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

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaack on track to the OP........................:D

Were the guns made better in the good old days?

Yes and no.

Since they did not have the capability to initially create precision forgings over and over, (the bad part), they had to resort to handfitting by craftsmen in order to get a proper fit (the good part).

Metallurgy wasn't as good, but the hand checkering and engraving was.

Back then EVERY manufacturing sector was driven to turn out the best product possible = a matter of company and National pride. Now,more manufacturing is done overseas and US guns are built to price points to compete with the cheap imports
 
They are made better now but the old days has a certain style. I actually think older revolvers but not too old. I really like the S&W Model 13 HB .357 magnum. Today the machining ability is nuts for our semi autos though.
---@Chris B Could you post a few more pics of the MKIV Series 70, like the Bore, top view of chamber and slide, right side view, and a pic with the slide locked. If you want to that be cool just want to see more pics of it. Does it feed hollowpoints?
 
Are you saying, oneounceload, that nothing was cheap in the old days? Are you saying that Iver Johnson's guns were just as good as Colt's?
 
Yes, and no. The hand-fitting on some of the older firearms is simply stunning, and the forgings in a Win Model 12 are just fabulous. Big chunks of steel, forged and meticulously fitted. Racking the lever on a pre-64 Model 94 is light-years different than it is today. If you've ever looked into the lockwork of a Smith Model 27 registered magnum you know what I mean. I can remember the blueing on Colt pistols being so smooth and deep it looked almost as if you could swim in it.

On the other hand, I can remember when the accuracy guarantee from Holland and Holland rifles was 3" at 100 yards. Nowadays just about any out-of-the-box rifle will shoot into an inch with very little tinkering. Optics today are light-years better than what we had in the early '60s.

If you're a rifleman, today is the good old days.
 
Back then EVERY manufacturing sector was driven to turn out the best product possible = a matter of company and National pride.
Click to expand...

Generally true. There was lots of cheap stuff (and at one time foriegn imports meant cheap stuff), but many American makers prided themselves on making a good (or the best) product. AND, the market supported this business model better than it does today.

Today is all about I want it cheap, I want it to work, and I want lots of it, more than how well its made, or what it looks like.

I think (quality) guns were made better in the old days. But they were'n made out of materials as good as we have today, or with as well done designs.

The hand fitting and polish then was superior to anything today, unless it comes from a custom or semi custom shop.

Military handguns from the early 20th century were made the way they made all guns in those days, quality machinery, intended to perform, and to last. The big lesson in gunmaker from WWII was that for war, guns don't have to be well made, or last, (because most of them won't last in combat), they need to be plentiful, cheap, and work well enough for the job at hand.

Fine finish makes no difference in combat, or to the government who is buying it, unless it costs more, and then it makes a big difference.

All too often computer controlled machines make guns now day, men assemble them. Yep, new designs are made faster, cheaper, may be more accurate and even last longer, but I don't feel they are made better than they were then.
 
There are pluses and minuses to some of the old ways. If the parts of a high quality firearm were hand fitted, it meant that, essentially, the parts were not interchangeable. That really makes little difference to a typical civilian whose guns are used, say, only during hunting season and usually lasted a lifetime, mostly sitting in the closet or the top dresser drawer. However, some high quality guns did get that hand finishing, others did not. Colt revolvers supposedly did or at least some of them, same with Smith & Wesson. You could hardly say all of their models were equal nor did they sell in equal numbers.

There were scads of cheap revolvers around that tend to suggest we have a higher opinion of firearms of bygone days than they deserve. I don't know what sort of craftsmanship went into those products, compared with Colt and S&W. But other lesser known brands in the early cartridge era still have reputations for high quality. In fact, they're so unknown today I can't remember the name. But they were large frame revolvers. Most of the comparitively lower quality revolvers were small frame revolvers. Apparently they got used, just the same, and they generally look like it when you see one. Frankly, I'd say that it was the design features of these other revolvers that counted for more (in a negative way) than any other aspect of the weapon. For one thing, they tended to be made only in the smaller calibers, from .22 rimfire up to .38 S&W. A lot of them were breaktops, which were a weaker design, though some were solid frame revolvers. Some would not even lock up except at the moment of firing. Some were actually available in target models. Most had disappeared by WWII but Iver Johnson at least kept turning them out for a while after that. There was a market for them, at least.
 
Well, I do like some of the old things and then, I like some of the new things, too. Funny but a lot of them use exactly the same ammunition and it's the cartridge that does all the work.
 
I don't really have an opinion. I have some old guns and some new guns. All of mine function well. we now live in the Internet Age. Today we can buy a gun in the morning, shoot it a few minutes later, and post on the internet to millions about your FTF or FTE on your new weapon. 20 or more years ago you could share you complaints with a few shooting buddies and take it back to the shop for repairs. These days a single problem with a gun can instantly reach millions of people. I Imagine the 1911's and other guns of the early days had more initial problems than you hear about just because they did not have the instant access to post about the problems to the whole world in an instant.

JMO
 
I don't really have an opinion. I have some old guns and some new guns. All of mine function well. we now live in the Internet Age. Today we can buy a gun in the morning, shoot it a few minutes later, and post on the internet to millions about your FTF or FTE on your new weapon. 20 or more years ago you could share you complaints with a few shooting buddies and take it back to the shop for repairs. These days a single problem with a gun can instantly reach millions of people. I Imagine the 1911's and other guns of the early days had more initial problems than you hear about just because they did not have the instant access to post about the problems to the whole world in an instant.
Click to expand...

That's how I feel. Everyone goes on and on "blah blah blah MIM is weaker than forged" and yet you never hear of a single gun exploding. If a Ruger blew up you'd think it was free liquor with every playboy at 711 the way news would spread on the internet.
 
I'd say they were better made, but not more precise. The precision with which modern manufacturers can make a rifle is amazing. Everything on those old guns just felt more "solid" than it does now. That's a pretty subjective assessment, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top