QUALITY in general now a thing of the past.

[Die Judicii]

I know that technology is supposed to make things better,,,,,,,,,
With rifles in general,,, they now tend to be lighter which should be a good thing for carry/stalking etc.
The steel is constantly evolving which also should be a good thing.

But,,,,,, the quality in general nowadays has fell away in varying degrees,, sometimes to absolute sh!t levels.
There may be some brands that still present good quality,, but alas, seem few and far between.

I've just plucked a general number and reckon the last twenty years has seen the worst of the decline.
Remember when you used to be able to go to a firearms store and physically pick up any of the average well known brands of rifle ??
The moment you held it in your hands,, you could not only see quality,,,,,,, but you could also feel it.

Then,,, throw it to your shoulder and cycle it.
It would generally be smooth and silky.

The "average" stocks back then mostly had some interesting and nicely configured timber.

Now, most all of that is gone.

The timber stocks are lighter in weight,, and nowhere near as dense.
Flat uninteresting grain with zero character.
And the finish is quite often not even complete,,,,,, with the surface not filled properly resulting in whisker grabbing that is downright annoying.
Most of the timber also I sometimes wonder whether it really is "walnut" even tho they may say that it is.
If you get a scratch, it quite often shows a totally different and pale timber that has only had the barest possible amount of stain.

Even the checkering is mostly (if not all) laser cut, and feels terrible.

The steel machining and fit up is generally atrocious compared to rifles made prior to twenty years ago.
It is not uncommon these days to find magazines that refuse to feed at all or have awkward inconsistent feed.
Rough surfaces and pockets of shavings, grit etc from manufacture still evident.
Recoil lugs that are a very poor fit is all too often as well.

Triggers are usually very heavy (probably a by product of the sue sue sue mentality)
And a lot have poor ability to be adjusted properly,,,,,,, which is evident by the prolific amount of aftermarket triggers and spring kits on the market.

I recently compared my old Sako 75 to a brand spankers new Sako 85.

The bolt in the 85 was sloppy and rattled compared to the 75 which (even allowing for age and wear) was smooth and no slop.
The stock was less dense by far compared to the 75
The 85 felt terrible (no quality feel)
The timber had straight, dull, and downright boring grain,,,, whereas the 75 has dense timber with grain that you only see now from custom stocks.

Sadly I have noticed that these issues are apparent in quite a lot of brands across the counter in general.
Even those that are considered to be sort of "top shelf" brands.

Where will it all end ?
Overall the general quality of rifles are terrible these days.

[deye243]

Yes I hate to admit it I suppose you could say I have been whinging about this for more than 10 years

[ZaineB]

plenty of sub MOA guaranteed rifles for under $1500 these days, good shooters, nice triggers etc, cant say the same some years ago.

[womble]

I usually prefer to buy second hand guns that have been well sorted out and broken in.
But a new gun you have to take it back to get the smith to finish it. Unless you have the time and inclination to do it yourself.
So you buy the gun then decide if you like it enough to invest time and money in.
It’s a good gun, accurate. Just not finished yet. You buy a new gun as a project.
They still make quality but it costs a fortune. You’re paying a lot extra for detailing and craftsmanship. That’s a niche in the market now, dose’nt come as standard of the shelf.

[womble]

plenty of sub MOA guaranteed rifles for under $1500 these days, good shooters, nice triggers etc, cant say the same some years ago.

That’s true. For function impressive. But i don’t want to look at a rifle and see how they did that by cutting costs elsewhere.

[on_one_wheel]

30 years ago that junk would've sold, the market was smaller and people had an eye for quality.

Your average shooter today doesn't have the mechanical aptitude to understand how piss poor most builds are now.

[Bugman]

With the Sako rifles, it appears that since Beretta took them over, the quality appears to have slipped, just my opinion. Quality appears to have gone out the window for most makes, as the bottom line, me thinks, is the most important issue. A "disposable" society syndrome, perhaps.

[Bugman]

Also, I learnt to shoot with Lithgow model one with stock standard open sights. Nowadays people have a plethora of makes, models, configurations, add on bits and pieces, etc etc, some plastic stocks, some wooden stocks. I think basic craftemenship has all but disappeared. I miss the old days when quality really meant something.

[cz515]

It's about profits and money. Also a profitable company will exist long after a better quality maker but who's is losing money or is over priced.

I keep seeing ads on shooters journal about the 100k brisish hand made shotguns....I wonder how many do they make in a year

[straightshooter]

30 years ago that junk would've sold, the market was smaller and people had an eye for quality.

Your average shooter today doesn't have the mechanical aptitude to understand how piss poor most builds are now.

plenty of sub MOA guaranteed rifles for under $1500 these days, good shooters, nice triggers etc, cant say the same some years ago.

That’s true. For function impressive. But i don’t want to look at a rifle and see how they did that by cutting costs elsewhere.

The money that was once spent on the cost of manual labour involved in final fitting of close tolerance parts and the cosmetic finish of visible metal and wood now must be spent on "marketing" while looser tolerances and poorer finishing requires less hand labour.
For example how many have been conditioned into accepting the desirability of cheap plastic stocks and other plastic parts in firearms.
Once upon a time there were relatively few sources of information about firearms and thus relatively few people that had to be kept buttered up.
These days where does the bulk of information regarding firearms come from? Youtube, forums and other social media means that the marketing budget has to butter up a far greater array of "influencers".
Ally that with a natural propensity for confirmation bias in all of us (me included) leads to a situation where in the thinking of corporations superior marketing will always win over a superior product however one might like to define that superiority.
Have you noticed that just about all the larger companies involved in the manufacture of firearms, their requisites and accessories are now wholly owned by some capital investment group.
While the still independent manufacturers have almost no presence in internet chatter.

[MontyShooter]

It's not unique to firearms. Same could be said of cars, furniture, houses etc.
As long as the performance is there I'm not fussed. My guns aren't safe queens.
I have no complaints regarding the quality of my Warwick, BLR, la102. But if you buy cheap junk like Ruger, Savage or anything from Turkey I guess you get what you pay for.

[bigrich]

my sako 85 st/lam in 270 is a awesome bit of gear . i had a L61 finbear , 1973 vintage , and yeah . a slick handbuilt thing of beauty . but when my new 85 takes some knocks , i'm gratefull it's not the finnbear . i'd cry

i've had a m55 tikka lovely old thing . but my new t3 has been super accurate out of the box and worked flawlessly. i don't like plastic mags , but it works

the best old school, solid reliable , value for money , accurate with bedding rifles have been push feed winchester model 70's . the button ejector on the bolt face on these things gives perfect ejection every time . i like this system more than the sako to be honest . i think they borrowed the idea from the vanguard , but the winchester is a lighter rifle . i've rebarreled a few , and they have been super accurate . factory triggers come up as good as any too

i've also owned a few old krico's in rimfire and 22 hornet . all steel and very accurate

i knew a fella who had a 1958 made 722 rem . this was the rifle first developed before the 700 for the 222. i should have bought it as it was one of the slickest actions i've ever come across. and very accurate considering the barrel was a bit sad . i shoulda bought that one

new 700's are built to a price point . the coarse grain of some stainless rem actions i've seen show low grade steel . ya get what ya pay for . however lots of these cheaper rifles , due to modern cnc machining , usually obtain better accuracy out of the box than some high end rifles of the past . howa's are a example of this . but they can be a bit rough at times

anyway these are my veiws . i have a smaller rifle collection these days , and save for high end rifles of qaulity .
qauility over qauntity for me thanks

[Die Judicii]

I usually prefer to buy second hand guns that have been well sorted out and broken in.
But a new gun you have to take it back to get the smith to finish it. Unless you have the time and inclination to do it yourself.
So you buy the gun then decide if you like it enough to invest time and money in.
It’s a good gun, accurate. Just not finished yet. You buy a new gun as a project.
They still make quality but it costs a fortune. You’re paying a lot extra for detailing and craftsmanship. That’s a niche in the market now, dose’nt come as standard of the shelf.

