I Like The Old Stuff
- Thread starter canadianbear
- Start date
Depends on what you consider 'old'. The Remington 870 (introduced in 1950) was initially derided as the 'punch press gun' due to the use of stampings. Folks thought it would never sell against the Winchester Model 12. Hint: the 870 is still with us and the Model 12 is long gone. Functionality is also a factor. My Glock Model 21 45 ACP might be ugly to the traditionalists but it beats the pants off a 1911, IMHO, in capacity, reliability with all types of ammo and ease of maintenance. I guess what I am saying is "old vs. new" is less important than "the best tool for the job". Don't like synthetic stocks? Fine, but don't discount their benefits for those who want low maintenance 'furniture' for those who hunt in wet weather. Think tolerances were better in the 'good old days'? Modern CNC machinery produces products only dreamed of back when a worker with a file 'eyeballed it'. Although I treasure my 'antique' firearms I don't discount the benefit of my 'modern' ones (including several Remington 870's).
Yes, I like the old stuff. I don't have anything against the people who like the new, sometimes gaudy creations, and the plastic stocks.
But I will never have a rifle with a plastic stock, because I can't stand the looks of them. To me they have cheapy written all over them. Manufacturers running out of good wood, or it is getting expensive, so squeeze out a plasti formed one and tell those guys it is far superior to a good piece of walnut.
To me, there is charm, there is history, there are stories, if only we knew them, behind those old fine examples of wood and blued steel.
Look a it this way, when you look at a rifle made in the mid 1930s, just let your mind wander and try and reconstuct the scene of the men (yes, men, the women were home looking after the house and the kids) who daily trudged to the factory to build them. Think of his story at that time. He lived in a world that right now about 98 % of you guys don't know anything about. A different world, but he helped build you a fine rifle. Or maybe a prize shotgun.
I wonder what stories this old girl could tell. She came out of the Winchester factory in 1896, one year after the 25-35 was introduced. I wonder what the fellow looked like that pulled the trigger as the first deer, likely a whitetail, fell to it.
I've laid awake at night wondering if I'll ever find one of those.
Johnn Peterson
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Chemainus B.C.
I prefer the older but I also like the newer. With the newer, while a mixture of stainless steel and composite stock does little for me, nicely figured wood and blued steel makes it. I realise the benefits to stainless and composite but its not for me. For the older 'stuff', here's a few of my favorites.
303Br Jungle Carbine
The 1st centre fire rifle I shot, a Marlin 1894 in 44-40
An old custom Winchester Highwall in 219 Donaldson Wasp & matching vintage scope
And my favorite 'Lever gun', a model 71 Winchester Deluxe in 348 WCF
303Br Jungle Carbine
The 1st centre fire rifle I shot, a Marlin 1894 in 44-40
An old custom Winchester Highwall in 219 Donaldson Wasp & matching vintage scope
And my favorite 'Lever gun', a model 71 Winchester Deluxe in 348 WCF
I believe you just made the OP's point. canadianbear is wondering why he and many others prefer Winchester's Model 12 to a shiny new Remington 870. The answer is quality. The 870 has outlasted the m12 because it is cheaper to produce due to mass production techniques and cheaper materials. Which of the two is "better" depends on your personal criteria. For most purchasers over the past 8 decades, reasonable quality at a good price was the determining factor. canadianbear, it appears, finds good quality at a reasonable price to be more attractive. Neither is more "right" than the other and just because more people think "value" means low price, doesn't make an 870 "better" or even a "better value" than a model 12.
Stocks (butt and fore end) are not "furniture". The term "furniture" when applied to firearms refers to the bits and pieces other than the receiver, the locks, the barrel(s), and the stocks - in other words, the barrel straps, the escutcheons, sling swivels, top lever, trigger guard, etc.
You are entitled to your preference for synthetic stocks, just as canadianbear is entitled to his preference for more traditional materials and methods.
Drinkin' the old "technology cool-aid" again, huh. I don't blame you, every generation starts out thinking that way, including mine. New designs, new materials, advanced manufacturing techniques and machinery - how can you beat that!
Generally speaking, designs, materials advancements and new production methods provide opportunities for advancement of the art. But, don't kid yourself, CNC equipment may turn out blanks that are precise enough to be finished elements, but skilled tradesmen with a file are every bit as precise. Hand made firearms are built from parts that are custom-fitted to each other. Guns assembled from machine-made parts, no matter how precise, must allow greater tolerances in order to permit interchangeability of random parts.
