Firearms back when vs now, designs

[Dudedog]

Just thought this might be a fun topic.
Do you think firearms are better now or
5
10
20
30
40
50
or more years ago.

No facts neccessary but ok, gut feelings are
Also your favorite designs.

My opinion is that some materials have gotten better if gun makers choose to use them, however good steel is good steel and has been for a long time. Some new designs are excellent, and some shall we save leave a lot to be desired especially if rushed to market or compromised in manufacturing for the sake of profit.

Marketing is taking it's toll as guns makers are becoming more concerned with profits (nothing wrong with that their stock holders have a right to expect profits, as long a quality does not suffer.)

Over all sadly I feel lots of firearms have gone the same way as lots of other products, not designed , made and built to last like they used to be , and some suffer from poor QC.
(of course this has always been a issue cost vs quality amount spent on QC etc)

OK I am a old fart.

So I would say maybe just maybe things were better 30 or 40 years ago.
And I would like to give credit to all those great old designs that were made with out the aid of computers.



This my short list of designs and by no means do I feel these are the only ones just the ones that come to mind at the moment.

Matchlock
Flintlock
Percussion cap firearms
Mauser bolt action
1911 (of course maybe the best design of all time)
Various Winchester lever actions. (And the Henry)
M1 Garand
M2 .50 (don’t one, never shot one but we are still using them years and years later)
The original A5 and the Superposed. (even if they had issues)
Glock (computers probably involved but I still have to give it credit)

Hhmmm lots of John Browning guns here

All of these may not have been perfect but I think they deserve to be on the list.

 

[rcmodel]

Old craftsmanship, and hands on quality control at every step is sadly lacking.
The return policy is the modern QC now days.

Today, CNC precision is, or can be better then hand fitting.
Walnut & polished blued steel is sadly missing.

But the modern young customers want black plastic with rails on everything.

So who cares as long as they keep selling guns!

More old fine guns for me cause they aren't black with rails on the rails!

rc

 

[HEAVY METAL 1]

Observe the quality of a Swedish Mauser of 100 years ago for spectacular fit and finish and accuracy. Metallurgy is stronger in recent times.

 

[herrwalther]

I have felt very new firearms (2011-2014) where some part of the process felt rushed just to get it off the assembly line. Triggers too high, rough finishes, tool marks, sloppy work. I have firearms made in the early 2000's such as 2004 and 2006 that have better finishes and condition even though some have seen daily carry for months or years at a time.

 

[bannockburn]

To me guns made in the 1950s through the early part of the 1970s were for the most part well made (with updated metallurgy and materials for turn of the century designs), had an excellent fit and finish (when compared to guns made today), and were (for the most part), reliable and accurate. There's just something about blued steel and wood stocks that hold the most interest for me in guns that were made back then.

 

[Lucky Derby]

Metalurgy is better today.
New & interesting designs & materials are being used today
Craftsmanship & QC is saddly lacking today

 

[Sav .250]

Back in the day, weapons were hand made. Some machine work of course.

Just look at the "oldies.' Craftsmanship Fit/finish. Hand work on the stock, etc.

Todays motto," turn out as many as possible. Yesterday," Quality of the produce is paramount.

Plus, look at what the "old-guns" are bringing on the resale market. That in itself, tells the tail.

 

[Bezoar]

in the day of engineers with 8 years of college, and million dollar cnc machines, and 35,000 dollar cad programs,

nobody can seem to make a wheellock mechanism that doesnt need a 60% rebuild to make it WORK>

 

[Sam1911]

I've suggested this before: Today we have pretty high expectations, consumer protection laws (and a culture of lawsuits), and a lot of competition in the arms world (coupled with better and better CNC machining) pushing high-durability products at low costs. The great old guns of yesterday that we remember so fondly are the ones that WERE great guns. But there were LOTS-and-lots that weren't. Pot metal, crappy throw-away pistols and revolvers from no-name makers in Europe, low-end single-shot shotguns, and lots of other junk on the market that probably wasn't even worth trying to sell once it broke. The lower-cost rifles that were around were often military surplus, so the relative quality was probably pretty good, but the temptation was ever-present to make up a poor-man's Winchester with a hacksaw and file.