That was my whole point.
Used to,,,,,,,, but not any more.
And, to clarify, I know you can still pay for and get the quality of yesterday however,,,,,
I was mainly referring to the brands such as Marlin, Remington, Winchester, Tikka and Sako.

[wanneroo]

There was plenty of cheap junk guns gmade going back years ago, the reason why you don't think of it now is because it all got binned years ago. Same with cars, people always go back to they don't make them like they used to, but people forgot about all the crappy cars they drove and they long ago got recycled into toasters.

Quality is available today but you have to pay for it, like with anything. A lot of people just want cheap crap, look at all the junk we get from China, it's because people want the low price point and overlook some quality issues.

A lot of gun manufacturers have dumbed down their product and cut the quality because people want the low price.

[rc42]

Mass production down to a price rather than up to a standard is what drives the market these days, premium products are becoming fewer and unreachably expensive for most.
Stocks are plastic or cheap wood as the premium hardwood is also too expensive for mass production, it takes hundreds of years for those trees to grow and they are being cut down and used faster than replacements can mature. People can pay thousands for a rough cut piece of walnut with an interesting grain and then have to pay a craftsmen to turn it into a stock, and that skill is also disappearing.

Unfortunately, China has driven the disposable product culture across the entire world and all high volume manufacturers have embraced it so they can keep selling the same products tot he same people again and again.

[No1Mk3]

I can't agree with the sentiment that "quality has fallen in recent times". This is, and always has been, a function of growing and widening markets from a makers viewpoint regardless of whether we are talking firearms, motor cars or yo-yos. We can extend Die Judicii's timeline to the 70's when a friends 1972 Sako Finn Bear was far better looking than todays Sako, but no better in shooting. Thinking also of my 1959 Win 94 compared to what was on offer in the 70's which felt verry crappy by comparison, or my 1964 Win M70 compared to a 1963 rifle of the same Model. It is a consequence of markets that although improved manufacturing processes and materials may make a better operating system for any device the apparent quality look of that device reduces, but it is not a lesser device. In engines you only have to look at the L6, aesthetically, to me and many others, it is crap looking compared to even a 2 bolt 350, but it is far away superior in function, Cheers.

[Die Judicii]

You certainly don't get timber like these nowadays unless you pay mega bucks for special order or a custom made stock.
These came with the rifles as I bought them.

100_4602.JPG (478.89 KiB) Viewed 4542 times

100_4612.JPG (542.24 KiB) Viewed 4542 times

[ZaineB]

You certainly don't get timber like these nowadays unless you pay mega bucks for special order or a custom made stock.
These came with the rifles as I bought them.

100_4602.JPG

100_4612.JPG

yes yes but the world is also walking away from just mowing down old growth forests for consumer items like this, not going to find nice figured timber in straight grained tree farms.

[cz515]

Yep everyone comes back to cost of labour, materials and how much a customer is willing to pay.

If you wanted your nice wood stock, with chequering, engraved action.... just imagine the hours taken if done by hand then multiply that with average wages... makes a mighty expensive rifle.

As no1 says. Some time ago I was reading, in Europe coach builders still exist, and some car companies still use said coach builders to build their bespoke models...... these vehicles cost $500k and above.

