metal quality in firearms

PaulT

PaulT

Regular
Rating - 100%
45   0   0
Location
Gatineau-Ottawa
Hi,

If someone were to compare metal quality from firearms made in the 60's and 70's compared to firearms made today, would you say quality was better then or today's quality is better?

Asking because I have seen lots of "new" guns/rifles that are not as resistant to rust compared to older rifles made earlier. Seems to me that metal quality is going down :confused: what do you think?

Thanks
 
I know the old 30-30s don't rust like the newer ones.I have been told its due to the nickle content in the old 94s.Not sure if this is so,but if it is true you would think they would use nickle in the newer guns.
 
depends whether we're talking stainless or standard blued steel- i think that the stainless have improved greatly since, to the point of overtaking the market ,i know every gun i'm going to buy from now on is going to be stainless if offered, and composite stock too- i feel so bad when that wonderful wood gets the slightest scratch in it- esp the brownings with their mirror finish varnish- if i can't have stainless then either teflon or parked
 
PaulT said:
Asking because I have seen lots of "new" guns/rifles that are not as resistant to rust compared to older rifles made earlier. Seems to me that metal quality is going down :confused: what do you think?
Click to expand...

i think this has less to do with metal quality and more to do with metal finish.
older guns were polished and deeply blued, this is a labor intensive process.

newer guns are bead blasted and matte blued, which is a much cheaper, less protective finish but saves the company a tremendous amount of production cost.
new gun owners eat up the new tactical low-glare stealth finish though, so its business as usual :rolleyes:


t-star said:
i know every gun i'm going to buy from now on is going to be stainless if offered
Click to expand...

same. i resisted switching to stainless at the beginning but now i love them. you dont have to worry about rougher handling of your guns since there is no finish to scratch off. i still oil and clean mine like my blued guns, but its no longer a stressful thing like when i come in from a day of hunting in the rain/snow with a blued gun im thinking 's**t s**t i need to strip and clean or its gonna rust'.

also, stainless barrels should be a bit more wear resistant than blued in addition to the corrosion resistant properties they possess that can also translate to longer barrel life. how much more wear resistant or whether its even a significant improvement is a highly debated topic by the experts... but most pretty much agree that its a 'better' material, even if its nothing to write home about. so thats good enough for me.

i especially like the 'Target Grey' finish on the Ruger rifles... IMO this is the next evolution of gun finishes. im not too fond of the mirror stainless finishes on many rifles but im willing to work with it if it means less maintenance and more durability... i just wish more manufacturers offered finishes like Target Grey. it seems to combine the best of both the stainless and blued worlds.
 
Last edited:
rgv said:
that is because a lot of the older guns were rust blued.
Click to expand...

That could be part of the problem as rust bluing is a lot more resistant but takes more time and cost more $$$. I guess they cut the corner a bit to be able to give lower price to the customers.

I have seen a Savage SS at the range with very poor resistance to rust, not that it's a bad rifle, far from it, it shoots well and is very accurate, just the metal quality seems poor, the owner was really pissed.

On the other hand, my hunting partner won a nice Rem Laminate 300wm all SS and metal quality is very good but still need some proper care, cleaning and protection.
 
manbearpig said:
I think this has less to do with metal quality and more to do with metal finish.
older guns were polished and deeply blued, this is a labor intensive process.
Click to expand...


I am not so sure about that.
Some of the old Win 94s I have seen with the blueing wore totally off that still did not rust as quickly as the newer ones.So the quality of the metal plays a big factor I am guessing.
 
Last edited:
Modern rifles

When I hear of loads being OK in a "modern" rifle, I consider any rifle made after about 1920 by a world recognized manufacturer, as being of "modern" strength.
 
captonion said:
I am not so sure about that.
Some of the old Win 94s I have seen with the blueing wore totally off that still did not rust as quickly as the newer ones.So the quality of the metal plays a big factor I am guessing.
Click to expand...

thats because patina on old carbon steel actually serves as a form of protection from rust, and old guns like that generally have a pretty heavy patina. these guns also started out highly polished, and as the bluing wore off the gun aged and the patina formed.

if you were to take a new 'matte blued gun', polish the metal until it was as polished as old guns were, then slowly patina it it would resist rust just as well as the old winchesters.

almost every single knife i have - kitchen knives included - is carbon steel. believe me metal polish is a huge factor. you simply cannot expect a bead blasted part to resist corrosion as well as mirror polished metal unless you literally keep it loaded up with oil at all times. as the patina of age/use forms on the metal it becomes even further protected.

matte blued is garbage. if i can help it i only buy stainless, quality traditional gloss blued, or parkerized guns. you are better off with a gun in the white than you are with it bead blasted and matte blued.
 
winchester 94's still had nickel to the end, that's why they could not be hot blued. the finnish was an enamel type. as mentioned earlier modern shells are proof of the strength of the steel. yes matte blue after media blasting is popular, and also cheap to do. you get what you pay for. i've seen a lot of older guns that were rust buckets and newer guns that were beautiful, but thensome one could be complaining and not cleaning at the same time.stainless steel is more rust resistant but still needs to be cleaned or it will eventually rust.
 
Metal quality or finish quality?
I've seen lots of Swedish Mausers rusted from one end to the other, including the bolts. Older Mauser actions were made from unsophisticated mild steel, surface hardened as necessary.
The Winchester 94 receivers that would not readily take hot bluing were some of the cast ones. They were finished with a plating process.
"Rust blue" was used on many firearms in years past; there were other processes used as well. Hot caustic blue has been widely used since the '30s.
The "stainless" steel used in firearms is quite different than the stainless used in cutlery. It will corrode, although not as fast as unprotected CrMo or simple carbon steels. I have seen pitted stainless steels parts in firearms.
Do a bit of research on the alloys used in firearms over the years. Lots of information is available. Nothing really special or mysterious, apart from marketing - Winchester Proof Steel, ordnace steel, etc. Modern alloys tend to be more uniform because of more sophisticated production.
 
The best steel produced has been sent overseas to Japan and such,the really old car bodies(50,60,70,80's)are resmeltered into some great steel.

The old foundries are gone and so is the fine steel they produced.

Yes the old guns were made of some good steel!

Bob YMMV
 
Metallurgy is far better now than 40 years ago. Sadly, the finish put on said steel isn't. Mind you, a lot of shooters won't take the time it takes to maintain a blued firearm properly.
 
Last edited:
I'll agree with the comment on matte bluing... after all, what makes it matte is having a lot of exposed edges, and therefore a lot more open to corrosion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom