Were Firearms Made Better In The "Old" Days? Thoughts please.

R

Robk

New member
I was just reading another thread about best customer service. One of the replies was basically that his older guns never had to be serviced (by the factory). So that brings me to this thought. Skilled labor is starting to be lost at a staggering rate. Once all the gun manufacturers employed craftsman. Skilled works with years of training to do the task at hand. Now with all our fancy CNC mahines and new found metal making techniques, quality control is the top job. Hire someone to assemble the parts and just make sure it looks good and passes a function test. But what if the CNC machine has a hicup? And something is slightly out of wack, still woks but.... Than you or I buy it and bring our shining new prise home only to say "what the %$@$" :mad: when we clean it for the first time or go to the range with it the first time. Than we talk about how good the customer service was when we were without it for X amount of days. Something just doesn't sound right here. Does It???:confused:

As an example, I own a Springfield SS 1911 I bought over 20 years ago. No MIM parts here! It has never been back to Springfield for warranty work.
 
At any given time there are mfgs with quality problems - makers who made cheap low quality guns.

From our perspective - we only see the low-quality manufacturers and products that we have today - we don't remember the low quality manufacturers of yesteryear because they are no longer around.

Having said that, I do think that overseas competition and price pressure has caused most gun malers to lower their quality. If they can get by with cheap processes like injection molding - they will. If they can use cheaper materials they will...
 
A reference point of 20 years is a little short, don't you think? Yet you may be on to something.

There were plenty of low quality firearms in the past, just as there are today. They filled a market demand, as we would say. But some of the better known names may not have been as good as we like to imagine. Fit and finish may have been better--for some guns but there have been advances in technology, chiefly in two areas, not counting advances in materials (including aluminum and plastic). One is in the strength of the materials, speaking here of steel, achieved in different ways. The other way is through advances in our (their's, that is) ability to measure. If nothing else, advances have kept products affordable for more people, though market forces tend to be equally important regarding pricing.

Manufacturers overseas are under the same pressures that domestic manufacturers are under, so that element doesn't enter the picture. In fact, some foreign guns are especially expensive. But you are correct in that quality control is important, though no more so that it used to be.
 
Metallurgy and new alloys of the modern age allows guns to be built stronger, if the manufacturer chooses to. Take the Carpenter 465 Stainless that is used in the Ruger Super Redhawk for example. It allows the use of a 6 shot 454 Casull cylinder, instead of 5 shot like the others, while also keeping the ability to fire full pressure loads all day with no problems. Guns can be made lighter and thinner and be as strong as bigger heavy ones. That doesn't mean all new guns are built better, just that the technology is there if they use it appropriately. Buy a good gun from a reputable company, and you should be fine.
 
I realize that my example of a 20 year old gun is not exactly what I am thinking of. But I hear stories of how a Colt, S&W, Sig etc, was lovingly hand fitted by this person or that one. Each piece picked out for that perfect fit to this frame and each person having a personal knowledge of what that part is supposed to do and what it looks like. Each person assembling a firearm was highly skilled, not just an assembly line jockey. Could I be giving a idealic view of what I thought it to be? Were they "craftsmen" and now "assembly workers" or am I overstating this issue?
 
Depends on the maker. For every exquisite Colt Single Action Army, Colt New Service and S&W Registered Magnum, there were hundreds of pot metal junkers. Owning a quality firearm in the "good old days" wasn't any less expensive given household income back then. In fact, it might have been more expensive. And buying a firearm today that's put together piece by piece by hand would probably cost as much as an economy car.

I think we've probably got a broader range of quality firearms today than they did back then. I think it's the "gun of the month" marketing craze that's seized companies like Sig that focus on blingy finishes and unnecessary variations on proven designs that devalues the industry.
 
Each person assembling a firearm was highly skilled, not just an assembly line jockey. Could I be giving a idealic view of what I thought it to be? Were they "craftsmen" and now "assembly workers" or am I overstating this issue?
Click to expand...

I've done some reading on firearms manufacturing in the "old days", i.e. the 1920s and 30s, especially as performed by Colt, and I don't think you are overstating their skills. Given the state of precision machining in those days, those guns would never have worked as well as they did (and do) without hand finishing and fitting by highly skilled craftsmen. It's still a pleasure to disassemble a gun and realize that the frame, slide, barrel and other parts are numbered to each other, something you don't see much with modern guns.

That being said, applying modern machine tools, better understanding critical dimensions and using techniques like Statistical Process Control, parts can be made much more uniformly (and with more fault tolerance) so that hand fitting isn't necessarily required, which I believe is the whole idea for mass manufacturing. That's not to say that hand fitting skills aren't still highly valued, as evidenced by the high demand for 100th-anniversary hand-build and custom 1911s, some of which go for $5,000 and more.
 
That being said, applying modern machine tools, better understanding critical dimensions and using techniques like Statistical Process Control, parts can be made much more uniformly (and with more fault tolerance) so that hand fitting isn't necessarily required
Click to expand...

I believe overall quality is better. Today systems are in place to be much more predictable and consistent which results in better quality. Now, obviously people are still involved and people make mistakes, but based on today’s volumes and complexities I think modern guns are pretty darn good.
 
Consider this- I have a Colt made in 1918, and a Colt made in 1920. They are 'made better', right? Well in my opinion, old guns are usually "well made" because you don't typically see an old, uncared for hunk of junk gun- nobody would keep it. So the perception is that they were 'better' because you see a lot of nice old guns is a skewed perception. I will say that neither has ever had a flaw in function though, although I have only put limited rounds through them- 64 rounds for the 1918 Colt and about 300 for the 1920

Maybe in some ways yes things could be better back then. But metallurgy has only gotten better. You also see people bash MIM and cast parts, and stampings, etc today. Forging and milling are considered the only way to go by some folks.

In reality, I can point out a part on a well known pistol that is better made when stamped than if forged and milled. The slide cover on a P.38 is stamped. The stamped spring steel used is much better in that application for strength, cost, and time to manufacture than a forged and milled billet of steel

MIM is another maligned process. Like anything else, I can design a part in MIM that is awful. I can also design a badly engineered forging- like the P.38 slide cover. The key is to use the correct process, material, and design for the part needed. That's good engineering, and the processes used in bad engineering didn't have anything to do with developing the crummy design :)

Just on heat treating alone, firearms today are superior in quality.
 
Both my 1970's made M-60 and M-66 had to be returned to S&W within 6 months of purchase, both times they were repaired and quickly returned to me at no cost.
I do believe that over the years, across the board, companies have placed a greater emphasis on making it faster and cheaper than they have in total quality, as it’ cheaper to repair or replace a defective product than to do 100% quality control. Often we the American consumer accept this. How many times have we heard someone say my new product broke 10 days after I got it, but the company was GREAT they gave me a new one right away.
I also believe that often the man/women working on the assembly line are under such pressure to move product out the door they are unable to make the commitment to quality most would like to.
 
I don't think guns from the "old day" were better made then modern guns, nor do I think Modern guns are better then guns from the old days.

I think the difference is Old Shooters and New Shooters, or basically, likes and dislikes.

At 63 I would put my self in the "old guy" class, and I like old guns. I like blued guns and wood stocks. I like N & K frame revolvers and steel 1911s (real 1911s, colts and USGI).

Thats not to say they are better then the plastic guns, some are quite good.

So its an opinion that one is better then the other. Some old guys (like me) don't like change.
 
As improvements come...

...to manufacturing of all types, so do improvements in quality. As specifications get more precise, better fit, finish, and performance usually follow.

S&W went through a period of poor quality after the Wessons sold off their ownership to Bangor Punta. Bangor Punta cut costs as do most companies when they get a new acquisition. Although the period from 1961-1980, fondly referred to as the "Pinned and Recessed" era. They produced some not-so-great specimens. Their K frame .357 magnums were bothered by flame-cut top straps and severely-eroded barrel throats. Granted, it wasn't designed with a hot 125gr JHP, but the damage is still done.

Early 686's and 586's were recalled some 3-7 years after production because of a soft hammer nose bushing and associated parts.

Colt's revolvers eventually went away because tooling wore out, and even though the Pythons were hand fitted, after a while even that was impossible to do.

Forging steel parts wasn't always as precise as desired. Regardless, MIM parts do work well, and they are easier to manufacture within spec.

Manufacturers can't outguess everyone who uses the product outside design parameters. That's just a fact of life, and companies just have to bear the consequences.

The "good old days" weren't always so good. I don't miss changing points and plugs every 3k, or so, miles. My tires get 45k+ miles, and oil can safely be changed every 5k-7k miles.
 
I think they are better. I have a pin fire double gun that to make today would probably cost a years wage. It's 170 years old and is still tight and smooth at the same time. It's a mechanical marvel hand crafted by a true master in Germany around 1840 or so.

Also have a 80 year old colt 1903 that is still very tight and smooth on the slide and the barrel locks up tight. BUT it's not a good shooter as the barrel is shot out! Not a safe queen.

Also a 60 year old colt woodsman that is tight smooth AND one of my most accurate pistols. It's fired an ungodly number of rounds.


Now the real issue is where do those guns correlate to today's guns? They are still priced like a common mass produced gun, but when new they were probably priced more like a Wilson.
 
I have to echo some of the sentiments here about how we tend to look at the past through rose-colored glasses. While hand craftsmanship is laudable, in many cases modern machining results in a better product - a machine cannot have a bad day or a missed stroke if properly maintained.

I would pit a high-end modern weapon like a Sig X-Five, Beretta 92FS, or HK USP against any handheld weapon of any era in terms of reliability, toughness, accuracy, and function.
 
Today's manufacturing processes and materials give factories the ability to produce strong and durable weapons more consistently than days past. The price of modern labor and the highly competitive marketplace mean that the minimum amount of manual labor needed to produce an acceptable product is all that is applied. Factor in that many of the chemicals used in the past may not be usable today and I think the following generalities can be made.
1. Modern guns should be stronger and more accurate
2. Vintage guns will have better polishing and generally better surface finish
3. More stainless guns today because no caustic bluing process or high polish is needed
4. Quality, good or bad, should be more consistent today
5. Less wood used today because poorly finished wood looks cheap and expectations are lower for rubber and plastic

If I had to sum it up with a simple statement, it would be that more craftsmanship was put into productions guns in the past than is put in now.
 
Well shucks,,,

I was jus going to make an incredibly erudite post,,,
But mrbro beat me to it,,,
Dang him. ;)

All I can add is that I believe the finish of the older guns,,,
Was almost always better even from 2nd tier manufacturers.

Something is wrong when the sharp edge of a new trigger,,,
Cuts your finger.

Aarond
 
"I'd put a Gen 3 Glock up against anything from the old days."

That's the silliest thing I've seen in days. I'll see your Glock and raise you a S&W Registered Magnum. Glocks may function nearly perfectly, but there is no craftmanship involved in their assembly.

John
 
It's a case of seeing the past through rose-colored shades. Like with anything else. Take music for example.
People always complain how the music back in the day was "better" than all the amateur garbage today. However none of those people actually lived through that time and if they did, they likely don't remember all the music. There were just as many crappy bands back then as there are now, you just won't hear of them because they were bad and likely didn't survive long enough to be remembered today. Wait 20 or 30 years when all the Justin Beibers and Lady GAGAs are forgotten and then you will think today's music was awesome compared to what they have in 2040.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top