[bigrich]

I can't agree with the sentiment that "quality has fallen in recent times". This is, and always has been, a function of growing and widening markets from a makers viewpoint regardless of whether we are talking firearms, motor cars or yo-yos. We can extend Die Judicii's timeline to the 70's when a friends 1972 Sako Finn Bear was far better looking than todays Sako, but no better in shooting. Thinking also of my 1959 Win 94 compared to what was on offer in the 70's which felt verry crappy by comparison, or my 1964 Win M70 compared to a 1963 rifle of the same Model. It is a consequence of markets that although improved manufacturing processes and materials may make a better operating system for any device the apparent quality look of that device reduces, but it is not a lesser device. In engines you only have to look at the L6, aesthetically, to me and many others, it is crap looking compared to even a 2 bolt 350, but it is far away superior in function, Cheers.

agree. good assessment

[mchughcb]

I know that technology is supposed to make things better,,,,,,,,,

Where will it all end ?
Overall the general quality of rifles are terrible these days.

I have an early 1970s Sauer Drilling. The workmanship is great. I also have a 2018 Blaser Bockdrilling the workmanship is also great except the ebony on stock had a gap so it got sent back to the smith and closed.

Overall I'd say the blaser bock drilling is better and certainly more practical.

[LawrenceA]

Build quality (meaning fit and finish) dropped with World War 1.
Again in World War 2.
And consistently since the 60's.
However the ability to machine within tight tolerances has improved.
So we are seeing ugly guns that feel crap but shoot straighter than just about anything before.

[GQshayne]

When I bought my BLR a few years ago, the shop had a new one on the shelf, and an old second hand one, made in 1973. Price was about the same, depending on where you looked. I had seen new ones for as low as $1400 or thereabouts.

I paid $1500 for the old one. No regrets.

[Oldbloke]

Build quality (meaning fit and finish) dropped with World War 1.
Again in World War 2.
And consistently since the 60's.
However the ability to machine within tight tolerances has improved.
So we are seeing ugly guns that feel crap but shoot straighter than just about anything before.

I tend to agree.

Companies respond to market demand.

If you want nice timber you have to pay top dollar. Nice timber is becoming scarce. Labour to do checkering is far from cheap. It's nice but does not contribute to function.

With cnc machining and improved metalergy I think even cheap rifles shoot at least, if not better than yester yesr rifles.

I'm into function, not looks, happy with plastic if the price is right. And depends how much you want to spend on a sport and the amount of use. If your young and have a family a cheaper but functional rifle is pretty attractive.

[AZZA'S HJ47]

Manufacturers want production costs to go down dealers/distributors want profits to go up, consumers don't want to pay top dollar for anything these are the three main contributors to why quality has gone to crap.

America has pride within american made and american built and will spend the extra penny to get the products. Its a shame that we don't have the same views heck manufacturing would still be here in Australia.

Everyone wanting to save a buck ultimately is what is hurting build quality and not just in the gun industry but in all markets. You cant compete with third world manufacturers without something going south in a big way.

[Blr243]

Very true AZZA. To a certain extent we The consumer contribute to poor quality. We buy adlers instead of brownings .....We buy norincos instead of sakos. At the end of the day I’m excited about my trip north Friday morning, I got a one track mind at the moment...over the next couple of days anything I say here not likely to make any sense at all.

[Wyliecoyote]

A point about the OPs opening comment. Steels are not necessarily better these days. For example steel mills that supply basic SAE/AISI 4140, the 40 points of carbon is a percentage in the whole length of steel. One end may have 50 or 60 points of carbon and the other end may have 10 or 20 points of carbon. This is extreme but it is possible but completely acceptable as long as the whole length meets the 40 points as stated for that alloy. Think of it as a cup of coffee and two sugars. The last sips can sometimes be sweeter due to concentration levels from poor stirring although the required two sugars were added in the cup to begin with.
A chamber reamer can cut a rough hole in one barrel where the next piece/barrel from the same bar stock can have a chamber looking like it had been polished. One barrel will foul badly, the next won't. One action will blue perfectly, the next will not. Todays 416 stainless is another example. One barrel rusts, the next never does from the same bar stock simply because the chromium distribution is again not consistent. The barrel making techniques are more refined but are still subject to or are at the mercy of the steel mills. Some years back one very well known barrel maker had a couple of barrels come apart. I read the report from the metallurgist where the conclusion if it was to be taken in full context, no-one would pull the trigger on any stainless barrel. Reference was made on how stainless exposed to repeated vibration can lead to metal fatigue at sharp junctions, ie where the groove meets the land. The barrels in question came apart precisely along these junctures The report damned stainless barrels full stop and said nothing about a really crap batch of soft 416R. Most barrel makers get HEAT sheets off the mill, but as i said, that only tells you what the test piece has in it, what hardness it is, but is not a full indicator of a batch of 20 or more tons just purchased.