I'm not suggesting that traditional methods are always superior. Far from it. In most cases, it's the opposite. Perhaps the reason canadianbear and I have developed an affinity for the traditional pieces is that, being from a previous era, those that were junk are easy to spot and ignore and those that were of high quality are those that we buy and love.
I have worked metal prep as both the CNC operator and the file man and I have to say yes and no.
Properly maintained CNC machines do not wake up with hangovers, show up late for work, get sick and tired and a whole host of other obvious human related problems.
The idea that CNC products have to be made less precise is absolutely silly.
Even before CNC mass production rifle making was very accurate with the machines they had at the time ie...WW1 and 2.
The main problem is in the company itself and the people they choose to hire.
For the most part pride in building a good quality firearm has been replaced by bottom line profit.
I have fibreglass stocked stainless rifles and I have three Pre'64 Model 70's.
They serve different purposes in my mind. The McMillan stocked stainless 700's will see use in inclement weather and when I expect a harder type of hunt with more bush slogging and long days when you might even get tired of carrying a rifle by days end....the Model 70's will be carried on nice days and shorter walks.....I like them all for different reasons.
They serve different purposes in my mind. The McMillan stocked stainless 700's will see use in inclement weather and when I expect a harder type of hunt with more bush slogging and long days when you might even get tired of carrying a rifle by days end....the Model 70's will be carried on nice days and shorter walks.....I like them all for different reasons.
Johnn Peterson
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Chemainus B.C.
We had a Model 12 in the family years ago and my brother stopped using it because the mag tube kept going out of round. My 870 Wingmaster (1966) never ever gave a problem and I could outshoot him every day with it. Had it stuffed full of muck and marshgrass and the damn thing still cycled 3 rounds. They are tough and extremely reliable. Looking for another oldie to provide some love for. Cheaply made or not they are tough-ask any cop that has to depend on it. In all the years I have not once ever had an issue with any I have owned. People keep stealing them but yet to ever see one worn out. Winchesters-yeah I have seen a couple I would not shoot. One of the reasons the AK47 is so reliable is there is a fair bit of room around some of the parts. Cheaply made or what? Just dont get in front of one with a full mag. You would definitely be in trouble. Not known for feed problems or misfires from what I hear.
Straightshooter: Whoa there pilgrim! As much as I would like to be part of the new generation I am over 50. And I can assure you a tradesman, skilled or not, can't consistently produce a machined product or part as precicely as a machine. Don't forget machines can be set to produce any tolerances desired; humans can't. And to further muddy the waters, IMHO the Remington 870 is a better shotgun than the Model 12 Winchester. Interchangeable barrels, availability of choke tubes, less drop in the stock, much easier cleaning/ disassembly all make it superior for my purposes (and a whole lot of other folks). Finally, please note I used quotation marks around the word furniture; as in slang for stocks. Do the 'golden oldies' have a place? They sure do. But so do the more modern designs.
I'm partial to the swedes-fine workmanship,nice wood and the 6.5x55 is over 100 years old and no cartridge can survive the marketplace that long if it isn't doing something right.And while ''bubba'' is looked down on by snooty people,those old sporterized husky's from tradeex are probably some of the best value on the market today.Buy one and spend a few hours steaming out dings and pointing up the checkering ,and rub in a few coats of oil and you've got a very fine rifle-and money left over for a nice second hand leupold scope and you're STILL only out about $500
Such a cool hobby aint it? I really like my Poly M305 and will hunt with it this fall. I also like my win 94 made in '56 that has only had a box and a half put through it. I like Savage for value but I sold a Brno ZKK 602 in .375 this year and I'm kicking myself- she's a beauty. Bottom line I need another gun safe.
Bringing the kid up right too, He's liking the old Remington 6 Boys rifle just fine.
And what a handsome young chap!
I hope you are only feeding that Model 6 on Standard vel ammo, or better yet, Longs or Shorts.
High Vel ammo leaves him at a reasonable risk of becoming a handsome young chap with a chunk of rifle parts embedded in his face. Those old boys rifles are none too strongly built, and the ammo of their day, wasn't near as hot as the ammo of now. They don't deal well with case ruptures either.
Despite the rose colored backwards glances, things were built cheap then too. As cheap as could be gotten away with, when the product was to meet a price point.
Cheers
Trev
As I recall, I said "all generations" and I didn't suggest which generation you may or may not be part of. My intent was not to compare your generation to mine, but to say that when we are young, we tend to put more faith in technology than when we are more experienced. Also, when we are young, we often have the impression that technology has made vast advancements since we were born and that the pace of advancement has increased exponentially. All of this is simply youthful tunnel vision, of course.
