"Don't make 'em like they used to..." Or do they?

Can't think of one. But what do you expect in this day of engineering and manufacturing decisions being made by bean counters and manufacturing being done by a largely disgruntled workforce?
Also the O.P. Is talking about yesterdays k-frame against todays k-frame. Not yesterdays 1911 vs. A Glock.
 
IMHO, if the guns of today were not made with those "cheap" materials and production methods, if they were still hand fitted and filed and stoned by those old timey craftsmen (who would have to be paid at least $50 an hour to get skilled workers), none of us would be able to afford a handgun. As it is, a reasonable quality handgun will cost at least $500; made the way they were "in the old days" that figure would be $2500-3000.

The single biggest changes in handguns over the last 20-30 years has been the increased use of stainless steel and polymer. The more recent use of MIM has made some changes and kept costs down, but it has not had the overwhelming impact that the material changes have had.

Jim
 
James K, what does the cost of production have to do with whether old or new is better? If, doing it the old way cost 3,000 a gun to make today, that still has nothing to do with whether an old k-frame or new k-frame is better.
 
I will say that Colts and S&Ws from the 1930s, seem to have a better, deeper bluing than their modern counterparts,
Click to expand...

Yes, I’ve always sort of felt the same way. Does anyone know if there’s been updated safety or environmental regulations that resulted in changes to the process?
 
I have owned a LOT of guns over the years, and shot many many more.
Rifles and handguns included.

Anschutz, Winchester, Walther, Remington, Kimber, Hamerilli, FWB, and others.

While living in Colrado Springs I belonged to the shooting club at the Olympic Training Center.
I have shot some amazingly accurate guns.

But I have never owned a true 1 hole gun (capable of putting all ounds in 1 hole) until now.

It is an old, Mossberg M44US . 22, Marked US PROPERTY. sold to army in January 1943 (according to the guy i got it from George Fram, head of the Mossberg Museum)

They hand lapped the barrels back then.

This thing after finding the right ammo, and tuning the barrel band, will stack 10 shots in one .24 caliber hole at 25 yards.

The trigger is atrocious by today's standards, but with the factory peep sights, it is amazing.

I ont know if it has been shot so much it just knows where the bullseye is, or ht.

I think they took more care in the production back then, as there was less automation.

But the craftsmanship and caring was there.

It is a parkerized big hunk of steel, in a heavy wood stock, but everyone who shoots it wants it.

10 shots 25 yards.
k9goev.jpg


A.40 caliber hull shot at 25 yards
72qgc2.jpg


Playing card split 25 yds.
9i624y.jpg
 
[donning flame resistant suit]
Click to expand...
Allow me to borrow that for a second.

Smith & Wesson revolvers. Sure, I miss the pretty bluing, but the consistency of the newer guns is better than anything made in my lifetime.
 
High Standards

I love old High Standard target pistols made in Hamden, CT. However, the High Standards made in Houston, TX are better shooters. To prove that to myself, I did some extensive testing of High Standards from Houston vs Hamden. As a control, I put two Volquartsen barrels in the mix just to verify the results under the same conditions. Here is what I found:
Chart.jpg
 
Dan Wesson, Ed Brown, Les Baer: they don't make them like guns of the past, they make them better.
Quality small parts = past.
Night sights > past.
Enhancements (beavertail grip safety) > past.

It is possible to still buy a MIM free, no internal lock, no magazine disconnect, quality pistol
 
As to the Coonan Classi, it can't be better than when "it used to be." Because it didn't "used to be made" in the classic period. It's a Johnny come lately.
Click to expand...
Either I can't follow what you are saying... or you are mistaken as to what these pistols are about.

The Coonan Classic is merely the name of the current production Coonan .357 Magnum "Automatic." With the exception of different hammer, slightly different trigger and updated roll markings, the pistol is of the same exact design as the Coonan Model B. It is make differently today than it was in the early 1980s, but it's the same pistol.

Are you saying that it can't be the same pistol because it is made differently?
If that is the argument, how can we compare...anything in this thread?

Or are you saying that the original Coonan pistol that debuted in the very late 1970s can't be considered "old enough" to qualify for a comparison to something made in 2013? I mean... that's like 30+ years. ;) Would be hard to argue that isn't an expanse of time.
 
I'll play. Tom Servo's got the S&W revolver covered, so I'll go out of my comfort zone, and chime in on a rifle; my choice being the FN SPR bolt action rifle, essentially a modern Winchester Model 70 in tactical clothing.

