Built to last?

[Pond, James Pond]

I recently joined and I have already had a spate of excellent answers from members to my question about FEG and FN, Hi Power-derived pistols.

In that thread, I was considering the possibility of buying one of the two above pistols. They are second hand.
During the course of that thread, I found that for €55 and €95 more I could buy a NEW CZ 110 or CZ P-07 Duty, respectively.

That is the price difference between a 15 year old gun and a new one (although most handguns in this country are way more expensive).

This got me thinking.
The FEG and FN I handled in the shop felt comfy and solid. Used, but solid. Dependable, would be the word. Most posts on my thread seemed to support that impression.

Then I look at the new gen of nice new, shiny pistols, especially the polymer frames and I think: what will they be like in 15 years. This is purely based on my impression, not experience, but they don't look as robust.

The same can be said of cars for example. Nowadays, you buy and expect 5 years service out of it. Then you trade it in with less than 80,000 miles before anything falls off.
It seems before stuff was expected to last a lot longer, and be fixed: not binned and replaced.

So:
Do you think modern handguns are built to last, or are they also more of the use and discard technology we're getting?

Particularly pistols: Ruger revolvers look like they could lead a double life as a lump hammer and still be no worse for it...

Disclaimer: I was born weeeeell into the second half of the 20th century, so this is not a grumpy old bloke bemoaning the modern age!

[BarryLee]

Well, there is an ongoing debate as to whether modern firearms are as good as their predecessors. I for one believe that they are based on improvements in materials, designs and modern manufacturing. Now, having said that, I personally prefer an all metal gun to the polymer, but that is simply my preference. I suspect this is some of the “feel” you are referring to. The polymer guns just feel different, but I suspect they are every bit as good as the all metal versions.

[CastleBravo]

Polymer pistols arguably have an equal or better track record for durability than anything out there, but they sure do feel cheap to a lot of people. My wife particularly hates them on a visceral level and wants no part of them. I've owned several but have kind of lost interest in them over the years.

(The polymer guns, not the wife!)

Heavy steel guns certainly had a fine service record. Military issue 1911 pistols had a ridiculously good track record for durability, in many ways better than the more modern M9 that replaced it. Same with military-issue Hi-Powers. The ultimate example might be the military-issue SIG P210s (P210-2 in Switzerland and M/49 in Denmark), which decades after they were issued often not only run, but run like a beepin' hand-made competition gun. Which in fairness they practically were...

To paraphrase another person's joke, guns are like tampons - use what fits you.

[Pond, James Pond]

Even if I needed tampons, there is no way I'd be putting guns in there...

[Hagar the Republican]

The polymer pistols are going to last longer than you are. As a history professor, I enjoy research, and I did quite a bit before buying a Glock. When they first came out the liberals were screaming, “They’re plastic and won’t show up in airport X-ray machines!” And of course, “The plastic won’t last.” Because it was so revolutionary, nothing has been tested, and probably fired, as much as the Glock. Dropped, frozen, baked, buried in sand, mud, salt water, fired underwater, drug behind trucks, run over by trucks, etc., etc., etc. People have done things to them that I would never dream of doing to a firearm, and they keep on working. I’ve carried mine for over 15 years, and it only has holster wear. Always works. Now all of the other striker fired polymer pistols that have come about since the Glock, the XD, M&P, et al.,have the same advantages and engineering as their basic platform.

You mentioned Ruger. As much as I like my Glock, I have a bunch of Ruger and Smith & Wesson revolvers. As a self-defense weapon it’s hard to beat a good revolver. A Ruger SP101 is small and powerful and will not hurt to shoot. A S&W K-frame is also great for protection and recreational shooting. A good .357 revolver is the most versatile gun out there; from mild .38s to powerful hunting loads in .357. And, they’re made of steel which will outlast your grandchildren.

Almost any modern handgun will last, providing you are buying one from a solid, established manufacturer with a good reputation. Cheap crap is just that – cheap crap. You mentioned CZ. The CZ line is great, especially the CZ75, 85, and 97. The P-07 is too new for me, rather, I don’t know anything about them, but being a CZ, I’m sure it’s a fine gun.

Which ever you decide, I really believe that if you take care of your gun, it will always take care of you, polymer or steel, new or used. Just buy quality to begin with.

As for the tampons, don't buy used ones!

[AZAK]

Let me ask you this, just how many polymer weapons have you heard about being unearthed in an archeological dig? Anyone still using 100 year old polymer firearms?