With regard to CNC machined parts, we appear to be talking about two different sets of tolerances. I agree with you that machined parts must be made to higher tolerances in terms of the variance between the finished dimensions of the piece as compared to the target dimensions.
However, the tolerances I'm concerned with are the "spaces" between the individual parts. When parts are required to be interchangeable, we have no choice but to incorporate into the design greater gaps between the parts, in order to accommodate small variances between the parts themselves. Granted, all of these "interchangeable" parts were designed to the same high tolerances and produced on highly accurate machinery. But, fitting and finishing effort is the very cost that mass production seeks to minimize.
The fact remains that cutting tools wear during use. Computer Numeric Controlled or dependant entirely on the craftsman's steady hand, inconsistencies will occur. Quality gunmakers spend more time and effort polishing out tool marks, custom fitting, and finishing every part of the gun. Machine made guns are deliberately designed to be assembled without polishing or fitting.
More to the point: The OP expressed a preference for high quality classic arms. As some posters pointed out, not all old guns are quality pieces. Many of us share the OP's preference. Many of you don't. We're both entitled to our preferences. Whether or not choke tubes are available for 870's and/or M12's is important to a discussion about which gun is a better multi-purpose shotgun for contemporary purposes, but is irrelevant to a discussion about the merits of traditional versus modern production methods.
- Location
- West coast of Vancouver Island
I love oldies too. This is a Model 1763 French Dragoon Rifle, manufactured in the 1770's, converted in 1821 from flint to percussion and the smooth bore barrel replaced with a .69cal rifled barrel.
I am already shooting a 110yr 1894 and a BSA Martini action target rifle that is probably 100yrs old too. Old weird actions turn my crank big time. My bolts are for accuracy and reliability-the others are for FUN. Great gobs of fun shooting a piece of history. Hope to add a rolling block to the pile. The Henry Golden Boy fits right in there too cuz it LOOKS old and has an octagonal barrel. The kids at our Youth Camp got quite a kick out of all my strange 22s and never even looked at my probably 60yr old Winchester model 67 single shot. Nah. If I had the money I would have a Sharpes something or other. A weird cal would be a part of the fun factor as long as I could load for it. My 250 Savage 99 is considered an obsolete cal too but it shoots pretty nice. Working up loads for that while I am off for a couple of weeks. The BSA Model 12 was a rare find and I did not even know they existed till I found one cruising the EE. Bull barrel and full double action peep sights. Almost as accurate as my CZ452. The kids really dug this one. Martinis rock and you can shoot them quite fast once you get used to it.
CCI CB shorts is all we shoot in the old school 22s. Stingers just don't seem right to use, like using a Barnes what-cha-ma-call-it in one of my old 9,3s.
After reading this thread front to back I guess I have to weigh in!! LOL I too love the old rifles. Husqvarna sporting rifles from the late 40's through to the 70s seem to be my favorite. Sako rifles made during this time period even well into the 80s have to be a close second. I don't think too many experienced gun guys will argue the fact that the fit and finish(general overall quality) was higher during this time when compared to current production. Compare apples to apples. I know several Remington 700 fans that love the older ones but despise new production. When comparing a 700 BDL made in the 60s to one made today there has to be a reason people prefer the older ones. We don't even have to go that far back to see a difference. The last year Ruger made the tang safety 77 was 91 or 92 I think. Look at the fit and finish of those rifles compared to a Hawkeye made today. Nothing wrong with the Hawkeye but I don't think the quality is as good. A lot is personal opinion and preference but I think it is a fact that the overall quality of the run of the mill Rugchestington is not as good as it was in years past. That said, with modern CNC and better materials I think the potential to make a higher quality gun is there. The difference being that the bottom line dictates a lot of companies decisions today where in the past some companies built a reputation, made good on promises etc at the expense of another % profit. Like I said these are just my opinions but I think there is evidence that supports them. I can honestly say I have a hard time thinking of one current production rifle that I would rather own over an older one of the same kind. USA Weatherbys compared to Japanese or German? Sako 85 compared to L61R or AV? FN Browning compared to Browning A-Bolt or X-Bolt. Can't think of one. Oh and I do like synthetic stocked rifles for hunting but I drop a Husqvarna or Sako in a Mcmillan and get the best of both worlds!!
I agree with this post.
I wonder if the new production Mauser 98s are comparable to the old ones, the price certainly seems to indicate that you should expect a very high level of quality.
On the lower end, how about Savage? They seem to be putting out a pretty decent product, but other than with the 1899's and 99s I have no experience with them.
