Are modern rifles as good or better than old

[jiminhobesound]

I was a gun nut starting at age eight, grew up in South Dakota. My father was a hunting, shooting, gun and reloading nut. He bought most of his guns prior to 1955 that included Winchesters, LC Smith, Stevens, Springfield and others. I added a Remington 722 in .257. The 722 was so accurate that my father had one built(.257) on a Mauser 98 action, 26 inch Douglas, etc. His primary big game gun went from Model 94 to Model 71 to model 70. I have totally lost touch with status of gun quality and manufacture reputation. I just wonder if the pre 64 Winchesters and older Remington 7xx are superior to the guns being turned out since 1995.

 

[jmr40]

Depends on what you want. Older rifles were better finished with better machining. Newer gun designs don't require the level of handwork necessary on most older guns. CNC machining has greatly improved quality on some rifles. Overall rifles are far more accurate today than in the past.

Lots of good rifles being made today. Lots of inexpensive rifles without the nice finsh that shoot great.

A lot of people complain about the quality of todays rifles. They are there, but most people just don't want to pay the price for the good ones and then complain about the quality they get when they buy the budget rifles.

 

[Art Eatman]

External fit and finish on the "old stuff" was better, IMO. But, to get that same quality today, you'd pay a bunch more than today's prices for the equivalent critter.

As far as accuracy? I think that today's basic rifles commonly match many of the custom guns of yesteryear. The main reason is the much higher-quality machine tools available. Tenths of thousandths, rather than "Maybe a half-a-thousandth".

 

[Coal Dragger]

Adjusted for inflation new rifles are far superior to their older counterparts, you just may have to look to different brands to realize the higher quality for the same inflation adjusted money. For example an older Model 700 and a newer Model 700 may both shoot about the same with the new rifle edging out the old one, but the older one will look much nicer. What has happened is that Remington has continually cut costs to keep the price of the rifle as low as possible. Now take the same $$$ you could have bought that Model 700 for back in the day, and look for a different brand or model of rifle and you could get one hell of a nice rifle.

 

[mljdeckard]

I very much agree with Art. The standard for accuracy has risen very much even from 20 years ago. I recall reading magazine articles that referred to that 'elusive MOA accuracy' in a rifle. These days if you buy a rifle that won't shoot less than 1 inch at 100 with match ammo, you wonder what is wrong with it.

 

[J.Boyette]

Older rifles that where run of the mill are of lower quality then today's run of the mill rifles.

The nicer bunch, will always be the nicer bunch no matter the time made.

John

 

[Tirod]

Older guns had parts so inaccurately made it was required to handfit them in assembly. Now, the parts come off the machinery right, or aren't used at all.

There's simply no time to waste frittering away filing and adjusting misshapened pieces on an assembly bench. If it can be done right for one, then it can be right for 10,000. That's why Winchester could no longer afford to make guns the old way. Bluntly, they were assembling poorly made parts - quite a different issue from their design or integrity. Americans won't pay premium prices for what they consider a run of the mill gun, and their knowledge of production techniques is woefully out of date. Nobody works in a factory anymore, only one in one hundred have ever enlisted.

New guns are far superior to the old, even new AR's built to leading edge standards are better than the milspecs based on '50's production techniques and fabrications.

 

[Ky Larry]

I agree that newer rifles shoot better than older rifles. You can grab almost any rifle off the rack, slap a $200.00 scope on it, grab almost any brand of factory ammo and shoot 1"-1.5" groups at 100 yrds.Fit and finish aren't as good,on average, but accuracy and function have improved greatly. YMMV.

 

[Ithaca37]

This is like asking if new cars are better than old or if a new PC is better than an old Apple II.

No question that new stuff is better. Advances in materials, manufacturing, and engineering all result in products that are superior in every way.

 

[HOOfan_1]

Well the Commodore 64 was better than the Apple II anyway

 

[newfalguy101]

Not exactly a great answer, but, I have a hard time seeing some of the new guns as heirlooms 100 years from now, too cookie cutter by my reckoning

 

[Coal Dragger]

Well that is because relatively speaking new guns are a lot cheaper now than they used to be. At one time it was considered normal for a good rifle to cost an average man roughly two weeks or more of his wages. Today I can buy a good factory rifle for maybe one or two days pay (gross).

