Author Topic: The Eternal Argument (Read 1785 times)

JHT · « **on:** January 16, 2007, 11:17:15 PM »

A constant discussion takes place concerning which is better, the older or the newer manufactured gun. Does the craftsmenship from years ago exceed the quality of mass produced guns made on CAD/CAM machines today? Other comparisons are made as well, but they all boil down to which is better "the older" or "the newer" produced weapons that we all love, possess and shoot. What is your opinion?

williamlayton · « **Reply #1 on:** January 17, 2007, 12:35:51 AM »

I based my vote on comparing the Colt pistols.
I based my thinking on the thoughts of the boys that build on them.
According to them the Colt of today is a VERY good weapon, with good internals and good manufacturing.
Craftsmanship from machines is better than craftsmanship of old from man.
Parts available today are more varied and better than those produced by the boys of yesteryear.
I still would like to own a passel of those old Colts--but more for the history and ambiance than for the quality of the parts.
Blessings

slave · « **Reply #2 on:** January 17, 2007, 01:42:00 AM »

In 1986 or so I priced a Sig as I bought a GLOCK. A few weeks ago I priced A Sig as I bought a Springfield. You know it was almost the same price. In fact it may be a bit less.

If not for the inovation in manufacturing practice one of those guns of old (hand made) would cost well over $5,000. What the gun of today is lacking in charm or warmth it makes up for in quality and cost.

Heavy C · « **Reply #3 on:** January 17, 2007, 05:07:28 AM »

New materials, new manufacturing methods, and some improvement on design all make for a better built firearm. Of course, there are companies out there that have crappy QC practices that cancel out all of these innovations. I often marvel at an old Model 27 S&W my Dad gave me. The bluing is second to none and it feels just as solid today as it did back then. I still like the new S&W's, but miss that old bluing. Slave makes a good point about cost. I would have already been priced out of the game if manufacturing practices didn't evolve.

myronman3 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 17, 2007, 10:23:35 AM »

i disagree. compare and old model blackhawk to a new model. a world of difference. compare an older smith to a newer one; the older ones were built before the days of cutting corners to save on costs. it seems the craftmanship is gone these days; with the exception of the custom gun makers and freedoms arms. but as far as choice goes, we have more choices now than we have ever had before. so in that aspect we are better off.

Lloyd Smale · « **Reply #5 on:** January 17, 2007, 12:08:15 PM »

couldnt have said it better. There was definaty some better craftmanship years ago but for what your dollar will buy were probably in the gold age of guns right now.

2 dogs · « **Reply #6 on:** January 17, 2007, 12:17:46 PM »

I dont know.....Look at the Shiloh Sharps versus the originals for example.

corbanzo · « **Reply #7 on:** January 17, 2007, 02:44:54 PM »

That is the thing about guns made long ago, they were made before the days of mass manufacture, when gun makes were making a product of not only profit, but art. They didnt have a machine to do everything, and therefor needed to pay attention to their work.

I would say that the production guns of yesteryear are closer to the custom guns of today than the production guns of today. Many companies now have their models which are made solely for profit coming off of the production line, and then they now have their "custom shops" ie. smith performance center which dedicates itself to the overall quality of their firearms. I'm not knocking smith, most of their products are top notch, but just as an example.

Lloyd Smale · « **Reply #8 on:** January 17, 2007, 03:02:41 PM »

that respose sure makes me look wrong or at least open my eyes to the fact a that there is no right answerquote author=2 dogs link=topic=109121.msg1098324010#msg1098324010 date=1169075866]
I dont know.....Look at the Shiloh Sharps versus the originals for example.
[/quote]

Heavy C · « **Reply #9 on:** January 17, 2007, 03:39:38 PM »

I would agree with the comments about craftsmanship.

williamlayton · « **Reply #10 on:** January 17, 2007, 11:32:47 PM »

Well, I am thinking we have some different ideas about craftsman ship, the definition of craftsmanship.
It does not not make anyone a bad person--but let's try and get on the same page.
I think of craftmanship as the ability to get parts too fit correctly.
The parts made today are better and come to the manufacturer with better tolerances. This allows fitting with minimal work to adjust to fit.
Now if you buy a part from a supplier to upgrade a, say a Colt, to better suit your wants and desires then most likely there will be the need to do some work on the part.
I think that is also true on most of the parts supplied too a manufacturer, even today, but if it is his part supplied to his design specs, there is less of this fitting needed.
Sure, there are EXAMPLES of products put out which are NOT the manufacturers desire of quality. There are even manufacturers who are woefully lacking in quality inspection. These are not what I am thinking of though.
Colt has, depending on who owned it and the period of time being discussed, put out some cheap looking stuff--maybe even cheap stuff-- this is not what I see, in the original post, as the question.
I see the question as being about putting out a decent--not gunsmith quality or personal build quality--well functioning weapon with good quality parts that are well made and fit.
Weapon may not be--and probably isn't--dehorned and polished. Then again it never has been.
Blessings

bigjeepman · « **Reply #11 on:** January 18, 2007, 01:11:17 AM »

It is very interesting to read all these points of view. Each side has it's own merits. If you stop and think about it, this same discussion can he made for:

* furniture - Is the furniture of old better than today's mass produced products coming off of assembly lines? Are today's products tomorrow's antiques?
* cars - Are today's vehicles better than yesterdays? What products today are we producing that will be tomorrow's '65 Mustang, '66 Corvette, or '57 Chevy?
* heavyweight boxers (my favorite) - Could Rocky Marciano have defeated Ali? Could Ali have beaten Tyson? (I'm talking about Tyson before he met Robin Givens) Could Rocky Balboa ... oh ..
* baseball/football - Could the Yankees (with Ruth/Gehrig) have beaten the Yankees (with Mantle/Maris)? Could the Lombardi Packers have beat the Joe Montana 49's?

All discussions have pretty valid points. My point is ... I am not sure. My father, who just passed away in December, always told me Ali would have been killed in the ring by Marciano's famous 6" power punch? And I always replied that his 6" power punch would have been about 30" short of Ali's jaw. Marciano weighed 180 lbs .... Ali was 6'4" and weighed 215 pounds and is considered by many as one of the quickest athletes (if not the quickest) in any sport who ever lived. Who knows? It does make for good discussion though. Good reading guys ...

slave · « **Reply #12 on:** January 18, 2007, 12:38:57 PM »

No doubt there were craftsmen aroud lets say 57 years ago who could make an almost perfect part. I would also dare to state it took many of them many hours to complete a finished part. Some times we hold one or two samples and declare perfection. Perfection is not quality. Quality is the same result repeated every time. With quality there is not as much need for inspection because each part is within the specification of design. The design may or may not allow for some play in some parts.

My point is a CAD CAM operation can and will produce and reproduce a more consistant product than what was produced 57 years ago on a larger sample size. The end result is a more consistant product.

To prove my point how many 1950 fords could and or would run for 100,000 miles?
Look arond today. Why is this? Are the only craftsmen in the auto biz.

corbanzo · « **Reply #13 on:** January 19, 2007, 07:41:32 AM »

I think it would be interested to take the old craftsman, who had to spend days on a gun, and then bring them to today and show them the machinery. The attention to detail mixed with the technology and materials... sounds like a winner.

slave · « **Reply #14 on:** January 19, 2007, 02:10:49 PM »

Cobanzo,

For the first few hours it would be h---. But once an old world craftsmen could relax and allow the equipment to do the things its programed to do and foucs the time and energy on the attention to detail items we would all have a world class product to enjoy EACH AND EVERY TIME

BillP · « **Reply #15 on:** January 22, 2007, 01:31:26 PM »

Everyone appears to be overlooking the fact that we are compairing those old guns that lasted. Believe me, there was a lot of JUNK in the "good old days" as there is now. Some guns because they were particularly well made (old Smith and Colt revolvers

) or were an outstanding design (1911

) lasted both as individule guns and as production mdls. Plenty of others wound up on the junk pile soon to be forgotten. Some however are still with us. Folks don't pull them out and show them to you but closets in the midwest are full of old shotguns and .22 rifles that may work fine but the poorly done blue is worn off showing lots of mill marks. YES! hand craftmenship today is extreamly expensive. You can still buy guns that live up to the standards of old time craftmanship but you pay dearly for it. On the other hand, production run guns of today tend to be reasonably well finished and are often more durable than the guns of the past. Do I enjoy looking at and shooting those handcrafted guns of the past? You bet I do! Do I wish I could afford to own them

Are today's guns better? It depends $:-\$

tomf52 · « **Reply #16 on:** January 22, 2007, 04:39:01 PM »

The age old remark , whether it's cars, guns, etc. is that "they don't make um like they used to!" To that I reply -Thank God!

Old Griz · « **Reply #17 on:** February 03, 2007, 07:39:01 PM »

My problem is with the question. Explain what you mean by "older guns" and "newer guns." What time frame are we looking at for the division? Post WWI? WWII? 1960s? Or what?

corbanzo · « **Reply #18 on:** February 05, 2007, 05:15:43 PM »

Well it does seem that every company has had their ups and downs... so it really depends on the era, not just old and new. In many histories there is always some owner who bought the crappy steel, or who let QC slip for a while, so you hear about these manufacturers guns from the 60s were horrid, but then in the 70s they were great. I think that one thing which has affected quality in guns is the business decisions on the product. trying to save money is going to hurt the product, hands down.

gypsyman · « **Reply #19 on:** February 05, 2007, 06:32:30 PM »

It seems to me that the guns produced today,overall, are more accurate, than older guns. Now days, a rifle that shoots an inch or less group, from the factory, is much more common. And handguns the same way. Knowledge and better machining, produce a more accurate firearm, but I don't think you get the craftsmanship you use to get in the older guns. Stainless materials, composite stocks, don't require the personal touch, that a blue gun with wood stock needed. We keep trying peace, it usually doesn't work!! Remember-(12/7/41)-(9/11/01)-gypsyman

Poll

Were The Quality Of Older Guns Better Than That Of Newly Manufactured Guns?

Author Topic: The Eternal Argument (Read 1785 times)