Rifle Quality - Then and Now

Status
Not open for further replies.
I study firearm design and have for decades and the OP made some valid points. The older machinery, no matter how good couldnt hold the tolerences of the new CNC machines. This one point isnt the end of the story. The barrel nut system used on the Savage and now Marlin bolt action is interesting and has proven itself in the accuracy department. However what the OP didnt mention was the fact that this was designed to be the cheapest way to manyfacture a barreled action. When Savage came up with this idea their major concern was, how to build a rifle so cheap as to have a maket advantage. Thus they built the model 110. The rifle got its model number by the price they charged for the gun $110. This system requires very little skilled labor, thus lower wages. I saw a program on Rugers 10/22 factory. Not a skilled person was observed. A total assembly line process. The steel quality of barrels is superb in newer guns, and accuracy from closer tollerences is breaking records daily. Again however, this doesnt not end the story of modern manufacture versus past manufacture. From what I can assern, the entire machining of quite a number of modern guns consist of fewer that 35 operations. I derived this fiqure myself from observations of construction design, it is not set in stone but is close. The machining operations required to build the rear sight alone on a 1898 Krag was 44 operations. Far more quality machining in older guns, mostly milled from billets of steel. Newer guns are cast, stamped tin, MIM, and plastic. As for the bolt on the Savage, while functional and an aid to increased accuracy, it was built and designed to be the cheapest possible. It works quite well I am told but this multi piece bolt is a far cry from the old machined bolts of the past. No bolt handle cant fall off the old model 70's as the were machined intergrally. No front sight to fall off as these were machined into the barrel as well. I would far prefer an older all machined steel gun that is only capable of 1 1/2" groups to a modern gun capable of 1/2" groups if hunting or survival was the purpose of the gun.
 
My brother came across a salvage 110, I think, with some kind of trigger. I have read great things about this gun. It is a peace of ???? I know you can still buy nice guns but this thing is at the bottom of the barrel. I got my grandson a bb gun, a Daisey, the cocking lever was plastic the sights were plastic.What has happened to the good old USA?
Sorry about ranting
 
As far as bolt action rifles go, I don't think there has been a true improvement in the design or manufacture since the advent of the '98 Mauser. Everything since has just been a modification of an established masterpiece. Same thing with Martin acoustic guitars, Mitchell 300 spinning reels and the Ford Model A.
Of course, like everything else on internet forums, this is just an opinion. Even if it is correct.

Merry Christmas to you and yours,
George
 
Quality and craftsmanship still exist today if you are willing to pay for it. Also, there was no shortage of junk and schlock back in the "good ole days". It just went to the junkyard long ago leaving us only with the good stuff to admire today.
 
I own some of the older guns, and a nice new AR, too. I've also been in production, and the OP is dead on. Modern machining is much more precise than yesteryear.

The '64 Winchester is exactly what was wrong with the golden oldies, sorry, but gunmaking is for profit, not cranking out inefficiently designed parts with high production costs. What the older shooters are really griping about is not getting the hand finish parts that were excessively polished and fitted to hairline fits. What they wanted were affordable guns with custom level workmanship. It takes labor to do it, and THEY no longer want to pay the going rate for it. What's happened is THEIR perspective hasn't kept up with inflation, and likely, their wages haven't, either.

Frankly, they just got lucky and could afford workmanship that they were giving away for the low wages of the day.

There's a totally separate element that has also been introduced: design. Guns simply don't need to be made the same way, or in the same materials. The barrel nut method of attachment is far superior in attachment, setting headspace accurately, interchangeability, and doesn't need a 20 ton press and jig to do it. That means assembly time is dramatically reduced, tolerances much easier to hold, overhead costs reduced, and safety for the workman increased. What the gripers don't like is the style of what it looks like.

