Which is better?

[Slowhand Bob]

I have heard it argued more than a few times that the old original Colts, Winchesters, etc, etc were better than the modern clones, in particular the foreign made ones.  This position is usually based on far better craftsmanship and more individual attention during the assembly process.  Those who take the other side insist that modern steel, CNC machines, casting, heat treating furnaces and etc more than makes up for the difference.  Though real logic and fact is great I see nothing wrong with some well explained opinions.  I tend to go with the modern made guns, I just do not think a factory new Colt made in, say 1875, would have impressed us for that long under a two to four times a month diet of SASS matches.  Then throw in several hundred dry fire snaps a month like some of the dedicated perform regularly.  I have one set of Italian Evil Roys that has been run through the grist mill and shows it but still keeps on shooting black powder .45s.  I think what some load in the modern guns would blow up the old time guns.  Shooting side by side, which 1860 Army would go first the original period Colt or the modern Uberti clone?   How would you vote?

[Steel Horse Bailey]

Aside from the hand fitting the old guns got, if nothing else, the quality of the steel is superior to what was generally used "back then."

I have only one truly old gun, an Iver Johnson topbreak from around 1883.  It doesn't get shot much, but it wasn't in the class of guns the old Colt's, Remingtons, & Smith & Wessons were.  I doubt it has been fired much, and a steady diet of ANY rounds, whether BP or smokeyless would likely end its' life quickly.

My friend Dave has numerous old Winchesters and some old (and new) Colt's guns.  They are VERY well-made, but then again, so is my Uberti "Yellow Boy," my AWA Longhorn, and even some-of-the-parts-made-by-Uberti 2nd Generation Colt 1st Model Dragoon.

Especially in the case of Cap'n'Ball guns, I'd tend to side with the modern guns.  YMMV

Something to consider.

[john boy]

How would you vote?

Replicas for CAS over any original firearms with collector value:
* Availability of parts
* Strength quality of the metal

I made the mistake using an 85% AH Fox Sterlingworth when I started CAS.  It is now a parts gun.  The cocking assembly would cost me a large amount of money to have it machine fabricated and replaced.  These original parts are non existent

[Tascosa Joe]

I dont have any experience comparing the 1860 Armies but, I have sent a lot of rounds thru a couple of old BP 1st generation SA Colts.  One was built in 1889 the other in 1893.  They were my main match pistols from 1996-2001.  They have had springs, hands, and locking bolts replaced but that is normal maintenance.  I also shoot only BP in them.  In the period before 1996 I shot a succesion of Cimarrons and Uberti's.  The old Colt's were better IMO.

I will readily admit I shoot Cimarron 1873 Winchesters, because I shoot smokeless some and I would not want to shoot smokeless in a BP 73, although Winchester was building Smokeless ammo for the 73 as early as 1894.

[Montana Slim]

From the few I've owned and/or worked on....I find the originals were pretty well made..but, the materials are not up to today's standards...and many (most) were used hard and put away wet....at least most of the more affordable ones we shooters might find/buy. I have been pleasantly surprised by my experience with vintage Smith & Wesson revolvers. Some of the small guns may not have recieved much use, they made/sold a LOT of them & therefore many good examples survive at rather affordable prices.

Would be nice if Uberti or other company made a more authentic replca of the 1873 rifle, with parts interchangeability with the originals...would dramatically help keeping an original in good working order with continued use.

Slim

[fourfingersofdeath]

I think the degree of hand finishing is not really a valid argument, the hand finishing would have been necessary because the manafacturing machines would have been nowhere as accurate as today's precision machines. I am not able to judge on Colt handguns as I have never handled one. I own Pietta clones that have been tuned and they are excuisite, beautiful guns, reliable and a joy to use. I own a unmodific=ed one as well and it is smooth, but not as slick, still a thing of beauty which needs to bed in first. I also owned a pair of USFAs that were brilliant (but dare I say it, not as smooth as my tuned Piettas! Maybe with the same level of tuning that would have been better, but improvements on brilliant are difficult to pick). I once handled an Armi San Marco clone and it was truely a beautiful handgun. I realise now that it must have been tuned as it was like a Swiss watch. The shop wanted a lot of money for it and I was on the lookout for two guns for CAS, so I passed on it. I drooled over it everytime I went into the shop for awhile though. I have heard that they had internal wear issues, but I don't know how true that was.

I have a 1881 made Win 1873 and a three year old Uberti 1873. Both great guns, but the quality of build is very similar.

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

No disrespect intended, but I always get a kick out of it when somebody mentions the precision of modern CNC equipment. I have done CNC programming and I have also done CNC machining. I am quite aware of the capabilities of CNC and I am also familiar with its shortcomings.