In relation to Sako 75/85 actions, Sakos have for some years been investment cast, unlike the earlier Sakos which were machined from billet. The only exception is the TRG line which i have read are forged. There is nothing wrong with investment cast actions other than it should have led to a cheaper product in terms of machining costs. Yet Sako asks top dollar which i feel is somewhat unjustified considering the poor cousin Tikka have stolen the accuracy out of the box badge. As such, Tikka pricing has risen considerably in the last couple of years. Sako costs cannot be solely attributed to a better grade of timber or synthetic stocks. Sako synthetic stocks go sticky after a few years exactly as other makes do.

Over the years the worm has turned. Synthetic stocks years ago were demanded as timber was shunned because magazine writers wrote of poor POI control etc in varying climate. Now those very same stocks are referred to as Tupperware which 30 or more years ago many shooters would have killed for even though some of the recent offerings really are junk.

The same worm has also turned on FFP scopes that were widely cast off after shooters began demanding SFP with their centered reticles as well as the non diminishing size of the reticle at the lower power end in variable scopes as well as the asymmetry of the reticle in the ocular lense. Back then the claim was SFP was more expensive to manufacture and a premium was asked by Leupold and Redfield etc. Today they tell us that FFP costs more to manufacture and so they charge more and shooters gladly buy them and talk up the benefits of FFP over SFP that without the ranging reticle would relegate the same FFP scope to an expensive exercise in nostalgia with complete amnesia in the existance of a laser range finder. In point, one of the the very first ranging reticles was developed by Redfield in their variable SFP scopes that like all of todays reticles required a known dimension to be effective. Something very similar is being passed off in many brands of thermal scopes today.

Somewhere someone over many years has lied about manufacturing costs and a lot of steel these days has never been closer to garbage.

[Harrynsw]

Supreme Quality is there if you want to pay for it.

[Bill]

Die judicci talking about Quality and mentioning Sako's in the same sentencing the checkering on 75s looks like it was done by a 5 years old

If you want good checkering then I'd suggest you find a 60yr European made rifle like Husky HVA

[InisBineest]

The quantity of low quality goods certainly has increased, but I don't think you can blame companies for that (Chinese or otherwise).

Any successful company keeps the consumer demands in mind, and consumers as a collective are not always a bright bunch. They demand cheaper product, it's that simple.

For anyone above lamenting the loss of quality, tell me, is every article you have in your possession a "quality" item? Or do you find yourself with a few cheap mass produced items? A cheap ball point pen, cotton shirts from target, a $5 can of deodorant, anything. Lots of the items we can now own cheaply are only in our hands in such quantities because off cheap mass production of items where the quality is less relevant. I'm not judging anyone for it, it's just a fact.

Problem is that desire for cheaper goods then extends out to other products. You look for a new family car... Toyota or Mitsubishi? You weigh up the reputation of the companies, the quality of the car and the of course, the price. Everyone values those three things in different orders for different things (reputation, quality, price) but for many consumers, price is the first eliminating factor.

I find that age old rule still applies though. You do get what you pay for. And there after still quality new rifles to be had.. they just might not come from the same companies that used to make the good ones.

The Remington 700 was legendary... Not so much now. But there are many good 700 custom clones that replicate and even better the quality of old, and with much greater accuracy too.

It's not all bad, the names have changed, but you can still buy quality rifles:)