Were older guns made better than modern ones?

[Alan]

I’ve been thinking about this lately, were older firearms really made with better craftsmanship and longevity or do today’s materials and machining actually win out?

 

[Quark]

Well I'm an Old Fudd so take that for what it's worth. But I think in general older firearms are made better for the most part. To many high end firearms use MIM parts and even poorly cast parts for the prices they are charging. And we rely on CNC machining to do what skilled technicians use to do. Nothing wrong with CNC machining but in my opinion parts still need to be fitted properly and not just thrown together and hope everything fits.

 

[Slick Nick]

I think we may have better alloys now but as Quark stated a personal fitting is what we end up paying for AFTER we buy a new piece today, I have a good friend ORTIZ in ga that does a fabulous job on new weapons glocks and 1911 in particular among all the others, and when he picked up my Sig target 1911 his response was come on in here so we can make this into a good trigger pull. After paying that much you would think that had already been done. However also the old guns have probably been lapped and shot thousands of times and feel like Swiss watches in comparison so there is that.
OK I’m through whining now, just my two cents

 

[Quark]

I think we may have better alloys now but as Quark stated a personal fitting is what we end up paying for AFTER we buy a new piece today, I have a good friend ORTIZ in ga that does a fabulous job on new weapons glocks and 1911 in particular among all the others, and when he picked up my Sig target 1911 his response was come on in here so we can make this into a good trigger pull. After paying that much you would think that had already been done. However also the old guns have probably been lapped and shot thousands of times and feel like Swiss watches in comparison so there is that.
OK I’m through whining now, just my two cents

I agree our metallurgy today is second to none but having to take a high end firearm to a custom smith to have action jobs done to make them shoot properly is nuts as far as I'm concerned. Mt Wilson Custom Classic came from the factory ready to shoot and there wasn't anything that needed to be done to it. Same with my Cooper rifle and hopefully with my C. Sharp 1885 Winchester clone.

 

[Alan]

Well I'm an Old Fudd so take that for what it's worth. But I think in general older firearms are made better for the most part. To many high end firearms use MIM parts and even poorly cast parts for the prices they are charging. And we rely on CNC machining to do what skilled technicians use to do. Nothing wrong with CNC machining but in my opinion parts still need to be fitted properly and not just thrown together and hope everything fits.

There’s definitely something special about older guns that were hand-fit by folks who really knew their craft. CNC is amazing for consistenc but it still can’t replace that final hands-on fitting. It’s interesting how many “premium” guns today still rely on MIM or cast parts despite the price tags.

 

[Alan]

I think we may have better alloys now but as Quark stated a personal fitting is what we end up paying for AFTER we buy a new piece today, I have a good friend ORTIZ in ga that does a fabulous job on new weapons glocks and 1911 in particular among all the others, and when he picked up my Sig target 1911 his response was come on in here so we can make this into a good trigger pull. After paying that much you would think that had already been done. However also the old guns have probably been lapped and shot thousands of times and feel like Swiss watches in comparison so there is that.
OK I’m through whining now, just my two cents

You make a great point, modern alloys and processes are phenomenal but it does feel strange having to pay extra for a proper trigger or action job on a gun that should already have it dialed in. And you’re right, older guns that have been shot and worn in over time really do take on that smooth, refined feel you can’t fake. Your experience with the Sig is exactly what I’ve been wondering about.

 

[Slick Nick]

The sig had a good trigger but not what I would call a match trigger and for that pistol it came out nice after Ortiz “refined it”

 

[Mtman725]

I would say the older ones had better craftsmanship, due mainly to the people that made them, you just don't have people staying at the same job for 30 plus years any more, as the older one retire,or pass on there's a small pool of talent coming up behind them and company's keep getting sold and moved they lose that pool of craftsman that can't be replaced.

 

[Quark]

I would say the older ones had better craftsmanship, due mainly to the people that made them, you just don't have people staying at the same job for 30 plus years any more, as the older one retire,or pass on there's a small pool of talent coming up behind them and company's keep getting sold and moved they lose that pool of craftsman that can't be replaced.

Especially in anti-gun states. I mean who would want to live in New York or Connecticut for example as a gunsmith or technician. Montana at this time has no problem with attracting gun companies or gunsmiths and technicians.

 

[Howdy]

Revolvers require lots of real talent to fit together properly. Getting the cylinder gap and timing to come out right is not a job for assembly line monkeys, it requires someone who is almost a gunsmith. Yet the same assembly line workers can put semi-auto handguns together without too many problems.
Our talent pool peaked in the 60's, 70's and early 80's and I prefer revolvers made in that era .
Don't get me wrong, many of the later revolvers are great, they just had a higher percentage of quality control issues.

 

[Quark]

Revolvers require lots of real talent to fit together properly. Getting the cylinder gap and timing to come out right is not a job for assembly line monkeys, it requires someone who is almost a gunsmith. Yet the same assembly line workers can put semi-auto handguns together without too many problems.
Our talent pool peaked in the 60's, 70's and early 80's and I prefer revolvers made in that era .
Don't get me wrong, many of the later revolvers are great, they just had a higher percentage of quality control issues.

True. Most revovlers today are as good or better than revovlers of old as long as one has access to a custom smith to finish the work. I just bought a Ruger New Model Vaquero Bisley in .45 Colt and will fire some rounds through to check it out than the first chance I get off the the custom smith for all the fine tuning.

Most of today's revovlers are fine for the majority of people who hardly shoot them but for aficionado all revovlers need to be properly finished to work right.

 

[Alan]

Revolvers require lots of real talent to fit together properly. Getting the cylinder gap and timing to come out right is not a job for assembly line monkeys, it requires someone who is almost a gunsmith. Yet the same assembly line workers can put semi-auto handguns together without too many problems.
Our talent pool peaked in the 60's, 70's and early 80's and I prefer revolvers made in that era .
Don't get me wrong, many of the later revolvers are great, they just had a higher percentage of quality control issues.

Absolutely agree...revolvers demand real skill to fit and time correctly. The 60s–80s era had standout craftsmanship, and while modern ones can be great, QC inconsistencies were definitely higher.