What, you say that they didn't have polymer firearms even 100 years ago? How do you know? Where you there? No. I thought not.

Now take a breath, is it likely that you will be here 100 years from now wondering this same question?

I would guess that for most of us pretty much many quality firearm made today will out last us and serve us well; given reasonable maintenance and care.

But, how many folks that have 100+ year old firearms shoot them on a regular basis?

My tastes run more toward the wood and steel variety. I have had a number of the poly guns over the years, and at the moment am down to just two, a Ruger MK II 22/45 Target model and a Ruger LCP. Whereas 1911s tend to overwhelmingly occupy my pistol safe.

As far as the "throw away" mentality, there are a few of those on the market. Mostly either really cheaply made, OR (big OR in my opinion) they are intended to be "carried a lot, not shot a lot"; sacrificing long term high round count and durability for having a small size and being light weight.

Now, if one intends to run literally 10s and 10s of thousands of rounds out of a particular firearm, it might be prudent to research how that particular model has stood up to higher round counts. But, really by that time the cost of a firearm is pretty insignificant compared to the cost of all of the "feed" that one is putting through it.

[Pond, James Pond]

@AZAK

I'm not sure if your post was aimed at me or at the preceding poster.
If it was for me, I've taken a breath and I'm guessing you think the answer to my question is "No, they are not use and discard".

Good news if you're right! I don't like the idea of anything being made, but not giving good service: a waste of resources!

At the moment, as you might have guessed, I prefer metal construction, but I may change my mind with time...

[hardworker]

Quality/durability is still out there, it just costs. Just like it did back then. Look at how many bulldogs, iver johnsons and H&R revolvers there are floating around with the timing completely nonexistent. Then look at the 1960 price of a Colt 45 compared to the 1960 price of a Savage and ask an old timer how much money that was back then. If anything, the quality of your average cheap gun has gone up considerably compared to 50-75 years ago.

[T. O'Heir]

"...didn't have polymer firearms even 100 years ago..." Wasn't at Vimy either, but I know our lads took the Ridge when nobody else could.
Polymer framed pistols are aimed at cops who carry a lot, but shoot little, don't maintain 'em and like the lack of weight.
Glocks 17's were adopted by the Austrian military and police after extensive testing in the mid 80's. It was their first firearm, ever. Says something about the design.

[Ringolevio]

Some things have improved; e.g., the stainless steel used in today's firearms no longer has the tendency to gall as did the stainless of 30 years ago.

And cars (at least the kinds we have over here; I can't speak for what's available in the Eastern Bloc) have come a long way; I have two (both American iron), both from the mid-to-late '90s, with 280k and 154k and I could drive either one to Guanajuato (that's in Mexico's central plateau). I'm old enough to remember when a car (other than a MB diesel) with anywhere close to 100k was circling the junkyard.

But the metallurgy and design of the two blued steel P-35s you're considering is probably hard to improve upon, at least in terms of function and longevity. Clean & lube 'em as needed, avoid +P rounds or hot reloads, and you can probably leave 'em to someone as an inheritance.

[lee n. field]

I could buy a NEW CZ 110 or CZ P-07 Duty, respectively.

That is the price difference between a 15 year old gun and a new one (although most handguns in this country are way more expensive).

Ow! The CZ110 is a DA/DA variant of the CZ100. I had a CZ-100 for about 5 years. Did not have good luck with it's reliability (quite apart from the trigger issues). Repaired 3 times under warranty in 5 years.

Do not buy!

So:
Do you think modern handguns are built to last, or are they also more of the use and discard technology we're getting?

Some are, some are not.

[Pond, James Pond]

@Ringlevio:

Where I live, since they got independence from the Soviet union, you can pretty much find any brand of car you care to buy, even Hummers!! (Very popular with the guys here: they like to show-off!) Otherwise, German cars are held in highest esteem.

Personally, I only ride my Honda bike, or Ural sidecar. For car trips, I charm my wife into lending me her car!

My point about cars is that there is a growing trend, perpetuated by manufacturers, that you should just buy, run for a about 4 years then trade in, and start again. So now the public mentality is becoming a case of "if you keep a car longer, things will go wrong!" So instead of keep and fixing (much cheaper in the long run) they run along and buy a another new car on lease when the original was perfectly OK, and just needed some of the more significant maintenance.