It's "survivorship bias" -- the habit (or mistake) of assessing what came before by the remaining examples which survived to the present. Since the crud and crap have already been disposed of, you can't hold (many of) them in your hands and get a more rounded feel for the total state of the art back then. The ones we have saved through the generations are wonderful!

It IS easier for us to toss things that don't work these days, or just have the customer return them for a replacement, rather than spend a lot of time pouring over each one to catch every mistake (which you'll never be successful at anyway). But that's not necessarily wrong. Just a different model. Our gun makers put out a WHALE of a lot of guns that work just fine, far more than in previous generations. And your average gun enthusiast can have a gun case full of 10, 20, 50, etc. on an "everyman's" budget if he wants.

You CAN buy a gun just as beautiful, blued, wood-stocked, and hand-fit as an old classic, today. But you don't HAVE to choose that because the industry offers so many other good quality options which have different benefits many shooters like more.

Cryin' about what we've 'lost' is sort of a pass time for most of us, but I'd sure rather deal with the firearms world we live in now than the mail-order (and wait 6 weeks) world of our great grandparents.

 

[2ifbyC]

I’m not a gun collector so I cannot make a factual comparison. I do own a Browning Medalist (1970), Henry Golden Boy (1994) and a Colt Python (1980); the fit and finish is outstanding. There is something about blued steel, brass, and walnut that are very appealing. And there is something about engineered plastic that is not. But I am talking form vis-à-vis function.

I own the shop manuals written by Jerry Kuhnausen which are primarily notes on the art of gunsmithing for many of the old Colt and S&W revolvers. What was once in the brains of these craftsmen is rapidly disappearing.
Machines have replaced hands; better or worse, I don’t know. It may depend on the benchmarks you set to compare one against the other. And everyone sets their own benchmarks so it becomes a matter of preference.

 

[Dudedog]

It's "survivorship bias" -- the habit (or mistake) of assessing what came before by the remaining examples which survived to the present. Since the crud and crap have already been disposed of, you can't hold (many of) them in your hands and get a more rounded feel for the total state of the art back then. The ones we have saved through the generations are wonderful!

Quite true, the junk is long gone so we don't see it now, so what we do see is really not a valid sample of what was.

Of course years ago I could remember things after sleeping, so maybe I am thinking about the good things then I can remember from back then.

 

[d2wing]

I agree with Sam, as always quality and craftsmanship varies mostly by price. The ability to make better guns has always advanced. You can still buy nice Blued and Walnut stocked nice rifles. Adjusted for inflation they are not anymore expensive than standard rifles of yesteryear. And rifles are much more accurate on the whole than they were in the good old days. On the other hand the popular priced rifles are a bargain and accurate. But they are mass produced using less labor and craftsmanship than ever. And in this day and age. The mass producers of all brands feel that guns are so uniform that they lack QC to make sure very gun shipped is in spec. QC is return it for repair. This is all of them in my experience. So it depends. As always many lament quality or features yet buy cheap.
As far as the "Ma Deuce" I used one once in combat and was there when others used them. They are fabulous weapons and a work of Art to me. I can't really connect civilian weapons to military. They might look the same and largely be the same but they are not the same to me.
I think a lot of us gun guys do like the history and heritage of guns and have favorites of classic and historical guns. I like vintage hunting rifles, Cowboy era and WWII guns like most guys. But my go to guns are modern.

 

[Coyote3855]

The last two handguns I purchased were both Model 19s: a Smith and Wesson 4" barrel, pinned and recessed, beautiful blue finish, Magna grips. The other, a second "generation" Glock. One is beautiful, one not so much. But handsome is as handsome does. When I go in harm's way, you can predict which one comes along. Which one is "better?" That's totally subjective depending on the need of the owner.

I value the Winchester Model 70 .30-06 I purchased new in 1960, but would probably opt for a stainless rifle with synthetic stock if I were in the market for a big game gun today. Which is better? Probably the new stainless. I would feel okay in the woods with either one.