Now I suppose if I were to save the money, and set it aside and buy a rifle costing me two weeks worth of wages I would have a budget of $3-$4K depending on the two week period. I can promise you that for that amount of money I can buy a family heirloom quality rifle that will look fantastic, and shoot circles around anything made 40-50 years ago.

 

[Ignition Override]

But for not much more money (if any), for 100 yard shots do you prefer such improved accuracy encased in plastic over the solid character of an Enfield #4 or Garand with iron sights? Did they need 1" groups to cause fatal wounds?

Both of these WW2 classics have aperture sights.

 

[Picher]

The older rifles looked pretty, some pretty ugly, but didn't shoot better than todays. Hunting rifles today are usually not as glossy as the old ones, the result of customer demand, more than manufacturing tolerances. I can't bring myself to buy a camo-painted stock, but use tape or removable paint. I've seen what a camo-painted gun looks like in the used gun rack; not a pretty sight.

I think the two areas that there have been major improvements in accuracy are in scopes and factory ammo. We used to get just under 2 moa for most factory ammo in the fifties and sixties and used to pay $12.75 for a box of .30-06. A few years ago, after hunting season, I paid $11 a box at WW for .270 Core-Locts and they were more accurate than the old rounds bought in the 60s.

Plastic shotshells/shotcups were a HUGE improvement over paper and felt wads. We used to shoot up all of last year's SG ammo, because it wasn't very good the next season.

The big difference in rifle ammo is the comparative costs. In 1060, the average wage was about $80 per week. Today it's maybe $350 or more, yet the cost of ammo isn't much more than back then. I was paying about $1.00 a box for high-speed .22LR ammo back then and now it's only about twice as much. Stingers were a big improvement in performance!

Scopes today almost all have multi-coated lenses, so the cheapest scopes are brighter than the best we had in the 50's-60's. Adjustments are more reliable and the price of a Leupold VXII is only about twice as much as a B&L Balvar 8B back then.

 

[ultradoc]

advantages and disadvantages. might be compared to a model T and a viper. nothing like the craftmanship in the old guns [cars]. but the new ones are sleaker and more efficaint.

 

[ElToro]

old gun have more soul. something about that OLD shotgun or winchester or smith revolver. todays guns are made differently and maybe or maybe not better. they work just fine for the most part but they are mass produced just like so much else in todays world.

dont get me wrong i have plenty of recently produced guns and would have no hesitation going to a gunfight with a sig or hunting with my rem 700 but they feel differnt than my older guns

 

[30coupe]

The older rifles looked pretty, some pretty ugly, but didn't shoot better than todays. Hunting rifles today are usually not as glossy as the old ones, the result of customer demand, more than manufacturing tolerances. I can't bring myself to buy a camo-painted stock, but use tape or removable paint. I've seen what a camo-painted gun looks like in the used gun rack; not a pretty sight.

I think the two areas that there have been major improvements in accuracy are in scopes and factory ammo. We used to get just under 2 moa for most factory ammo in the fifties and sixties and used to pay $12.75 for a box of .30-06. A few years ago, after hunting season, I paid $11 a box at WW for .270 Core-Locts and they were more accurate than the old rounds bought in the 60s.

Plastic shotshells/shotcups were a HUGE improvement over paper and felt wads. We used to shoot up all of last year's SG ammo, because it wasn't very good the next season.

The big difference in rifle ammo is the comparative costs. In 1060, the average wage was about $80 per week. Today it's maybe $350 or more, yet the cost of ammo isn't much more than back then. I was paying about $1.00 a box for high-speed .22LR ammo back then and now it's only about twice as much. Stingers were a big improvement in performance!

Scopes today almost all have multi-coated lenses, so the cheapest scopes are brighter than the best we had in the 50's-60's. Adjustments are more reliable and the price of a Leupold VXII is only about twice as much as a B&L Balvar 8B back then.

If you paid $1.00 a box for .22LR in 1960 (don't think they were available in 1060 ), somebody was ripping you off. I could buy three boxes of LR for that or four of .22 short. Still, all things considered, ammo costs are relatively cheaper due to improved manufacturing techniques. The same is true of firearms. It's just that, being an old fart, looking at $1000 price tags on models that were one quarter of that in my youth causes my heart to skip a beat.

