Are these the best times

[Bigslug]

I think we've lost a good chunk of the ethos that made the old stuff what it was. Used to be, guys would get sent to war with a Mauser 98 by the millions because even most of the truly talented idiots couldn't break one, wear one out, or blow one up, and it usually wouldn't take much to get one ready to re-issue to the next talented idiot.

At some point along the line - WWI and WWII probably - the assumption seemed to become that X percentage of equipment will get destroyed by artillery or sunk by U-boats before it ever sees the front, and the attitude became one of not sinking in more resources than necessary to do the intended job. I am not saying that the current tools are bad tools - I own plenty of Glocks and consider them some of the best possible tools - but when the archeologists of the future hold up a G-98 or Smith Triple Lock up next to the current assemblages of plastic, aluminum, stampings, castings, and roll pins, and our modern trend to planned obsolescence, they're going to point at the 1870 to 1940 period and say "those were the better men".

The theory was that CNC was going to be the miracle that would give us the old stuff, better made, for less money. Outside of the Italian cowboy replicas, this has not been the case. "Make it cheap" seems to be the more common mantra.

New cartridges? Extreme "meh" for the most part. Odds are, I can flip through my copy of Cartridges of the World for five minutes and find the ballistic twin of the "latest and greatest" with a headstamp that's been around for 70 or more years. The fact that the new stuff fits in an AR-15 doesn't really move me, because I know how to run the old stuff.

My last deer rifle purchase was a Ruger 77 - basically a Mauser 1898 / Winchester M70 (1930's) derivative - chambered in the .30 of 1906, in stainless and synthetic. I guess you could say my only problem with the old stuff was that it rusted.

[breamfisher]

Okay, boomer.

[Wambli Ska]

[coolgunguy]

Okay, boomer.

Exactly the thought I had!

[Chiro1989]

Okay, boomer.

Got the tshirt

[Linefinder]

Being a machinist, I've gotta agree with CPJ. I do a lot of CNC work and also a lot of manual machining. If your goal is more than "one off" items, CNC wins hands-down. The week before last I was tasked with making 6 identical small parts with very tight tolerances. Our CNC was tied up so I had to work "manual". Long story short....what I could have done in 4 hours on the CNC took me 6 DAYS manually.

Enclosed CNC milling centers normally have "flood coolant" systems that keep the part and your tool at a consistent temp. They also provide the added benefit of blowing the machined chips out of the way. Manual stations usually lack this feature, so you spend a lot of time lubing the part by hand and brushing away chips. Then waiting for the part to cool to ambient before proceeding to the next step.

Suffice to say....the $1500 CNC mass produced rifle you can buy off the shelf today would cost you $20K , or better, if rifles were still being built today the way they were 120 years ago....so most of us wouldn't own a rifle.

Mike

[CPJ 2.0]

Being a machinist, I've gotta agree with CPJ. I do a lot of CNC work and also a lot of manual machining. If your goal is more than "one off" items, CNC wins hands-down. The week before last I was tasked with making 6 identical small parts with very tight tolerances. Our CNC was tied up so I had to work "manual". Long story short....what I could have done in 4 hours on the CNC took me 6 DAYS manually.

Enclosed CNC milling centers normally have "flood coolant" systems that keep the part and your tool at a consistent temp. They also provide the added benefit of blowing the machined chips out of the way. Manual stations usually lack this feature, so you spend a lot of time lubing the part by hand and brushing away chips. Then waiting for the part to cool to ambient before proceeding to the next step.

Suffice to say....the $1500 CNC mass produced rifle you can buy off the shelf today would cost you $20K , or better, if rifles were still being built today the way they were 120 years ago....so most of us wouldn't own a rifle.

Mike

Could you imagine machining Mauser by HAND?

[Bigslug]

Okay, boomer.

Sort of

Born in 1971

Raised in 1955

Trying to live in 1927

[Wambli Ska]

Being a machinist, I've gotta agree with CPJ. I do a lot of CNC work and also a lot of manual machining. If your goal is more than "one off" items, CNC wins hands-down. The week before last I was tasked with making 6 identical small parts with very tight tolerances. Our CNC was tied up so I had to work "manual". Long story short....what I could have done in 4 hours on the CNC took me 6 DAYS manually.

Enclosed CNC milling centers normally have "flood coolant" systems that keep the part and your tool at a consistent temp. They also provide the added benefit of blowing the machined chips out of the way. Manual stations usually lack this feature, so you spend a lot of time lubing the part by hand and brushing away chips. Then waiting for the part to cool to ambient before proceeding to the next step.

Suffice to say....the $1500 CNC mass produced rifle you can buy off the shelf today would cost you $20K , or better, if rifles were still being built today the way they were 120 years ago....so most of us wouldn't own a rifle.