 

[JohnBiltz]

Guns are better today from the point of view of actually using them. I was there when the transition from blue steel and wood happened and while it is popular for people to say going away from it was for cost cutting reasons that is not what happened. People were buying blued steel and wood stocks and then paying extra money to replace them with after market finishes and laminate and plastic stocks. Finishes that were very rust resistant and did not rub off after a couple of months in a holster. Stocks that did not swell with the weather, pistol grips that helped with recoil. After awhile, manufacturers began to give those customers what they wanted direct from the factory. Sure they were not as pretty and everyone likes pretty but they were practical and they saved people money.

I will also say this, they did not work real well when it came to automatic pistols. The reasons wheelguns ruled back then was when your life really depended on it no one wanted to be holding an automatic in their hands. 1911s and BHPs worked well as long as you did not want to shoot a JHP through them.

 

[WestKentucky]

Wrong question...are the consumers better now or X years ago? In the good old days the customer would not accept an iffy gun, and retailers knew that so they demanded good guns from the manufacturers. Now customers have a much larger gray area influenced by appearance and price of what is acceptable. Guns are built cheaper, faster, and in large part lower quality than ever before simply because people are more concerned with having a small arsenal than a few good guns.

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

I think the best guns being made today are as good as the best guns ever made. I do love my Colt 1903's and find them to be fantastic in fit and finish...precision beyond what many new guns are now days.

But the best built custom guns that use expert tuning on precision CNC machined pistols are every bit as good and maybe better. I think the thing that is hard for us older guys to swallow or understand is that we simply cannot afford that kind of craftsmanship for an everyday pistol.

Does that make sense? We used to get a precision heirloom quality handgun for $25 100 years ago. Now, a gun that is of that quality, will run 100X that...it can be done and is being done, Just not for $25.

Then again my parents paid $2000 for a new car.

VooDoo

 

[mnrivrat]

I'm going to say that it realy depends a lot on the gun. I bought and used most of my firearms from the late 60's to just past the 80's.

Overall I think this was a good time period for overall quality, but there was also some trash out there every bit as junky as you'll find in any time period.

S&W handguns for example. The ones made during that time period are considered some of the best they made, and personaly I agree they were better guns than today. Some would take S&W's prime product period back to perhaps the 1930's . Hand fitting was certainly at it's peak in those days and smooth actions were part of the charm. Hand fitting, if still done the same as then would effect not only the price, but the interchanability of parts. So there would be at least some down side. Metalergy has also inproved since then.

I could talk about a lot of particular guns and periods of time for various companies, but to keep it short I'll refer back to my starting sentance.

 

[Sam1911]

In the good old days the customer would not accept an iffy gun, and retailers knew that so they demanded good guns from the manufacturers.

Woah, woah, woah. You're painting with way too broad a brush here. There were a LOT of "iffy" guns and a lot of downright bad ones. Low quality, poor material, bad fit and finish, guns that would have made a Hi-Point look like a Royal Blue Colt and even a Jennings look pretty darned good.

And even for "good" manufacturers, I've never seen any records or numbers to indicate what rates of returns or rejects or dissatisfied customers there were.

Again, it's survivorship bias and the nostalgia of "good old days."

 

[grter]

I have to flat out say that modern guns in general are better except for designs that rely on hand fitting or other old methods of manufacturing that modern manufacturing teniques has not been able to address (yet????.)

The area which has really improved is automatics. I remember in the past they were prone to jamming when not fed the ammo they liked and this was well accepted in the mainstream as normal back then.

Today an auto loader that does not fire and cycle almost every type of garbage ammo fed to it will not sell very well.

I also remember space age plastic laminate stocks in "cool" configurations, hogue grips, and extra durable yet ugly finishes being expensive add on items purchased through the mail or offered as custom jobs. People found them fascinating and they were desired but now they are standard on most firearms. The customers knew they worked better and the firearms industry now makes them standard.

Firearms can now be made better, with more precision, higher quality control relative (relative terms remember) to the mass quantities that are made and shipped out, and overall it can be done quite fast with less labor for lower costs. Even cheap guns like for example, a high point carbine, can be more reliable, ergonomic, and generally better than some of the more expensive auto loaders or other firearms of the past.

