Quality then and now

I do not think that any new guns are of the same quality as older guns. More hand fitting consisting of a trained craftsman with a sharp file cannot be replaced. No one would like the price. Quality control is not there either. You still get good quality for the money you are spending

 

Dan Wesson, Les Baer, Ed Brown

 

eh, i'll take modern guns. metallurgy, synthetics, and laser measurement based quality control, have come a long way, there's a reason they say don't put +p in old guns.

 

I believe the quality of new guns is quite good. There are exceptions and some lemons might slip through. The problem as I see it is that people will shop price and manufactures create a product that sells so that they can make a profit.

 

" the same quality as older guns."

I have to ask, how many old run of the mill guns by Iver Johnson or H&R have you owned? They made train loads of them and they were actually pretty well made all things considered compared to a lot of the less expensive competition at the time. The ones that have come down to me haven't held up very well and the resale values stink if you can find anyone who wants them at all. The one exception among the old handguns was my great-uncle Ed's 1884 S&W break top .38. He carried it everyday on the farm (and probably to work at UVA as an electrician) and took care of it, although the nickel was faded some on one side from being carried in his hip pocket.

And as someone else posted in another thread, avoid " RG, EEA Windicators, Charter Arms, any old Spanish copies of S&W's. "

Speaking of hand built, my father's new 1991 Python had to go back because the barrel was screwed in wrong and the sight was crooked. They fixed it.

 

Why not? CNC machinery with integrated CMM capability can hold tolerances that no human is capable of. The number of guns ruined and butchered by so-called "trained craftsman" FAR exceeds the number of guns that experience QC issues caused by modern production methods.

 

No trained craftsman with a sharp file building firearms for a very long time. And no gun has to be "broken in". That's an old wife's tale.
Have to agree that QC isn't what it once was since the MBA's took over the firearm industry. However, the manufacturing techniques and metallurgy is light years ahead of even the 1970's and later.

 

Ever try to rack a new Les Baer wadcutter? They will tell you how their gun should be "broken in"

 

The new Sig Sauer M11A1 has fit and finish equalling (IMO) their German guns.
Modern Sig Sauer 1911s have pretty really nice and tight fit and finish too, no slop.

 

Define quality.

Modern guns are built to be far more accurate and reliable than anything from just a few years ago. And after inflation is considered at a fraction of the price. And the vast majority of older guns were not put together any better than common guns made today.

The wood to metal fit on "SOME" older guns was much tighter. The metal was polished nicer and many used a decent stick of walnut for stocks. But by todays standards would be inferior as to accuracy and reliability. And cheap, poorly fit wood was the norm on most guns even years ago.

 

Q. What is the "break in" period for my new gun?

A. Kahr recommends a minimum of 200 rounds.

http://www.kahr.com/faq.asp#q6

 

Not sure if I agree, having recently removed the side cover from my S&W 642 Airweight, which is only a year old. The side plate-to-frame fit was flawless as far as I could tell, and the fitment of the internals was like that of a fine watch. I was impressed to say the least.

 

Depends on the gun. High-end pieces are no better than they were, no worse. The mid-grade has, in my opinion, slipped in quality.

 

Hand fitting and finishing on an H&H or Purdey is legendary. Does it perform better than a Perazzi or Beretta or an even more expensive Fabbri who was a pioneer in the use of CNC, CAD/CAM, etc? Nope.
Modern guns would be just as good as older ones if they spent the time on QA/QC like they USED to do.

 

bottom line- it depends on the gun in question.

 

Here is a good example...

My 1916 Webley Mk VI, chambered in low pressure .455 and made in the desperate throes of WWI, has significantly tighter lock-up and smaller cylinder gap than almost all S&W Model 327 Performance Center .357 Mag snubs I recently examined.

Whai is wrong with this picture?

 

Some would say...

They don't hand fit like they used to.

Others would say...

They no longer need to hand fit like they used to.

If they'd had the modern techniques and materials in the "golden age" of firearms manufacturing, they too would have left fitting to custom shops, one-offs and manufacturers unable to reliably replicate tolerances in the initial machining/casting/forging phases.

In short, they built guns that way because they had too, not because they were slaves to their inner artisans.

There were makers of crap like many of the Spanish firearms.
There were makers of OK like Stevens and H&R.
Then there was good or better. To play on those fields at that time, fitting was expected/required by that level of consumer relative to production methods available to the manufacturers.

Todd.

 

The new CNC guns are probably tighter and more accurate but they got no soul.

I'll take pride of workmanship over computer programming any day.

 

some of my pistols come from the late 70's and early 80's. I have alot of new Sigs.

SO

Would you rather have a 58 vw bug with 6volt power or a new VW passat turbo diesel?

Love the old ones, but the new ones are my front line everywhere.

be safe

 

My father worked as a machinist all his adult life. His pride of workmanship didn't change a bit when he moved from manual machines to CNCs.

 

Sunray said:

Maybe not "broken in" but many of us know that a little TLC to the mating surfaces of the trigger assemblies of numerous firearms, both hand- & long-guns, benefit from that attention. If they didn't, there wouldn't be the many after-market trigger assemblies for sale!

 

The reality is that guns and cars are both built better then they ever have, they just don't have as much stlye. Not as much heart and soul, no hand fitting, no beautiful wood work, no deep blue. But the reality is that a Glock, XD, Shield ect are some of the best combat handguns ever made and a $300.00 savage, ruger ect will outshoot any pre 64 ever made.

 

Actually I kinda like modern guns. There's a reason why auto-loaders were called "Jamomatics" until 30 years ago or so. All that "hand fitting by trained craftsman" was expensive and looks nice but don't work quite as well as something made with a good CNC machine.