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?

 

[Tony]

There has been quite a lot of talk surrounding this with the Smith and Wesson revolvers: Pre-lock vs Lock models. A model 29-2 is a classic and undoubtedly well made, but I managed to shoot one loose way back when I loaded my own range rounds and didn't know any better. The model 29-10 is actually much stronger, from what I understand, but considered to be just another mass-produced handgun. Same thing with the Colt Python. The old ones were hand-assembled and fit, but had fragile lockwork. The newer ones are not as smooth, but more sturdy.

I feel that modern manufacturing methods and materials create a better performing product, but the classics are much more artistic. A computer can reproduce the Mona Lisa, but not surpass it!

 

[wapakfred]

Broadly speaking I believe it's true the older ones were better made. That's not to say that many of today's guns are very nice, but i prefer the older ones.

 

[nksmfamjp]

If a gun is redesigned to apply modern machining and other manufacturing methods well, probably modern guns are better performing. Think Dan Wesson 1911’s or Tikka T3X rifles.

If a gun was designed to be built with skilled labor and the design was never reoptimized for modern methods, usually modern versions have issues. Think S&W revolvers or REM 700’s.

 

[Tony]

Along these lines, I have a S&W 686 Plus 3" for carry, and a 27-3 4" for the awesomeness