Specific way quality of some rifles has gone downhill?

bricz75 · May 10, 2015, 10:30 PM

I've read claims of a certain rifle brand going down in quality in the past 10 years. If we assume that to be true, would it probably mean quality of almost all examples of a certain brand/model to have gone down in quality? Or does it mean quality is more hit and miss, such as you may get a good one or you may get a bad one?

Perhaps its a combination of both above?

Quentin2 · May 10, 2015, 11:06 PM

Are you talking about Marlin?

Drm50 · May 10, 2015, 11:11 PM

You are right quality is going down, and it's a hit and miss proposition. With some makes it's a certain line, others it's the whole brand. Older shooters that
know what quality is, are harder to fool. A lot of young shooters are sucked in
to bells and whistles mounted on junk.

Scorch · May 11, 2015, 12:21 AM

Quality of goods geberally declines as less labor is put into the product. Less labor is put into products in attempts to drive costs down to a target price. So, if you want better quality goods, don't buy from manufacturers who try to market the lowest priced goods.

tobnpr · May 11, 2015, 06:25 AM

Obviously, no knowledge of which manufacturer to which you're referring- but I think it's a complicated issue in general.

The continuing advances in CNC machining, 3-D modeling, and the ability of these machines to hold tighter tolerances can result in very high quality with comparatively little labor input. OTOH, it takes humans to program and run them- and with few exceptions final finishing and fitting requires a set of highly skilled eyeballs and talent.

I think that overall, shooters get amazing quality for their buck these days- compared to 20 years ago. Getting a minute-of-angle guarantee on an inexpensive factory rifle back then was unheard of. I also think that the level of accuracy some of these "starter" rifles are capable of, puts some higher end sticks in an uncomfortable position to justify their cost. Not talking customs here- just the lineups of $300-$400 rifles against the $600-$800 ones.

jmr40 · May 11, 2015, 07:07 AM

Quality with all consumer products is continually rising and falling. Not just guns, ever look hard at USA made cars from the 70's and 80's, most were junk. I just think the internet has made it easier to get information out. I would not pay money for any Winchester made during the 1960's or 70's. Would be skeptical of most from the 50's and anything made 2000-2006. But anything from before WW-2, the 80's, 90's or between 2008-2012 are just fine. I have concerns about current production. I could say similar things about just about every gunmaker.

Also, many confuse craftsmanship with build quality. Craftsmanship, the hand fitting, polishing, and overall finish of most guns is less common than in past years. But, the build quality, the accuracy and reliability is better than ever overall.

Gun companies still offer higher quality firearms with well made and finished wood and blue and at fair prices. But gun buyers balk at spending $1000 or more on a Remington CDL, Winchester Supergrade or Kimber rifle. When inflation is factored in those prices are no higher than gun buyers were paying 40-50 years ago for the same quality. They opt instead for the budget lines costing under $500 then complain that it doesn't have the highly polished metal and glossy wood on the expensive models. That is making a choice as to how much quality they will pay for. Not the gun companies fault.

Gun companies make what sells. Since the high end stuff sits on the racks unsold and the budget guns sell like hotcakes they make more of them.

Quote:

Or does it mean quality is more hit and miss, such as you may get a good one or you may get a bad one?

It is almost always hit or miss. Even in the bad years most guns/cars etc. turn out acceptable.

barnbwt · May 11, 2015, 08:25 AM

It is mostly finishes and finishing that have declined. Materials, both metal and plastic, are better than ever, but every year polishing decreases and more and more parts are merely blasted before coating with some fancy paint.

TCB

Sure Shot Mc Gee · May 11, 2015, 08:51 AM

The old adage still applies: "you get what you pay for. Buy cheap get cheap!!"_ Most manufactures are still using well worn equipment in the making of their sporting firearms. (Labor) saving costs have been the main focused for many many years to reduce manufacturing expenses. Robotics & out sourcing are the two most commonly used labor savers these days and they too are on the edge of being outdated and replaced with (off shore manufacturing.) Frankly: It cost no more today to make a rifle or pistols receiver then it did say 20-30 yrs ago. More than likely even less than. Hear is one quip to consider. "When loyalty is absent in the work force. Quality suffers in the work place."

