Question about modern manufacturing of firearms vs old

[Southernfried]

After reading @Formidilosus thread on the new MRC they are working on, and the apparent depth to trying to make it "right" the first time. It got me to thinking about my Grandads 1952 Belgium Browning sweet 16, that shotgun has never failed me, built to last several life times, but when I compare it to modern firearms, the new stuff just does not "feel" the same toward quality, longevity,etc as the old stuff. I guess my question is, when did this start? Even older Rem 700's from the 60's "feel" better than newer ones, is it the age the firearm goes through over decades, or was stuff truly made better way back then.? Besides the Tikka t3x's is there anything "new" that would match the quality of say the old pre 64 M70s? Also, how much of the "old" stuff back then, did they really take their time in making one vs trying to get 100 or 1000, out the door a day? Reminds me even of the original Marlin 1895's that were made one at a time by pretty much the same guy from start to finish. Maybe I'm just born in the wrong couple of era's or I am waxing nostalgia, I just dont see modern firearms having the same quality as my Granddads and it is sad. It is just a shame, when looking at used rifles etc, that you search and search through the serial numbers, to find one in an era or decade they were made the "right" way. Thoughts? Thanks in advance!

 

[gentleman4561]

Modern firearms as a whole are far superior to older firearms due to advances in metallurgy, materials, manufacturing process etc.

However, most of your “big name” brands have reduced quality control to drop price points.

You can still buy handmade firearms (crafted with modern materials/machines) but they are going to cost you.

 

[Formidilosus]

After reading @Formidilosus thread on the new MRC they are working on, and the apparent depth to trying to make it "right" the first time. It got me to thinking about my Grandads 1952 Belgium Browning sweet 16, that shotgun has never failed me, built to last several life times, but when I compare it to modern firearms, the new stuff just does not "feel" the same toward quality, longevity,etc as the old stuff. I guess my question is, when did this start? Even older Rem 700's from the 60's "feel" better than newer ones, is it the age the firearm goes through over decades, or was stuff truly made better way back then.? Besides the Tikka t3x's is there anything "new" that would match the quality of say the old pre 64 M70s? Also, how much of the "old" stuff back then, did they really take their time in making one vs trying to get 100 or 1000, out the door a day?

Yes, older rifles feel better than newer ones by and large.
Using the Pre64 M70 example, they had a lot more hand fitting and finishing than current M70’s, they were also cycled and function tested by individuals before shipping, and pre wars had better steel- though how much that contributes is debatable. There also is the reality that old rifles have been cycled a lot which helps smooth things, but at least in the case of Pre64 M70 it’s not the reason. I relatively recently handled an unfired Pre64 M70 and it felt great and much better than current M70’s.

Modern rifles are by and large made to be as cheap to produce as possible- even the non budget rifles. The result is that they lack the feeling in cycling that quality old rifles have.

 

[Wrench]

I sit back and listen to the tikka shrine quietly most of the time.....but to compare a plastic and cncd piece to a hand fit hand checkered piece is too much.

The kool-aid runneth over tonight.

 

[insanelupus]

Perhaps it is the difference between art and a tool. Back in the day, if a production rifle shot 1" groups at 100 yards, it was worth crowing about. Now days, many will tell you if that's the best a rifle can do, it's not enough.

There were a lot of critters shot and killed by folks with woodsman skills packing 2-3" @ 100 guns.

And occasionally one could luck out and find an efficient tool that was truly a work of art.

Uncle Bill always told me when he looked at a "modern" firearm, "Life is too short to hunt with an ugly rifle! "

At the same time, he held with Colnel Whelen's philosophy that only accurate guns were interesting.

There was a reason that back in the day gun cranks were dealing and trading firearms consistently.

A utilitarian tool, a piece of art, or a combination of both. We've never been so fortunate to have the options we do today.

 

[Bluefish]

I think a lot of the feel is due to polishing and fitting. Due to price points and modern mfg methods neither of those are really done on low end guns now. I bought a remlin 1894 and it was awful out of the box. Rough, hard to cycle, some work with new springs and a stone, it’s now smooth and fast. Remington just didn’t put the time in to make it cycle well.

I am also seeing the trend of redesigning to make guns easier and cheaper to make. The whole polymer craze is to reduce cost. I think beretta is doing this on over shotguns. They keep coming out with new ones while the old designs are still perfectly good. I assume it’s to reduce the cost to manufacture as older designs tend to have more hand fitting which leads to higher costs.