Calling Modern Guns Crap

Status
Not open for further replies.

munk

Member
Joined
May 12, 2003
Messages
539
Location
Montana
Oh, the fun of calling modern guns CRAP!!

Here we read, "friends don't let friends buy Ruger"
and yes, I laughed out loud, but own many Rugers, and LOVE them all, particularly their revolvers. Then we see the pinned barrel Smith crowd noses up in the air against the crush fit screw on barrels, the old 'handfit' crowd against CNC machinery, The Cult of Colt (when if fact, Colt guns were never as reliable as many contemporaries) We hear Taurus is no good, kinda good, or getting better. And then there is the constant tweaking- "Well, I would have bought that solid cylinder model 657 if they'd put it out in a 6 inch barrel instead of 7.5" We hear bemoaning of the loss of 'real woods cartridges' when no one bought enough of them when they were last introduced, causing those of us who still want them to pay through the nose today.

in short, it's all a lot of fun, and there's some wisdom and personnel preference and more than a little rabidity-

But honestly, if you were stranded in the wilderness, couldn't you make that pathetic Taurus save your life? Your ancestors did with much weaker black powder revolvers. I have a terrible triggered Lone Eagle, really, it is so bad it is a Zen exercise of control and 'letting go' to keep the sight picture on target as you pull the trigger. But I can do it. I have guns with drifting triggers, long take ups, crisp triggers, glass breaking triggers, and slow as molassas will she ever come? triggers. I can shoot them all. I get a kick out of it.

We've lost some and gained some. Yes, the old hand fit is gone- but look at Berreta's new shotgun- tolerances so tight they could not be made by human hands and there is more bearing surface on lock up.

The truth is the "good Old Days" were not that good. In a few short years, what you sneer at today will be coveted by the crowd of tomorow.

I think most reasonable cartridges in most major firearm manufacturers are pretty good. There's a strange dog released from time to time- I don't know why we have so many Super Duper Faster Than Yours rounds out today, but things are pretty damn good.

I kinda miss you gun nuts, as Jack O'Connor used to call you. But the days of falling asleep next to ballistics charts are over for me. The older I get, the more I seem to fall into the Redneck category instead. The Ranchers and Farmers in these Eastern Montana hills and plains use their weapons like tools. They are savy and often handload. But you know, they admire old weapons and like new too. They 'd be tickled pink to own many of the shortstraws you guys laugh at.

I'm with them- I think I can make almost any reasonable combo work. How about you?


munk
 
I would have felt better armed with a old blackpowder colt than my 44 spec taurus i had that would lock up tight as a drum, I hope they have got better.

I liked my ruger p90

And miss my model 10 S&W:(
 
I am generally of the opinion that new is better than old; but the discussion of this being junk or "the good old days" is both part of human nature and part of the hobby.

And maybe "hobby" is the difference . . . . many of us here are enthusiasts of the firearm. We don't necessarily use them as tools to make a living, hence the different perspective.

So let us have our fun!
 
Why in heck would I gainsay your fun? I just think we take it too far sometimes...as if the choice of one brand was somehow an IQ test.



munk
 
How many 20 year-old + guns have you handled before concluding that the Ruger Vaquero in the gunshop down the street, with its faux case-color hardening that promotes rusting, its peeling blue finish (because it’s actually paint), its undersized .45 Colt cylinder throats (assuring inaccuracy), its tragically high front sight, and its 8 lb trigger is just as good?

I remember differently.

I remember back when you could buy a new revolver that functioned out of the box 99% of the time, with excellent timing and fit, and with a 3 or 4 lb single action pull that would routinely give you 1.5†- 2†groups from a rest at 25 YARDS, not feet. And some of those were snubbies! Nowadays, people blaze away at a pie plate at 7 yards ... and call it “accuracyâ€. Even gun writers seem to have lowered their standards. The Ruger revos. I’ve had in the last few years would group around 4.5 inches at 25 yards, and the Smith’s of that same era about 3†or a little less. Maybe not all modern revos. are like those, but it’s certainly a much higher percentage now.

I think that stinks. I miss “quality control†being a responsibility of the factory. Now I’m burdened with it, which isn’t right.

The death of handfitting is NOT something to rejoice. Nor are cheesy MIM (sintered-metal) components, dull “tactical†finishes (meaning no polishing required), and trashy rubber grips with finger grooves that never fit my hand something to be heralded.