Picher · May 11, 2015, 09:04 AM

Back in the 50's and early 60's, a gunshop owner told me that the average hunter/shooter would spend about as much as a week's pay for a gun. At the time, the average wage here Maine was about $75 per week, except millworkers earned about $100. A guy could buy most .22s, a Win. 94, or Marlin 336 for about a weeks pay.

When I was still in school and earning about $25 per week working for the family business, I saved up and bought one of the first Savage 110 rifles for about $115, as I recall.

Workmanship on the 110's metal was good, but the stock was poor. Checkering was rough and each side of the stock were different colors. Two of my hunting buddies had Winchester 70s, which cost about $150, but they were like works of art to me back then.

I also bought a couple of new Ruger Standard Auto pistols for $30 each; one for me and one for my B-I-L, (who didn't believe I could do it for less than the Retail price of $37.50).

A Weaver 2.5X scope was about $35, I think, and it served me pretty well for several years.

RevGeo · May 11, 2015, 10:36 AM

Modern finishes - on both wood and metal - look cheap and cheesy to me. The newer rifles just 'feel' cheaper.
I detest plastic stocks, but that's just an old guy thing.
To each his own.
I'd much rather buy a pre-1970s used gun in good shape than most brand new guns I've seen. The last new gun I bought was a new Henry 45-70. I've already returned it to the local shop where I bought it due to quality and operation issues. The shop owner graciously offered another rifle of my choice of the same value.
I chose a Savage Mod 99 .300 Sav built in 1937. Now that is a real rifle...shoulda bought that one in the first place.

emcon5 · May 11, 2015, 10:53 AM

The short answer is Americans are, in general, cheap bastards.

There has been over the past few decades increasing pressure on keeping costs down, and the easy way to do this is the labor intensive stuff, fit and finish.

The really interesting thing is that with advances in manufacturing technology, current production stuff is usually excellent as far as accuracy.

To see an example of this, look at current rifle scopes. There are a bunch of decent, perfectly serviceable rifle scopes available today at the ~$150 price point. Based on the CPI, $150 today is roughly equivalent to $35 in 1975. How well do you think a $35 scope from 1975 would hold up?

bricz75 · May 12, 2015, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Are you talking about Marlin?

No brand in particular but I guess Marlin would qualify.

Quote:

It is almost always hit or miss. Even in the bad years most guns/cars etc. turn out acceptable.

I guess in the bad years, it's important to look over a specific firearm, knowing what to look for before buying it.

Omaha-BeenGlockin · May 12, 2015, 07:15 PM

Budget offerings:

Depends on what it is

It wouldn't bother me a bit to spend $300-$350 on a Ruger American but on the other hand you couldn't pay me to own a Remington 770 or 783

Huge difference for about the same money

bricz75 · May 13, 2015, 04:31 PM

Quote:

I'd much rather buy a pre-1970s used gun in good shape than most brand new guns I've seen. The last new gun I bought was a new Henry 45-70. I've already returned it to the local shop where I bought it due to quality and operation issues.

The gentleman above alluded to Marlin. That's a brand I'd buy an older specimen of.

There's Mossberg in lever-action, though they only make 30-30. I guess there's not enough of a market for them to make calibers like .44, .357, and 45-70. I haven't read much of Mossberg good or bad regarding their 30-30.

Quote:

It wouldn't bother me a bit to spend $300-$350 on a Ruger American but on the other hand you couldn't pay me to own a Remington 770 or 783

Huge difference for about the same money

I read the Remington 783 is accurate. I haven't read anything about quality of ones manufactured very recently.

I have the impression the magazines of the RAR are that model's jelly-spot. I don't know if Ruger ironed out any issues.

With both the RAR and 783, the ejection port is small, so reliability is even more important.

mete · May 13, 2015, 04:44 PM

Many people buy by price rather than value !
What's happened to the company ? Gone public ? Bought out by another company ,changed management ?
Discussion at the diner this morning centered on UPS. This from commercial users. They went public -- that means stockholders wanting more money without other considerations. That can change management and their goals .UPS prices have gone way up, management is difference group of people, Customer service has gone way down ! Those are just the major problems !

