Had a buddy send me some quotes from a feature called the "Last Page" from the Mar/Apr/2010 Rifle Shooter gun rag, which is written by Terry Wieland. It is about most Gun Manufacturers going to CNC Manufacturing, including Holland & Holland and James Purdey & Sons.

I found the majority of the article interesting, though it simply states what we all know, that for any firearm manufacturer to remain in the business, they have to produce their products using advanced computer aided manufacturing methods. From what I've seen, as a great benefit to those of us purchasing firearms, they are better than they have ever been.

Wieland whines about, "The modern world has embraced the concept of disposability in virtually every realm. The shiny new car you buy today will be trade bait in three years and junk in six…"(Really??? )

I could smell the elitist attitude building as I continued to read, "Blah, blah, blah…"

Then I get to the following paragraph:
"Most of the guns and rifles produced today – probably 80 percent – are unlikely to still be functioning in 20 years, much less be passed down through several generations. But the remaining 20 percent will."

He goes on about the "nice rifle" that could become an heirloom and the cost associated with them. Looks to be that he is justifying the way to spend a lot of money on $$$HIGH$$$ firearms.

I see nothing at all wrong with that, if that is what anyone wants to do.

Question:
Do you believe 80% of current production firearms will be unable to function in 20 years?

Choices:
1. Yes, Wieland is absolutely correct.
2. No, Wieland is full-of-beans.
3. Other.

 

To me, that is a question about the attitude of the end user towards maintenance, not the mfg process. Taken care of properly, there is no reason the majority modern guns should not last 20 years. What I see more of though, is the mental attiude of many today that make it "throw away society." Folks in general just don't take care of things the way they used to. If it gets trashed, oh well, they just go buy another.

I agree with the maintenance perspective. We have more options these days that allow us more latitude with respect to maintenance. We have stainless guns with ceramic and teflon coatings that inhibit corrosion.
Our optical sighting systems have improved significantly and should be better that past offerings. Metalurgy has certainly advanced.
People may discard items if they desire a perceived better firearm. They may discard the old Rem 870 if they can afford and desire a nice SXS shotgun.
I will say the bombardment of current marketing techniques baits all of us.
Recent example; Parker shotguns. I own a vintage Parker and a reproduction. Parts are interchangeable. The reproduction has advanced metal technology for the application. It should in theory last longer than the vintage gun.

EZ

Heck, I have underwear that's 20 years old! Now that I am mid 40s, 20 years is nothing. Unless you abuse your firearms, they should last for generations - even current production.

full of beans .. MOST firearms, civilian, are still servicable today .. or could be brought back into production ..

but guys buy 2-3 (or 20) guns a year ANYWAY ..
I bought (less than 10) guns last year ... a couple of them new ..

whine-land continues to be a stewed prune

That guy is 'smoking the crack'! I have a Remington model 721 that was my Dad's and before that his Dad's and it was manufactured around 1948-1950. It still shoots well, and I estimate there have been around 400 rounnds down the barrel. My Grandfather was a short stocky guy, and he cut the buttstock down with a regular old crosscut saw, pretty ugly result, the steel buttplate he screwed back into the factory holes overhung the toe of the stock by about 3/8".....This thing has never missed a beat though, and I say all that to say this:

Modern Remington 721's are made more precisely on better manufacturing equipment and are a hell of a value IMO. To say they won't last as long or longer than the rifle I have that was my Grandfather's is just ignorant. I know many folks long for the older rifles for one reason or another, i.e. the machined feed rails on the esteemed Model 70--a good reason to want one--OTOH, shit gas handling-- a good reason not to want one...my point is this though, regardless of their design refinements, the new rigs will damn well last long enough to become heirlooms, and many will do so from a functional standpoint for longer than previous generations of firearms. I have since replaced it, but the scope that my Grandfather had on the 721 was a Weaver K-4, I'm not sure how old it is, but my Dad said it was on the rifle when he first used it, in the 50's, it's damn old but still works fine, the crosshairs are thin as all get out, and the optics aren't that great, but at 100 yards, I can still shoot and inch or better with it on there!

