New or Old style

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kingcheese

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
677
Personally i pefer older looking guns. i dont particularly like synthetic stocks, fancy rails sticking out everywhere or lots of moving parts


my type of guns are bolt action rifles with wooden stocks, and side by side shotguns

what do you guys pefer in a gun, as far as looks and shootability, lets forget about price in this discussion

if you could completly build a gun, what characteristics/features would you throw on it
 
I love them all honestly, rather its a wood stock on a old mil surplus, or a synthetics/aluminum chassis system for a heavy barrel R700 or Savage...
 
What looks funny to me are the cowboys and other costume guys who want their pieces to look 100 years old even though they are in period garb.
 
I buy my guns to shoot so practicality wins over appearance. For me a gun can be too "pretty" that I would be afraid to really use it. With that said, however, wood stocks definitely look better and if I had guns that I only took to the range, and not the field, I would go for the old simple wood stocks.
 
I'm right with ya on that. I prefer old style over the new any day. I own 1 synthetic stock, and that one was inherited. The old guns just look better and have much more collector value, to me.

What looks funny to me are the cowboys and other costume guys who want their pieces to look 100 years old even though they are in period garb
Click to expand...
+1
Thats so silly. Especially when you see the people at war re-enactments who have the Ubertis and replicas that are NIB. I probably own more of the real-deal Colts and Mil-surps than the people who try to re-enact historical event themselves.

Also when people pay more for the replica than a used, authentic piece. I guess I just could never see the point of doing that.
 
It depends. I like synthetic buttstocks, but I do not like synthetic handguards, those can and will melt. If I had it one way or the other, no inbetween, wood would be preferable, but it all depends on the balancing of the gun
 
i absolutely loath plastic......i cant stand it, and i refuse to own a gun with it.....


not that theres anything wrong with plastics, they are light weight, strong, and weather resistant.......


But they have absolutely no character.........and it just fades when it gets old...


where as wood has beautiful grain, and each nick and ding has a story.....
 
if you could completly build a gun, what characteristics/features would you throw on it
Click to expand...

THAT'S a loaded statement (pun intended)

While I like blue and stainless guns, I'll admit that here in Florida, guns like Glocks DO have their place

Completely building a gun - first and foremost is fit - whether rifle, shotgun or even handgun, the stock(s) would be custom fit to ME alone

Target shotgun would have 32" O/U barrels, perfect balance, light trigger, no safety, tapered rib

Hunting shotgun would have 30" SxS barrels, raised solid rib, DT, splinter and highly figured walnut that balanced perfectly between the hands with fixed chokes

Hunting rifle would be lightweight and short - think Model 7 or similar, bolt action. The other option would be a bespoke double from Peter Hofer or Philip Ollendorf

like this "Hummingbird", the lightest double gun ever at 1 kilo (2.2#) in 22 hornet

hw_cont.m52p14g15.jpg
 
Anything in a wood stock for me.
NOT a fan of synthetics... anyone know where I can get a wood buttstock for my AR-15?
Click to expand...

Brownells of course!
p_100004900_1.jpg
 
Can't beat a nice grained walnut and blue steel everything else. I actually own one "plastic" Glock but don't advertise it. I have only firearms that aren't loaded with locks, safeties and other junk. I will depend on ME as always to stay safe. I guess a SSA or 1911 are about the only handguns that haven't gone down the tube. Way to old to hang a bunch of bells and whistles on any firearms at my tender age.
 
Tough choice .... depends very much on the gun.

A doublestack wonder nine? Unless it's black it feels off.
A Revolver? A dull working metal color does it for me.

I'm not a big fan about entirely too shiny guns because I get too finicky about them, though.
 
I'm old enough to remember when blue and wood was what everything was. There are reasons that is not the case today besides that wood costs more. Give me a finish that doesn't rust and stocks that are impervious to weather. I'm willing to make sure they don't melt.
 