It boils down to how well someone can appreciate what they are looking at while sitting on a stump. With a 1964 Winchester '94, I can see the obvious pitting from a lack of any durable finish, dings in dyed softwood, cracked varnish in the finish, tight fits that create more working friction and harbor moisture that only stiffens the action and increases inaccuracy. I don't really see why older guns with high labor cost, inefficient parts that might have looked pretty for a few years decades ago are valued so highly. They aren't that good an example of being weather resistant or accurate - in fact, they're pretty much meant to become obsolete, and it's apparent every time I see a rusting wall hanger that "Pride of Ownership" was sold out to "Durable and timeless."

I'd much rather sit on a stump and admire the intelligent design and technology of the AR15 I assembled. It will pretty much look exactly the same in 25 years when my kids inherit it. The nitrided finish won't be a rash of speckles, the anodized finish still new under the paint over it, the stocks burnished with wear but unfaded and whole. It will have survived falling over onto a gravel parking lot, getting banged around on concrete or wooden range benches, clamped in a vice, and taken down completely for cleaning and reassembled, barrel and all, in one hour.

What some are really saying is they like what the old guns represent - which appreciation doesn't seem to extend to dial phones or refrigerators without ice makers, kitchens with no dishwasher, or hanging clothes on the line to dry. They don't handcrank their car to start it, or wear heavy coats driving in the winter and scraping frost off the inside of the windshield. They don't light candles on the Christmas tree, or split wood by hand with the axe they felled the tree with.

And they don't wear boots with sewed on leather soles and heels. That stuff is fine to visit, I pay money to go to Silver Dollar City or Har-Ber village and see it. History has it's place, but I don't wind a pocket watch daily, and living that way doesn't really interest me. Neither does being stuck with old guns that can't really do the job as well as new ones, ask the guy who bought the '94 in '94, with those new smokeless powder shells. Amazing stuff, you don't have to pour powder down the barrel no more, or wait til it clears to see if'n you hit the deer.

What will they think up next?
 
Some companys just produce more lemons per thousand than others.,simple as that and it changes over time. QUALITY CONTROL and it is the reason some rifle manufacturers have much better reps., case in point, pre 64 Winchester Model 70s. Everyone raves about them and has for yrs,are they any better than the new ones? i really dont know? but they seem to be somewhat of a modern day standard to compare to at times. You get a lemon,get rid of it, and move on until the cherry is found and i have many times in my life and not just with rifles by the way,same as autos.
Click to expand...

But there has to be a REASON. It's NOT simple as that. Poor machines, poor operators, bad attitudes, poor design (or change from a good design to a poorer one) etc. I've been a design engineer and I can tell you the materials used today in the firearms (alloy steels and other materials) are FAR BETTER then was ever available before. And this is also true of the heat treatments and tooling used and the processes (investment casting etc). The only material that might NOT be as good is (previously mentioned in this thread) beautiful walnut stocks. And when we cut down every tree we see it's easy to explain why that is true.

Ah, now I can yak some more. The great "pre-64" Model 70. Why was it so good? Because Winchester still had the old lathes with the belt drives up near the ceiling and they couldn't possibly hold the required tolerances to enable interchangeable parts. Rather then buy new equipment Winchester machined the parts to the high (exterior) and low (interior) end of the tolerances or even outside these tolerances and then had a group of gunsmiths that "hand lapped, polished, and fitted" them to almost perfect sizes. They were CUSTOM made rifles trying to compete with other company's INTERCHANGEABLE part rifles. This can not be done. (If you've got a pre-64 model 70 in good shape don't ever let it go.) Then Winchester saw the writing on the wall and bought the machinery but went too far and also cheapened the design. What a monstrousity they created! Today, it is back to being one of the best rifles made and are probably more accurate then the old "pre-64" model 70. But the old classics will still be the smoothest bolt actions going.

And 30-30remchester's post on the reason Savage went to the locking nut on the barrel is dead nuts on. I did forget to mention that was the reason and the end result was better accuracy but as long as someone said it.....

Great post tirod!!
 
Last edited:
"What the gripers don't like is the style of what it looks like."

That's what we've been saying all along. Style doesn't matter to some people. For others it is intimately involved with function and how a tool works.

When I saw the new 1964 Winchesters and the introduction of the 10/22, I could see the writing on the wall. They might as well been designing and selling a better TV dinner. Cheaper, faster, easier, etc.

I can almost accept the Weatherby-looking style of rifle that caught on briefly, but it was usually done poorly. Oh well, I still own a Rem 541-S because it is accurate. The style? Imitation California something or other. Like fake wood panels on station wagons. :)
 
I own some of the older guns, and a nice new AR, too. I've also been in production, and the OP is dead on. Modern machining is much more precise than yesteryear.

The '64 Winchester is exactly what was wrong with the golden oldies, sorry, but gunmaking is for profit, not cranking out inefficiently designed parts with high production costs. What the older shooters are really griping about is not getting the hand finish parts that were excessively polished and fitted to hairline fits. What they wanted were affordable guns with custom level workmanship. It takes labor to do it, and THEY no longer want to pay the going rate for it. What's happened is THEIR perspective hasn't kept up with inflation, and likely, their wages haven't, either.

Frankly, they just got lucky and could afford workmanship that they were giving away for the low wages of the day.

There's a totally separate element that has also been introduced: design. Guns simply don't need to be made the same way, or in the same materials. The barrel nut method of attachment is far superior in attachment, setting headspace accurately, interchangeability, and doesn't need a 20 ton press and jig to do it. That means assembly time is dramatically reduced, tolerances much easier to hold, overhead costs reduced, and safety for the workman increased. What the gripers don't like is the style of what it looks like.

It boils down to how well someone can appreciate what they are looking at while sitting on a stump. With a 1964 Winchester '94, I can see the obvious pitting from a lack of any durable finish, dings in dyed softwood, cracked varnish in the finish, tight fits that create more working friction and harbor moisture that only stiffens the action and increases inaccuracy. I don't really see why older guns with high labor cost, inefficient parts that might have looked pretty for a few years decades ago are valued so highly. They aren't that good an example of being weather resistant or accurate - in fact, they're pretty much meant to become obsolete, and it's apparent every time I see a rusting wall hanger that "Pride of Ownership" was sold out to "Durable and timeless."

I'd much rather sit on a stump and admire the intelligent design and technology of the AR15 I assembled. It will pretty much look exactly the same in 25 years when my kids inherit it. The nitrided finish won't be a rash of speckles, the anodized finish still new under the paint over it, the stocks burnished with wear but unfaded and whole. It will have survived falling over onto a gravel parking lot, getting banged around on concrete or wooden range benches, clamped in a vice, and taken down completely for cleaning and reassembled, barrel and all, in one hour.

What some are really saying is they like what the old guns represent - which appreciation doesn't seem to extend to dial phones or refrigerators without ice makers, kitchens with no dishwasher, or hanging clothes on the line to dry. They don't handcrank their car to start it, or wear heavy coats driving in the winter and scraping frost off the inside of the windshield. They don't light candles on the Christmas tree, or split wood by hand with the axe they felled the tree with.

And they don't wear boots with sewed on leather soles and heels. That stuff is fine to visit, I pay money to go to Silver Dollar City or Har-Ber village and see it. History has it's place, but I don't wind a pocket watch daily, and living that way doesn't really interest me. Neither does being stuck with old guns that can't really do the job as well as new ones, ask the guy who bought the '94 in '94, with those new smokeless powder shells. Amazing stuff, you don't have to pour powder down the barrel no more, or wait til it clears to see if'n you hit the deer.
Click to expand...
+1

And yes, there was a bunch of junk produced "back in the day" as well...I have had my share of that crap too.
 
boy that makes me feel bad, my boots have leather soles sewed on them and I have a few classic guns that have stood the test of time and still look and shoot great I came from back in the day, when you were proud to sign your name on your work. I have a ar 15 to in 300 whisper.looks like it should a battle rifle.
 
ROCKRIVERWHISPERER, I feel your pain. I as well have leather sewed boots, I fell my own trees and split the wood with a ax, butcher my own meat, mechanic my own vechiles and fix my own flats. I guess we are relics.
 
