details like iron sights were more precisely installed and sighted in, and the rifle as a whole will tend to have a better balance.

For a more modern example, look at the CZ rifles. In the later 90's after the velvet revolution you could buy them for very low prices and you got absolutely top-grade workmanship and care. As the years went by and the Euro took hold, labor costs in Brno shot up and up. QC went down. They stopped making them with iron sights when they could, and more plastic found its way into the rifles. They're still good rifles, of course, but you can see how labor costs effect the end product.

These days we've moved away from labor-intensive designs and towards modular systems like the AR or Glocks which require far less hand fitting. It's not necessarily bad, but it does take away from the human touch that used to be a core part of every firearm. So now, when you get your AR or M1A you can find entire books full of hands-on customizations and improvements you can make. They work from the factory, but in some ways they're only part finished. The customer supplies more and more of the labor. If you want the factory to do this, you have to pay lots more to get a "loaded" M1A or a revolver from the "performance center."

On the other hand, it's all relative. Back in the 19th century I'm sure people complained that the quality of mass produced Winchesters was horrible compared with hand-made muzzleloaders.

Beagle-zebub

May 21, 2012, 04:41 PM

Don't blame Winchester or any other company when quality drops. The fault lies with consumers. I don't care what product you are making, companies make what sells.

If all the rifle producers make a product that is relatively lousy, the customer has only three choices: but a lousy new rifle, buy a nicer used one (something one can only do to the extent supply permits), cough up money that few people are willing to spend on a firearm, or don't buy a rifle at all. None of those choices causes producers to improve their products.

We can't blame the customer for bad choices when none of the options are good.

pseudonymity

May 21, 2012, 06:52 PM

I think the only real thing that has declined over time is the quality of workmanship in a few particular and popular models. So, an earlier Winchester mdl 70 or Remington 870 may have better workmanship. If you compare all firearms across the board, I think on average the quality is better and price is lower than ever before.

For about the same relative price as a Keltec pistol today, 30 years ago you would have had to buy a pistol with a hard to use warranty, limited parts availability and questionable safety in some cases.

Compare something like a Maverick 88 with an older High Standard or Noble made for JC Higgins/Westernfield.

Under $300 for a Savage Axis or Marlin X7? That combination of accuracy, durability and customer service would have commanded a much higher price decades ago.

If you want quality workmanship, it is still available - I rarely see people complaining about their Weatherby Mk5s, and I have never heard anybody complain that H&H "isn't making them like they used to".

I think that there is a bit of gun snobbery happening with this type of nostalgia - at one time the price of entry to being a "gun guy" was higher than today. I am not saying that the Perazzis, Noveskes and Kimbers are not worthwhile - but the Keltecs and Hi-Points serve a good purpose also. People with limited means should be able to use a firearm for fun and defense also.

Some brands may not have the same level of workmanship that was common years ago, but others have steadily improved. Overall, I say quality is better now than ever.

JohnBT

May 21, 2012, 07:57 PM

Some guns looked better back then and some hold up better now. Heat treating is much, much better than it was 100 years ago. For example, the original 1911 had a soft slide. And before the science of heat treating advanced it was much easier and less costly to fit and polish a gun.

Post #52 contains some interesting details. http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3578625

John

hso

May 21, 2012, 08:05 PM

You can find rifles with the same quality of manufacture/fit/finish as those we look to from before, but now you pay what it costs at todays prices to make them and hand fit and finish them. Before, that was the way any rifle was built and to be acceptable to a non-bargain market that had to be well done by craftsmen.

That's no longer the case.

sage5907

May 21, 2012, 08:20 PM

Quote
_____________________________________________________________________
"The AR is new? Since when is designed in 1957/58 new? New bolt rifles? The most popular current bolt guns are probably the Remingtons and the Savages. What is new about the 50 year old Remington 700 (that is really is a dressed up 64 year old 721) or the Savages that were basically designed in 1956..."