Heck, I've got a Browning A-bolt--first centerfire rifle I personally bought, that is over 32 years old, and it is just spectacular in performance, and it is one of the much maligned rifles in our fraternity that is supposedly made with 'pot metal' and other substandard parts. Heck, if I had children, this thing could have easily been passed down and then to one of their kids in a few years--without question.
Modern manufacturing techniques allow greater precision and tighter tolerances, and there are simply finer quality rifles being produced today than ever before, Rolls Royce Engines are largely reputed as built by hand--meaning assembled by hand, but trust me, you don't want a fan turbine hand ground by anybody, or any of a number of other parts--CNC machining is good stuff for lots of reasons!

If you take care of them and don't use them for a battle axe they will last longer than you.

Most hunting firearms don't get used much anyway! 30 rounds per year maybe. Now skeet, trap and other competitive sports like IPSC and IDPA, those guns do get used a lot, but those folks know how to take care of their firearms.
Peter.

CRACK DON'T SMOKE ITSELF

Heck I hunt with an 1898 Krag some,,,,

Shoot a 1940s Garand as well,,,,,

My savage centerfires will be fine in 20-80 years if treated right

The only way our current production firearms will not be around in 20 years is if certain politicians get their way. And that's only if they can find them! GUNS? We aint got to show you no stinkin' guns!

The only thing I see failing in 20 years MAY be certain polymers used in some firearms.

The plastic trigger assemblies in the newer 10/22's for example.

How will they do for 20+ yers?

Likely okay, but we'll find out.

Let's think about this. They'made of steel and wood or plastic.

- better metalurgy
- better finishes (or the same blue)
- many in stainless
- plastic/composite stocks arguably last longer than wood.
- I don't think wood today is different than wood 100 years ago

I don't see what would reduce lonevity. I do see what may extend it.

quote:

Originally posted by citori:
Let's think about this. They'made of steel and wood or plastic.

- better metalurgy
- better finishes (or the same blue)
- many in stainless
- plastic/composite stocks arguably last longer than wood.
- I don't think wood today is different than wood 100 years ago

I don't see what would reduce lonevity. I do see what may extend it.

+1

The only exception would be a lot of the AR type auto's. Not because they are junk but because they typically cycle so many rounds compared to other types.

wienieland is so full of shit his eyes are brown.
He's also a 'wanna'be" bigtimer hunter.
He spends a lot of time "sucking up" to the high priced end of gun manufacturers with the hope of repeating his thirty year product review DR test from Miller Rigby.

I guess the frigging moron hasn't had the concept of product liability explained to him yet.

I gave Rifle and Handloader magazines my opinion about him in the only way they can quantify it: I canceled both my subscriptions.
I have every Handloader in binders,as well as Rifle, and I reminded them how long I had been a subscriber.
The guy on the phone tried to tell me what a sterling member of the shooting fraternity TW is. I asked him to call Geoff Miller and repeat that statement. The gunrags have about run out of worthwhile things to write about.

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Lou:
Heck, I have underwear that's 20 years old!

That's funny, Doc. Have you ever washed it??

I have two safes full of Model 70 Winchesters, the oldest probably as old as Mr. Wieland, it will still be a functioning rifle when he and I are both gone, as will the newer editions. My best hunting buddy has a name for idiots that spouse nonsense, he calls them a "stupid f-----g jackoff, I would say it might fit here. Good shooting.

Something to proudly pass on to your child.
link

A syt stainless rifle /pistol will last hundreds of years and be in better shape then those made a 100 years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by Duckear:
The only thing I see failing in 20 years MAY be certain polymers used in some firearms.

The plastic trigger assemblies in the newer 10/22's for example.

How will they do for 20+ yers?

Likely okay, but we'll find out.

I aggree about the polymers, excuse me - 'space age' polymers we are told . I know of some Steyrs that have crapped the bed with their plastic mags made in the 80's. So I would like to see where todays polymers parts are after 20 years of dedicated use.

However to assume that CNC maching won't last long??
How is CNC machined metal less durable than other forged parts or cast parts like on CZ's or Rugers???

This is funny. The cheapest, ugliest rifles IMO made are over 20 years old and are still around...Nylon 66

I have a CMP M1 Garand that I got in 2004, and a DS Arms SA58 (FN FAL clone) that I got in 2007, and I have not shot either one yet, so they should last me a long time at this rate...