By the way, spend some time on a target range with some Tauruses. Guns with a propensity to break, bind, have irregulated sights, pattern like shotguns, have a limited life span and have issues right out of the box are not any fun to deal with. Then come back and say they are as good as a Smith, Ruger, or Colt of 20 years ago. Heck, even American guns are starting to show these symptoms, so I’m not singling out Taurus. Did you see the thread about the cracked-barrel 642?

If it sounds like I’m frustrated at having to send back half the guns I buy right o.t.b., you’re right. Lately I’ve been on this kick of only buying older used guns, which seem much more satisfying (and I seem to get far fewer lemons).

There is a serious crisis of quality control in today's gun industry.
 
I would beg to differ.

The truth is the "good Old Days" were not that good. In a few short years, what you sneer at today will be coveted by the crowd of tomorow.

That's too bad, because they will think that the current batch of Winchester Model 70's is the bee's knees.

And I wonder how many of them, by that time, will have had the chance to examine and use a pre '64 Model 70?

Luckily, the polymer revolver has yet to appear. Although, I'm sure somebody somewhere's working hard on building a lightweight, cost-effective version, complete with MIM barrel and cylinder, User ID circuitry, GPS beacon, and Gawd-only-knows how many trigger and action locks... :scrutiny:
 
Dear lord of Rings,

You want to compare the structural/mechanical longevity of the Vaquero against the old Colt single actions? Seriously?

I've owned no Ruger Revolver that cannot group under one inch at 25 yards from my WRISTS and Hands in free air and elbows on the table with select handloads. I've owned 6 or 7 of them. I've loaded for others. Groups measured from Outside the edges of holes.

If you want to argue quality assurance, it would only be fair to list 'culls' per amount sold. I think there are generally more sold today. There are more firearms owned today than yesteryear, and fewer rejects.

I've had problems with Taurus, Ruger, Smith, Colt,and I think everyonelse except Browning- but I've heard and read of Browning failures. But that doesn't mean the industry as a whole does not do good work. (Actually, I had a Browning 375 Stainless Stalker 16 years ago that could not keep its floor plate on more after more than four rounds.)

I'm sorry you have such a dismal view. I obviously cannot change your mind. You speak as if quoted from a Bible though, and I cannot help wonder if such absolutism is an accurate indicator of the industry.

I'm not really a defender of the 'new'. I Like probably all the same guns most of you do. But I recognize today's guns are generally good. Look at what gun writer after writer has acknowledged about new Smith revolvers- they miss the handfit of yesterday- but agree today's are generally more accurate.



Would you like a list of success stories? Geeze. Today's Ruger semi auto 22 can digest far more rounds without failure than my old Remington. Their 22 semi auto pistols more than my old Colt Challenger. Any of Ruger's single actions will outlast and outperform a Colt from the turn of the Century. Colt double actions were a dream come true for the gunsmith- just waiting for one to go out of time or break a small spring. Everyone loves pre 64 Winchesters, but it is Lowly out of box Savage with better accuracy.

The older N frame Smiths could not last through heavy pounding of the 44- Smith improved things over ten years ago, and the industry denatured both 357 and 44 rounds to accomadate many years before. And speaking of modern- there was a time only the single Action Cast Ruger could withstand the earlier more powerful rounds; not handbuilt Smiths.

I'm sorry, I disagree, maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I managed a large gun store in So Cal for 3.5 years, and saw what worked and what came back. Living in the high desert, I've seen SKS's actually shooting their barrels loose- something the pundits from the NRA dope bag staff dismissed as unbelievable. I've had gun smith friends my entire shooting life.

Whatever my experience though, it is statistically anecdotal- as is yours. I base my opinion on the worth of guns today by observation of the products, by reading, and talking to other gunnies.

But hey, I can appreciate your love of older weapons. There's a 351 Self Loading I want to talk out of the hands of the Barber in a little town. I wish I had a 375 Savage with the rotary mag. I wish I had an old Browning 358 Lever, and hope like hell they continue to catalogue it.

I own three 41s, but want a pinned barrel Smith- just like many do. Just because!!!

But I don't tell myself it will shoot better than the CNC 41 Smith today.
It probably won't.

munk
 
Ok- If I was stranded with a Taurus- and this is not fair of me- I'd hope to God I didn't have to shoot it thousands of times....

But that is one thing the folks in the old days did- they fixed stuff.





munk
 
And Again- we love the guns of yesterday- the ones that lasted. What of all the cheap guns that failed- the bulk of the handguns sold a hundred years ago? Cheap pocket pistols and revolvers outsold Colt and Smith- they were pricey for the average joe.

Is it really fair and accurate to compare the best of yesterday with the worst failures today?

munk
 
It can all be summed up with two words.

Guns...Good.

