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

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.
Click to expand...

Well if you want to come up with an answer by comparing 2 new S&Ws to two old S&Ws, then go ahead. I think that to be a fruitless endeavor. I was pointing out the right way to answer such a question, which would invariably have flaws anyways. It would be very hard to prove either side with any degree of certainty. Your post before made it seem as though you thought it would not be hard to show, because the older guns are still around. That was IMO over simplifying the situation. I thought the idea of the thread was to attempt to prove newer guns are overall better. Not to say "hey, I like newer guns, but I like abc about the old stuff." I didn't mean to offer a PhD dissertation, so perhaps I misunderstood the thread. I put the level of thought into the thread and my post that I felt was required given the subject matter.

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.
Click to expand...

I think if comparing older S&Ws to newer, and there is no rule for how old, for the old, I think the comparison should be from the best periods for S&W, before WWII, and for the first 18 years or so after. If you don't have much experience with the older 5 screw guns, I think its better to say "newer guns are better than bangor punta guns" since that is where your experience lies.

As I said, I think the high majority of us have S&W experience with newer S&Ws, one old 5 screw, and some bangor punta stuff. However, most of my S&W collection is pre bangor punta. Its an instance of apples to apples and oranges to oranges. I don't think anyone would say the bangor punta stuff was the pinnacle of S&W quality, so to discuss those guns vs new guns basically takes away from the older gun side of the debate.
 
I seem to find more problems with newer guns than the older ones. In the last few years (2006 to present) I've had problems with 2 S&W revolvers, one Kimber 1911, one Browning Citori, one Ruger LC9, one SR1911. All of them would function with the exceptions of the Citori and the Kimber. This is over 50% of my gun purchases over this time period. Plus a Taurus, I forgot about it.
I like the older guns better.
 
I think the comparison should be from the best periods for S&W, before WWII, and for the first 18 years or so after.
Click to expand...
That's part of my bias. I've got some Hellstrom guns, but I'm certainly not running them in IDPA or IPSC. Most folks aren't running those hard, so we're probably not going to see many failures.

If I had X number of pre-58 pistols and X number of post-2000 pistols in similar configuration, and if I were to run them under the same conditions, I'd wager the pre-58 guns would shoot loose at some point sooner. If nothing else, the metallurgy is better.

That said, I don't imagine folks would be lining up to have me ride their classics that hard :confused:

FWIW, the pool I'm describing is from the early 1970's to present.
 
That's part of my bias. I've got some Hellstrom guns, but I'm certainly not running them in IDPA or IPSC. Most folks aren't running those hard, so we're probably not going to see many failures.

If I had X number of pre-58 pistols and X number of post-2000 pistols in similar configuration, and if I were to run them under the same conditions, I'd wager the pre-58 guns would shoot loose at some point sooner. If nothing else, the metallurgy is better.
Click to expand...

Well granted that some would shoot loose, like the early 44 magnums. Realistically, since they were first, they would logically have some issues. Even Colt had 44 mag problems, about 34 years later with the Anaconda. Some of those guns were not designed for a diet of steady magnum loads, so the intent was not for them to take such work.

I agree in a sense with what you are saying. In some ways, we will never know since no one wants to torture test the vintage S&Ws. The other thing is that the new guns, are modifications of the older ones, anyways. Its an advantage that the new guns have, which many of the older ones don't.
 
Please don't kill me for this. I do like the traditional Single Action revolvers. I only want six rounds and fixed sights on my 45 colt ones .......BUT I got rid of my Ruger Single six to make room for a Ruger Single Ten. The extra rounds and fiber optic sight is an improvements over the original. .....IMHO, YMMV, yada, yada, yada
 
I think the fact that 86 different companies are punching out 1911 pistols has made many of them try harder and while the guns (across the board) may not be "better", they sure have advanced and/or updated the platform. The beavertail grip safety, and the fact the the grip safety is designed to disable more surely... and the fact that the pistols run & feed more reliably than in days gone by are a testament either to progress, or as I mentioned -- simple competition.

Yes, these features were no invented today when everyone and their brother started marketing the pistols, but these were features that you practically had to commission back in the 1970s.
 
I do like the traditional Single Action revolvers.
Click to expand...
Actually, I would posit the Ruger single-actions as a good example of progress. They're built on stouter frames than their ancestors, and they incorporate an internal firing pin and transfer bar, making them safer.
 
