I picked up a Shooting Times Book of Winchester magazine the other day. I was bored. There were some vintage ads in the back. One caught my eye

1937 Model 70 Standard grade with Lyman sight in 30-06.

$74.25 in 1937

Per this calculator found here

That would be $1061 today.


Interesting.

That is interesting. I do think the 1937 model to be a better value than a 1k rifle today though. I use the same calculator on my General Manager in regards to pay. Inflation, what inflation............

No argument over workmanship.

Just price.

yes and no - try finding a rifle in 1937 that would shoot half minute groups - clue - you won't, granted the attention to detail was much great then, but with the digital machinery and technology of the materials we have today our accuracy levels are far beyond what we dreamed of years back

That is a pretty neat site duckear! I have had Pre'64 Model 70's shoot half inch groups. The .300 H&H Magnum is well know to Model 70 Shooters for being very, very accurate. I have gotten very good groups with the .270, and the .30'06 as well. I

In my experience, old, very old rifles well made like good military Mausers (DWM 1909 Arg, Steyr 1912 Chi.,etc), Sporters Mausers, M 70 Pre-64, Mannlicher-Schoenauer, and others, can shoot even 1/2 " with modern ammunition and/or modern components in reloaded ammo. I have done this with a 7.65 Mauser 1909 and a 7 Mauser 1912. And even with an Original 7x57 DWM Sporter Nº 5XX, 1893 action and pristine condition!
These rifles are made incredible well, all parallel or at 90 º with 100 years ago machinery!!
Best Regards,

PH

I have a S/G 06 '37 vintage with a Zeiss Zielvier in Redfield STANDARD not JR dovetail mounts that will shoot 1/2" 3shots with 168SMK in NM cases& has the workmanship of todays 8k customs.crisp metal work,tight inletting,square polishing. id pay 1k for one now.

I use a similar inflation calculator found at Hugh Chou's website. It's fascinating to run various prices to see how unevenly inflation has affected various goods.

If you want to find a true bargain, look at the prices of quality optics in the 50's and 60's compared to today. We're spoiled and didn't know it. Same thing is doubly true of electronics of all types. I remember paying "only" $400 for a 19" color TV in 1976 and thinking I had cut a fat hog. A far superior instrument today costs about 1/5th that much in constant dollars.

A friend with with a small town store called me a couple of years ago that he had a 1939 Savage 99 come in that I could have for $275. It wasn't in super shape, but when I realized how much the original owner had likely paid in terms of his total income, it was clear to me that I would be paying a tiny fraction of that for the the gun, so I grabbed it post haste.

I too have to agree that it at least seems that the older firearms, in general shoot better than many you buy off the shelf today. Years ago, there was workmanship, today it's all computers & CNC's. One of the most complaints I've seen with Kimbers is the barrel touching the forearm - this happened to me, BTW. Doesn't seem that many of the older rifles had that problem, certainly not my Pre-64 Mod. 70 .270 Win. What about triggers? Ya buy a Ruger & that's one of the first things to be replaced. Shouldn't be that way. Just ran the estimated cost of my Pre-64 made in 1953 (estimated $139.00) and the calculator came back with $1066. That's about the cost of a new Kimber Montana - AND this one shoots. Nope! I think that in general, the older rifles are better performers. Just my thoughts tho. Bear in Fairbanks

Yes. What happens is that with modern ammo, much better than the contemporary of these old fine guns, they can show now what they can do !

Regards

PH

Guns are tons cheaper now, at least the mass produced ones. Practically everybody I know has a closet full or two. Back in my grandad's day a rifle and a shotgun was the norm. Even for those with beter than average income.

Um, I do. Outward appearances indicate that most improvements did nothing more than cut manufacturing costs. Couple that with increased production and one is left wondering why modern prices are roughly comparable to those of yesteryear.
I realize there is no comparison between the Sendero and the classic 720, but one can compare the 700 with the 720. Given a choice of sights and barrel lengths, a Remington 720 could be had for $80.50 in 1941. Which one would you spend a months wages on?

in Holland & Hollands 1912 catalogue, i think they list a good grade double rifle for 70 guineas(73.5£).
that should be 1560.41£ in todays money.

2280.01$ for H&H double, where do i get in line?

Watch out for the apples and oranges comparisons.

Most "pre war" guns had hours of hand machining in their manufacture. I was marveling at an old Remington Model 25 and how much hand machining there is just in the loading gate, for chissakes. While it is true that hand machining, hand checkering, or hand finishing of any kind is somewhat more expensive today than fifty or seventy-five years ago (as are hand-finished products), mass-produced products, whether guns, light bulbs, or condoms are much less expensive today than in the 1930's or 1940's.

Lots of people make their very lucretive livings outguessing the relative movement of the prices of stocks, commodities, and real & personal property. And we reward them doubly for their cleverness by taxing their income at a much lower rate. After all, "capital gains" as we call them not only carry a much lower tax rate than money earned by the sweat of your brow, you don't pay Medicare or Social Security taxes on them, either.

About 10 years ago i was talking to a CNC machinist type and in the course of converstion handed him a new Smith Model 25-8 and a 1975 Model 25-5. He looked at both and rolled them around for 3 or 4 minutes. He handed the 25-8 back and said "This is the better gun. It's made better. Closer tolerances". Since his job was quality control I accepted his opinon. At that time he was not particularly versed on firearms. Now he is quality control of the major mfg of the M16.

No.

Stevens 200 in 7mm Rem. Magnum: $309.00 CDN

0.377"

I own a lot more firearms then my Dad ever did. I have to work a lot less hours to buy them. To buy apox. the vaule of firearm I have to work about a one third of the hrs he did.