Put yourselves in the place of the manufacturer. Decades ago I left a highly paid and very stressful job to get back to corporate America, and I wound up with a good job in a company that no longer exists. I was shocked to find that their idea of success was to overengineer the product with the thinking that the comsumer would pay the higher price for the higher quality. That is so much BS...and I knew it, but I was new there and kept my mouth shut. Bottom line, let me tell ya, is all about the dollar. It is not about quality. The point is to make a profit. Don't ever get confused about that. If you want real quality, you will have to pay extra. Remington is watching Savage, who is watching Ruger, who is watching Winchester, who is watching T/C. The answer is that we'll use a cheaper trigger assembly or maybe we'll not polish the barrel and action to such a high shine. You, as a manufacturer, want to make good enough quality, but do it as cheaply as you can. Trust me. I've been in the corporate wars, and it's all about the almighty dollar. And let me ask you...why would you think it might be otherwise? If it surprises you to hear this, I'm sorry, but facts are facts. Many times I just hung my head and went with the program, because I could not see an alternative (while staying employed). If you want an extra special rifle, you will pay an extra special price. If you want the good stuff, talk to the Jarrett folks or the Dakota folks or the Cooper folks. You already knew this, didn't you. But you've been kidding yourself....
 
Exactly 603Country. That's why those beautiful custom made and European made rifles cost so much. If you want the old time craftsmanship shell out $2000-$5000 or more bucks and you'll have it. Probably won't shoot any better then the $600 Remingtons, Savages, Rugers etc.
 
WARBIRDLOVER, spoke volumes in his last statement, sortof. I have shot many of the multi thousand dollar customs, and from what I have heard reported, ACCURACY is less than many store bought guns. However for us lovers of classics. and students of the durable, there is no comparison. Since very very few of us on here actually use our guns for anything but target practice and the occasional trip to a tree stand in a padded case, then quality of construction and durability is a strange concept. In the past there were some real cheap clunker guns built, mainly constructed as many store bought guns today are built. However there were the classic of the past, that will never be equalled in a factory gun again in my opinion. These classics of the past, WERE store bought guns back then. To try to explain the difference to someone unfamiliar with the concept or educate those determined not to be educated, makes for good forum banter. The easiest comparison I can arrive at is as follows. A Yugo car will get you from point A to B, just as a Hummer or Rolls Rocyce will. Which would you prefer to drive? Which is better QUALITY? Which will last longer under severe conditions? While I personally dislike the constructin of the Savage 110's I am the first to acknowledge their great accuracy. Accuracy is about the last concern of mine as long as the particular gun is accurate enough for the task at hand. But to compare such a Savage, and state it is as good quality as say the Savage 99, Winchester model 70, Remington 30 Express and similiar guns is just wrong.
 
A Yugo car will get you from point A to B, just as a Hummer or Rolls Rocyce will. Which would you prefer to drive? Which is better QUALITY? Which will last longer under severe conditions

30-30--more than likly the yugo will.:D

personally dislike the constructin of the Savage 110's I am the first to acknowledge their great accuracy. Accuracy is about the last concern of mine as long as the particular gun is accurate enough for the task at hand

Once again 30-30.. This is the purpose of a rifle. What is accurate enough for you?. I totally agree with you on the quality of older guns,but in your thoughts i would have to say. What good is a Hummer or a Rolls Rocyce if it just sits in the driveway and won't run.
 
Last edited:
Since I'm at least partially responsible for this thread being posted...I'll explain why I said what I said over there.

I started buying Remington rifles back when I had to get my Dad or Grandad to go get them (I did pay for them)...I think I picked up my first bolt action at about 12, it was a 308...since then I've bought around 130 (or so) new bolt actions...I averaged 5 per year up until about 3 years ago.

These rifles include a complete set of the 700 Classics, several Model 7's, and an assortment of 700's, pumps, and semi auto's...and 3 customs built on Rem 700 actions (two 308's and a 300 Win Mag)...and thats just the beginning. All that is to say that I have bought more guns than most folks...and all of the Remingtons I have kept are GREAT shooters.