My bike is 17 years old, and I recently decided to resist the pull of the new, and just keep repairing it. My Ural is 4 years old, but looks 40 and has technology from the 40's!!

Once more, good to know the pistols I'm looking at are solid bits of kit. Last night I also read a stack of praise on here for the Makarov 9mm. At first, I dismissed it but perhaps I was hasty: next training session is on Monday so I'll be trying it again! Must try to be more objective!

PS, What is a hot reload?

[gb_in_ga]

Do you think modern handguns are built to last, or are they also more of the use and discard technology we're getting?

I hate to sound all "Clintonian", but I think that it at least partially depends on what you mean by "modern". How old is "modern"? Modern designs in some cases are pushing a century or more old, or are based on century old concepts.

I have no doubt that some makes and models of handguns that are at least contemporary will last indefinitely given a lack of abuse and reasonable maintenance. And some, well, less so. In general, you can tell this by their intended roles. Low end POSs and extra light weight CCW pistols can be expected to have low round-count lifespans. They either weren't designed to handle much in the first place, or they were specifically optimized for light weight at the expense of strength. You'll know them when you see them. OTOH, beefier handguns can be expected to last a long time -- polymer or metal frame. Decades, if you do your part. Yeah, you can expect to have to replace things like springs from time to time, but other than that? The structural integrity of modern firearms should be comparable to that of the "heyday" of yesteryear. Same thing with revolvers. Steady diets of stout loads through light frame revolvers will result in less than long life. Other than that, you can expect long life from name brand medium and large frame revolvers.

[Hagar the Republican]

The Makarov is a good gun, especially if you find an East German (best) or Russian model. Excellent design, easy to take down and maintain, and the fixed barrel is very accurate. The recoil is a bit snappy. Not hard - it doesn't hurt at all, it just tends to flip up a little bit. Not as powerful as a 9mm Luger (Parabellum), but better than a .380. The East European sights stink. Too small. Not my first choice for self-defense, but it will do the job if you can. Many go with FMJ rounds to get better penetration. I carried one for years as a backup.

[Ringolevio]

Pond, James Pond:

My Ural is 4 years old, but looks 40 and has technology from the 40's!!
Once more, good to know the pistols I'm looking at are solid bits of kit.

'Interesting that you should bring up a Ural, as its analogous to the FEG P-35. The Ural is essentially a BMW clone, and although its technology is from the '40s, it's still viable technology that'll still take you down the road. The FEG P-35 is a BHP clone, and its technology is from 1935, but it's still viable technology that'll still put rounds downrange.

To make a further motorcycle-to-gun analogy, I could say that a Harley-Davidson is like a revolver: the technology is actually primitive, but still viable; and many people prefer it that way.

PS, What is a hot reload?

That might not be a technical term, but it's ammo reloaded to be more powerful than standard factory ammo. The older semi-autos you're considering will probably function just fine and continue to perform with the kind of rounds they were designed for; anything more powerful can impact function and longevity. Personally, I even avoid +P factory rounds in my semi-autos.

Too many low-tech problems are addressed with high-tech solutions. And remember that when high-tech fails, low-tech can save your a**!

[TailGator]

Even among the brand of handguns that are very well-built, I wonder how many are still around 50 or 100 years later compared to how many were made. It seems to me that we can reach some false conclusions about the durability of certain brands or designs just by finding ancient examples of them. IOW, we are seeing the surviving examples only because they survived, and we need to try not to discount how many aren't around to be evaluated. Let's just pick a number and say 5% of Colt SAAs survive. If the same proportion of Glocks are still around after a similar period of time, there are still going to be a lot of late-20th and early-21st century Glocks in existence in our grandchildren's and great-grandchildren's days. And they might be saying "They don't make 'em like they used to."

[gyvel]

To make a further motorcycle-to-gun analogy, I could say that a Harley-Davidson is like a revolver: the technology is actually primitive, but still viable; and many people prefer it that way.

But most revolvers don't leak oil.

[gyvel]

Even among the brand of handguns that are very well-built, I wonder how many are still around 50 or 100 years later compared to how many were made.

Consider this: The Smith & Wesson Model 10-2 revolvers were made in 1961, making them 50 years old. There are plenty of them still around.

[loose_holster_dan]

i've been recommending the p07 duty lately more than any other NEW gun for carry and defense. it's amazing quality for the price. it doesn't quite hold up to the all steel 75b in accuracy, but for being smaller and lighter it comes really close.