Rifle Quality - Then and Now

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Plus 1 on that. As i stated earlier- That is the prime job of a rifle or pistol for that matter. Looks is in the gun cabinet only.
 
Been around the CNC process for some time....no question tolerances are better and designs have improved because of advancement in metallurgy & composites.

What galls me is the poor finish quality the industry has established as the acceptable standard the buying public should endure. Bead blasted-spray painted and/or anodized guns don't come close to the quality appearance once enjoyed. Guess my desire for a quality rust bluing finish put me in the minority as opposed to Bubba the gator hunter who could care less about it on his swamp rifle.
 
Well I can say that my CZ 527 American in .221 Rem Fireball is as accurate as it is good looking. The black walnut burl stock is breathaking, as is the wonderful blued finish. It shoots so well it makes me look like I am a better shot than I realy am. Not to mention the action is butter smooth. It is a joy to shoot, and look at.

My Savage Mod 12 Long Range Target & Varmint is no beauty queen, though it will drive tacks. It has shot under half MOA with the worst perfoming handloads I have loaded so far. It is a great shooter.
 
Many good points have been mentioned.

I look at guns like girls. What you are attracted to, is what you are attracted to... end of story. I'll take Raquel Welch in her prime over ANY super-model out there today. Why? I don't know, she just floats my boat! If you don't know who she is, Google or You-Tube her and you will see what I mean.;)
That being said, the classic high gloss, checkered Walnut stock with a deep rich blue barrel, to me, is a REAL rifle. Lever, Bolt, single shot, regardless of the action, give me real nicely finished piece of hardwood and deep blue steel any day. I know the new rifles are more accurate and have durable plastic stocks, stainless steel barrels, etc. But they just don't do a thing for me. I like function and accuracy, sure. But I want something that looks nice too.
As far as todays firearms market, it is simple SUPPLY AND DEMAND. There is a HUGE market (and therefore potential profit!!!) for LOW PRICED weapons, sold via various '"Marts", and sporting goods stores. The market for quality built, high end rifles, is much smaller, as are those of us who still prefer Raquel Welch. :D
 
Last edited:
My 70 year old rifle:

M70_270_100yds_070910_1.jpg
 
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.
Click to expand...

Got that right custom Bolt rifles today usually run 2500-5000.
 
Probably thirty years ago I attended a meeting in a small town in Iowa,,,all the business people were there,the farm community,the civic organizations and the MC was the superintendent of schools.

The program had two parts and the first presentation was made by a Federal Official who said we had to start preparing for a "Service Economy"...Almost everyone there including myself spoke up and said if America quit producing quality products for sale here and abroad that we would become a third world nation.

The second part of the program was presented by the superintendent of schools and he basically, in discussing with the business owners there, why graduates who became workers could not read a basic ruler or do basic math,,that what did the business owners want him to do, actually flunk a student or pass them? I about fell out of my chair!

The citizens of our country spend big bucks on quality optics,,,cameras, binoculars,,spotting scopes,,,riflescopes from Germany and Japan,,,why because of quality...we also spend a fortune on Japanese and Europeon automobiles for the same reason,,,those products should be made here and that money spent here.

Sure computers have made machining more precise,,,and some guns and cars are much better than in the old days,,,but when I spend my hard earned money,,,I like to think I am supporting a hard working man or a woman, who buys groceries, is buying a home, buying cars, and raising some kids. I am not into robots,,,they have no need for money and support too few people.

The Walmart, a store I refuse to shop at,,,attitude is what is destroying this country.
 
Can't argue a single point you made warbird. I especially like your hypothesis on why Savages are so cheap yet so accurate. Good post.
 
I remember one author categorizing small arms manufacturing as “third wave”.

Maybe he should have added the early wave, the way the world was before machine tools. When individual parts were hammered and filed to fit. You can see beautiful examples of wheel locks, Manton flintlocks, in pictures or museums.

The first wave was the era of early industrialization. Lets put this around 1860’s up to WWII. The surviving weapons of this period show fine machining, and it was often done under gas lights. Big expensive parts were machined from billets and forgings, almost no thought was given to the cost of manufacturing. You find non standard screws, threads, parts that required special tools and cutters to make. These arms were very expensive to make and they were file to fit. Just look at the lockworks of Colt double action revolvers of the period. Lots of handwork. Pre 1930’s metals were plain carbon steel, and process controls were primitive. Those fine finishes and excellent machining hide inconsistent heat treatments, poor quality plain carbon steels.