Gunplummer · May 13, 2015, 10:11 PM

I have to agree with mete. I have seen the decline for years in almost all companies, not just gun manufacturers. New mergers and new management usually equals a decline in product quality. The latest craze seems to be how to "Save" the corporation as much money as possible. There goes the quality. It would seem that American companies have focused so hard on "Saving" money that they have forgotten how to "Make" money.

tobnpr · May 14, 2015, 06:29 AM

All good points...including JMR40's.

Many manufacturers that had previously shunned "entry level" (speaking $$'s here), have their offerings in that target market.

It's a huge risk...and I often wonder why they do it. Risk if the product performance/quality tanks even at that particular price point, risk at putting it in competition with their own higher tier offerings.

The primary consideration given by most when purchasing a firearm is accuracy- with ergonomics, weight, and other such factors weighing in to a lesser extent.

Why would I spend nearly $750 for a Ruger Hawkeye, when the American will shoot just as well? Where is the $400 in value added?

emcon5 · May 14, 2015, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Why would I spend nearly $750 for a Ruger Hawkeye, when the American will shoot just as well? Where is the $400 in value added?

Which is why Remington dropped the 788. It shot as well (or better) than the 700 at the time, and cost less.

bricz75 · May 16, 2015, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Why would I spend nearly $750 for a Ruger Hawkeye, when the American will shoot just as well? Where is the $400 in value added?

Controlled feed with the Hawkeye (I think).

The American has a small ejection port, which can hurt in getting out a stuck casing.

Skeets · May 17, 2015, 03:52 PM

788....just numbers,except to us lucky enough to have them stamped on our rifles receivers.AMEN!

johnwilliamson062 · May 17, 2015, 11:54 PM

I think the problem is Americans allow themselves to be programmed to buy disposable consumer items. Almost every major gun company now markets entirely disposable firearms to us. Cheap things you probably won't fix if they break, just buy new. How many times do you read a post from someone with 50+ firearms? How many people owned 50+ firearms 100 years ago? I don't think Vanderbilt collected so many.
The guns with fit and finish that match those of 30 or 50 years ago are still out there, just expect to pay for it.
Ruger American, a 1 MOA rifle in 308 is $352 from buds gun and I can get a $10 transfer. $362 OTD and in my hands.
That is equal to:
$235 in 1995
$165 in 1985
$83 in 1975
$48 in 1965
$41 in 1955
What were you guys paying for 1 MOA rifles at those times? What kinds of rifles could you buy for those amounts at those times?

May 10, 2015, 10:30 PM	#1
bricz75 Senior Member Join Date: August 25, 2012 Posts: 297	Specific way quality of some rifles has gone downhill? I've read claims of a certain rifle brand going down in quality in the past 10 years. If we assume that to be true, would it probably mean quality of almost all examples of a certain brand/model to have gone down in quality? Or does it mean quality is more hit and miss, such as you may get a good one or you may get a bad one? Perhaps its a combination of both above?

May 10, 2015, 11:11 PM	#3
Drm50 Senior Member Join Date: November 10, 2014 Posts: 1,381	Quality You are right quality is going down, and it's a hit and miss proposition. With some makes it's a certain line, others it's the whole brand. Older shooters that know what quality is, are harder to fool. A lot of young shooters are sucked in to bells and whistles mounted on junk.