In general it has been my observation that modern manufacturing processes and Statistical Process control, has given the gun manufacturer's the tools to make guns better. However, the "Quality" initiatives as ISO 9000 are a complete joke. Instead of studying to find and change the actual causes of poor quality, the money is spent on programs that, "create the conditions" that will (supposedly), enable better quality. An example: I worked at a factory producing prosthetic knees and ankles. Under ISO 9000, there was a hard and fast rule that all the elements of an assembly had to remain in bins that were labeled. When an internal inspector found some pins on the table (where they could be easily reached by the assembler), he/she was chided for violating ISO 0000 protocol when in fact, that pin was the only pin in the assembly and could not be confused with any other part. Another example: The factory in which I worked, as per ISO 9000 protocol developed extensive visual aids to supposedly use to train the assemblers to use the exact same assembly sequence as approved. However, when training assemblers, they never made the visual aids available, because they "needed the visual aids on file so they would be available to ISO 9000 inspectors when they came to inspect for compliance". In short, if that factory had spent its money and effort on actual quality control, they would have had less returns of faulty product. But, then they would not have been able to fly the ISO 9000 flag under the U.S. flag on the flag pole.
Thus, modern manufacturing methods a plus, neutralized by the negative of current management practices.
As applied to modern handguns, I purchase a new Colt Combat Commander a few years ago. It came with grips that had very poor checkering. A blind man could have seen it. Where was the final inspector? It also came with a recoil spring that was under-powered, caused malfunctions and had to be replace, as did the firing pin spring. The firing pin spring was also under powered and allowed the firing pin stop to drop down and tie-up the gun when fired. In regard to the recoil spring, when compared to the correct weight spring when working the slide, anyone who sat all day and assembled the 1911, would have known by the feel that it was drastically underpowered. Why did the assembler not detect the problem? Where the H... was the inspection?
I wonder, is Colt ISO 9000 certified?
 
Here's a list of what I think is better now than say 30+ years ago:

1. Higher capacity handguns
2. Reliability of most decent semi-auto's - Jam-o-matic seems to be a term relegated to a time before the Glock era.
3. Cheap, powerful, reliable handgun (See Hi-Point)
4. More powerful and effective ammo - see .380, 9mm, 40, and even .45 in defensive loads - it ain't not your grandpa's .380.
5. Size - pocket sized 9mm +P semi-auto handguns. Weight of the gun to power ratio is way down!
6. Weight of most guns is way down due to materials.
7. Investment casting has greatly improved in consistency.
8. quality of CC guns. There is a huge improvement in the quality of small guns. Compare old Iver Johnson or US Revolver Co. .32 and .38 S&W's to a Ruger LC9, Rohrbaugh or Boberg. Does anyone really want to go back to the "good old days"? I've got a box full of these old frames, parts, etc. Whenever I get a notion that "guns were better in the good old days", I pull out this box of junk and look through it......not everything that is old was good!
 
There was a real reason for being hand-fitted - because they could not replicate the same parts over and over and over again.
Click to expand...

That is a prize winning observation.​

Materials have certainly improved but the real key is being able to produce part after part with a "build to nominal" mindset that results in parts assembling with minimum hand fitting.

The key is to have a process in control and understand the bandwidth of the process as it relates to part assembly and interchangeability.

When I was a teenager, the hot rodders called it "blue printing" an engine. Building to nominal and reducing variation yielded engines that ran smoother and delivered more horsepower with less wear and tear. The same concept allows manufacturers to build guns with easily obtainable replacement parts the user can install without handfitting. The system isn't perfect, but it is improving.
 
Whether or not guns are as good as nowadays as they were in the past is highly subjective. Reasons is folks all have a different perception of what is "better". To some reliability, accuracy and durability are foremost. To some, it is a beautiful deep blued finish and wood that melts perfectly with the surrounding metal....and to some it is just traditional styling. I thought it informative that the last issue of "Handgunner" magazine had a article about the history of the .357 magnum revolver. In two places in that article, they made mention that in the early 50s, S&W determined that many folks were more interested in shooting than paying for an exquisite finish. This tells me that even 60 years ago there was a difference of opinions amongst shooters over what a made a "quality" firearm. The more things change, the more they stay the same.......;)
 
Say what what will about current Marlin lever guns my mid 12' 1895 is a shooter. I can't find anything to complain about with it. I'm just glad I don't pay attention to all the whiners because if I did I wouldn't own any guns. Just be sure to look them over before you take them home that's all.
 
There was a real reason for being hand-fitted - because they could not replicate the same parts over and over and over again.
Click to expand...
I guess you never heard of Eli Whitney and his introduction of mass production relative to firearms. Oh, oh! Someone slept through History Class. Mass production (replication of same parts) has been here a long, long time.
 
Last edited:
The older guns were "better" in some respects. For one thing, manufacturers fired a proof load for each chamber; today, many American makers don't fire any proof load (the U.S. has no proof law). And they fired one cylinder or magazine for function. That costs money and today many companies skip it, figuring that if the gun doesn't work the customer will return it and THEN they will fix it. (That approach was taken by some auto companies; no one worries if the customer is too dead to complain.)

As one part of that, guns almost always (99.99999999%) worked out of the box. Sure there were goofs (like the Colt I mentioned), but "out of the box" reliability was taken for granted.