I think Bushpilot really explained the heart of this discussion. Rifles haven't really changed that much during the past 60 years. Although manufacturing techniques have changed and the industry is more machine oriented with less people being involved the rifles are basically the same. What has changed are the excellent optics and bullets that are available today. You can take a high quality 1953 rifle and it will shoot just as well as one of the high quality rifles made today. Companies make continuous so called improvements to their products and after several changes the cycle takes them back to where they started 60 years ago. BW

adelbridge

May 21, 2012, 08:21 PM

Why are guys spending big money on Dukes of Hazard lunch boxes and Star Wars figures?
Because there is a geek market and limited supply. Add the fact that if collected properly it is a hobby that can pay for itself. I just saw a $20,000 Winchester lever gun that was probably bought for $40 in the late 19th Century.
Pre 64 Winchester, non salt wood Browning, pre Hillary hole Smith's, Colt snake guns all made markets. Speculate on the next political or manufacturing event and you could get rich.

joed

May 21, 2012, 08:31 PM

The AR is new? Since when is designed in 1957/58 new? New bolt rifles? The most popular current bolt guns are probably the Remingtons and the Savages. What is new about the 50 year old Remington 700 (that is really is a dressed up 64 year old 721) or the Savages that were basically designed in 1956...

I won't even bother to comment on "milsurp guns being tomato stakes... "
The AR may not be new but it keeps evolving. They did not have carbines in 1969 when I was in the service. The AR also shot a 55 gr bullet when it first came out, it now is capable of shooting 80 gr bullets. There were no halographic optics available either. 80% of the parts are still what was on the original. Yeah, that's old hat.

The 700, yes it's old. Do you think the older ones were made better? I don't, and I have 3 dating from 1976 to last year.

Same for the Win 70. Everyone brings up the controlled round feed and the pre 64 models. I have a Stealth I from 2005. Just for the heck of it because I was sick of hearing about the feeds I tried to get a round to feed with the rifle upside down. Guess what, it fed.

JohnBT

May 22, 2012, 08:20 AM

How do you figure Savage made throw away guns? The Model 99 certainly wasn't. Between WWI and WWII, starting with the purchase of Stevens, Savage became the largest gun manufacturer in the free world.

It's all listed on the history section of the Savage site.

We didn't throw away any Savage guns when I was kid in the '50s and '60s. They were perfectly good guns, speaking of the rifles and shotguns.

Yes, between roughly 1970 and 1990 Savage was sold and re-sold and fell on hard times, but that's modern history and has little to do with the topic of "earlier rifles."

And Marlin made fine rifles 100+ years ago. That didn't change until the recent sale to Cerberus.

John

valnar

May 22, 2012, 09:09 AM

Two completely unrelated points:

1) Guns from the 50's and back tended to have forged parts. Plastic wasn't around, neither was MIM. Hand fitting was the norm. That makes the perception the guns were better (which in many cases, they were). This is partially why people say a Swiss K31 or Swedish Mauser would cost $2000 today, simply because of the production value required to create one.

2) A gun back then could cost you a months' salary. Spend a months' salary on a gun today and you can get a Sako or nice custom Cooper, with all the hand-fitting and attention to detail from the ol' days.

SlamFire1

May 22, 2012, 10:23 AM

I don't think anyone has hit on the real reasons for why the quality of US built rifles dropped off. Competition is the main factor. Guns from other countries started winning the competitions that the Winchesters and Remingtons were winning before. And they did it with rifles that cost less. After WWII no countries were left to even produce steel much less small arms. Those factories were all bombed out during WWII. So if you wanted a quality rifle for several years after the war you had to buy American.

In terms of small bore rifles, Anschutz was cost competitive with Win 52's up to the early 60's. I have been looking at older American Rifleman magazines and Anschutz was aggressively marketing their rifles, but the rifles you see being held by Champions are obviously M52 actions. However these are not stock rifles: the stocks are highly customized.

I have a CMP M52 and the trigger only goes down to 1.5 pounds then it over rides. That was fine in the early 60’s when the military wrote the NRA match rules. The military wanted civilians to use rifles that were imitative of military rifles , which is why the M52D stocks, the “marksman” stocks are close in shape to a Garand buttstock, and the trigger pull requirements were a minimum of 3 lbs. You could get a one pound Anschutz trigger but you could not compete with it.

The military backed out of funding Camp Perry in 1968 and after that you can see the rules diverge in the shooting sports from things that reduce military training of draftees to what made a better shooting rifle.

In this later period Anschutz rifles are offered with 4 ounce triggers, stocks with all sorts of adjustments, all geared to producing better scores . Which is what competitors want: you go to matches to shoot the best score you can.

