curious about your take re: reproductions vs originals

[silicosys4]

I'm curious about the forums take on reproductions vs originals.
Hypothetical scenario, although I see this all the time with some guns,

discounting original collectible guns that are multiples more expensive than the repro's in any condition, and/or not feasible to shoot such as many original 1st gen Colt SAA's, Pattersons, or Walkers,
For the exact same price,
Would you rather have a brand new, well made reproduction, equal in quality to the original,
or an original in good mechanical condition, great bore, but with enough wear as to be at the same price level as the new repro mentioned above?

 

[nettlle]

Depends on if accuracy vs authentic is desired. Most of the repro's are more accurate than the originals. At least that has been my experience.

 

[Boom Vang]

Shootin' Iron - repro

Just Fer Lookin' - original

 

[GooseGestapo]

It depends!

I have a 1943 Remington 1903-A3 that’s unbelievable accurate. My Dad carried an identical rifle in WWII through Europe and the Pacific. He claimed to have never fired it, and carried the same 10rds in two strip 03-A3 looks the part with “0” bore and throat erosion and what looks to be beaver teeth marks to the hand guards. I won’t take anything for it.

In the instance of my M1 Carbine experience, I had a post war Plainfield that shot 3” groups at 100yds. I traded it for a ‘43 Saginaw S.G. So I could compete in CMP matches. The Saginaw shoots 12-16” at 100yds! It’s a post war refurbished with a ‘44 Underwood barrel. A ‘43 Inland Mfg. I have shoots better at about 6” @100yds.

First shot was the left sighter. Next 4 touching! 100yds. 48.0gr of H4895 in match prepped FC brass, CCI primers, Hornady 155gr A-max @3.330”OAL. I medaled with it in my first Vintage Military match. This isn’t even a “sniper” version. I now believe some of the stories from WWI and WWII regarding these rifles.

 

[Howland937]

Original in original condition without question. Period correct sights/optics where applicable.
No refinishing or restoration, just repairs when needed.

I'd rather just get a modern gun than a modern imitation of an old one.

 

[silicosys4]

I'm in the originals camp. With a few exceptions for guns that just aren't feasible to acquire or shoot as originals,
And aside for reproductions that are actually rarer or as much or more expensive than the originals like USFA revolvers, S&W's heritage models or a stainless steel luger,
I'll sacrifice finish wear to have an original example.

 

[Show Me]

Puma m92s and Rossi R92s are a classic example that was around way before the internet. Utility rifles for those that needed them since the early 70s.

 

[sfl_gunner]

Completely dependent on the gun and it's purpose.

For example, I have a few wooden guns. It is awesome to know these weapons were probably used in a few wars and even possibly dropped a few of America's enemies.

On the other side of the spectrum, besides my one Colt 100 years anniversary the rest of my 1911's are from other brands.

 

[Jim Watson]

Both.
CAS with 3rd generation Colt and Cimarron repro, also S&W NM #3 and .38 Single Action. 1892 Winchester, Verney Carron shotgun 1920s.
BPCR with 1885 Winchester and Browning Miroku Highwall.

 

[Howland937]

On the other side of the spectrum, besides my one Colt 100 years anniversary the rest of my 1911's are from other brands

I probably should have noted that in my earlier post about preferring modern guns to modern versions of old guns. I don't consider newer variants of 1911's to be reproductions. Except for the ones that are advertised as reproductions.

 

[Bazoo]

I prefer original guns. Except I'm not a purist. I don't mind an old gun that's been sporterized or modified if it happened a long time ago.

I have a Winchester made by Miroku under license of Olin which has owned the Winchester name since 1931. I consider it a real Winchester; It's not the same as an historic Winchester; It's part of Winchester's storied history, and is every bit as well made as the old guns. In 100 years, it'll be in the same condition that a 100 year old Winchester is now, and folks can fight over whether it's a worthless japchester or worthy to be hung on the wall as a piece of history. I hope my grand and great grand kids get to enjoy it and the stories that will be made with it.

 

[W.E.G.]

Basically every AR-15 made since 1959 is a "repro"

 

[bangswitch]

First, I'm assuming classic revolvers and rifles. As far as revolvers go, I try to find nice, if not pristine and untouched, S&W revolvers made before 1982 and won't accept a reproduction or later than 1982 model. As for old Western revolvers, a good quality reproduction will do, as they are not my focus for collecting. I like the old single actions, but I'm not willing to pay the prices for original Colts and Remingtons, which are rarely in better than average condition for their age and price. Plus, I want to shoot them with modern ammunition, so I want current metallurgy. I do insist on a faithful reproduction that is built to the original patent specifications and the only variance I'm willing to accept is the safeties that they seem to insist on adding. Many of those can be eliminated with aftermarket parts. I only have two single action reproductions, which is enough,. Both are Uberti-made, an 1873 SAA Colt clone and an 1875 Remington clone.

Old rifles are also out of my financial reach, so a reproduction is fine with me. I'm not really interested in them anyway, but I did want an old style lever action, so I went with a Henry brass receiver Big Boy.

