Quality then and now

Status
Not open for further replies.
The "good old days" weren't always so good as I encountered quite a few S&W and Colt guns from way back then that never should have got past QC inspectors and left the factory. like wise I have several new guns I bought over the last couple of years that are very close, and possibly exceed, the quality fit and finish of some guns made 50 or more years ago.
 
The story of Winchester pre-'64 is classic. They basically were making out of spec parts because the machinery couldn't hold tolerances closely enough to just assemble them. Therefore the parts had to be filed to fit, just to get them working. That took a lot of expensive labor and they were running in the red, losing money.

The engineers went back to the drawing boards and redesigned the parts so that hand fitting wasn't necessary. They introduced the newer model to a fanfare of derision because the consumer saw stamped steel parts rather than lumps shaped to spec needing to be filed - and considered them lower quality because the parts were "cheap." In reality, the parts were much higher precision and didn't need expensive labor to get them right - they WERE right straight out of the machine into the gun.

Expensive "hand craftsmanship" is really a statement that the maker doesn't have the capital or volume to do it any way better. He's stuck with filing out of spec parts because he can't afford the better machines or meet volume requirements from those who could make them. His processes don't use better methods because the entry fee to get into them is too high for his net profit. It's why bespoke watches we often now see on Kickstarter campaigns run $4-500 dollars - using the same mechanical movements the major watch manufacturers sell in watches as low as $150.

What we are dealing with is a public who doesn't have a clue about manufacturing, because we don't manufacture any more. We've gone from an agrarian society, to industrial, to services, and along the way, we lost the knowledge to understand how to raise our own food, care for service animals, make a broom, or what it takes to machine a receiver. Most of us don't farm, and even more don't work in factories.

What we have left are romantic fantasies of what things used to be like in days before we were adults. We have no real clue about "the good ol days" because we didn't live in them, work in them, or make things in them.

I'm glad Winchester moved on past 1963, it allowed them to stay in business another 30 years for others to enjoy their products. Otherwise they would have soon closed their doors - like many others who couldn't make good products hand filing poorly made bits and pieces to shape. There's no money in it, unless you control your marketing and get the people to buy image over substance. Do that and you can get rich - as Rolex has selling a $500 watch they originated just to import to England and cut into the handmade bespoke watch trade.

The irony is lost on the public, tho.
 
This is anecdotal, so take it for what it's worth. When I worked as a LEO in the late 80's to early 90's, we were required to carry revolvers. It was the same with the other departments in our area. The explanation was that semi automatics were not reliable enough at the time. Today, semi automatics are the norm for police departments. That does not mean there were no reliable semi's at that time, only that they didn't have a record of reliability that was to the satisfaction of the people making that decision at the time. While I know the semi's I own can jam and practice for that possibility, it's so rare that it's not something I worry about.
 
The Smiths from the Bangor-Punta era sucked. Before that, excellence prevailed. I've had so many pre-whatever guns I've lost count. Still have some. If my life depended on it, and it might, I'll rely on my 1952 M70, my Colt Diamondback, my Bushmaster AR, my 1972 870, or my Kimber Pro Carry nd my Smith 49. From both sides of the old/new eras.
 
I bet the old stuff was just as bad, it's just that 50 years later only amazing examples capable of withstanding 50 years of shooting are still around.

That is to say any example you would see today would likely be stellar, but because the junk has worn out rather than there not having been any junk.
 
Last edited:
Guns are a lot like cars. There is a great deal of nostalgic love for the cars made back in the "good old days". I'm talking about the "Muscle cars" of the sixties. But compared to the cars of today, they were slow, noisy, got poor mileage, and couldn't stop or turn corners very fast.

Today's guns, like today's cars, are better in every respect. They are more accurate, more reliable, and just plain better in every respect....but maybe not quite as beautiful. They use many materials in their construction that may not be as pleasing to the eye: plastic, polymers, stainless steel or space age protective coatings.

Hard to compete in a beauty contest with old fashioned hand polishing and slow rust bluing.