OK...with that said...the last 5 Remingtons I bought had problems and not all of them were budget models.

SPS Tactical 308: Improper headspacing and wouldn't feed, sent back to the factory (Ilion, NY) 3 times before they finally got it shooting without leaving an ejector mark on the brass...still wouldn't feed, improper feedlip geometry.

Model 7 stainless in 308....wouldn't feed.

700P in 308...wouldn't feed, bolt handle came off in my hand before I even shot it.

The 2 others functioned fine....but wouldn't shoot worth crap, couldn't do any better than 3moa, and it wasn't the shooters fault.

That all began in 2008...the design of the Rem 700 is solid as a rock, without question...but if they won't do what it takes to build them right it ain't worth 2 cents. We agree on modern production methods being better, but there is something seriously wrong somewhere when these companies start screwing up that often....a bolt action rifle isn't that complicated.

And don't get me started on what Remington has done to the Marlin name...talk about a disaster.
 
Last edited:
Staying with most of the usual brands, there's not much accuracy difference between basic rifles and the higher-end. The main difference is that of fit and finish.
Click to expand...

I got in to a disagreement (argument) with a guy over the Remington 700. He stated that he would never own a Remington 700 SPS because they were inferior to the 700 CDLs. He insisted that the 700 SPS was made from cheaper steel and had looser tolerances, thus the cheaper price.

I couldn't get through to him that they are, in fact the EXACT. SAME. RIFLE. The only difference is the stock and the metal finish. :rolleyes:

As for what the OP is saying, I agree. I think firearms have only gotten better with time. I have both an 1891 and a 1909 Argentine Mauser. They are both in practically near mint, original condition and the fit and finish on them is astounding when you consider when they were manufactured! Especially when you figure that a lot of that fitting and finishing was done by hand. However, there isn't anything about them that can't be or isn't done to firearms today, except today we can do it better, faster, cheaper and with tighter tolerances.
 
As far as bolt action rifles go, I don't think there has been a true improvement in the design or manufacture since the advent of the '98 Mauser. Everything since has just been a modification of an established masterpiece. Same thing with Martin acoustic guitars, Mitchell 300 spinning reels and the Ford Model A.
Click to expand...

+1
 
Darren007 said:
I got in to a disagreement (argument) with a guy over the Remington 700. He stated that he would never own a Remington 700 SPS because they were inferior to the 700 CDLs. He insisted that the 700 SPS was made from cheaper steel and had looser tolerances, thus the cheaper price.

I couldn't get through to him that they are, in fact the EXACT. SAME. RIFLE. The only difference is the stock and the metal finish.
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that Bill Ruger claimed that a sizable percentage of a gun's cost is the fit and finish, a process that takes skilled hand labor.

I imagine one could take an AK-47 and decorate it with fancy engraving and gold plating, use premium walnut on the stock and have it hand checkered and you would end up with a really expensive gun but it would still be no more accurate than a issue AK-47.
 
Whoa there,,, I said whoa..

I can definetly agree with most replies to this thread but one,,,, #11 Smith357, say's that accuracy in a hunting rifles is not that important, maybe he was quoting,,,, but to me accuracy in a hunting rifle is JOB #1.
If I pay my hard earned dollars for a rifle I intend to kill animals with, it's going to be Straight-Up and damn accurate...... period.;)

I won't leave the house with a rifle that doesn't shoot MOA or better to kill animals, I just can't do it. The reason is in all "real-world" hunting conditions you can never anticipate an easy "bench-rest"type shot, with most being standing unsupported,( like on your way to the stand and he get's up an bolts) point being Accuracy is paramount, and the companies that consistantly produce these accurate rifles might not necessarily have the best "fit and finish", but have the accuracy that we crave.

I love "beautiful rifles", and quality workmanship does go along way with me, but if it's "pretty" and not "pretty accurate".... count me out.;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top