Many new firearms these days look sloppy

An old adage used to explain inflation, and has generally been true since 1873 is “a damned good handgun is worth an ounce of gold.”
Click to expand...

I'd never heard it put quite that way, until now. And I think it seems a bit overvalued.

The one I heard, from back in the early 70s was "in the 1970s a $20 gold piece would buy you a Colt revolver. Today, that same $20 gold piece will still buy you a Colt revolver. But a $20 Federal Reserve note won't even come close. (alternate: "but a $20 Fed reserve note will barely buy a box of ammunition" which, in those days, it would but today won't come close...)

The base price of a new 1873 Colt Peacemaker in the 1870s was $20.

An 1870s $20 gold piece was not an ounce of gold. More like 7/8 oz or so, and the gold in it wasn't pure gold, it was coinage gold.

The considerable value of a $20 gold piece today is not because of the metal content but because of its value as a rare old coin.
 
I'm an old guy, about to turn 65 and I don't know exactly why, but I always from as far back as I remember, thought suits and especially, ties, were just silly. My dad wore a suit, no tie, to work, and I just didn't get it, he was the boss, and could wear whatever he wanted. Nobody who worked for him wore a suit. Nobody.

Even when I was a little kid, I knew it would be unlikely for me to ever have a job where I wore a suit and tie. Last time I wore one, it was to a funeral, and almost nobody else had one on. Times change, and dressing up is sort of a thing of the past..
 
This post rather reads like you're lamenting the differences in life as a whole now and using guns only as a passing point to keep it relevant.

The amount of labor hours required to make guns the way they used to be made would make them exorbitantly priced in comparison. The cost of everything has gone up and the buying power of the average American has continued to decline year over year relative to productivity. People are able to afford less. When I was working as a gunsmith, I (meaning the shop I worked for, I didn't set prices) would charge more to cut your supplied barrel blank and apply a finish than some off-the-shelf rifles cost.

There are still very fine, hand fitted firearms available. They generally are found in the $3,000+ range. Nighthawk, Wilson Combat, many custom manufacturers, Korth, etc. I just saw Beretta is importing Manuhrin's MR73 revolver from France. They're famously overbuilt with ordnance steel and heat treatment, beautiful deep blue finish, and over a dozen hours of hand fitting each. Price is expected to be $3,300-$3,500. Doesn't get any cheaper to make that in the US even if you pay your labor barebones rates (labor that then can't afford the quality of product you're talking about).

Guns at this price range are luxury items, so even people who can afford them often baby them and have separate hard use firearms so they don't ruin the ones they had to save up for. I can't afford for all of my guns to be luxury firearms. I'll take something that works well and has cosmetic issues versus one where all of the money is put in the fine finish and you have to worry whether it will work in hard conditions.

If you want fine manufacturing, support your local gunsmith. A good one will be happy to do a high-quality, hand-fitted build on very high end materials to your exact specifications and a finish like you won't believe. Just don't get sticker shock when you see what that kind of quality costs these days.
 
AlongCameJones said:
in cosmetic appearance. This is especially true for metal finishes and stamped markings in gun metal. Most older-production guns looked so much nicer like the builders took pride in their workmanship.

Commercial manufacturing sloppiness is also true on many other consumer products these days from air conditioners to lawn mowers.

Neatness no longer counts. Old-fashioned pride is no longer appreciated.
Work ethics have gone to Sam Hill in a rusty old wheelbarrow, figuratively speaking. Frankly,a rusty old wheelbarrow is likely to originally have had better craftsmanship and materials than most new wheelbarrows.

One can often tell that there is no more pride by the way people generally dress these days too. People aren't as generally well-groomed anymore. The last well-bred human generation seems to be the generation X'ers that follow boomers like me.

People don't speak and act as proper as they used to and most dogs have better manners than most children and many young adults.

Consumer products therefore reflect the quality (or lack thereof) of the people that build them. It's all about being lazy, corporate greed and taking as much money as possible from the consumer and giving as little as possible in return.

The following is a comparison picture of two Mossberg 500 receiver underside markings side by side. One a current-production model and one a vintage model. Which one looks much neater and more legible than the other? The camera was in focus on the right-hand picture with the flash turned off under a bright desk overhead light so you can see what it looks like to the naked human eye.
Click to expand...
There is still well made stuff out there. Problem is that most consumers prefer functional and affordable. High end , pretty guns have a niche market; but they are not what the masses want to pay for. I am getting just as bad. All my pretty guns stay in the safe.
 
I agree with most of what has been said.

I don't shop at wally Wawa. I don't have unlimited funds, but I expect a certain level of value for my hard earned dollars. Cheap craps doesn't fit my expectations.

An 1873 Colt sold for $20-$25. In today's dollars, $2000-$25000. Comparable. Today's fit and finish, machining and metalurgy improvement, would make a new Colt a better value. IMHO
Disposable income is a major component, though. The "nessities" vying for that income.

To compete companies have changed. What is the best selling pistol? Plastic.
AR lowers? Plastic

Remington 870 Wingmaster vs Express.
Pre-64 Win 94 vs newer.
Ruger Single Six vs Wrangler

Billet vs sintered metal / cast

High polish, dark, rich bluing = hours of hand polishing

Hand rubbed oil finish on hand checkered Walnut stock vs molded plastic / bolt on.

Not much different than 100 years ago, the masses bought a Ford or Chevy or those who looked at Lincoln or Caddy.
 
Last edited:
AlongCameJones said:
So, it's not like product makers have forgotten how to make decent-looking things. The corporate executives just want to stuff their fat faces with profits. My former 1995-vintage Mossberg 500 retailed about $300 new and the trademark stamping and bluing was more than satisfactory to me then and the price was still modest.

I'm real crazy about cosmetics. My mother punished me at age nine for sloppy handwriting. She was Catholic-school-educated in the 1940's.
She once threatened to slap my head right off my body because I was signing a birthday card for my grandmother and the cursive capital G wasn't neat. My mother had sticks and spoons to beat me up. My father was raised old-fashioned too. My parents were spank happy.

Do children these days even know the term "penmanship"?
Click to expand...
When it comes to "Penmanship", it is notable that no one writes with a pen and ink anymore and the only cursive needed in our society is one's signature. In sum, penmanship is obsolete, having been replaced with keyboarding. However, I do not know how any of that can be generalized to the subject of firearm manufacturing.
 
I think that this original poster's claim is factually incorrect and an example of pining for an imaginary past that never existed.

First, most of the firearms we see from the past are the good ones. People preserve and collect Colts and Smith & Wessons, but they sold low-budget shoddily made guns in the 19th and 20th Centuries just like they do now, but nobody enshrines those.

Second, even the bad guns are better nowadays. The CNC machine isn't going to come in to work hung over, and the laser engraver won't be doing a half-fast job because it's feeling underpaid.
 
The other side of that coin is that the machines have no pride and will never do a better than programmed job to show how good they are.

Admittedly the people making bargain firearms didn't do much of that, either but that was a matter of choice, not programming.

With some exceptions, gone are the days when people were willing to pay more for a "quality appearance".

There are still places where you can get a really good, "handmade" burger, but you won't get that at McDonalds, or for McD's prices.
 
I can get better food and better handguns made with more pride now than at any time in my life.

As always, the good stuff isn't cheap, because people who care enough to do superlative work deserve to be recompensed for it.
 
I expect more decline in quality.
Click to expand...

I expect you're right, but first off, how do you define "quality" and particularly in guns that never had "traditional quality" fit and finish to begin with??

Myself, (and a few others I know) feel S&W revolvers lost a lot of "quality" when they stopped pinning the barrels and recessing magnum chambers. And further changes just made it seem worse. They still make a good gun, but its not the same "quality" they used to be.

The other side of the coin (my coins have lots of sides:rolleyes:) what about the mass market "duty class" and ccw autos of recent decades. Military type flat finishes, plastic frames, etc. Good sound, serviceable designs but without a shred of anything to me that says "quality workmanship".

Maybe we need another class, so for now, lets say if it works its quality, if it doesn't its crap and if it works and looks like it was made with skill care and artistry, its "high quality", perhaps??
 
AlongCameJones said:
The camera was in focus according to the indicator in the viewfinder. Camera was in close-up mode. Flash was turned off intentionally. Lighting was a 64-watt overhead florescent fixture. The image will look sharper with flash on but naked human eyes don't normally observe things with constant camera flash on. Here is a shot with flash but some of the markings still don't register clearly.
Click to expand...
Great excuses for a bad picture. :rolleyes:
 
44 AMP said:
Myself, (and a few others I know) feel S&W revolvers lost a lot of "quality" when they stopped pinning the barrels and recessing magnum chambers.
Click to expand...