Old or new, handfit or CNC, guns are good, unless it is an RG or something like that :).

Just my .02,
LeonCarr
 
I remember Skeeter Skelton writing on this very topic in the early 70's; he said that in his experience it was just human nature to think that guns made about 20-30 years prior to the current date, on average, as being better than the current products. In the 70's, people were looking for those .44 specials made in the 40's and 50's. I have some Gun Digests from 51-53, and they use some ink talking about the great pre-WWII guns. Heck, Wild Bill Hickok allegedly didn't trust those new-fangled cartridge guns!

None of it bothers me one way or another, I have enough experience to know what I like, and don't depend too much on the opinions of others I don't know too well, at least in general.

I still can't imagine somebody in 2020 talking about those wonderful "pre-light rail" Glocks, though!
 
Last edited:
...why did one of you have to remind me of Smith 44 Specials? I coulda bought a mint stainless 44 Special N Frame (I forget barrel length- maybe 4") for 250 dollars in 1995 in a Pawn in Riverside Cal.
I didn't have the money, and I was borrowed out.


I second Guns=Good.





munk
 
Holy cow, that S&W 642 thread!

A cracked barrel, within just one day's worth of ownership. Then another, showing the same problem while being displayed in the dealer's showcase. That doesn't speak well of modern QC, I agree with Mike Irwin and Lord of the (X) Rings on that one.



I think I can make almost any reasonable combo work. How about you?

What's reasonable? The cracked 642 barrel? Revolvers with indexing so far out of whack that the front sight's pointing to the Northwest? Cylinders with timing so bad that a good portion of the bullet is spit out of the barrel-cylinder gap because they completely missed the forcing cone? How about a .44 Special L-Frame that sends chunks of it's cylinder in different directions, and it's NOT an ammo overload? Or are the pictures here on THR and TFL purely anecdotal?

It's one thing if you're a glutton for punishment, or make fixing up stuff a hobby, but why should anybody have to make something work after they spent their hard-earned income on it? I don't feel obligated, neither to the manufacturers nor to somebody with a half-assed challenge like that.

managed a large gun store in So Cal for 3.5 years, and saw what worked and what came back.

3.5 years, eh? That's nice. Really. What kind of guns were you working with 30+ years ago, to make statements that today's quality is such a dramatic improvement? I know which ones I had, and which ones I sold, and which ones I still have, from 30 years ago to the present. Very few of them date from after 1970, save for a couple pre-ban military pattern long arms, purchased to spite those who would not trust us with them. :scrutiny:
 
If I'm stranded some 20-30 yrs from now ...oh please Diety...let it be a Mil-Spec 1911, Blue and wood 870, model 10 or model 19...or somesuch.

When it gets to a point where "good old days" are "remember <enter soul-less poly gun here>...well maybe my time has come afterall.

Let me try to make it in the boonies then with style and grace...if I fail..hell at least allow me to die doing so with class. Blue and Wood, old craftsmanship...soul.
 
Dear Gewher 98,



I didn't mention my gun experience to proclaim myself a guru- unlike yourself? but to show I was a peer.

Mentioning catastrophies is not relevant statistically.

Neither is the fact all my Ruger revolvers have shot well.

If you wish to believe guns sold after 1970 are not worth keeping, fine. That makes one definition of 'modern'


I'm not throwing away my M1A or Bushmaster. I'm not throwing out my father's old Remington pump, either, nor the Colt Challenger.

munk
 
Very early in my shooting years (only a scant 5-6 years ago), I used to think that newer was better. Part of that was because I am a tech head, but also because I thought the 686-5 I bought was soooooo good, that there could not be much better. How ignorant I was. To be sure, the 686 is an excellent firearm. But, when I first tried the lockwork on my 1963 Colt Python, I could only exclaim in the words of King Arthur "I didn't know how empty was my soul until it was filled."

I should say, however, that while many of the older revos are truly handcrafted works of art, in both form and function, that is not always the case. My father's Iver Johnson, also dated 1963, and unfired after 40 years, is the worst firearm I have ever shot.
 
Ok, so what of the Rugers that didn't quite deserve to leave the foundry?

No guru status, just seen lemons across the board. A Single-Six with a finish that completely flaked off in the holster, for example. Mini-14's that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn - from inside. Model 77's where the majority of locking lug engagement was on just one lug. It may not be significant to your sample set of Ruger products, but it sure made a difference in mine. Statistics may make a liar out of somebody, but when I see picture after picture of guns with cracked polymer frames, split barrels, rough-as-cob finishes, lead-shaving cylinder timing, over-tightened barrels, and the like, it certainly makes me wonder what happened to QC in the here-and-now.