 

[hso]

You missed "Both".

I WANT both. I want a great repro to play with while I admire my original minty condition treasure.

 

[Riomouse911]

I am much more of a firearms accumulator than collector, so if I buy a gun it is usually shot within a week of coming home. (More than once I have picked up a new gun and gone from gun store straight to the range.)

With the value of a lot of genuine guns from days past getting to be rediculous, it means there are many of these “real” guns I will never touch.

So, buying and shooting reproductions of classics that let me experience the feel of these old arms, is an aspect that doesn’t bug me too much.

Stay safe.

 

[American_Fusilier]

Both. This is America.

 

[highlander 5]

I have 3 repros 2 Browning/Miroku 1885s 45/70 and 40/65 and a Shiloh Sharps 1874 45/70.
The real versions are way out of my budget,not that the above were inexpensive by any means either.
The Sharps alone with a repro RHO Malcolm style scope is in the $3000 ÷ right now.

 

[jmr40]

It depends.

There isn't a current production lever action rifle I'd be interested in buying, even Marlin and Winchester. Any of them made in the last 50 years aren't close enough to the originals to me. And there are plenty of Marlin and Winchester lever actions made prior to the 1980's out there at prices very close to or cheaper than current production. Some of them made prior to WW-2, especially prior to WW-1, might best be put up as collectibles, but most of them are still shooters.

With single action revolvers however, it would be hard to find a quality original Colt at a price I'd pay that I'd actually shoot. The Ruger Blackhawk is way too far removed from the original Colt to interest me. I've had a couple and they just didn't do anything for me. The frame and cylinders on them are way too big and the proportions, aesthetics and balance are all wrong. They make a fine modern, strong gun for hunters though.

The New Model Vaquero is close enough for me though. I like that revolver. I don't know enough about the European made single actions. Some look good, but I trust Ruger and their customer service if a problem develops.

 

[AlexanderA]

My goal has been to build a comprehensive collection of U.S. military arms. At the same time, I've wanted everything in the collection to be shootable (even though I rarely shoot them). Regarding muzzleloaders, I can't trust the shooting condition of original barrels since there might be hidden weaknesses. So, I've relied on reproductions for anything prior to the Trapdoor Springfield.

In one case, I built a hybrid M1842 musket using original parts and a reproduction barrel.

Over the years, I've noticed that some reproductions have become collectible in their own right, even commanding prices rivaling those of originals. This is particularly true of discontinued models.

 

[CoalTrain49]

None of the above.

Most of the originals that I'm interested in aren't available in shootable condition and why would I want to shoot one even if it was? Parts are not available in most cases.

That only leaves a repro for me although I don't own any. I do own a 44 Inland carbine that I shoot but parts are easy to find.

 

[Littlef]

It depends. I would prefer original when possible. Some are cost prohibitive. I’ve been looking for a 1873 peacemaker. 1. original historical models from the 1800’s are expensive. They also have issues with wear of parts, timing, and lock up issues. It’s hard to find the goldilocks model that’s functional, but wont cost a fortune. In the meantime I shoot my Uberti, until maybe one day I find the “right” original.

 

[Zygodactyl]

I shoot originals because no one makes repros in .577 Snider, 577-450 Martini Henry or .43 Spanish.

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

I don't own many true reproductions. My SAAs aren't really trying to reproduce the original mechanics of the 1873 Colts, and their (mostly) adjustable rear sights offer a real improvement in shootability.

I enjoy shooting my Yugo-refurbed K98K and its reproduction ZF-41 scope quite a bit. Given the cost of a genuine Wehrmacht rig, it makes much more sense as a shooter. I also own several Pietta repros of Remington percussion revolvers.

I've been kicking around the idea of buying an Italian repro 1873 in 32-20, and someday I'd also like to acquire a modern centerfire repro of the Spencer to shoot.

So while I have nothing against the idea of owning and shooting reproductions, most of the guns I'm interested in don't have enough appeal for creating modern reproductions thereof. Even if I could legally own a reproduction selective fire Burton Autorifle or Federov Avtomat (and could afford to buy same!), I doubt anyone could make a profit from manufacturing modern copies of these today.

Maybe someday manufacturing technology will transform the economics of this, but for now I'll have to make do with photos of them on my bedroom wall.

 

[mm93]

Although I do own two repro SAA revolvers in .45 Colt and .32-20, the vast majority of my collection is original rifles and pistols. I am a big history buff, and love owning guns with history. The more history I can discover about a particular gun I own, the better. So I also try my best to buy mostly factory special order guns, or old guns custom built by great master gun makers like Schoyen, Pope, Zettler Bros., AW Peterson, etc. Almost all but a handful of my collection are pre 1899 single shot rifles that I've collected for over 40 years.

 

[tarosean]

Walkers,
For the exact same price,

??? I’ve never seen that.. given the money they command I wouldn’t doubt that there are thousands of fakes. Since the originals are so low numbed.