I've become lazy and full of myself in my old age and don't much read the gun rags anymore so I really don't know anything about Terry Wieland.

Assumeing the above quote is true and no doubt it is, then he needs to imbrace the philosiphy where by it's better to be thought of a fool than to open your mouth and remove any doubt.

Realisticly you never could compare production guns to the high end custom ones except for the raw materials that they are made of and in both cases these guns are better and will outlast the ventage guns that have allready proven themselves and continue to do so.

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
I guess the frigging moron hasn't had the concept of product liability explained to him yet.
...Rich

that there is funny, i don't care who you are

I've had any number of customers bring in their granddad's old 311 or 500 to get it cleaned up and checked out. These were guns from back when they were stamped parts and pressed checkering. They were no less valuable to these folks than a Merkel would have been to another. To familky members, it's the memories not the make.
It's hard to imagine that anyone would think that today's production firearms are not some of the best made and reasonably priced ever. They may not be all hand fitted, but the fit and finish is pretty nice and the prices are reasonable. I'd make an exception for some, but most are well made of durable materials. The production guns are not in the same group as high end stuff; never have been. Totally different products.
Bfly

I realize we are on a medium bore "rifle" forum. I hesitate to buy any more vintage shotguns. In the not so distant future we should anticipate more pressure to discontinue toxic shot (lead). Some of the less expensive non toxic alternatives may not be compatible with the barrels in older shotguns. Then I guess they will stay in the closet/safe/ or in the gun case.
New guns are designed to handle the alternative shot offerings.
Now, I may be dead by the time this happens???

EZ

I'm at a total loss to understand any link Mr. Terry Wieland sees between anyone's factory production and handmade English, et al, rifles and shotguns. A Remchester made next week will last at least as long as one made fifty - or a hundred fifty - years ago, regardless of the methods used by English gun makers then or now.

I also fail to see how a well fitted custom gun part done on a CNC machine is inferiour to one done by hand with a file. The quality is in the fit, not how it got that way; if it fits, it fits! Even if the hand made gun makers could sell guns at the prices they would have to charge there are precious few workman willing to endure the years of training it requires so the makers really don't have a choice do they?

It seems to me that Mr. Wieland would benefit from a better grip on reality and some reduction of his elitism.

Idaho, I have concluded that I was correct many weeks ago on another thread when I suggested that Terry Wieland must have shot your dog.

That said, this time around you are exactly right and he is exactly wrong. Simply by way of example, take a close look at a Win M70, the newest iteration from FN. No matter what you look at, or how you look at it, you can only conclude that the quality, and thus reasonably projected longevity, is AT LEAST the equal of the sainted pre-64's. The metal fitting is probably better. There are plenty of other examples...many of them.

I think that Mr. Wieland (whose work I generally admire) is making a pretty good living as a professed curmudgeon.

Good hunting...hope very much all goes well in Africa next month.

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Lou:
Heck, I have underwear that's 20 years old!

That's funny, Doc. Have you ever washed it??

Only when my accuracy starts to fall off and I can't hit the target with my usual precision. The wife then forces
me to clean them.

About 10 years ago I was visiting with a machinist friend who now does quality control work. I was telling him about my new Smiths and how well they shot. I gave him a model 25 from 95 and one of the "vintage Model 25s" from the 60s. He looked at both of them and held up the 90s gun. "This is the better pistol". His opinion was the fit and machining was superior-maybe not the finish. CNC machining doesn't vary.

Yeah, Weiland is off his meds. WHile I would agree that CNC has removed much of the craftsmanship from gun manuf. it cetainly hasn't made them less durable. If anything, the better steels used to day will allow guns to be around a lot longer. Still, I refuse to buy a curetn S&W production revolver, not because of ho wit is made but because of the stupid safety lock.

Steel and wood is one thing, "plastics" are another.

Also some of these new Aluminium baised alloys...

This stuff will not take 20 years of even moderate use, much less heavy.

Plastic framed revolvers???

Not for me.