Well, Today's Cadillac may not be as beautiflul as a classic V-16 Caddy from the thirties....but it is a lot better car. The same goes for today's guns.
 
This word 'quality' gets flung about a lot, but I'm often not exactly sure what the user means.

The definition I learned of quality measures 'conformance to requirements'.

The requirements must be clear, and conformance must be measurable. Quality doesn't involve 'feel', and it doesn't matter if conformance comes from a craftsman with a file or a cnc mill. Quality can absolutely include fit and finish.

I have also seen user preference included as a selection criterion. While it's not as objectively definable or measurable, it still seems correct to use it to break ties or close calls.

On that basis, was quality 'back then' was as good as it is now? In general I'd have to say no.

PS - Not all BP Smith's sucked, I've several good ones but it takes skill, patience, money, and luck to get a good one.
 
j1 said:
I do not think that any new guns are of the same quality as older guns. More hand fitting consisting of a trained craftsman with a sharp file cannot be replaced. No one would like the price. Quality control is not there either. You still get good quality for the money you are spending

Honestly, I sincerely disagree with that statement. Modern guns don't always exhibit the fine art qualities of guns from the past, but the on-target qualities of today's guns are in a whole different league from the guns made in the past.

I'm mostly involved in long range shooting. I've got some very expensive and modern equipment for that purpose. But, my first precision rifle was an $800 off-the-shelf Tikka that wears a $300 Weaver scope. I could make hits to 1,000 yards with that rifle, reliably ding 1-2 MOA steel plates at 600 yards, and shoot 100 yard 5-shot groups in the 0.3" range on a regular enough basis to be proud of the rifle. That kind of quality simply wasn't there 30 years ago.

Similarly, today's auto-loading rifles, pistols, and shotguns are far more reliable than the models that were being produced a few decades ago. 1911's are very sexy guns, but Glocks are more reliable. Both were built to be fighting pistols, and in that regard you could argue that Glocks have the edge. Regardless, plenty of nice 1911's are still produced today.

Admittedly, the heyday of beautiful hand finished walnut stocks on glossy blued guns is probably past. But, today's firearms are making shots that people only dreamed of a few decades ago. And, beauty is a distant concern to me… form always follows function for me in my shooting.
 
Quality as defined by some doesn't necessarily mean conformance to high standards of manufacture. What they are more likely referring to is upscale use of materials and how they are finished.

I read it all the time - and the examples given are almost always those of exotic woods with extremely high finish, metals with high polish that required hand work, and with hand decoration that cant be done by machine. "Quality" in that regard is all about being high end decoration and finish, not highly precise machining or how it works together to make a firearm highly reliable or accurate.

Case in point - Service rifle marksmanship. You can build a quality AR or a quality M1A - the latter will cost up the three times the money for the hand fitting and gunsmithing to make it equally as accurate. And yet in competition the AR still holds the top ten places. It frustrates some who see oiled wood stocks and nicely finished blued steel guns falling out of the running to stamped steel and plastic. It offends what they were brought up to accept as the natural tier ranking of what it takes to be superlative.

Well, superlative is a marketing term, based on commercial image making. You don't need exotic oiled wood or hand polished parts to be the best - but in the social dynamic of making your product appear better than the next, you exploit the commonly held myths that are actually created by marketing and then use them to make it appear that your product is better.

It's very much a straw man marketing campaign - and if you really want to study it in depth, do focus on Rolex. It's a $500 watch with another zero added to separate money from the buyer to elevate him into a club. Same with guns. Charge another zero on the asking price and make sure you only present it with the necessary "tells" of high class ownership, the masses will line up and some will hand over the money. They aren't buying that much better a product - a Rolex may be a certified Chronometer, but a good quartz for $200 will still be more accurate and actually have more complications. An engraved Belgian Browning shotgun may be $20,000, and fit the shooter exclusively in near perfection. I just hope he's a decent shot, tho, because it won't mean squat in a National level competition on clays.

