older rifle quality vs new mfg.

[rdoggsilva]

The newest rifle I have is a Remington 700 BDL in 30-06 I got in 1971 brand new. I still have the Redfield 4X scope on it. I us this weapon every year for deer and elk. Yes the bluing is getting thin in places and the stock is nicked and scratched. But I still think the bluing and stock finish when new was better they today's 700.
I still shot CMP with my Enfield P-17 she still shoots better than I can with my 60 year old eyes. In my younger years I out shot Springfield's, at times still can.
I like others here do not like plastic on my rifles. Still like wood stocks and iron sights on my rifles. Guess just old fashion.

 

[moooose102]

i agree with you guys, if gun prices were as inflated as car prices, gun companies would go out of business! a standard remington 700 would probably be in excess of $2500.00, without sights! MOST of the gun manufacturers have done a good job of keeping retail costs down to a reasonable level. but, i am NO FAN of plastic on a gun either, i would GLADLY pay an extra $20.00 or 30.00 to replace plastic with decent metal. i bought a henry .22 lever gun 2 months ago. i was not very happy when i found out it has plastic barrel bands and front sights. i REALLY WISH they would offer an accessory metal retrofit kit for these. brass would be even better (i just LOVE the looks of polished brass!)
but i am not so sure you can buy a s&w pistol of any size for $400.00!

 

[R.W.Dale]

If how a gun looks is most important to you then you'll probably tend to believe that the older rifles are much better.

If how a gun SHOOTS is most important then modern rifles are vastly superior to just about anything that could be had in yesteryear. In the 50's a bolt action rifle cost the average hourly paid worker a couple months pay and was doing great if it shot under 2 inches. Nowdays you can buy a rifle that'll almost be garenteed to shoot SUB moa for not even one paycheck.

Guns and Muscle Cars are alike in that while most think the heyday is long gone, in reality these things have NEVER been better than they are today.

 

[phantomak47]

Personally, Old School hunting rifles really have a soul that is just not found in modern rifles today. Take for example my 1950s Savage 99, its like shooting a piece of history, that doesnt have any plastic parts or legal warnings about reading a manual or not pointing the muzzle at your face.

 

[RonE]

Just goes to show how things change. Pre '64 if your car broke down, you could fix it yourself, the car probably had almost no plastic in it and it wore out in less than 100,000 miles. Rifles were made on old machines that were operated by people and hand fitted together, today with CNC and NC machines, several sets of human hands were taken out of the manufacturing process. If the question, is yesteryear better than today, is to be answered at all, one must consider that prior to 1964 how many rifles came from the factory with a scope mount rail, pre-drilled for scope mounts or with scope rings included? Although still available, who recently has heard of adding Williams sights, Bueler scope mounts or of even taking a rifle to a gunsmith to have the receivier milled, drilled and the bolt turned to mount a scope.
It is very difficult to compare the rifles of today with those of yesterday. For example if prior to 1964 you purchased a "Winchester Westerner" and you shot two or three boxes of bullets a year since then, you might just be on the third or fourth barrel for that rifle. (It caused me to change calibers).

 

[m-g willy]

Remington 700 BDL in 300 winchester mag bought in 76 was one of the best made rifles I ever had.
My Dad's Ruger 77 in 30/06 was a good rifle and just as accurate it didn't have the style of the Remingtom.
THEN! I picked up a 1908 mauser in 7mm mauser!!!!!
The mauser is by far the best made (smoothest best fitted )rifle I ever owned!



Willy