Literally LOL'ed at that hoary myth. That occurred toward the tail end of the Bangor Punta era, which was full of horrible QC. Luckily armchair S&W collectors just look at the pinned barrel and recessed chambers on a Model 19-4 and get all excited and pay a premium, even though the barrel and top chamber aren't even remotely coaxial. :D:rolleyes:

Smith & Wesson's QC has been an oscillating wave since the first Model 1's shipped before the Civil War. The very first production change, from the Model 1 First Issue to the Model 1 Second Issue, was to simplify production and increase profit margin. The idea of a lost Golden Age of S&W quality is the Atlantis Myth of the gunternet.
 
I can see your point, but I think that what determines "quality" is also something up to the opinion of the individual owners.

Its not just the mechanical quality of manufacture (though that is a big and very important part) but to me, its also the "quality" of the total package.

IF/When a maker drops or changes features that were standard for generations, features that I expect and want, to me that is a loss of quality in their product. Likewise when they ADD features I don't care about, or want, same thing. I don't care why they do it. I care about what I want, the way I want, for what I'm spending.
And, if I can't get that, because the maker has changed things, then I consider that a loss of quality.

Not mechanical quality (though there is often some of that) but a loss of esthetic quality, which is entirely an individual opinion, and what matters to me, is my opinion.

I'm a fossil, most of my opinions are pretty petrified, I've had dozens of S&Ws over the years, still have about half a dozen or so left, all with the features I want, and none of what I don't want. My needs are well covered and so are nearly all my wants, and what they are making now days doesn't do it for me, so I'm not buying any. They may actually be technically better made, I don't care. FOR ME, they don't have the quality they used to have, and that's enough, for me.

Enjoy what you like, I'll do the same, as best I can in the time I have left. What else really matters?
 
I don't know, but, have any of you looked at some of the Italian replicas? 1873 revolvers and the like? Some of their lever guns? They're pretty damn nice. Fit and finish, timing and overall appearance. Smooth actions; they seem to me, they are made rather well. And , at 1/3 the price of Colt's. Just my thoughts.
 
44 AMP said:
Not mechanical quality (though there is often some of that) but a loss of esthetic quality, which is entirely an individual opinion, and what matters to me, is my opinion.

I'm a fossil, most of my opinions are pretty petrified, I've had dozens of S&Ws over the years, still have about half a dozen or so left,
Click to expand...

LOL

I'm not talking about "mechanical quality".

I'm glad you've owned dozens of Smiths over the years. That's great! It keeps the love of S&W history alive, and that's a thing in which I'm invested. I've owned literally hundreds. Let's flex on each other. ;)

There's more to quality than how shiny the blue is. How square are the corners? How true are the flats? How even are the rollmarks?

I'm beginning to feel that sticking my toe back into the TFL waters was a mistake.
 
The manufacturing industry as a whole is much improved over years ago. Computer aided design and manufacturing technology is leaps and bounds beyond hand drawing and manual machining. Now, it doesn't mean that mistakes are not still made in design or even manufacturing, but they are significantly fewer than in years past. Also, manufactures are much more consistent meaning they might machine 2000 slides and they'll be practically identical something that would have never happened with 20 different guys manually machining parts.

Now, to say that modern quality has deteriorated due to appearance I suppose I can understand that point of view. However, remember manufactures are providing what "most" customers want at a price point they are willing to pay. People like Bill Wilson still make beautiful and well machined guns, but they cost four or five times what a Colt 1911 might.
 
not just the firearms industry. Having just retired from 23 years in a major woodshop,we had quality issues constantly.New employees come and go like a revolving door. Instead of an intensive training period that a new employee needs the company wants to start them off at the top. As a consequence,they do horrible work,get dismayed,and soon quit.We had to hire ten employees to get just one to stay past a year.It can take years to become a master at your trade.Also,many new employees are started on night shift,where quality sucked but the managers didnt care,as its too hard to get people to stay on nights.This is probably an across the board representation of todays manufacturing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top