I am one of those that likes blued steel and walnut but I have to admit when it was standard I took it for granted and lusted after those cool yet functional designs. Now that beautiful blued finisishes and walnut are harder to come by I miss it and appreciate it a lot more. They do look and feel good.

 

[Oldschool shooter]

There is a reason pre- 64 Winchesters command a premium, and shoot a 60's or 70's Smith & Wesson or Colt and compare it to the trigger pull of a modern revolver. Work the bolt on a swedish Mauser or Krag, few modern bolt action rifles are as smooth. Not saying today's guns are bad, but the hand work that went into the older guns makes all the difference in the world. Unfortunately, the cost for that kind of craftsmanship would put most of today's value priced firearms out of reach of many shooters.

 

[d2wing]

I think in the past returns would be very unusual. The guns were handled by trained craftsman and also there was a quality control program and every gun was likely inspected and to some degree tested, maybe fired. Some makers still do that like the CZ I bought a couple years ago. Others like a Ruger, Savage and Marlin all needed to be returned for repairs or just returned like an escort shotgun.

 

[grter]

There is a reason pre- 64 Winchesters command a premium, and shoot a 60's or 70's Smith & Wesson or Colt and compare it to the trigger pull of a modern revolver. Work the bolt on a swedish Mauser or Krag, few modern bolt action rifles are as smooth. Not saying today's guns are bad, but the hand work that went into the older guns makes all the difference in the world. Unfortunately, the cost for that kind of craftsmanship would put most of today's value priced firearms out of reach of many shooters.

I agree.

I wonder if they would combine modern manufacturing with some old world craftsmanship and still be able to keep the price in the high but affordable range.

I would imagine CNC machining and MIM parts can cut down the required labor quite bit making hand fitting less time consuming and easier. I think they skip hand tuning because the end product will still work enabling them to skim the extra pennies saved (ok maybe not pennies.) How expensive can it really be maybe an insider into this can tell us.

There is a greedy bean counter angle which I will not deny that plagues modern marketing.

 

[45_auto]

There is a reason pre- 64 Winchesters command a premium

Yep, same reason that a Model T or an original 'Star Wars" toy commands a premium. That reason is NOT because they were better made than an equivalent item manufactured today.

shoot a 60's or 70's Smith & Wesson or Colt and compare it to the trigger pull of a modern revolver.

I personally love old revolvers (and cars and airplanes), particularly S&W's (never could stand the way the DA trigger pull stacks on a Colt) and own several dozen S&W revolvers from the 60's and 70's. I have yet to find anyone who can consistently tell the difference between them and a modern Smith.

If you're ever near New Orleans, let me know and we'll run through a few dozen rounds and see if you can do any better than 50% (elementary statistics means that you'll predict around 50% correctly, just like flipping a coin) calling whether it was a new or old Smith that you're pulling the trigger on.

 

[grter]

I would think your generalization .45_Auto is too broad and generally wrong.

There are ups and downs to everything.

Modern manufacturing without or with bare minumum hand tuning is not the end all cure all to everything that stands in the way of making a better firearm.

 

[45_auto]

I believe that your generalization is too broad and generally wrong.

My experience has been (27 years as a mechanical engineer) that if you invest even close to the same amount of money or time in quality machine work on a manufactured article that you would invest in equivalent hand work, the machine work wins 99.99% of the time (and by a SIGNIFICANT margin). And if you only invest a small percentage of the money or time in machine work that you would in hand work, the machine work still wins 99% of the time. That's pretty much the reason that you don't see much hand work on manufactured items like guns, cars, and airplanes today. The machines can do it cheaper AND better.

I've worked in the aerospace industry through the transformation from manual to CNC machining. The percentage of people who have the skills, dedication, and attention span to run a manual mill, lathe, press, etc. all day and maintain tolerances even CLOSE to what you can do with CNC machinery is probably much smaller than the percentage of people with the skills and dedication to become a starting NFL quarterback.

Back in the day before the internet whine-fest, there wasn't the exposure of manufacturing defects that you see today.