Stupid Question- Old vs New

[yarrum]

Forgive me ahead of time for asking this question but my curiosity is getting the best of me...

Would a 21 century cheap production gun (Traditions Pennsylvania for example) be better made/more reliable than an 18th century rifle.

The reason I am asking is because my uneducated response would be to say yes. I would think the technology and quality of metals now would far surpass what was available in the 18th century.

However, I am apologizing ahead of time because I think the answer is going to be just the opposite. In fact I am expecting ridicule.

Mind you I am well aware that the custom guns being put out now far exceed the example I have given.

 

[rabjr]

Forgive me ahead of time for asking this question but my curiosity is getting the best of me...

Would a 21 century cheap production gun (Traditions Pennsylvania for example) be better made/more reliable than an 18th century rifle.

The reason I am asking is because my uneducated response would be to say yes. I would think the technology and quality of metals now would far surpass what was available in the 18th century.

However, I am apologizing ahead of time because I think the answer is going to be just the opposite. In fact I am expecting ridicule.

Mind you I am well aware that the custom guns being put out now far exceed the example I have given.

I'm told some 200 year old guns appear rather crudely made, while others are a thing of beauty. I don't think you can possibly compare a custom made gun made by a famous gun smith of the day to a cheap production gun. The production gun may work but I'd go with an older gun any day before the production gun. :thumbsup:

 

[David W.]

I would go with a reproduction of an original, but not always a production rifle. Lymans are OK, but don't like Traditions, etc., the barrels are too short and question the quality. The thing I do not like about Lyman is that it is not USA made. I try to support the few jobs we have left.

An actual original may not be the best choice because even though there are some mighty fine rifles still out there, they had impurities in steel manufacturing we do not have today.

 

[cratwelder]

In my opinion... as a craftsmen for a living...I believe a hand built item created with quality components, will always be of better quality and value than something cranked out on a machine or assembly line. Just my 2 cents worths.

 

[hanshi]

Any production gun is going to be something of a manure shoot; it might work fine, then it might not.
As for an older gun it will depend on the individual piece: workmanship, components, condition, etc. If you're talking about an old original, they HAD to work! The owner's hair or belly was at risk if it didn't. Given one in good condition I'd trust it over an OCT Spanish/Italian gun.

 

[Finnwolf]

Would a 21 century cheap production gun (Traditions Pennsylvania for example) be better made/more reliable than an 18th century rifle.

In my opinion, the flint guns made before 1900 had at least the expectation of securing the owner & his family's safety and also of providing food for his table. If I had to rely on any of the 3 T/C's flinters I've owned since 1985 to do either, I would not be here to answer any question. If I counted the game that should be dead but the gun did not ignite, I'd be hungrier but if any of that happened defending our lives against humans who wanted to do us wrong, we'd be dead, or maybe still throwing rocks at each other.
Don't know how the idea caught on but I guess spending $700 on a new Hawken doesn't mean the gun has to ignite reliably the first time the user pulls the trigger, even when he takes impeccable care of the gun at all times. Part of the problem is buyers like me - I should have held T/C to their word from day one but it seemed even to me, less important that I do. I was very wrong!
Today's materials are no doubt better for their purpose (except maybe the wood) but the philosophy is now that these guns are part of a hobby, they really don't need to be reliable shooters.
To clarify, today's flinters should be more reliable and of better quality on paper because of the materials and methods used in production but my experience is that they are not.

Finnwolf

 

[CoyoteJoe]

The mass produced ML firearms are built with one thing in mind "low production cost". Yes it needs to be safe to fire because product liability suits can cost more than building a reasonably safe firearm. And yes, it needs to work, more or less, otherwise you couldn't sell it. But basically the idea is that cheaper is better.
The custom builder, and all civilian flintlock rifle were hand made even if not to order for a specific customer, had his name on the line. The pre-civil war gunsmith was not just some corporate name on a website. He lived in a small community and his customers were his neighbors. If a man gained a reputation for turning out shoddy work he wouldn't get much work in the future. On the other hand, if one of his rifles won the local shooting match he won customers. Of course he also had to keep his product affordable to his neighbors but he reduced his cost by skimping on ornamentation, re-using locks and triggers from ruined guns, maybe even reusing old barrels. What he could not afford to do was turn out an unsafe or unreliable gun.
So maybe the flintlocks of Daniel Boon's day does not have the best steel barrel but it was plenty strong enough and may have been better rifled than many of today's repops. I do believe a modern custom builder today can turn out a product in every way better than "most" originals. But you asked about production rifles and I'd say that in what matters to me, I'd take any 1814 civilian rifle in excellent shooting condition over any mass produced rifle of today.

 

[Rod Lassey]

It's kinda six of one, half dozen of the other...in other words, the materials we have today are superior, but it's the application of those materials that may be lacking in a production gun. Better steel does you little good if the lock is poorly made, with bad geometry.

But, they built crappy guns back then, too. If you get a chance, take a look at the late model French fusil in the Museum of the Fur Trade. When the barrel blew a hole in the side during proofing, they simply filed out a dovetail and put a patch over the hole, soldered into place. Proofed it again, and sent it out :shocked2: And the correspondence of the HBC is full of accounts of bad barrels, springs that wouldn't spring, pieced together stocks, etc. Mind you, those were low-end trade guns, but you get the picture. Not exactly what we think of as Old World quality.

One of the references I like to look at for American rifles is the old Flayderman's catalogs. While many of the reference books we study for longrifles only show the best of the best (Kindig, Shumway, etc), those old catalogs showed every kind of rifle. Some are works of art, others....well, not so much. And some are downright nasty. But, they were all used 'back in the day'. Should we only recreate the top-end work of the old masters? Or should we build some of those not-quite-so-masterful rifles?

