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

Today's guns should be better...

Advances in materials including metallurgy, manufacturing including process control, inspection, tooling and CNC machining centers, and design should all push the performance and reliability envelope forward, just as it does in every other industry.

I agree with some previous posters that what skews the picture, is survivor bias where we judge the old products by the examples which lasted 30, 50 or 70 years, not by the rubbish that didn't. Also, there are plenty of examples of today's rubbish and the Internet casts a harsh light on them.

There are plenty of guns around today that will last the next 50 -100 years. I fully expect my Dan Wessons to be past down to my grandkids, along with my M1 and SMLE.
 
I have owned both old and new of the same models and I generally can't tell the difference when it comes to the shooting. I can certainly tell the difference in other ways but the target doesn't know which one fired the shot. Mind you, I was using new ammunition in both cases. I hope that was not cheating.

The best example was a pre-war Registered .357 Magnum and a Model 27 from around 1995, which I hope is not too old for purposes of discussion. The Model 27 had a five-inch barrel, which is unusual these days. I'm not sure if I can honestly and objectively state there was any difference in the trigger pull but the pre-war version had 45 years of being "broken in," though it had cosmetic defects on the barrel but that made it a shooter, not a collector's item. I'm not a collector (and not much of a shooter). But, in theory, the .357 Magnum was a semi-custom revolver and expensive, too. It was nearly double the price of a Colt Official Police, even though the Colt New Service Target Model was a tad more than the S&W. But when did you last see one of those? It was about 50% more than a Colt Government Model or Colt .38 Super and you probably have one of those, so that's a good comparison. In other words, in today's pricing, it would probably go for at least $1,500, maybe.

I don't know how you went about buying a .357 Magnum in those days, maybe make an appointment with Stoeger's on Fifth Avenue, but you probably couldn't buy one at the old hardware store down by the railroad station (which is also gone) but you probably could buy an Iver Johnson or an H&R, most likely in .38 S&W or .22, and maybe even a .38 Special S&W or Colt.

Different factors are always in play but mostly it can be described as there being different pressures on manufacturers at any given moment. Cost is always a factor and they have to make money to stay in business. Pressures go through the roof in wartime, of course, and some well engineered and designed and, today, well thought of, military firearms required a surprising amount of hand fitting. In some respects, their production generally left a little to be desired but the pressure was on to get the guns out the door. How much could be lavished on something that might be destroyed or lost in battle, maybe even on the first day? That's why that K31 looks a little better made than the Mosin-Nagant carbine.
 
I would say that the quality of the major companies were better then than now. I say this because I believe there was a higher level of craftsmanship and pride in doing the job right the first time than there is now. As machines took over the level of craftsmanship seems to have dropped. Don't get me wrong there are some great guns out there but you pay the extra money for them. Today it seems that the buzz word is quantity instead of quality. They seem to think that 500,000 units at 80% reliability equals more profit than 300,000 units at 95% reliability.
 
Last edited:
I'm with the others here.

There were junk guns in the past, we just didn't bother importing them! Now, we have so many suckers (I'm occasionally one of them) who puts too much emphasis on low price/high quantity that he loses sight of the end goal.

Now that we're importing so much more in our global economy, our dear domestic manufacturers have had to buckle to that price pressure somewhat.

In this area, I sure have a lot of respect for the Germans. They have the confidence to not lower (and even raise) their prices, knowing that their clientele is willing to pay for quality.

As much as I like Ruger, they have sure turned out some low quality stuff lately, (design not fully tested prior to release) compared to how it was done only 10 years ago.
 
As a lifelong manufacturing professional I respectfully disagree with this statement. While it is true I have not worked in firearms manufacturing specifically I do not believe there is something inherently unusual about it that results in employees that do not care. While the argument that management may be overly focused on profits might hold some weight blaming the employees as a whole is mistaken – at least in my opinion. Most employees if given the choice would go back to the “craftsman” days, but it is no longer practical for the large volume manufacturers.
Click to expand...
American workers continue to be blamed for the failure of their management. Americans can and will produce the best products in the world. The failure is strictly due to management.

If you ever study manufacturing flow and production, it is inevitable that poor production processes and layout will create high volumes of defective product.

It takes one heck of a lot of effort to think through manufacturing flow, work instructions, etc, to get the errors out of a production line and make a quality product. It was easier for American managers to scoop up the profits, go golfing, and blame the guys on the floor.

The Japanese showed our automotive industry what intelligent management can do, and our car industry darn near collapsed before they got their act together. Today’s American built cars are just average in quality, compared to the Japanese, but they are much better than they were in the 70’s and 80’s.

Does anyone remember the GM quip from the 70’s that “manufacturing builds it, marketing sells it, and customer service makes it work?”

Our failures are due to poor leadership, not American workers.
 
My son is a machining CAD/CAM designer and machining programmer, but started out as a what they now call a "machinist".

I don't mean to insult true machining craftsmen, because their out there, but they have dumbed down the machinist job to nothing more then a parts loader/button pusher, with very little actual machining experience needed.

The talents lie in the person designing and programming these machines to cut the parts, if a tool gets dull, or there's a slight issue with the machine, out of spec parts are cut. How many of these parts make it into these guns?

Actually a lot of the programmers know nothing more then what's in front of them on a computer screen and have never run a machine. But they keep production up and that's all that matters, even if their turning out junk.
 
I think that today's guns are generally better because of the improvement in both materials and machining. While I like the craftsmanship and hand fitting of the past today's guns are stronger and will last longer. Look at the old Colt and S&W revolvers, +P is not recommended while the newer ones can shoot it all day with out a lot of ware. The original 357 was only made in large frame and now it is available in J frames (not fun to shoot but). I have to admit that I like wood and blue steel but also trust the new plastic hand guns.
 
American workers continue to be blamed for the failure of their management. Americans can and will produce the best products in the world. The failure is strictly due to management.
Click to expand...

Discussing this in detail is probably way OT, but I think it is fair to say there is enough blame to be shared by all involved.

It takes one heck of a lot of effort to think through manufacturing flow, work instructions, etc, to get the errors out of a production line and make a quality product.
Click to expand...

Amen to that brother!

The Japanese showed our automotive industry what intelligent management can do
Click to expand...

And the person that showed them was.......

.......wait for it.........

an American! For those that don't know, Google Edward Deming.

To get things back on topic, the Model 27 I bought 30 years ago looked beautiful but wouldn't shoot worth a @$&%.
 
Not long ago, I bought a Model 1899 S&W M&P (.38 Hand Ejector). It looks amazingly like the modern Model 10, and grips even interchange. But when I pulled the sideplates off, what a difference!

The 112 year-old revolver is full of tiny springs, microscopic pins, and precision parts that had to be hand installed and fitted, probably using tweezers. It is more like a fine watch than a revolver.

I am sure the men at S&W in that day were more skilled than I but I think it would take me a couple of hours to assemble that pistol. Now a modern S&W, with its MIM parts, can be assembled easily, at much less cost. Yet, I can't tell any real difference in operation between the two guns. The modern gun is just as good at its job as the century-old model.

So, IMHO, how do you mean "better"? If I should be forced to defend myself, will the Model 1899 kill any better than the Model 10? No. Will it be any more accurate? No. Will the modern gun last as long? Obviously, I can't say if the modern gun will be working in 112 years, but I think, given care and no confiscatory gun laws, both guns will be shooting in the next century.

Jim
 
about modern manufacturing

thing is modern manufacturing is a myth pure and simple. sure we have some interesting multi axis cnc machines but..

rolls royce is the epitome of good engineering. in the 90s they were asked to do and engineering anylysis of a ww 2 produced german aircraft engine. the engines crankshaft, after use in the war and post war world by private owner and then museum, was found to still be withine the original blueprint tolerance. they also determined that they could not make a replacement.

as taught in colleges, qulaity control in the manufacturing world ismerely the skill in fudging the reading you get with micrometers so that you do not exceed the maximum number of allowed rejects per batch.

back in the good old days, the locating system for holes on two mating parts was a square because it MADE better parts and allowed the least variation. today the standard is a circle to allow for more "ok" variation. its why the hole in part a NEVER meets up with the hole in part c when you assemble your 500 dollar grill or your kids new trycicle until you apply brute force.

modern engineering has not improved on things. you forget slide rules were used to build atomic bombs and ballistic missiles, weapons that still do the original job with more then excellent results.
the m1 garand was built with now "obsolete and crappy equipment". yet people still use them, and still pay 1300 for one.
 
I found a small gun shop today and decided to visit it for a look see. It was small but had a good selection of all kinds of guns.

I am an older guy too, and I don't like the guns being made now. I abhor plastic and now that I looked at some Smith and Wesson's with MIM parts today, I will never buy another one of them. They looked like toy cap pistols. I don't know how they can make them any worse, but I'm sure they will find a way.

I eased over to the Ruger Single action case To look at the pretties and my jaw dropped! I have never seen such crap in all my life. The grip frames were proud all over where they met the frame of the gun and where the top of the frame was supposed to curve into the frame (near the hammer) they stood a good 1/8" above the frame!

The stocks didn't follow the frame all the way around and had gaps at the front where it met the the grip frame near the main frame. I will be honest, Heritage arms fits there cheap Single actions better than these were put together.

No, they aren't making them better, they are getting so bad now that Rossi's and Taurus are looking like the best made.
 
jhco, if you do not like polymer weapons because of aesthetics, that's understandable (and you're in good company with a lot of others), but modern polymer firearms are NOT "plastic". Current firearm polymer frames will meet or exceed the performance of steel frames, especially in toughness and element resistance.
 
One time in an interview, the owner of Glock was asked what the difference between plastic and polymer was. He said when it costs $200 it is polymer.
 
One third-hand quote is not evidence, respectfully. Modern polymers such as Zytel high-impact thermoplastics are much, MUCH different from the colloquial "plastic", and far superior to it. That's chemical formula fact.

I also couldn't find a quote of Gaston Glock saying that with a few Google searches. Can you source that quote?
 
Haha, back in the days of the "Glock 9, a porcelain gun that can pass through metal detectors"?

Oh anti-gunners/Hollywood screenwriters, you are so silly.

For what it's worth, I completely understand the aversion to plastic. Like everyone, I've had some Chinese plastic POS from Wal-Mart snap on me. I was fortunate that my first gun was a very well-made polymer (Beretta PX4) and this has given me a positive image of polymer handguns (at least modern ones!)
 
Some of these comments remind me of the question, "What's the difference between a violin and a fiddle? About $500." Don't know what the difference is now.

But the comment about Rolls Royce is funny. Someone said a Rolls Royce was a triumph of craftsmanship over design. I guess he was referring to their cars. Such a thing might be said about guns, too. But design is affected by the same things that affect materials, namely cost.

Probably anyone here can think of firearms that are no longer made the way they were in, say, 1910, that are no longer made and haven't been now for 20 or 30 years or more. While the designs were excellent for what they were, eventually they became too expensive to manufacture. That happened to producers both here and in Europe, presumably for the same reasons. And as far as I can tell, it had to be in the cost of labor. But there is absolute cost and there is relative cost. When other products come along that pretty much do the same thing and cost a lot less and seem to be close enough in finish and reliability, then obviously the more expensive one will start to became less competitive and will not be purchased as much. It even happens among military weapons.

One example is the Savage 99; another is the Mannlicher-Schoenauer. A Mannlicher was upwards of twice as expensive as a Winchester Model 70 fifty years ago, depending on the model, and even then, I'm sure there were sportsmen who were complaining that they didn't make them like the used to.

They probably didn't, either. Both those models eventually started cutting corners, eventually resulting in models that were quite different except in outward appearance from the first ones.

Another example is the Luger, which was in production for nearly fifty years before it became too expensive to make compared with other pistols. Today you might find things to complain about in a Luger, something like sixty years since they went out of production, but complaints about the craftsmanship will be rare, unless the particular specimen spent two weeks at the bottom of a trench on the Eastern Front. But at the time, apparently everyone liked them and they enjoyed a long period of popularity in this country, even if few would have been purchased new.

Now one country replaced them with the Sig P210 and everything that might be said about the Luger can also be said about it's successor.

Another element of cost is how long it takes to make something. Fine machining, even when you use computer controlled equipment, takes time. That's where Ruger has been innovative with their casting, though I'll say no more about Ruger.
 
There was a time in this country when design and craftsmanship were matched with quality materials and tooling to produce some of the best made products in the world. In terms of firearms I think that was from right after WWII up until the early to mid 1960s. Take a look at a S&W revolver from that period, or even one of the early Ruger Blackhawks (357 or 44). It was also the era of the pre-64 Model 70 (the rifleman's rifle). Colt brought back the Single Action Army and it was a beauty.

Skilled labor was still affordable and the bean counters (business managers with MBAs but no work experience) hadn't taken over the gun makers. There was also a lot of pride in workmanship and a job well done. The 60s generation, who in my opinion have ruined this country, will tell you how bad the "fifties" were but I believe it was a high point in this country, at least as far as manufacturing goes and particularly gun manufacturing.

My $.02 worth,
Dave
 
Tough question. I know that quality firearms tended to come out of the box good to go. None of these 200-500 round "break-in periods" which are just excuses for the user to finish getting rid of any burrs or imperfections on the gun they didn't polish off. But as a whole I think the use of polymers, alloys, and better steel allows us to as a whole have better guns. Although Q.C. in some of the new companies is very syspect. And I've seen MIM parts work fine and forged parts break. But I don't think allot of the MIM parts are manufactured as well as they should be. Their are definate differences between the quality of MIM parts.
I've know on 1911's some MIM parts like for slide stops have not held up well to the battering. I've seen MIM thumb safties snap off the first time they are engaged. But I've also had forged parts that weren't heat treated properly break also. Better stronger, lighter materials are out there now that make the old guns seem like boat anchors. But the question is if the company you're buying from keeping their quality control standards high??? Allot anymore seem to be looking at short term profits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top