Winchester did basically nothing. If you wanted a better trigger you had to send the unit off to a guy, heard the name, and it cost an addition $200.00. You had toss the stock away, which shooters had been doing, and that was an additional cost.

There is one Win 52 International, late in the 70’s, and more expensive than a contemporary Anschutz, with a good looking stock, but it was obviously too little and too late. Remington did very little with their M40X rimfires, the action of which is a great basis for a .22Lr small bore rifle.

To turn a M52 into a competitive action today you have to spend more than an new Anschutz and you don't have spare parts. The M52 action is still a great action if you find one of those tuned triggers and you throw the stock and the Winchester barrel away.

Bushpilot

May 22, 2012, 01:01 PM

pseudonmity; You totally lost my attention with the mention of High Point. Up until then I think yours was an interesting point of view with some valid points.

Bushpilot

May 22, 2012, 01:58 PM

Joed; I understand your point about the AR being “new” in that it continues to evolve. However, I don’t think that this “evolution” necessarily represents a higher level of quality, which is what this discussion is about. In my opinion, the addition of a weaver/swan/picatinny rail that itself basically dates back to WWII, along with a change in rifling twist for a heavier bullet isn’t exactly revolutionary compared to the creation of the AR itself, nor does it represent a change in quality one way or the other.. Neither does the ability to bolt to it lasers, red dots, scopes, flashlights or anything else. I can bolt that same stuff onto my shotgun but that doesn’t mark a great “quality evolution” in shotguns.

As I said before, the 700/721/722 already incorporated many cost cutting production techniques when it entered the market as the “cheaper production” rifle to compete with the model 70’s and since hasn’t changed that much over the years (along with the 870). The Model 70 is an entirely different story. Nevertheless, there have been many fine rifles and shotguns that have either shown an obvious decline in quality over the years or were replaced by cheaper to produce models. Sav 99, Win 94, Win 70, Win 12, Rem 11 and numerous Rem .22’s, especially the pumps, just to name a few. Heck, I even have an old, beat up, inexpensive, (but not necessarily “cheap”) Stevens 107b single shot, shotgun from the 20’s that has good grain Walnut, nice case hardening and very good wood to metal fit that easily exceeds that found on many “quality guns” today, let alone cheap single shot shotguns. Regardless of the type of firearm, many people today honestly don’t even recognize quality or the lack thereof when then see it.

Everyone brings up the controlled round feed and the pre 64 models. I have a Stealth I from 2005. Just for the heck of it because I was sick of hearing about the feeds I tried to get a round to feed with the rifle upside down. Guess what, it fed.

The ability to chamber a round “upside down” is not Control Round Feeding nor it’s equivalent. If you want to experiment with real CRF just dig up one of those Mausers you’re using as tomato stakes.

RevGeo

May 22, 2012, 02:01 PM

This same type of discussion is common among Harley Davidson afficianados, musicians and, to some extent, anglers. Surely nostalgia is a big part of it. But maybe, just maybe, there are underlying reasons that go beyond a mere longing for our lost youth. America has always been about 'progress', sometimes to the detriment of other facets of a good society. For better or worse (worse, in my opinion) we have become somewhat of a throw-away, consumer-based culture. When was the last time anybody got their TV repaired? Or an electric razor? It is much more profitable to have the consumer just throw the broken/worn item away and buy a new one. That attitude is prevelent in everything we buy - guns included.
Until the advent of post-WWII prosperity the man who owned a 'gun collection' was a rich guy. Most hunters owned one or two rifles, perhaps a shotgun and sometimes a pistol. A firearm was considered a life-long investment, like any quality tool. The man (gun owning was almost exclusively a male thing) who bought a Winchester, Remington, Colt, S&W or any of the other high quality brands new without a doubt he was getting a quality firearm. And yes, hand fitting and finishing adds a certain something to a fine gun. The old hand-rubbed oil finish and hot bluing have a certain depth and beauty that can't be matched by modern methods. Those type of things matter to some of us.
'Superior' is a subjective term. New production guns are a bit more accurate. Modern auto loaders are more reliable. But Glock pistols and Savages with plastic magazines..I dunno...they just lack a certain something that I identify with a quality arm.
Over the years the human experience changes. All young people see the world as being brand new, but it's not. It's old. Really &^%$#@# old. And as we age we don't always like the changes we see happening.
Aw hell, maybe it is just about nostalgia...