The second wave was characterized as the era of stampings. The Germans showed us the way in WWII. Stamping technology really reduced the cost of manufacturing. The Savage M110 is an example of the era. Instead of the one piece pre 64 M70 bolt, Nichlos Brewer broke his bolt down into many easily made pieces. Many of which were made by stamping or blanking.

The third wave is on us now. CNC machines have made hogging out complicated parts cost effective. Casting technology is used on many parts. The precision of CNC machining is such that the old forensic techniques of matching bullets to barrels and firing pin marks is no longer valid. Firearms today are made so that all are essentially identical. No manufacturer can afford to build out of tolerance parts and expect to make a profit in today’s competitive market place.

However, with the emphasis on the bottom line, we have lost things. Polishing is still labor intensive so those beautiful blue finishes and mirror surfaces are gone. I like having the firing pin on the hammer of my S&W revolvers, I think a direct strike mechanism is more reliable, but S&W told me it required a special machine and dedicated operator, so to stay cost competitive, that feature is gone. There are lots of little things we lost. But we did gain a lot.

Just go back to your old Gun Digests and calculate the cost of guns, in today’s money. We have come out ahead guys.
 
Generally I agree with most of the posts here but I have more comments. For one thing, interchangeable parts was an old idea when Henry Ford starting making cars. What he did that was new with respect to cars was to make cars the employees could buy. Interchangeable parts pre-dates the Civil War. In fact, you can go to Harper's Ferry where the federal arsenal used to be and see some of the equipment used for manufacturing: Pratt and Whitney Machine Tools, although most manufacturing was done with older equipment. At any rate, I have always been astonished at the craftsmanship evident on Civil War firearms, although I cannot say how much was hand crafted and how much was machine made. Stocks have been machine made for a long, long time.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that cost was unimportant in manufacturing. In fact, it is said that Samuel Colt studied the steps in manufacturing his pocked model .31 revolver and simplified manufacturing by eliminating as many steps as possible. So, yes, manufacturers are very cost conscious and always have been. That's just as true for military weapons, too.

The more costly it is to produce a military firearm means that there will be fewer of them or that they will be slower to produce. And in wartime, you want them as soon as possible. Another thing with military firearms is that fine tolerances may not necessarily result in a reliable firearm under field conditions. Some military rifles with good reputations today, like those Swiss straight-pull rifles, never had to go through that. But military firearms users tend to prize reliability above all other features.

There is also the factor in military firearms that on the one hand you need a firearm that is reliabile, reasonably accurate and rugged, yet it is a thing that can easily be lost or destroyed in action. But there were Roll-Royce armored cars used in WWII.

The comparisons with cars is interesting. The Roll-Royce was once described, no doubt by a German, as a triumph of craftsmanship over design. But did you know there are both Japanese and German cars manufactured in this country?

There's more: I once did a tour of a hunting lodge in North Carolina. It had been owned by a wealthy New York businessman. They did a lot of hunting (bird shooting), naturally with local guides. The local folks used Winchesters. The rich people used better guns.

I think the 1950s may have been a golden era when workers had more disposable income than ever before and prices hadn't taken off like they did in the early 1970s, yet prices of a lot of things (including labor) took a jump right after the war. But even in the 1950s some old names like Mannlicher started feeling the pinch of rising costs and eventually the old products disappeared. But a Mannlicher sporting rifle was a gentleman's gun anyway. And the only gentlemen I ever met before I left home were doctors. All three of them.
 
I'm an accuracy nut and won't keep many rifles that won't shoot well under 1 MOA, but for the "average" deer hunter, a rifle that shoots 2 MOA will get just as many deer as a 1/4 MOA rifle. Why? Because the kill area of a deer is about the size of a paper plate and most deer are shot under 100 yards, often under 50 yards.

A 2 MOA rifle will place all of its bullets within 1 inch of POA and about 85% within 1/2" of POA. An average deer hunter can't keep all of his shots offhand on a paper plate at 100 yards, so where is the weakness in this formula??? Answer: It's the "average" hunter.

Okay, people on this board are not the "average" hunter. We're gun hobbyists and rifle shooters who are way above the average guy at the range, much less the "average" guy/gal in the woods.

So, I admit to owning a 1 1/2(+/-) MOA Handi-Rifle that's used primarily by my grandsons. Would you put a Stratavarius violin in the hands of a beginner who might drop it or otherwise mess it up?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top