There is no doubth that a weapon made on modern CNC mashines using high quality steel, and modern surfacetreating tekniques will hold way longer than any old handfiled and handfitted weapon.
On the other hand most new weapons perhaps is made on CNC, but often they are made of the cheapest and lowest materialquality that can work. Often you will see extremly poor surfacefinishes on modern 500$ rifles. This also reduce longlivity.
The whole debate about Plastic and "spaceage" syn. mat. Basicaly those materials is used because of COST, not quality and durability.
I dont know anything excactly about the lifetime of those materials, i guess nobody does, as they haven't been around for so long.
My impression is that most plastic materials has a tendence to get brittle over the years. This problems oftens accelerate when plastics is exposed to UV light. also contact with oil and several other chemicals.

Think about all the plasticparts used on elektroniks Do you find them to be same strength 10 years later.

Wood has a record of living more than 100 years if maintained reasonably, as many weapons produced 100-150 years ago still have the original woodstock. I dont think that many of the plasticstocks you see nowadays will last that long.

Well he's right about the cars. Chrysler products for sure.
Rifles, he's full of it.
I'll be willing off my CZ's

John

quote:

Originally posted by kayaker:

quote:

Originally posted by Duckear:
The only thing I see failing in 20 years MAY be certain polymers used in some firearms.

The plastic trigger assemblies in the newer 10/22's for example.

How will they do for 20+ yers?

Likely okay, but we'll find out.

I aggree about the polymers, excuse me - 'space age' polymers we are told . I know of some Steyrs that have crapped the bed with their plastic mags made in the 80's. So I would like to see where todays polymers parts are after 20 years of dedicated use.

However to assume that CNC maching won't last long??
How is CNC machined metal less durable than other forged parts or cast parts like on CZ's or Rugers???

polymers are not all the same. after 20+ yrs of glock 17 duty pistols we made the switch to glock 22 and 23 pistols a few years go. we never had any issues with the old or new for that matter. even most of the mag springs were original. goes to show ya...springs should be kept with constant tension or none at all.

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Lou:
Heck, I have underwear that's 20 years old!

That's funny, Doc. Have you ever washed it??

Doubt it. I've got some half that age that I can't catch .

More bullshit from Mr. Weiland, I would think that any properly maintained firearm (except maybe some of the dime a dozen clunkers like the Remington 710/770) would last many decades, a gun that sits in the safe for 360 days of the year definitely isn't going to wear out as fast as one that gets ridden hard and put away wet, you just can't put a number to it.

Most of the guns made 100 or 80 years ago are dead and gone due to abuse and neglect. I always have people bringing me a gun that they found in the haymow on grampa's farm that they want restored because it was grampa's. Sometimes it is possible. These guns are never the high end guns that we talk about lasting. If these will make it, the guns made today will last a lot longer.

Had a customer bring me a Parker double that they found under the floor boards in a barn they were taking down. It had been rapped in rags. The wood was in worse condition than the metal. I was able to restore it to a reasonable condition. No one had a clue how long it had been there. The barn was over 100 years old so we guess something between 25 and 50 years. It is surprising how little care is actually needed sometimes.......Tom

The majority of firearms are not used enough to wear out in 20 years, let alone 100.

Let's think about this. They'made of steel and wood or plastic.

- better metalurgy
- better finishes (or the same blue)
- many in stainless
- plastic/composite stocks arguably last longer than wood.
- I don't think wood today is different than wood 100 years ago

I don't see what would reduce lonevity. I do see what may extend it.

MY VIEW:

Better metallurgy - not necessarily so. Better quality steel is now available BUT if it isn't in the gun to start off with it won't be there for the shooter to get the benefit of. Too many guns now are made of metal that is does not wear as well compared with guns of old. On the other hand some guns of old were made to the cheapest possible metallurgy.

I don't think wood today is different than wood 100 years so - not so! I see wood on modern guns that one hundred years ago would never have been considered for use. Say what you like about thos old guns but you didn't get the frequency of stock problems that you do now.

More use. The more you use a gun the more you wear it out. Modern guns get more use.

Modern primers. The main reason why old guns went for scrap. At least today we have non-corrosive primers and a better understanding of cleaning and anti-corrosion regimes for guns.

Modern loading techniques. Again you could argue that modern loading where users always load "hot" will wear out guns faster than when only (relatively) moderate factory loads were available.