I've had heard more than one gun maker remark that if he built guns like they did back then, nobody would buy them---casting marks left on the furniture, wood not finished out as nicely as is expected today, etc. And nobody's building the ones with the pieced together stocks and patched barrels :grin:

Rod

 

[DanChamberlain]

I wasn't there...but it seems to me, the same things that plague us today in making our rifles shoot, were present for our forefathers. Attention to detail is what makes them shoot. I suppose the main difference was, the guys making the guns back then didn't sell them until they were right.

Dan

 

[Toomuch_36]

By "cheap" I'm sure you mean "inexpencive", remember (aside from fine hand crafted custom guns) the "production" guns of today are made on asembly line process which makes them less expencive to produce. Even most custom ,or semi-custom, guns are constructed of "production" components.

Do not sell todays high quality production guns short, whether it be Traditions, Lyman or even the vastly overpriced Thompson Center. These weapons are all fine, reliable (if well maintained) tools that will serve you well.


Toomuch
.............
Shoot flint

 

[oldfart1956]

yarrum, I think one of the main problems with modern repros is the manufacturers didn't copy the originals close enough. The metal might be up to par but they didn't/don't understand (or care) about lock geometry. The cocks don't hit the frizzens at the correct angle, or the frizzens are too vertical. They use truck leaf springs for frizzen springs and then try to compensate with massively strong mainsprings. Instead of figgerin out how to mount a good single-trigger they stuff in a set-trigger. Things like that add up to an unreliable gun. Folks try them and think.."If this is all the better flintlocks are..I'll buy an inline or percussion!" Just my 2 cents worth. Audie..

 

[Toomuch_36]

In short you are saying their is no problem with todays production rifles.

Today's production guns were never intended to be esteticaly accurate coppies of the origional rifles

The problem with frizzen angle can usually be traced to an impropperly installed flint.

The problem of heavy frizzen spring means the lock has not been tuned (the friction point on the frizzen).

The double (and single) set triggers WERE USED on the earlier rifles, and there are many production rifles that have a good single trigger.

All of which boills down to (on todays rifles) a lack of maintanence and not enough patience or interest to do so (in most cases).


Toomuch
.................
Shoot Flint

 

[CoyoteJoe]

You make a good point Audie. We tend to speak of the lower end sidelocks as "starter guns" but often they are starters for folks who quickly get disgusted with them and move on to inlines.

 

[Ketchakah]

"But, they built crappy guns back then, too. If you get a chance, take a look at the late model French fusil in the Museum of the Fur Trade. When the barrel blew a hole in the side during proofing, they simply filed out a dovetail and put a patch over the hole, soldered into place. Proofed it again, and sent it out And the correspondence of the HBC is full of accounts of bad barrels, springs that wouldn't spring, pieced together stocks, etc. Mind you, those were low-end trade guns, but you get the picture. Not exactly what we think of as Old World quality."

But then... they WERE FRENCH guns. they were never intended to actually have to shoot anything.
:haha: Kidding... Kidding. couldent resist.

 

[Coot]

Forgive me ahead of time for asking this question but my curiosity is getting the best of me...

Would a 21 century cheap production gun (Traditions Pennsylvania for example) be better made/more reliable than an 18th century rifle.

The reason I am asking is because my uneducated response would be to say yes. I would think the technology and quality of metals now would far surpass what was available in the 18th century.

However, I am apologizing ahead of time because I think the answer is going to be just the opposite. In fact I am expecting ridicule.

Mind you I am well aware that the custom guns being put out now far exceed the example I have given.

I assume that you are asking whether we think an inexpensive current production gun is equal in reliability to an 18th century gun when the 18th c gun was new as opposed to the same 18th c today with 200 years of use & abuse.

I think that the answer is mixed. Based on accounts and a few survivors, there were some pretty shoddy trade guns made. It seems that the very worst guns from earlier periods would survive in smaller than average numbers as they would be more likely to be scrapped than the better guns. We may not have a completely accurate picture of what the 18th c average was.

I think that an inexpensive modern barrel (I am talking a real barrel & not about something made of tubing) may well be better & more uniform steel than many originals. I realize that there are no cheap modern swamped barrels but the question is more reliable & not better handling/looking etc. The original locks may have been better than todays cheap locks. I base this on the fact that in the 18th c, the flintlock was state of the art design and produced in large numbers by builders who used flintlocks and completely understood the whys & hows of lock geometry and tuning. Many of todays low end locks/guns are designed & built by people who were trained to make & grew up with modern cartridge guns & to satisfy a market, now produce locks that look something like the originals but may be off in the geometry & spring pressures that are critical to reliable ignition & flint life. Others may have a different take on things.

 

[ohio ramrod]

Then just as today, there were quality guns being made and cheaper "trade guns". The quality guns of old were equal to the guns of today. The trade guns of old were not IMHO . Todays reproduction trade guns are superior IMHO to the trade guns of old.

 

[rr11]

The quality of a lot of the modern made rifles is not what you would hope for. Of the modern mass produced guns I have seen more poor than good. I have a 1970 ventage CVA Hawkin (marked Made in USA) it is a very good rifle. in 40 years I have replaced the main spring. A friend bought 2 new ones (made in Spain)and they were not worth taking in the woods. Look at makers like TVM ect. You will pay $500-600 for a poor rifle as $1000 for a simi custom that has very good quality and will last a life time.

 

[stubshaft]

I would agree with you. It is not exactly comparing apples to apples. Usually ANYTHING that has lasted for 200 years is either exceptionally well made or maintained a collectable status. Generally poorly made arms do not fall into this category although examples obviously exist.

Trade Guns by their very nature were cobbled together and were the closest thing to mass produced for their day.