While modern rifles are no doubt more accurate out of the box than vintage ones, it is probably much ado about nothing. The rifles of the '50s and '60s killed stuff completely and entirely dead, and to quote George L. Herter, "You can't get deader than dead." It may have taken a bit more skill and woodsmanship. We didn't take 600-800 yard shots at game, not just because our rifles were less accurate, but it was deemed unethical. A puff of wind or a slight movement on the part of the animal 600+ yards away often means a wounded, perhaps unrecoverable, animal.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate accuracy as much as the next person. I just can't consider the long range shots at game animals seen on some TV shows fair chase. I think taking an animal at under 100 yards without the animal knowing you are there seems more sporting to me than being 800 yards away, where even if the critter sees or smells you it doesn't consider you a threat, while armed with a laser range finder, an electronic wind indicator, an a 16x scope that can be dialed in to the precise distance, while securely resting your 1/4 MOA rifle across a backpack from the prone position.

Sorry for the rant. I got carried away.

 

[content]

Hello friends and neighbors // Where is the old and modern timeline?

Different manufactures had their own standards until they needed to meet Gov. standards to fill a contract. IIRC Colt started heat treating parts of the 1911s slide around 1924.

Winchester model 1894s were blackpowder only until the nickled steel barrel came out in 1895 but IIRC there was still no heat treating. (I wonder about using modern cartridges in my 1925 model 1894.)

Is there a year or timeline for industry standards being equal in areas such as heat treating gun parts? Mid 1920s or into the 1930s?

Would this be a good example of the old and modern split or would it be necessary to look at each individual gun such as the Marlin 39/39A pre or post micro groove as old or modern.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

I think it depends, but in general, I would say better. Today's guns definitely have the ability to be MUCH better. The only thing that would hold them back from that is to save on cost.

 

[Beacon]

Mixed answer on this one. Some new guns are better, some are worse. I like the Tikka T3 Lite better than the old 595 Whitetail. The new 308 Marlin's and 338 Marlin's aren't as good as the old 444's and .45-70's since Marlin got bought by Remington/Cerberus/Freedom Group. I think the Savages have improved, with the Accu-triggers and better looking stocks. Remington's have backslid with Q/C probs after they got bought out. I don't think there is a hard and fast answer to this, because it depends on the company and what guns we are talking about. Try telling a Winchester fan that post-64 model 70's are better than pre-64 model 70's. Some Browning fans like the old Belgium made guns, others like the Japanese made models. And some guns, like the Savage 99, aren't in production any more, so you better like the old ones or you're out of business.

 

[blackops]

Everything modern is better and that's just what happens as technology moves forward. You just have to pay more for the attention to detail.

 

[GuysModel94]

I don't know that "everything modern is better", i believe that today, like yester-year, you get what you pay for. Will the new bolt guns hold up like my uncle's 1959 Model 70, only time will tell.

 

[Coal Dragger]

I would fully expect a new modern blot action rifle to hold up better than your uncle's 1959 Model 70. Modern steels are more consistent at the very least and so are heat treating methods. Those two factors alone will make a difference.

 

[35 Whelen]

Better in what way? Accuracy? Not really.

I shot a High Power match with a gentleman who got his Master classification, in about years time with a '96 Military Mauser in 6.5x55. That folks, is a testament to accuracy!! Most folks would struggle to do that with a fine AR.

I've been a K-31 fan for several years now. Their quality and workmanship is STUNNING. Their accuracy likewise is legendary. With good peep sights (my 47 year old eyes don't do open sights so well) I have fired 10-shot groups at 100 yds. that measured less than 1 1/2":




A few years ago I bought a 1903A3 that had once been a drill rifle. Someone undid all the damage and screwed on a 65+ year old, new old stock barrel. The rifle, in as-issued form is incredibly accurate even with cast bullet loads:





The same goes, although maybe to a slightly lesser degree with an old Krag I owned as well as a Finn model 39.

On the other hand, I have fired production, scoped Ruger 77's (and Ruger 77's are my favorite production rifles) that wouldn't group 5 shots as well as the above rifles. Ditto for a nice Husqvarna 30-06 I own.

I think that today it is easier and cheaper to build an accurate rifle than it was 60+ years ago. It's been said that to produce a K-31 today in the same quality they were built 60 years ago would cost over $1000 per unit. I believe than in the WW1 and WW2 era, our soldiers were expected to be riflemen and as such our military as well as the Swede's and Swiss went to great length to ensure the troops had the tools to become good riflemen.

35W

 

[Skyshot]

I think todays ammo makes the new firearms have the edge, but take well made older rifle with a taylored handload and its pure art! And there's just something about and old rifle with a history behind it that any new CNC whistling wonder will never replace IMO!