Mike

Again, it’s not the machining I miss, it’s the hand finishing of the old days. CNC or “hand” machined makes ZERO difference to me. Someone really wise told me a long time ago that when a craftsman makes a custom wood rifle stock, they are getting paid for the last few SMALL fractions of an inch in the fitting, surface preparation and finish of the wood. The inletting and shaping can be done by machine easily enough. It’s the hand finishing that makes a difference and no machine can do like a human hand.

Same with a gun. A CNC machine will give you a flawless hunch of steel, that any monkey can then assemble into a good gun.

BUT a machine can’t soften the edges, polish and blue (one example) as a true craftsman like let’s say Justsomedude can.

That’s what Winchester, Marlin, Colt and Smith & Wesson did and they had big rooms full of guys on benches who could do that.

The Italians still do. The new Uberti engraved guns are laser engraved but then they are finished by hand to have that hand engraved feel that is impossible to get from a laser. My gorgeous 1873 is done that way and it cost $1,700 NIB. Not cheap, but not even close to what an engraver in the USA would have charged me to do the same work on my own gun.

A Uberti lever gun feels the same as an out of the box original made in the 1800s. The fit of the wood to metal is flawless! The polish and blue are perfect. By comparison a new Marlin feels like an unfinished steel bar. American companies have totally lost the ability to do what they used to do so well.

[Zsarvashere]

Companies do what makes them money. Seems like that lecture is made rugularly around here. If there were money in it they would be doing it.

[Wambli Ska]

Companies do what makes them money. Seems like that lecture is made rugularly around here. If there were money in it they would be doing it.

There is money in it or companies like Uberti and others would be broke. Every Uberti that sells is a virtual nail in Winchester and Colts coffin, two companies that continue getting into debt catering to a not profitable market for them. Why would I buy a Winchester made in Japan, with a lock (very nice guns by the way) if I can get a pretty faithful replica of a vintage Winchester for less from Italy.

Even Ruger is getting stupid with their prices. Again a high quality gun assembled by folks with zero skills. They have let 77s and No1s become basically collectibles…. CZ made a PILE of money making old fashioned sporter Mausers and now they are making outstanding 1911s etc. that sell at a premium.

American gun companies are just run by lawyers and accountants now. No one has a sense of what their market wants. Pity…

[Bigslug]

Companies do what makes them money. Seems like that lecture is made rugularly around here. If there were money in it they would be doing it.

The question becomes one of how they can be made to see that there is no shortage of those of us who will seek out a firearm older than they are rather than buy what's being produced now.

CZ recently discontinued the entire 550 (Mauser/M70 hybrid) line, INCLUDING the Safari, which was pretty much the last magnum-length, controlled-feed rifle you could buy that wouldn't hit you with the cost of ANOTHER safari to obtain.

That wasn't even a matter of the CZ deciding to sell a lot of Toyotas vs one Ferrari - the 550 was out there at more of a Lexus (the NICE Toyota) price point, yet even they seem determined to nix that idea in favor of cranking out Corollas.

I guess if the customer doesn't know the history of the base mechanisms of antiquity and the crucibles they were tested in, there's profits to be boosted from that ignorance.

[Wambli Ska]

There will always be folks that look at firearms as strictly tools. And those folks do an assessment of value vs. cost and the highest ratio wins be it a Glock or other plastic handg uns of the relatively inexpensive bolt hunting rifles out there. They are the mainstay of the industry but profit margins are dismal.

Then there is a market for firearms lovers, the folks who demand classic aesthetics and long term appreciation in value. They are a relatively large niche including collectors and folks that just love guns.

Then you have the hybrids that look at firearms for what each one represents and buy accordingly to their needs that purchasing day. This is the market that just about all big name American manufacturers ignore nowadays. They buy some practical tools because they are needed, but every once in a while we want a pretty tool we’d be proud to put on our belt.

[Wambli Ska]

And yes these are good times. Quality of manufacture is mostly at an all time high. BUT costs rule so we are seeing a whole lot of recalls in new offerings because of cost cutting in materials, design, testing and QC.

[Japhy]

There will always be folks that look at firearms as strictly tools. And those folks do an assessment of value vs. cost and the highest ratio wins be it a Glock or other plastic handg uns of the relatively inexpensive bolt hunting rifles out there. They are the mainstay of the industry but profit margins are dismal.

Then there is a market for firearms lovers, the folks who demand classic aesthetics and long term appreciation in value. They are a relatively large niche including collectors and folks that just love guns.

Then you have the hybrids that look at firearms for what each one represents and buy accordingly to their needs that purchasing day. This is the market that just about all big name American manufacturers ignore nowadays. They buy some practical tools because they are needed, but every once in a while we want a pretty tool we’d be proud to put on our belt.

I admit to almost being firmly planted in group 1
I remember car shopping and telling my lovely and charming wife that if a car A cost 3X more than car B then carA must MEASURABLY do EVERYTHING a car does 3X better than carB

The exception to all that is my 1911 I bought largely because I didn’t inherit the government model lovingly maintained under the seat of my dads trucks. Maybe a CZ or S&W or Glock would be a better fit?