People buying "quality" are actually buying social rank, and when we hear them bemoaning it's loss in the marketplace, what we are really hearing is that it's becoming more expensive and they can't afford it. They can't buy social standing at their income level any more - they can't buy guns with hand fitted parts and fancy oiled exotic wood stocks for the prices they used to pay.

Ok, you want exotic wood and hand fitted parts, add another zero. The mass makers can still accommodate them, it's called the Custom Shop and they are quite busy with backlogs. THOSE guns aren't often seen in the racks at BoxMart, the market hasn't really changed, what did change was what it took to stay in the rack of consumer priced guns. You can't get good wood or highly polished steel at that price level any more. You can't buy social rank from department store gun racks - and in the good ol days, you couldn't then, either. What some revere as the good ol days in firearms didn't exist - they couldn't buy the high end guns back then. They bought the cheaper ones that only shared a few features.

I don't remember seeing Weatherby's in the gun rack at OTASCO. I did see some nice looking Remigntons and Winchesters. They weren't in the same class back then, and what some call out as the distinguishing features of a "quality" gun aren't really that. They are what made owning one gun a higher social ranking. Be careful what you call "quality" because it is still an indicator of what is really wanted. Modern guns are much better made than we give them recognition, 1MOA is now common, when it was then superlative.

You can miss an appointment just as easily wearing a Rolex or quartz Seiko, the only difference is how important you think you are doing it. You can miss a clay just as easily with an engraved Belgian or pump Mossberg, how good you think you look doing it is in your own self image.

Are you buying a well made gun, or a gun that makes you look well?
 
Dan Wesson, Les Baer, Ed Brown

Or you could get an older quality gun for a fraction of the price.

The Dan Wesson Valor, Les Baer UTC and Ed Brown Special Forces have enhancements that an older 1911 would not likely have (night sights, beaver-tail grip safety, cut checkering or scalloped on front strap, larger than original thumb safety) which adds to the price (and quality IMO).
 
Modern guns would be just as good as older ones if they spent the time on QA/QC like they USED to do.

^^^^ This!

Its far cheaper to let the purchaser do the final QA/QC and accept the 3-5% return rate of "modern" manufacturing techniques. It they handle the warranty work properly it also generates very good "word of mouth" advertising as a side effect. Its a shame that too many don't -- EAA & Kahr would seem to be poster boys for doing it wrong.

This is the way it is for guns, cell phones, computer, cars, etc. just about everything that is not "boutique" limited semi-custom production.

I get a kick out of the Les Baer commercial on various shooting shows where they show a Dremel fitting the beavertail :)
 
Last edited:
The QUALITY of new guns is better than ever.

The CRAFTSMANSHIP that goes into making them is not nearly of the same level.



These two concepts are not the same thing and aren't interchangeable terms

I've had lots of 100yo guns with beautifully fitted parts and finishes that wouldn't hold 3moa and would mangle brass in a couple loadings.

I've not had a modern rifle from the past 20 years that's like that
 
There was lots of crap built in the old days too. I think the same is true then as now: You get what you pay for.
 
I do not think that any new guns are of the same quality as older guns. More hand fitting consisting of a trained craftsman with a sharp file cannot be replaced. No one would like the price. Quality control is not there either. You still get good quality for the money you are spending

Just how exactly do you define "quality" and "quality control" (sic) in this context?

Goes bang every time you pull the trigger?

Shoots as accurately as the shooter is capable of shooting?

Looks pretty?
 
While I like blued steel and walnut better, I'll admit that the firearms coming out every day in 2015 are likely better products overall than those of the past thanks to metallurgy and modern machining.

IMHO, I believe the "don't make 'em like they used to" perception with guns, houses, & whatever springs from the fact that the old poorly made ones are in the garbage heap. Only the best old stuff lasted long enough to be appreciated.
 
I do not think that any new guns are of the same quality as older guns. More hand fitting consisting of a trained craftsman with a sharp file cannot be replaced. No one would like the price. Quality control is not there either. You still get good quality for the money you are spending
Depends on when it was made and by whom it was made....

Some 1945 made German stuff is crap compared to post-war stuff...