Unlike the pre-64 M70, it comes in a true short action, and unlike the current FN-made Model 70s, it utilizes the classic, tested, and highly respected trigger of the pre-64. The best of both worlds. Quality? I've not ran across anything negative said about it. My deer rifle's built on an SPR action & trigger, and it's been terrific. No complaints here.
 
Smith & Wesson revolvers. Sure, I miss the pretty bluing, but the consistency of the newer guns is better than anything made in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

What kind of a sampling size are we talking and how far are you going back? I hope when you say "old days" you are talking the pre war stuff, and the post war 5 and 4 screw stuff. I own a lot of that, and while my new guns are fine, its hard to say they are better, as a customer. They are better manufactured in a sense that they probably cost less to make today, in comparison, and they are made faster. But for me, are today's really better? Well I'm not qualified to really say I guess, because I have observed too small a sampling of new guns.

You have to think that at one time, with gun makers, building a great gun was more important than the bottom dollar, because it was understood that as a gun maker, you would make money anyways. The economy was great before the depression, and after WWII, in the 1950s, into the 70s, people had money and had jobs. In addition, guns were overall more popular back then, it was less taboo, and shooting as a hobby was it, because there wasn't iphone, facebook, or xbox. Since the 70s and 80s, IMO its been a question of "how can we reduce costs all the way?" or "how can we increase the profit margin even more?" To put it plain and simple, its a different world. I have to doubt the experience level posters here have with older guns, such as older S&Ws, and older doesn't mean 1975, IMO, it means more like 1935. With each company, they had peaks and valleys at different times. I have many older S&Ws, and I have not been disappointed at all, ever. Could that be because the guy who bought a lemon 1935 addressed back then? Maybe, but then again, S&W started outselling Colt by large margins before WWII and esp after, and sold more and more and more; they truly flourished. Its hard for me to think that they flourished, unless they did most everything right.

As for myself, I think its a toss up in many ways. For example, today there is newer technology, more precise manufacturing, great materials coupled with a much worse economy, and a stronger desire to cut costs. In the old days, there was hand fitting due to less precise part manufacturing, but a higher personal attention to each gun, resulting in IMO a better quality control, along with a better economy, which meant the companies were less about the bottom dollar (IMO). Companies back then could afford to over engineer items. Today, I don't think companies care about making something that will last decades. I don't think the desire to be the best is as important today as the all-mighty dollar.

In closing, some guns are better today, and some are not. It would take a ton of personal experience with both to say anything that is definitive.

Just my opinion...
 
No they don't make them like they used to and in some cases it is a good thing. I have not seen many modern guns wore out. My grandmother's Stevens 22 single shot was wore out, it had a Penney for a front sight and no extractor, you needed a knife to extract the spent case. A lot of the 19th century guns were made of iron or brass. The toggle on the early lever actions were week and it was said that a Colt SSA would operate with a number of broken parts.

The 1911 and the double action revolvers of today have better heat treating and machining than in the past. Yes there was a lot of hand fitting, some of that has been made un unnecessary by CAD.

While I like 1911s and SAA, if I hade to rely on them, I would not trade one Ruger Blackhalk or Glock 21 for a dozen of the 1911 or SAA made in 1911 (now a current model 1911A1 Springfield might be different).

The truth of the matter is that most people do not shoot a gun enough to ware one out (or learn how to use it). I recently bought a Charter Arms Bulldog that is like new and was made in 1974, have probably shot it more than the original owner.
 
Sevens asked:
Either I can't follow what you are saying... or you are mistaken as to what these pistols are about.

The Coonan Classic is merely the name of the......
Click to expand...

My slight attempt at humour. When I refer to "like they used to be made" I refer to guns made prior to WW II.

I regret any confusion.


Bob Wright
 
For those who presently own older models and later models, you can surely say for sure but if you "remember" a trigger or fit or finish from a gun 30 years ago then chances are the memory is clouded with age.

We'll never know how good or bad a gun was back in the 50s and 60s. There was no internet. How did you hear about issues? Word of mouth at a gun shop? Letters to the editor in a gun rag? We'll never truly know how good or bad a gun was "in the good old days".