Every manufacturer makes a POS every now and then. Luckily, most never leave the shop before they either get fixed or smelted back down into feedstock. Some do, and unfortunately, the gun buyer ends up having to send it back, or sells it to become somebody else's problem.

An FFL/gunsmith friend of mine ordered several Springfield M1A receivers, because the demand for them prior to September of 1994 was that great. One of them was supposed to be mine, and is still nailed to the cabinets over his workshop bench to this day. It was that bad, a paper-thin right receiver rail where the oprod slot sits, with a corresponding over-thickness in the left receiver rail. The rear sight elevation and windage knob detents were mere scratches. At the time, Springfield, Inc. could care less, they were spitting them out, hand over fist, to satisfy the pre-ban demand. I went with an Armscorp, and never looked back.

Likewise, if you're gonna start a thread with an in-your-face blanket statement, namely about people liking older guns not knowing what they're talking about, I'd hope you were big enough to accept a contrary viewpoint or two. That's how forums work, believe it or not. ;)
 
New Guns . . .

Recent purchases:

S&W 629 PC - flawless gun, incredibly accurate, no complaints at all. A work of art.

S&W 329pd Lew Horton - ditto and a gas to shoot

H&K USP Expert 45 - had issue with one box of 45 +P's that were seemingly out of spec but otherwise flawless and incredibly accurate with now hundreds of rounds through it.

Sig P220 - The thing just fits your hand and shoots and shoots. No jams, no problem at all with near 1000 rounds through it.

Kimber Gold Match SS - Makes me look like a good shooter. Little break in double bang issue, but nearing 1000 rounds, no problemo

S&W 686 - Nice gun; bit of a wide cylinder gap for my taste but accurate and well made standard production revolver.

All and all, no complaints, excellent machining on all these guns purchased within the last year.

None of these guns are particularly inexpensive and will probably outlast me. I selected them because of that! So as suggested above, isn't it possible that for every oldie but goodie there are 10 other guns made in the same time period in the scrap heap?

When i bought one of the first HK USP 40's over ten years ago I remember all the gun rag write-up's about how it actually doesn't jam, and wasn't that great!

Well today we expect it not to jam!

Things are better. Oldies but goodies are great, new is great too.
 
Dear Gewehr;

What blanket statements did i make that you disagree with? I don't mind objection- but you sneered at me. That was out of line.
I appreciate your conversation at this moment. I feel like I'm just talking to a fellow gunny- There was a lot of humor in my thread opener- did you miss it?

I know the horror stories you do, and you know some I don't, and etc. My favorite Gunsmith when I lived in Idaho falls once had to take apart and repair every new Smith he recieved. These were pinned barrel Smiths.

I'm probably a lot like you- I know people in the industry, the shooting crowd, target, etc, stores, distributors, gun show folks, hunters... and I read. My conclusion is still that in many ways we have never had it so good.

I have an older M1A - it still has the automatic selector switch cut out- filled in by the factory. I've owned AR's- and now AR's are breaking the records previously held by the M1A's. I still want the .308

Gunsmith near me now- he shows me an FN 49. We laugh at some of the features, but the forged reciever milled is not a laughable matter. WE admire this greatly. What can I say?

But truth- stamped recievers did H&K well enough. The 'Commies' figured out there was no point in the expense of milled recievers with the little soviet short and the AK action.

My (now traded away) Smith .41 SS was a very accurate weapon, circu around 1993, and as one of my best friends and gun nuts once said of it_ "they proved they could still make a gun when they made that." It was so good I sold it for not much less than when new.

There are many crappy weapons out now- but look how many good ones there are. You know that Savage 375 or 358 I'd like- with the Rotary mag? They aren't known for great accuracy.

Look at Springfields success with their new semi auto pistol. Look at all the great short dog .45 auto's not possible 15 years ago.

Every car manufacturer in the US has sold a run of vehicles with paint that peeled. ( remember the first go round with that speckeled clear coat grey?)

Remember the old nickel plating- how it peeled? The nickel on my 1970's Smith won't- it's bonded to the metal. A process not possible 20 years before that.

I want a model 27 with the handfit and beautifull cross hatching on the sight ramp....I tried to trade my Ruger Sht Hawk for it... but today Smith has the 7 and even (8?) shot models. And about my Sht Hawk- I worked with that gun for 7 years. I should write an article about it but who would buy it? The barrel cylinder gap was over .009 The chambers enormous, I think 17 more thousandths and I'd have a 45 colt. The trigger pull at over 10 pounds...the worst Ruger I ever owned!! My friends said- get rid of that thing!!!