Also, Smith & Wesson pistols go from excellent in the pre-war era to meh quality in the 1980s to better that the 1980s, but not quite the equal of the pre-war stuff today. And, the amount of hand-work has steadily gone down over that time.

Generally, Spanish and Italian stuff gets better over time.
 
Just how exactly do you define "quality" and "quality control" (sic) in this context?

Goes bang every time you pull the trigger?

Shoots as accurately as the shooter is capable of shooting?

Looks pretty?

All of the above in any gun would make it a quality gun. Its easy to get carried away with the "looks pretty" and "shoots as accurately as the shooter is (wishes they were) capable of shooting" and send prices through the roof. The looks pretty part won't last if the gun sees any serious use.
 
I'm probably going to get some people angry with this - MOST (not all new) Guns are on par with or better than their counterparts from yesteryear. But I think some of the major differences people see in "quality" of new production are largely based on 3 main things.

1. materials. Cast parts used on parts of new guns vs bar or forged stock on older guns of similar or the same design. or the dreaded plastic. Simply put - a low stress part does not need to be hardened forged bar stock.

2. dovetails from 1. Machine marks/tool marks. Any machined part, from whenever the era, will have tool marks. Many parts today are machined, and fit extremely well, In some cases better than yesteryear, but many of the older units, where labor was cheaper, had those marks removed before the firearm hit the shelf.

3. dovetails from 1 and 2. Labor. the single largest cost factor. IMO I think new guns are on par with older ones in terms of mechanical ability - but the labor factors in. You simply have to pay more for someone to rub those tool marks off for you and do that "final finishing" that was much more common when machines where the expensive part of the process.

There is a plain, inescapable fact. Barring misalignment, tolerance, or material defects, - tool marks and mixed materials have zero impact on form, function, or accuracy of a firearm. The same is true of older firearms as well.

a 4th item might be finishes. There is just something about old school bright shiny bluing and a deep rich lacquered walnut or rosewood, or a carefully prepared nickel overlay. Though it can be grouped in with #1. modern parkerizing and plastic serve the same functions - in some cases better, and are simply less expensive.

a substitute 4th might be lawyers. legalities making companies scared to produce light triggers. One thing that needs to be rectified, usually with a gunsmith. An example a modern smith revolver can be made to rival the best of one 30 years ago - but again, it needs manual personal attention - which is $$$ again. I purchased a new manufacture model 66. trigger was heavy and rough compared to my 1974 vintage model 19. Stainless finish was bland, but fully functional. After having it worked, and polished. it's every bit the equal, and every bit as accurate as it's aged blued sibling.
 
Last edited:
New technology certainly changed some things for the better no doubt.
Other changes are due to cost cutting reasons. Were some material used is far less durable than years passed. Plus, many of the steps along the way which were done by craftsmen are now done by machine. Hence the cheap look.

New weapons will do the job. Do they look and feel like the oldies? No.

The older models are were the quality, fit and finish lives. JMO.
 
Guns are a lot like cars. There is a great deal of nostalgic love for the cars made back in the "good old days". I'm talking about the "Muscle cars" of the sixties. But compared to the cars of today, they were slow, noisy, got poor mileage, and couldn't stop or turn corners very fast.

Lol. made me remember what me and my buddy used to day about his dart we modded up. It would do everything you could want it to do. as long as it was in a straight line, and you had plenty of room to slow down.
 
The QUALITY of new guns is better than ever.

The CRAFTSMANSHIP that goes into making them is not nearly of the same level.



These two concepts are not the same thing and aren't interchangeable terms

I've had lots of 100yo guns with beautifully fitted parts and finishes that wouldn't hold 3moa and would mangle brass in a couple loadings.

I've not had a modern rifle from the past 20 years that's like that
I would agree with Dale.

Old guns have a Craftsmanship that we do not see as much today.

But I also think that the old guns we have today are the good ones from the old days that held up and lasted well. I think the junk guns from yester-year are long gone and are not really seen that much today.
 
Short answer: Quality is better now, for a given price point, than the past.

Quality is being defined as “meeting requirements”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top