So were the guns better? I still don't think they were, but quality control was better. Did the factories goof? Sure, but the mistakes were caught by factory workers or inspectors, not by the customer.

Jim
 
I guess you never heard of Eli Whitney and his introduction of mass production relative to firearms. Oh, oh! Someone slept through History Class. Mass production (replication of same parts) has been here a long, long time.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself, Eli didn't invent it - but the firearm makers couldn't make it work at the time - which is where my comment came from - try again with the insults, though:rolleyes:

The Terracotta Army commissioned by the first Chinese Emperor Qin Shi Huangdi is a collection of about 8000 life-sized ceramic soldiers and horses buried with the emperor, who died in 210 BCE. The figures had their separate body-parts manufactured by different workshops that were later assembled to completion. Notably, each workshop inscribed its name on the part they manufactured to add traceability for quality construction.

At the peak of its efficiency in the early 16th century, the Venetian Arsenal employed some 16,000 people who could apparently produce nearly one ship each day, and could fit out, arm, and provision a newly built galley with standardized parts on an assembly-line basis not seen again until the Industrial Revolution.
Click to expand...

Probably the earliest example of a linear and continuous assembly process in post-Renaissance times is the Portsmouth Block Mills, built between 1801 and 1803. Marc Isambard Brunel (father of Isambard Kingdom Brunel), with the help of Henry Maudslay and others, designed 22 types of machine tools to make the parts for the rigging blocks used by the Royal Navy. This factory was so successful that it remained in use until the 1960s, with the workshop still visible at HM Dockyard in Portsmouth, and still containing some of the original machinery.
Click to expand...

Eli Whitney is sometimes credited[by whom?] with developing the armory system of manufacturing in 1801, using the ideas of division of labor, engineering tolerance, and interchangeable parts to create assemblies from parts in a repeatable manner. But Whitney's contribution was mostly as a popularizer rather than inventor of repeatability. He was inspired by several others, likely including Honoré Blanc,
Click to expand...

If you're going to insult someone, at least have your facts correct.......

Have a great day.....;)

ADDED to keep it gun related:
The manufacture of firearms at Springfield helped usher in the age of mass production. An ingenious inventor named Thomas Blanchard, who worked for the Springfield Armory for five years, created a special lathe for the production of wooden gun stocks.
Click to expand...
 
How about this small study to compare the new to the old. I have an S&W 629-1 with a 4" barrel that I am very proud of. It has seen me through some very ugly country. A couple days ago I decided to put it through its paces in close range double action work with a very light 44 special load. When I bought the Smith in the early 80's its action was rough. The state of its lockwork today represents the best work I can do. After I finished I decided to try a New Service 45 with a 4" barrel made in 1924 at the same distance and same speed to see how much worse I would do with the Colt. The load I used in the 44 Smith was significantly lighter, the sights on the Smith were modern adjustable compared to old fixed sights on the Colt, and not even the best fixed sights. Colt improved their New Service fixed sights in 1932. The Smith is several ounces heavier and with a slightly lighter double action pull. I was stunned. I was much faster and more accurate with the old New Service.

My test proved nothing. It certainly doesn't prove anything comparing Colt to Smith & Wesson or old vs. new. It did prove to me that my best action work does not equal the work of some unknown gunsmith whose name I'll never know.

The very best work is hand fit. There are people today capable of turning out magnificent work, but fewer of them are involved in turning out production items.
 
There was a real reason for being hand-fitted - because they could not replicate the same parts over and over and over again.
Click to expand...
Nonsense! The modern machine tool had already been invented way before 1900.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_tool
If they had not been, the Colt 1911 and P-08 would have been hammered out and draw-filled by gunsmiths as were Kentucky/Pennsylvania rifles. With machine tools, they could replicate the same parts over and over again...despite who actually was credited with or adapted the concept of mass production to the process of gun making.
I guess you never heard of Eli Whitney and his introduction of mass production relative to firearms.
Click to expand...
Notice I never said anything about terracotta soldiers or ships.Back to your search engine.
 
With machine tools, they could replicate the same parts over and over again
Click to expand...

So if they could replicate the same parts over and over again, why were all the older S&W's and Colt's hand fit? Why not just replicate a part that fit?
 
I guess you never heard of Eli Whitney and his introduction of mass production relative to firearms.
Click to expand...

Missed the other parts too, eh? Oh well. I am not going to get into a battle of wits with an unarmed person

Try again............................

Mass production (replication of same parts) has been here a long, long time.
Click to expand...
YOUR quote

Exactly, long before Eli.........:rolleyes:

Gun parts were developed for mass production long before, the process of mass production - regardless of the industry was developed long before - your refusing to believe does not make it untrue

So try to keep your attacks to a minimum and the thread on topic to avoid closure
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top