May 11, 2015, 12:21 AM	#4
Scorch Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2006 Location: Washington state Posts: 15,248	Quality of goods geberally declines as less labor is put into the product. Less labor is put into products in attempts to drive costs down to a target price. So, if you want better quality goods, don't buy from manufacturers who try to market the lowest priced goods. __________________ Never try to educate someone who resists knowledge at all costs. But what do I know? Summit Arms Services

May 11, 2015, 06:25 AM	#5
tobnpr Senior Member Join Date: August 1, 2010 Location: Tampa Bay Posts: 4,556	Obviously, no knowledge of which manufacturer to which you're referring- but I think it's a complicated issue in general. The continuing advances in CNC machining, 3-D modeling, and the ability of these machines to hold tighter tolerances can result in very high quality with comparatively little labor input. OTOH, it takes humans to program and run them- and with few exceptions final finishing and fitting requires a set of highly skilled eyeballs and talent. I think that overall, shooters get amazing quality for their buck these days- compared to 20 years ago. Getting a minute-of-angle guarantee on an inexpensive factory rifle back then was unheard of. I also think that the level of accuracy some of these "starter" rifles are capable of, puts some higher end sticks in an uncomfortable position to justify their cost. Not talking customs here- just the lineups of $300-$400 rifles against the $600-$800 ones. __________________ Remington 700/Savage Rebarreling /Action Blueprinting 07 FFL /Mosin-Nagant Custom Shop/Bent Bolts Genuine Cerakote Applicator www.biggorillagunworks.com

May 11, 2015, 08:25 AM	#7
barnbwt Senior Member Join Date: May 17, 2012 Posts: 1,085	It is mostly finishes and finishing that have declined. Materials, both metal and plastic, are better than ever, but every year polishing decreases and more and more parts are merely blasted before coating with some fancy paint. TCB __________________ "I don't believe that the men of the distant past were any wiser than we are today. But it does seem that their science and technology were able to accomplish much grander things." -- Alex Rosewater

May 10, 2015, 11:06 PM	#2
Quentin2 Senior Member Join Date: June 18, 2009 Location: NorthWest USA Posts: 1,996	Are you talking about Marlin?

May 11, 2015, 08:51 AM	#8
Sure Shot Mc Gee Senior Member Join Date: January 2, 2012 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,876	The old adage still applies: "you get what you pay for. Buy cheap get cheap!!"_ Most manufactures are still using well worn equipment in the making of their sporting firearms. (Labor) saving costs have been the main focused for many many years to reduce manufacturing expenses. Robotics & out sourcing are the two most commonly used labor savers these days and they too are on the edge of being outdated and replaced with (off shore manufacturing.) Frankly: It cost no more today to make a rifle or pistols receiver then it did say 20-30 yrs ago. More than likely even less than. Hear is one quip to consider. "When loyalty is absent in the work force. Quality suffers in the work place."

May 11, 2015, 09:04 AM	#9
Picher Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2004 Location: Maine Posts: 3,694	Back in the 50's and early 60's, a gunshop owner told me that the average hunter/shooter would spend about as much as a week's pay for a gun. At the time, the average wage here Maine was about $75 per week, except millworkers earned about $100. A guy could buy most .22s, a Win. 94, or Marlin 336 for about a weeks pay. When I was still in school and earning about $25 per week working for the family business, I saved up and bought one of the first Savage 110 rifles for about $115, as I recall. Workmanship on the 110's metal was good, but the stock was poor. Checkering was rough and each side of the stock were different colors. Two of my hunting buddies had Winchester 70s, which cost about $150, but they were like works of art to me back then. I also bought a couple of new Ruger Standard Auto pistols for $30 each; one for me and one for my B-I-L, (who didn't believe I could do it for less than the Retail price of $37.50). A Weaver 2.5X scope was about $35, I think, and it served me pretty well for several years.

May 11, 2015, 10:36 AM	#10
RevGeo Senior Member Join Date: September 18, 2011 Location: North Idaho Posts: 161	Modern finishes - on both wood and metal - look cheap and cheesy to me. The newer rifles just 'feel' cheaper. I detest plastic stocks, but that's just an old guy thing. To each his own. I'd much rather buy a pre-1970s used gun in good shape than most brand new guns I've seen. The last new gun I bought was a new Henry 45-70. I've already returned it to the local shop where I bought it due to quality and operation issues. The shop owner graciously offered another rifle of my choice of the same value. I chose a Savage Mod 99 .300 Sav built in 1937. Now that is a real rifle...shoulda bought that one in the first place.