My preference in guns are that they go bang when they're supposed to, don't go bang when they're not supposed to, and are sufficiently accurate for their intended purpose. Very accurate for prairie dog rifles, minute of man for defensive handguns - not that I could shoot a handgun much better anyway. :D
 
I've decided to pontificate more. M16s came out all plastic in the 60s. But most guns were all steel and wood. There was of course a lot of effort being made to make guns more rust resistant. Which is what blueing was meant to do. The fact it looked nice was secondary and a lot of blueing did not look all that nice. People were taking blued guns and having various things done to them aftermarket. Parkerized, nickeled and things like that. Manufacturers followed the trend and we started to see stainless steel. None of this had the slightest thing to do with making cheaper guns. You paid extra for all this, sometimes quite a bit. Nor did it have anything to do with being tacticool. There is nothing tacticool about stainless or nickel.

Plastic stocks: With the exception of again the M16 which had the reputation of being fragile because the stock broke so easily guns were sold with wood stocks. The best wood was paid a premium for. Plastic did not really break into the stock market. It started to be chipped away by various different materials. It was a long time ago but I remember reading reviews of resin impregnated stocks and how wonderful it was in durability and function since it was impervious to weather. It was however expensive to add aftermarket. Cheaper alternatives began to emerge aftermarket even as manufacturers began to make guns with different stocks almost always behind what aftermarket was producing.

At some point a tipping point happened and manufacturers began to take the lead instead of following and we have what we have today. Guns that are extremely rust resistant with stocks that don't care about weather. As far as I'm concerned I don't miss trying to get rust off a gun without damaging the finish. Did that for too many years in the Army and before that with hunting shotguns. I was happy when stainless guns came out and even happier with tennifer or different equivalents.
 
The most important thing on a gun for me is accuracy and reliablitiy. In some cases we do not need extreme accuracy but reliability must be rock solid.
Any polymer, rails accessories should be there based on the needs for the specific purpose. I don't personaly care about looks over function as they provide options but I can appreciate some of the wood grains in shotguns and rifles. We should not compare them, they might be for different purposes and for different tastes and even collection purposes.
Cheers.
E.
 
When I was young I got into those "Black" guns and have several both long and handguns. But now that I'm over 50, I find that I tend to appreciate the older guns like the Fox Sterlingworth that I own, the pre-64 Win Mod. 70 FW that I just pickup today and the several handguns in my safe that are made of metal instead of plastic.

Call me crazy but I like the feel and the weight of a all steel gun or the warmth of a wood stock press against my cheek.
 
I used to have all blued steel handguns. Whenever I was out in the weather I'd have to dry them out, clean and spritz them with oil. Fighting rust spots was an ongoing thing. Two years ago I got my first polymer pistol. I LIKE polymer guns. I have four, LCP, SR9, Taurus 740 and a Taurus 24/7 PRO DS .45. I like the lightness, thin grips and having the harder to clean places made of something that doesn't corrode. All of these guns have had plenty of exercize at our local club range. None of them have given me a bit of trouble, they have all been completely reliable and accurate. Nope, give me polymer and stainless steel every time. Now rifles I feel differently about for some reason and still prefer wood. I don't mind that they get a bit knicked and scratched but it's a lot nicer to put your cheek against a nice wood stock than a cold, hard plastic one.
 
For me it's the new style. I have 2 Glocks, a Benelli Super Nova all synthetic stock, and a S&W M&P 15. Guess I have a bad case of the "Black Gun Disease" LOL
 
I'll go with the best of both. :) There's something in all of the categories that I like.

If I could build one gun for me and price wasn't an issue, I think that I would go with a double rifle from Peter Hofer or a Westley Richards (especially since price isn't an issue). I'd probably go with a 9.3 x 74R though instead of the Hummingbird, although it is a beautiful gun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Stock material, wood vs synthetic vs other
Replies
9
Views
427
Rembrandt
Rembrandt
P
  • Locked
Legalities of building a semi auto 1919 ?
Replies
3
Views
768
Strings
S
T
  • Locked
Which order would you sell them?
Replies
20
Views
945
Amadeus
A
S
  • Locked
Sporting clays semi-auto: wood or synthetic?
Replies
24
Views
2K
Capstick1
C
Badger Arms
  • Locked
Carry Handle Storage, 101st Style
Replies
10
Views
1K
Lancel
L
Back
Top