Most others things I have to work many less hrs to buy them.
The only thing that I might have to work more for are new autos and trks and houses and property.
I can buy a use vehicle that is a lot better then a newer old one for way less hrs then he could buy a new one for, I can buy and have done so buy a vehicle with a 100000 on it drive for another 100000 with out much trouble. The old ones were worn out at 100K.

In 1953 I bought a G43 for $25.00 and a Luger with all matching numbers for $30.00. What are they going for today? roger

quote:

Originally posted by Steffen-9.3:
in Holland & Hollands 1912 catalogue, i think they list a good grade double rifle for 70 guineas(73.5£).
that should be 1560.41£ in todays money.

2280.01$ for H&H double, where do i get in line?

Never anysuch thing as a $2280 H&H. The calculator does its thing in dollars not pounds...

For most of the early 20th 1 pound was worth 5 dollars, so...

73.5x5= 367.5 You put that through the dollar machine and you get: $7802.05 - about the cost of some Merkel doubles.

This calculator obviously does not reflect the big increase in labour costs. But the second number is a bit more realistic.

A slightly more realistic way to tell might be by comparing how much it would have cost compared to average incomes. In 1912 the average american income was about $1000.oo a year, in 2005 about $40000.oo a year

So $367.5 (price of the gun) is 37% of $1000.

So 37% of 40000 is $14800.00

15k is a more believeable figure for me, but modern labour costs have gone up far more than inflation.

.

My Dad bought a new Cadillac in 1959. He said a new Cadillac cost about what a well paid union man makes in a year. That still holds close.

quote:

Originally posted by buckshot:
Um, I do. Outward appearances indicate that most improvements did nothing more than cut manufacturing costs. Couple that with increased production and one is left wondering why modern prices are roughly comparable to those of yesteryear.
I realize there is no comparison between the Sendero and the classic 720, but one can compare the 700 with the 720. Given a choice of sights and barrel lengths, a Remington 720 could be had for $80.50 in 1941. Which one would you spend a months wages on?

Yep, but back then, there weren't union labor contracts that included costs of medical care for the workers' great, great grandchildren..

Don

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
My Dad bought a new Cadillac in 1959. He said a new Cadillac cost about what a well paid union man makes in a year. That still holds close.

I definitely don't agree with this.

A 4 door Cadillac STS or other similar 4 door Cadillac cost about $45,000. See here for some sample MSRP, my figure assumes some discounting: http://www.dealersclearinglots...r.inventory/Cadillac

Our Union journeyman personnel make about $72,000. The Cadillac cost 58.3% of the Union journeyman's wages.

Moreover, the Union medical and pension benefits package is 35% of the wage package, bringing total compensation to about $100,000. The Cadillac cost about 45% of the Union journeman's compensation, or less than one half what it cost in 1959. And it will last a heck of a lot longer and need a heck of a lot less maintenance to boot.

JPK

I would think the Lawyer factor (cost of defending against lawsuits) is much greater today than back when, offsetting improvements in manufacturing. JMO

Half minute of angle rifles were available even at the turn of the 19th-to-20th centuries. That was still true at mid-century but the guns were more available.

I have two pre-war Model 70 Winchesters (one in .270, the other a .300H&H (rechambered by Roy hisself to .300 WBY) which I have owned for a good many years. I have shot 3/4" groups at 200 yards with the .270, and 1/2MOA groups at 100 yards with the Weatherby. Neither has been re-bedded or even re-crowned, and both have gone on a lot of hunting trips.

The difference in accuracy I believe to be a great deal more the ammunition available now than the rifles.

And in 1960 I was still buying virtually brand new Lugers for $15 each at gun shows, which was approximately 1/26th of my month's gross pay as a Sheriffs Deputy then.

Can I buy one anywhere for that 1/26th of earnings price now?

Half of min rifles might have been available but the were very rare. Jack O Conner and many of the other writers back in the 30's 40's 60's 70's all bragged about having a a rifle that did 1 inch, Better metals, better machineing, better bullets ect all make for better and cheaper (in cost guns).

I have several rifles that I have brought in the last 10 years (out of the box) that with no load development with good bullets that well break the .5 in mark all the time.

We are not talking colletor guns here back in the day when ever you want to put the time limit. One needs to compare new prices.

Up until about 1970 one could buy very high end use doubles for very cheap ect ect. I can buy a much better hand gun the any Luger ever made for a lot less now. There is not a luger out there that well hold up to a couple hundred thousands of rounds Like a glock well. Glocks are not as pertty but they are a hell of a lot tougher. One could buy cheap 45's,03,grands ect back then too.

One 26th of a deputy pay now days in my part of the country is about 2000 dollars with out benifits add those in it well be close to 2700 one can buy some very great hand guns for that. Use clocks are going for around 400.

One can buy a 03 or grand now for around 800 one 65th of the pay.

A new M1a for about 1200 about 1 43rd of the pay

To buy most guns now days takes a lot less working hrs then it did back in the 50's 60's and 70's.

quote:

Originally posted by butchloc:
... with the digital machinery and technology of the materials we have today our accuracy levels are far beyond what we dreamed of years back

Gotta agree with Butch on this one. I had a bunch of the old rag M70s and as a whole, they don't come anywhere close to the accuracy available in new rifles. Granted there are individual old rifles that still manage to shoot well, but overall, it isn't even close.

If you wanted to compete in a Factory Built rifle competition "today" and had to go buy one at a Gun Shop, would you go to the old rifle rack or the new ones? Not even close.

My factory that I work for has given us the same $20 Christmas gift card since 1988 WOW I need to show the calculation to my boss and maybee talk about my pay.....naw better not.....not in these times.