New vs old

Steve S. said:

To me, it is not an either/ or scenario; both old and new bring something attractive to the table. Everything on this planet has an upside and a downside, so it goes with firearms.

Click to expand...

I agree. The cars of today are a good example. Today’s cars have a ton more safety features, are 1000X more fuel efficient while 100X more powerful, have comfort features & options that weren’t even conceived of 50 years ago...

However, the soul & style of a ‘57 Chevy Bel Air, or a ‘66 Ford Mustang, heck, a 1980 Trans-Am even, leave so many of today’s vehicles in their dust.

Problem I have with shooting some of my older guns on a regular basis is having something break on them and being able to get them fixed/find parts. So I shoot the snot of those newer firearms I own, since they can easily be fixed, or even replaced. My desire is so that my grandkids and great grandkids will have the privilege like I did, to shoot my grandpa's and my dad's guns.

I'm not old enough for this to be a "yearning for the days of my youth" thing, but I've always loved nice walnut stocks... but when I look in my safe, there's an awful lot of black plastic and anodized aluminum in there....

Looking at the stuff on my wish list though, I think the trend will start swinging back towards blued steel and walnut over the next few years/decades. I'm now making the shift away from "that would be really useful for...." towards "gee I'd really enjoy having and shooting..."

My overall favorite guns are my single shot Thompson Center Contenders. I very much prefer the originals to the G2s.
I think the old originals look better, have much better triggers. Other than having to break open the actions to reset the trigger of the older ones, there is nothing about the G2 that impresses me all that much.

On the other hand, my favorite semi auto handguns are my CZs. Of those I prefer my brand new Shadow 2 over my older 75B and the 75B is an awesome handgun.

So it really varies from one type to the next.

FL-NC said:

When I look at my Springfield operator with the rail, sure fire light, and 10 round Wilson mag, I admire it for what an excellent and effective handgun it is. When I look at my US property marked Colt 1911 or Remington Rand 1911A1, I wonder where they have been and who was using them.

Click to expand...

When I look at my old battle rifles I have often wondered the same thing...if only we knew their stories , maybe we would be enchanted by them , or maybe we could be haunted by them , in the end their just a tool , their history was dictated by the character , luck , or misfortune , of the men that used them ......if only they could tell us what would they say.....

Depends on the guns, I suppose. One of my main interests is S&W revolvers. With exceptions, they literally are not making them as well as they used to.

On the other hand, if I was looking for, say, a benchrest rifle, I would take advantage of the most modern equipment available.

Nothing exists in a vacuum, and there's a lot of survivor bias when it comes to new vs old firearms. Everyone claims that they don't make em like they used to but that's because the only old guns that are still around, are the very best examples of production from 50+ years ago. The garbage made back then has long been melted down for scrap, dumped in rivers, or otherwise discarded.

An example from a former S&W-trained armoror:

Old is gold. Back in the day gunsmith and craftsmen worked on guns, and took pride in their work. Today it’s a race to produce as many guns at the lowest cost to maximize profits.

I prefer wood and blue steel, a highly polished gun is the best, so I'm partial to older guns in good shape. Real color case hardening on an older gun puts me over the top.

I'm slowly coming around to accepting this newfangled thing called stainless steel, but no plastic stocks, ever, please.

General Geoff said:

Everyone claims that they don't make em like they used to but that's because the only old guns that are still around, are the very best examples of production from 50+ years ago.

Click to expand...

I have to humbly disagree with this statement. I personally own several cheapie firearms from the 30s-50s that have zero collector value. Yet all are safe,solid, and fully functional. At least 5 would be hard pressed to bring $100 on the market.

Howland937 said:

I have to humbly disagree with this statement. I personally own several cheapie firearms from the 30s-50s that have zero collector value. Yet all are safe,solid, and fully functional. At least 5 would be hard pressed to bring $100 on the market.

Click to expand...

Cheap doesn't always mean garbage.

buck460XVR said:

Problem I have with shooting some of my older guns on a regular basis is having something break on them and being able to get them fixed/find parts. So I shoot the snot of those newer firearms I own, since they can easily be fixed, or even replaced. My desire is so that my grandkids and great grandkids will have the privilege like I did, to shoot my grandpa's and my dad's guns.

Click to expand...

For most of my more experienced handguns I have had no problems sourcing repair parts for those things that do wear, including barrels. I also do inspect and replace wear parts as needed and so far with only a few minor exceptions, before anything breaks..

General Geoff said:

Nothing exists in a vacuum, and there's a lot of survivor bias when it comes to new vs old firearms. Everyone claims that they don't make em like they used to but that's because the only old guns that are still around, are the very best examples of production from 50+ years ago. The garbage made back then has long been melted down for scrap, dumped in rivers, or otherwise discarded.

An example from a former S&W-trained armoror:

Click to expand...

I do not doubt there is some "survivor bias" at work, though I doubt that it has much to do with "melting down" guns that didn't work right. Rather, I suspect it was problem guns that got fixed.

Regardless, "in the olden days" I would buy new S&W revolvers and, while some were better than others, all functioned properly and had no obvious defects. Over the past 15 years or so, nearly every new S&W revolver I have purchased was badly flawed in some way and had to be returned or sent to a gunsmith - and sadly, this is not a unique experience.

General Geoff said:

Cheap doesn't always mean garbage.[/QUO

Click to expand...

No more than pricey gaurantees quality. I was just stating my doubts that anything stamped JC Higgins would have been the best example of anything when they were made. Yet there are tons of them still in circulation and functioning as well as they ever did.

Some older guns have quality that is not met today. My Marlin rifle for example is older than I am by a few years and much better quality than what is made today. If I were looking for an older Remington 870 or 700, I would look for an older serial number.

jar said:

Most of my experienced guns are simply not available as new guns and haven't been available in decades.
View attachment 905805

Click to expand...

Dangit ! That Ruger looks a lot like mt Astra .380. Is that a .380?

SHOOT1SAM said:

I agree. The cars of today are a good example. Today’s cars have a ton more safety features, are 1000X more fuel efficient while 100X more powerful, have comfort features & options that weren’t even conceived of 50 years ago...
However, the soul & style of a ‘57 Chevy Bel Air, or a ‘66 Ford Mustang, heck, a 1980 Trans-Am even, leave so many of today’s vehicles in their dust.

Click to expand...

Humpf ! We had a '67 Buick Wildcat with 4-barrel carb on a 430 CID engine and, one time on a country road, I had the needle pegged at 120 and the pedal was only 3/4 of the way down. Granted, we only got about 8 mpg but I don't think there are many cars today that could equal that car w/o a turbo or supercharger.

JTHunter said:

Humpf ! We had a '67 Buick Wildcat with 4-barrel carb on a 430 CID engine and, one time on a country road, I had the needle pegged at 120 and the pedal was only 3/4 of the way down. Granted, we only got about 8 mpg but I don't think there are many cars today that could equal that car w/o a turbo or supercharger.

Click to expand...

Some of us old folks still live by the mantra "There's no replacement for displacement" . I prefer larger displacement handguns for the most part, with metal frames much in the same way I prefer older vehicles with more metal in their construction. But I can't deny what modern technology has allowed in terms firearms manufacturing and automobile. Oh...and there are modern, naturally aspirated pickup trucks that would blow the doors off that old Buick you had. Sad, however true.

Howland937 said:

Oh...and there are modern, naturally aspirated pickup trucks that would blow the doors off that old Buick you had. Sad, however true.

Click to expand...

And get nearly twice the miles from a gallon of gas.

JTHunter said:

Dangit ! That Ruger looks a lot like mt Astra .380. Is that a .380?

Click to expand...

I think that Ruger is a JP Sauer 38h lessen you were looking at something else. It's a 7.65/32acp that was made in 1942 and captured in either Italy or North Africa in 1943 or 1944. The 38h was the predecessor of the much later Sig Sauer P-series but has an internal hammer. The lever is a decocker like what is found on the Sig P-series BUT it also is a cocking lever.

A Sig P230 9mm Kurz/380acp field stripped:


and a Sauer 38H: