Springfield and Mauser triggers

[bluebayou]

Do you think that Springfield and Mauser triggers were really so great 50-100 years ago?  Honestly, I can't help but think that 50 years of firing and working the bolt has burnished the metal enough to make them "like glass" and "smooth as butter".  I don't know if there is any objective way to answer this or if I am just venting.  I just get tired of hearing all of this romanticized stuff about old rifles versus new rifles.

[iiranger]

Bottom line, military triggers were designed for the scared stiff to NOT fire accidently during combat... Frankly, I kinda like the "two stage" trigger, but what do I know. And, for alot more money, you can have a trigger --more complicated-- that is alot lighter... Harvey Donaldson wrote of double set triggers that when set would fire if the muzzle of the gun was raised up to verticle... weight of the trigger... Too light for me, but then I don't shoot competition either... Venting? What are these boards for??? luck.

[gunnut69]

Of course there is some benefit to age and use but the rifles of longer ago WERE built better, at least as far as fit and finish went. They actually proof fired rifles before they left the factory(still do in Europe). Today there is no proof firing of rifles. Ruger tests a few from each 'batch' but Remington doesn't. Part of the reason they did what more hand fitting was the tolerances they worked with were enough that they had to be fitted buy hand. Some models have been dropped because they were too difficult to manufacture even with our CNC machines and not be hand fitted, which is of course, cost prohibitive.. They M12 Winchester comes to mind. How else would you find a weapons maker polishing and bluing battle rifles such as the '03 Springfields? Were they truly better, not really. Metallurgy has come a long way as has technology but they weapons produced currently are better in all ways. They aren't as highly fitted and finished. You can visit a local used gun rack as see for yourself. Some of the legend is just that legend.. The pre-64 M70 for example.. Ever really looked at the checkering on one made after the war? If it's too well done its likely been 'restored'.. Most have many lines that converge?? Still it was a beautiful rifle and will not be recreated..just too costly.. Craftsmanship such as this is still around but most won't pay they tariff on such time invested.. The Dakota rifle springs to mind. They are even checkered correctly.  Rifles such as this are really good investments.. They're value is not likely to go down and as our society changes is likely to rise, as craftsmanship becomes harder and harder to find. If you don't believe I have an example. The Remington Custom shop used to build a 22 long rifle on the 40X action. It had a target grade barrel in a lighter configuration, an adjustable match grade trigger and pretty wood, hand checkered. The were in the $1200 range and I 'couldn't afford that'. Of course they're not available today and the last one I saw for sale was in the $4,000-$5,000 range. Not a bad investment.. As for mausers I have seen Swedish M96's, made before the WW I that would shoot 3 shot groups under 1/2 inch. A friend boght one and couldn't believe it was worth the expense of sporteriznig. We added a scope and that's about all. At hunting camp they were shooting crows off a gut pile 300+ yards out.. It got boring! We completely re-worked that little rifle and it's still amazes the uneducated. Sorry for the rant, guess you touched a nerve.

[bluebayou]

Those are good points about craftsmanship in general.  My immediate thought was about how smooth the bolt's action is in a pre-war rifle.  All of that operation undoubtedly burnishes the metal.  The points that you raised about metal fitting and finishing are certainly valid.  For $400 I have a Remington SPS that has a matte finish.  I know now that the matte finish is really just a finish applied to unpolished metalwork.  It saves a step in production by not having to polish it up.  On the flip side I have a Winchester M70 manufactured in 2003.  It had a barrel epoxied to the receiver with a excess epoxy in chamber and what I would call "semi-polished" blued finish.  The rifle is polished a light gloss on the barrel, but a higher gloss on the receiver......still not up to say a Browning Medallion level.

My point is that the two cheap rifles that I have function VERY well, especially the Remington.  But, unless I devote a lot of time and money, then they will always be pretty plain. 

The metalurgy is probably superior to the older rifles, but they have machine marks.  I guess that is also where the synthetic stock has made its highwater mark......synthetic is injected and just requires someone to pull it out of the mold for $7.00/hour where checkering requires training (and a temperment). 

There is a huge difference in the operation of bolt action rifles though.  My father in law is strictly an A-Bolt kind of guy.  They are pretty, but are clunky to use.  I picked up a used Sako Finn something at Gander Mountain and it was.....I hear the flames in the distance.......ridiculous.  Having heard all of these wonderful things from people richer that I about Sako....it was as bad as a new Savage long action.  Loose bolt, binding side to side movement, no polishing or finishing inside raceways....

Maybe I am just venting too.

iiranger--I kind of like 2 stage triggers on a rifle too, but have never owned one

[gunnut69]

Many years ago a friend of mine bought an entire case of small ring Mauser rifles. They were from some south American country and were never used. They still sported the original finish(or lack of finish) and I handled them as they were removed from the wood packing crate. The action of the mechanism was flawless. Now these were simple contract built weapons of war.. They barreled actions were polished but not blued but the bottom metal was blued as beautifully as the finest sporter. Today the level of finish would be very costly, if it could be produced at all in a production environment. Your M70 had the barrel screwed in place. The epoxy was bedding material Winchester used and was really just hot melt glue like material.. It failed with disappointing regularity, usually powdering in the inlet and causing the accuracy to completely disappear. Remington too has suffered from a lack of quality control and from attempting to satisfy the demand for a cheap rifle, regardless of quality. The 710 is an example. Their Customer service also has been faced with the task of explaining why the 740-742 series rifles wear out in a few hundred rounds and why parts to repair them are not available. Most people are not demanding enough to know that the sand blasted gun they bought lacks fit and finish, they simply accept the weapon as is. Plastic stocks didn't cause the problem, they are a symptom. I have no problem with synthetic stocks as a whole but find most are too cheaply built to be useful! The last shop I worked for had a barrel of take offs that had broken and they replaced.. Some of the rubber coated stocks are literally too spongy to be properly bedded and accuracy is nearly impossible.. The problem is not with the manufacturers or they workers, it is us.. The respect and traditions of the outdoors are fading and while I don't believe my generation will be the last to hunt and own personal weapons I believe that generation has been born. I pray I'm proven wrong but too many kids are into video games not the drama in the field. Take a kid hunting and be part of the solution...Please!!

[Keith L]

I mainly buy used guns these days, but wherever they come from as soon as I get them home they come apart for a cleaning and often a de-burring and polishing.  When they are cleaned up I shoot them a while to see if I think they will be worth the work to make them into a gun I want to keep.  Then comes the custom work to make them over for me.  Guns as they come from the factory are a starting point IMHO, and all take work to make them into all they can be.  I am always amazed when people buy a gun and have a socpe mounted and bore-sighted, then buy a box of shells and go hunting.  Even more amazing is that some guys even get a deer doing this.  I think they are missing ouot on lots of fun.

[gunnut69]

I would have to agree. I greatly enjoy working on guns, particularly old guns. I haunt the gun shows and pick up weapons that I know are defective for a lowered price then fix them up. Once they function they become normal and less interesting.. My last acquisition was a M63 Winchester with a missing shell stop, damaged butt plate, and the takedown latch retaining pin gone. All have been remedied and its ready to go, a fine old rifle for less the $350.. Would likely bring $600-700 in the market.,. But it'l just sit in the vault..for a while any way..

[Keith L]

I like the old ones best, but there are plenty of high dollar modern guns that sell for low prices because their owners cant get them to shoot.  Often all I have to do is remove the crappy scope and mount, and put on a good one and the battle is half over.  Then a little tuning and they are good to go.

My friends think I am compulsive about guns, but I enjoy working on them and shooting them.  I used to work on guns for others until I was threatened with a law suit by a fool who took his apart and screwed things up.  Now I only work on my own, and have even purchased a few that I worked on just to be sure.  My safe is kinda full, but there always seems to be room for one more...