Today, if it isn't made good or made to last then the electronic media will crush a company. Whatever the final result is, it better be good enough to please a large spectrum of buyers/owners. If an "old school" writer or shooter gets a few bad samples he can bury the product line on the internet. They better be good or they won't last very long these days. As for days gone by, we'll never truly know how good or bad a line of guns were.
 
Did those guns from the 50s and 60s evaporate when the 70s hit? :confused:

Why can't we know that today's guns are better? We don't have to "remember", the world is still quite filled with guns from well over a century ago, say nothing of 40 or 50 years ago.
 
I was referring to initial quality and reliability.
I did say those who presently own both can say for sure, however, but if S&W made 500,000 Model XX in 1952, how many are still around and how were they (functional, reliable, well fit) when new? I would guess that only the better ones made it to today's collections.
 
Why can't we know that today's guns are better? We don't have to "remember", the world is still quite filled with guns from well over a century ago, say nothing of 40 or 50 years ago.
Click to expand...

I for one am not saying a study could not be done, I am saying that any kind of quality study was not done by any of us. So for someone to say, today they are better, more consistent in quality, closer to spec, is only a theory, IMO. None of us can make blanket statements on this subject, but rather it has to be looked at from a case by case basis. For example, its a little assinine to reference an old stevens 22 single shot, unless you compare it directly to a new economy made single shot. Even then, would you put a new gun through the use of the old one? How much use does it take to wear that older gun out? You have to compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges.

IMO, I can't think that the modern blued S&Ws, the classic line for example, is any better than the older ones. Perhaps they should be, but a study would have to be done. I think the quality emphasis was higher back then. In addition, I think the underlying goal is different today. Its a different world.

One issue is that the older guns which had problems probably had them addressed back then. So if we took a sampling of say 50 post war 5 screw K22s, and 50 of the new classic line model 17s/K22s, we would probably have 50 great ones from the old days because they probably are flawless. It would be hard to find a vintage pistol which survived with a manufacturing defect. In addition, it would be hard to get a good vintage sample to study, because many older guns were customized in different ways.

There are simply too many variables at hand. Blanket statements about this subject are short-sighted.
 
Gee, guys, you make me feel old. I know what guns were like 40, 50, 60 years ago because I was buying them new. And most were very good guns, indeed. But like the guy who said he knew Doris Day before she was a virgin, I know what those guns were like, and they weren't that much, if any, better than the ones made today. Of course, for a lot of that time, there were no Ruger centerfire pistols or revolvers, and Colt was doing well. The mistake Colt made was that after WWII they began to concentrate on police sales and lost interest in satisfying the general public. The promotion and later adoption of the M16 resulted in Colt just about giving up the commercial market to S&W. Colt also had a bad (almost fatal) habit of zigging when the firearms market was sagging.

One major change from the firearms market years ago is the diversity of the products available today. "Back then" there was only one American maker of CF auto pistols - Colt. And one model, and two calibers. No new pocket pistols, though the market was flooded with "bringback" Walthers, Sauers, etc. At one point, those guns were selling for $5-$10. P.38's were $5-10, Lugers $15-20. (My first Luger cost $30.)

Anyone in doubt need only check the old Gun Digests and look at the handgun pages. Not much there. Of course, H&R and I.J. were represented, mostly .22 revolvers, and High Standard .22 autos were well regarded, as was the Colt Woodsman with its "breaking glass" trigger pull.

Today, there are pages of handguns, domestic and foreign, and mixed. This afternoon I looked at a Sig-Sauer 1911. A Sig-Sauer 1911!!??? To anyone raised during WWII, that is almost unbelievable. And I got to the store in a Toyota.

Yup, many, many changes. Some good, some bad. That Toyota is a better car than my 1948 Chevy was, but today's Chevies are better, too. They have to be to compete with Toyota and the other Japanese, German, and Korean (Korean???) makers. Korean! Who'd a thunk it?

Jim
 
Winchester,
I don't think anyone is asking for a PhD dissertation. ;)
This forum is filled with opinions. We don't need statistically valid, double blind studies for this thread, either.
 
Winchester, I may not have a big-city college degree, but I know sciency stuff when I say it ;)

In my experience, I can draw some comparisons from a rather large pool of Bangor Punta, Tomkins, and Saf-T-Hammer guns I've dealt with over the last few decades. I've seen far fewer problems with the post-2000 guns than the older ones.

My results are going to be somewhat subjective due to any number of factors, but the overall impression is that the newer ones are very solid and consistent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top