Today it will shoot 5 bullets under an inch at 25 yards. Yes, this was the example of the modern 'bad' gun you are talking about.
But I fixed it. There's an awful lot of old tractors around here- people make and weld their own parts for.

Don't you think those old guns got fixed too? And in most cases, people buy guns today that don't need fixing. The people in this forum are fanatics- we are the group that will actually shoot out weapons. Our standards are high. We hear of failures and the stories get passed around. That doesn't mean the manufacturers aren't putting out good stuff.

I've gone on too long. Let's hear from some other loon besides me.


munk
 
Munk, from one old gunny to another...

But I fixed it. There's an awful lot of old tractors around here- people make and weld their own parts for.

Yup. I had a John Deere Model 'B'. Looked a lot like this one:

Forty.jpg

Truthfully, I have been jonesing for one of those N-frame Heritage Series guns, preferably either the Model 1917 in .45 ACP, or Model 24 in .44 S&W Special. And a Henry Big Boy rifle in .44 Special/Magnum. New, but old. :D

And I've done a lot of welding, tweaking, and wrench-bending on sorry old guns. Even took a junked-out 5-screw M1905 Hand Ejector and built a PPC/Steel Challenge race gun out of it:

ppcleftaristocrat.gif
 
I wish I could do stuff like that- I can't. I've tried.

(BTW I've added an edit to my above post you should read. I appreciate this now. This is what I love about guns and gunnies)


I was a little surprised and disapointed to hear of Springfields poor recievers. It must happen to all of them at one time or another.


munk
 
Munk,

It seems like you got a little peeved because I disagreed with your blanket statement. It seemed like you took it as a personal challenge or something, which I never intended it to be. I will however offer you some friendly advice.

Pulling rank on somebody to gain credibility in an argument is going to get you in over your head here on TFL. While it’s nice to know that you worked in a gunshop, remember the person you’re talking to could be a custom gunsmith, a firearms instructor for Thunder Ranch, a master-level competitor or simply a rabid and collector for over 40 years. And there are quite a few gun dealers on here who’ve done it a lot longer than 3 years.

It’s usually best not to make impolite assumptions or start a whizzing contest, since you really don’t know who you’re dealing with. If you go around judging other posters based on their “credentials†as “firearms expertsâ€, you’re going to be missing out on a lot of good anecdotal experience. Personally, I usually let people speak their mind and leave it at that.

But since you offered your background up as some sort of reason that you are right and I am wrong, here’s what I think .... If I had a quarter for every gun dealer who professed to be some kind of expert, I’d be paying someone else to reply to you. Being a gun dealer is not all that indicative of one’s experience with weapons. Selling them ain’t shooting them, and once they leave the store, how could you ever know what happened to them?

Do you see what I'm getting at? It's not necessary to have official credentials to possess knowledge about guns - simply owning a bunch and shooting them constantly can be quite informative.

Best of luck,
- THE LORD
 
Dear Lord,

If you thought I thought working in a gun store equaled prestige and that could be used to 'pull rank' than you misunderstood my post and my character, a situation I'm sure will be soon obvious.


"It’s usually best not to make impolite assumptions or start a whizzing contest,"

That's right, but after such were made to me, I responded as appropriately as I deemed neccesary.

"" But since you offered your background up as some sort of reason that you are right and I am wrong, here’s what I think ....""

No, I did not do that, gave my reasons in an earlier post, but since that isn't stopping you, by all means, dig a hole.

As few know me here, and as we were talking about an externally observed event - the quality of guns- I thought I'd better introduce some basic background, otherwise my posts are even worse in your ready to prejudge eyes- that you should believe me 'just because'

As I said, I did so to establish peerage- a back ground in firearms only. I too have known many worthless gun store owners, managers, clerks and even the guy who took the trash out dropped a few boxes.

I just revisted the offending post to you- yes, I said I worked in a gun store but that my experiences were statisically anecdotal- as were yours. That is hardly pulling rank.

Give me a chance and I'll be happy to give you the same.
munk
 
"Cylinders with timing so bad that a good portion of the bullet is spit out of the barrel-cylinder gap because they completely missed the forcing cone? "

Then there was the guy in a local shop a couple of years ago with the S&W .44 Mag that didn't have a forcing cone. Zip. They forgot that step.

I've had a couple of poorly made Rugers since 1990, but they were great about fixing them.

You know, I don't expect a whole lot from any of the makers of inexpensive guns these days. What do you really expect for the equivalent of one or two car payments?

John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top