New versions of old guns...

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thefitzvh

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2003
Messages
989
Location
Austin, TX
Nuw versions of old guns...

I was just fondling my russian rifles (M44 and 91/30), and it occured to me that, if a company offered new manufactured versions of old rifles (think replicas, but working, firing, built to demanding standards) I would jump on them.


Say, if someone made a brand new copy of an M91/59 or something. BRAND new barrels, etc.

I think it'd be cool. I dunno... maybe a waste of money, but then again I've never really been fiscally responsible!


James
 
I actually thought about that before... then after thinking for a while, I realized that's exactly what we have, minus the current production part. We can get basically new (just dated) rifles that are built to last.
 
It's being done.

Andrew Wyatt has been hawking the new-manufacture Lithgow Lee-Enfields for a while here.

And the late, great Robert "Teenut" Bastow, with his new 98 Mauser actions.

Charles Daly is now importing new Mauser actions, barreled actions, and rifles.

ActionOnly.jpg


But one can't forget, machining away everything in a chunk of ordnance steel that doesn't look like a classic rifle action is considerably more expensive than stamping or extruding out another Remington 700 or Savage 10 model. ;)
 
Someone once estimated that the M1 rifle, if made today as it was in WWII, and sold only in sporting quantities, would cost well over $5000. I suspect the classic K98k would be around half that. And those rifles would be competing with the original rifles selling for a LOT less.

Jim
 
I think one old military rifle that could have hope of modern U.S. domestic sales would be a .308 Enfield.

Come to think of it, Springfield Armory is making new production Garands. They are expensive, but not that much more than other guns. I'd think a new bolt action '03 Springfield would be even cheaper to produce, no?
 
DMK, you forget...

The new Springfield, Inc. M1 Garands are being built on new production cast receivers, with USGI surplus parts tacked onto that. As those USGI parts dry up, Springfield, Inc. will be forced to reproduce those parts, too. Watch the prices, and again, it really can't be compared to an original M1 Garand as Jim Keenan was talking about.

The 1903 Springfield has been replicated for a while. Remember National Ordnance? They made replica receivers, and used surplus 1903 parts to finish the assembly process. Suffice it to say that some gun people won't talk to you if you mention the name "National Ordnance" around them.
 
Why, with modern manufacturing techniques, would a rifle cost MORE to produce now?

And I have to wonder if a new cast receiver, made with modern metallurgy, isn't stronger and longer lasting than a 1940s-metallurgy forged one.

But, no one would buy them. Look at those Australian Enfields. Going for about $700.00. About what you'd expect to pay for a premium bolt gun with a hardwood stock, right?

Wrong. Poeple here and on the FAL Files were lambasting the price. People that pay $800.00 for a cast aluminum AR-15 rifle (the tooling for which is so common it costs probably $200.00 to actually make the rifle), with a smile, were saying that a new production, quality Enfield, in .308, taking M14 magazines, with a free floated barrel, is only worth $400.00 to them. And this is a rifle made by one small company.

So yeah. I don't think they'd sell very well, though I very much wish somebody'd put the classics back into production (in military pattern). Those cheap-o surplus rifles aren't going to last forever. People here remember when surplus M1 Carbines were $100.00. How much do they run now?
 
Why, with modern manufacturing techniques, would a rifle cost MORE to produce now?
Click to expand...

I'd guess the cost of labor and tooling and materials. (If we're talking about weapons made to the old specs, at least...) Guys with files and a lot of time on their hands used to be a dime a dozen.

I am told that the very earliest 1911's had trigger bows machined from forgings. If true, the mind reels to think what that piece would cost today, compared to one bent from a piece of sheet stock (which functions just as well.)
 
Well, I guess it'd at least be nice to be able to order new manufactured parts for old rifles that have been neglected, i.e. the old rusty, cracked, and unusable surplus guns. Sure, they have history, and it sucks to modify them, but I think if I was a firearm, I'd rather be working, than all original.

There are SOME parts available, but if you wanted a new manufactured mosin nagant barrel, you'd probably not find one.

James
 
I know that I am not a machinist but.....

I do not understand all that I know.

I own a Springfield "Custom Carry", from around 1989 - 90 manufacture (NM133308). It has always been a top quality piece......in every way. The only problem that I have ever had is that it will not chamber poorly made (not fully re-sized) reloaded cartridges in it's tight match grade chamber. It has fired a few thousand (only 3K-5K) cartridges but so far, never even blinked......never even blinked.

I have a Series 70 Mark IV Colt (about a 1978 model), Bone stock, that I feed the poorly resized reloads for!! They will chamber in it. :rolleyes:

IOW, assuming a 1989-90 model Springfield "Custom Carry" to have worse fitting modern parts (i.e. MIM, etc) than a formerly made older Colt may not always be valid........or better!

I would say, buying the cheapest product may not always be the best buy......buyer be ware.

PigPen
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top