May 11, 2015, 10:53 AM	#11
emcon5 Senior Member Join Date: July 10, 1999 Location: High Desert NV Posts: 2,850	The short answer is Americans are, in general, cheap bastards. There has been over the past few decades increasing pressure on keeping costs down, and the easy way to do this is the labor intensive stuff, fit and finish. The really interesting thing is that with advances in manufacturing technology, current production stuff is usually excellent as far as accuracy. To see an example of this, look at current rifle scopes. There are a bunch of decent, perfectly serviceable rifle scopes available today at the ~$150 price point. Based on the CPI, $150 today is roughly equivalent to $35 in 1975. How well do you think a $35 scope from 1975 would hold up?

May 12, 2015, 07:15 PM	#13
Omaha-BeenGlockin Senior Member Join Date: December 13, 2001 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 1,183	Budget offerings: Depends on what it is It wouldn't bother me a bit to spend $300-$350 on a Ruger American but on the other hand you couldn't pay me to own a Remington 770 or 783 Huge difference for about the same money __________________ I take the leech that's bleeding me Can't stop to save my soul I take the leash that's leading me -------Metallica

May 13, 2015, 04:44 PM	#15
mete Senior Member Join Date: June 14, 2004 Location: NY State Posts: 6,575	Many people buy by price rather than value ! What's happened to the company ? Gone public ? Bought out by another company ,changed management ? Discussion at the diner this morning centered on UPS. This from commercial users. They went public -- that means stockholders wanting more money without other considerations. That can change management and their goals .UPS prices have gone way up, management is difference group of people, Customer service has gone way down ! Those are just the major problems ! __________________ And Watson , bring your revolver !

May 13, 2015, 10:11 PM	#16
Gunplummer Senior Member Join Date: March 11, 2010 Location: South East Pa. Posts: 3,364	I have to agree with mete. I have seen the decline for years in almost all companies, not just gun manufacturers. New mergers and new management usually equals a decline in product quality. The latest craze seems to be how to "Save" the corporation as much money as possible. There goes the quality. It would seem that American companies have focused so hard on "Saving" money that they have forgotten how to "Make" money.

May 14, 2015, 06:29 AM	#17
tobnpr Senior Member Join Date: August 1, 2010 Location: Tampa Bay Posts: 4,556	All good points...including JMR40's. Many manufacturers that had previously shunned "entry level" (speaking $$'s here), have their offerings in that target market. It's a huge risk...and I often wonder why they do it. Risk if the product performance/quality tanks even at that particular price point, risk at putting it in competition with their own higher tier offerings. The primary consideration given by most when purchasing a firearm is accuracy- with ergonomics, weight, and other such factors weighing in to a lesser extent. Why would I spend nearly $750 for a Ruger Hawkeye, when the American will shoot just as well? Where is the $400 in value added? __________________ Remington 700/Savage Rebarreling /Action Blueprinting 07 FFL /Mosin-Nagant Custom Shop/Bent Bolts Genuine Cerakote Applicator www.biggorillagunworks.com

May 17, 2015, 03:52 PM	#20
Skeets Member in memoriam Join Date: April 6, 2015 Location: Indiana Posts: 583	788's Forever! 788....just numbers,except to us lucky enough to have them stamped on our rifles receivers.AMEN! __________________ Skeets "Over Kill Never Fails"

May 17, 2015, 11:54 PM	#21
johnwilliamson062 Junior member Join Date: May 16, 2008 Posts: 9,995	I think the problem is Americans allow themselves to be programmed to buy disposable consumer items. Almost every major gun company now markets entirely disposable firearms to us. Cheap things you probably won't fix if they break, just buy new. How many times do you read a post from someone with 50+ firearms? How many people owned 50+ firearms 100 years ago? I don't think Vanderbilt collected so many. The guns with fit and finish that match those of 30 or 50 years ago are still out there, just expect to pay for it. Ruger American, a 1 MOA rifle in 308 is $352 from buds gun and I can get a $10 transfer. $362 OTD and in my hands. That is equal to: $235 in 1995 $165 in 1985 $83 in 1975 $48 in 1965 $41 in 1955 What were you guys paying for 1 MOA rifles at those times? What kinds of rifles could you buy for those amounts at those times?