What most folks don't realize is that the main advantage CNC machining has over traditional hand cranked machining is cost savings, not precision. The real cost savings of CNC machining is that the operator can load the parts, press the start button, and walk away from the machine. It's a little bit more complicated than that, but the fact is modern machine shops only have to pay one operator to run several machines. The more routine the parts, the simpler it becomes. I don't mean how simple the parts are, it is more a question of whether the parts have been produced before and whether all the bugs are out of the CNC program. The first time parts are run, the operator may need to be monitoring the program while it is in progress, may need to zero the part more than once, and may need to tweak the program. But once the program has been finalized and the parts have passed inspection, it is pretty much a process of load the parts into the machine, start the program, and move on to the next machine. So that is a huge cost savings for the manufacturer. With any hand cranked machine, one operator has to stand and turn the cranks on the machine the whole time the part is being made. So you have to employ more operators. Simple as that. And generally speaking, it requires a more highly skilled machinist to turn the cranks than it does to operate CNC machines. So the manufacturer can pay the CNC operator less than paying a skilled machinist to turn the cranks by hand and the lower paid employee can be in charge of several machines at a time.

Another cost savings is the repeatability of CNC. The CNC machine does not care what time it is or if it got a good nights sleep the night before. As long as the machine is maintained properly it can operate all day and all night and the parts will all be the same. The CNC machine never turns the crank once too far because it is Friday afternoon and it is really tired. Just about the only variable with the CNC will be cutter wear, and a good shop will be on top of making sure that it replaces worn cutters before they start making a significant difference on the parts.

None of this has spoken about the precision of CNC, it has only spoken about why using CNC has reduced production costs for modern manufacturers. As far as precision is concerned, yes, the CNC operators I used to work with would routinely guarantee precision of .0002. That's two tenths of a thousandth, and it is pretty darn good. Probably better precision than is really necessary for most parts.

But I have to tell you, I am always amazed at the precision of parts made long before CNC equipment existed. Most of all, I am amazed at the ingenuity of the guys who invented the equipment in the first place to make the parts. You have to understand that the repeating firearms industry and its work with interchangeable parts in the early and mid 19th Century is probably more responsible for the industrial behemoth that America became than any other industry. Henry Ford could never have created the Model T production line if the gun industry had not paved the way.

I recently had the pleasure of visiting the Precision Museum in Windsor Vermont. The museum is in the same mill that used to be the Robbins & Lawrence Armory, built in 1846. This is where some of the equipment used in the manufacture of interchangeable parts for the firearms industry was first invented. Some of the men who worked there eventually became some of the most influential craftsmen in the repeating arms industry. Men like Daniel Wesson, Horace Smith, and Benjamin Tyler Henry. The Robbins and Lawrence Armory was like a fertile breeding ground for the exchange of ideas that later became the cornerstone of the repeating firearms industry. Many of the machines dreamed up at Robbins & Lawrence eventually made their way down the river to the Springfield Armory and became the cornerstone for much of the American arms industry.

The other thing that many folks do not realize is that parts were designed 1. to perform a certain function, and 2. to be easily manufactured on equipment that existed at the time. With modern CNC equipment we have lost sight of that fact. That was part of Bill Ruger's genius, redesigning parts and lockworks to take advantage of processes and materials not available 100 years earlier. Take the bolt of a SAA for example. A highly complex part and expensive to produce. Rather than continuing to make the old part with new equipment, Ruger simply redesigned how the part functioned and replaced it with a simple stamping. Much, much cheaper to produce than the old Colt bolt design and more reliable too.

I am lucky enough to own several very old firearms. Winchester, Marlin, and S&W. I own Smiths from just about every decade they were produced, starting in 1870. I have to tell you I am completely amazed over the precision of the parts inside these Smiths. They are like Swiss watches when you open them up. And yes, they got that way because S&W employed men whose sole job was to fit the parts together so they functioned flawlessly. S&W and other manufacturers were able to do this because highly skilled labor was cheap in those days. The parts were made so that the critical surfaces that interacted with other surfaces were purposely made slightly oversized so they could be fitted by hand. But I have seen equipment over 100 years old that produced lock plates and other equipment that cut the recess in the stock the lock plate went into. The parts fit right in every time, no fitting was needed at all.

I've gone on for much too long, but I can tell you if given the choice I would take an old Winchester, Colt, or Smith every time over the modern replica. I can be confident that when I open it up I will not find all the burrs and rough edges Uberti ALWAYS leaves inside the gun because they run their CNC equipment too fast and do not pay employees to deburr the parts. Yes, the modern steel is better, no question about that. But the fit of the parts in the quality guns made 100 or more years ago more than makes up for that fact in my book. No, the old guns may not take the abuse that CAS imposes on guns. When I bring one of my antiques to a match I do not abuse it. I do not attempt to shoot it super fast, these guns were never designed for that in the first place. I shoot all the targets, making sure that I don't run the old mechanism too fast, and I always shoot Black Powder in my antiques. No, I do not shoot my antiques at every match, and no, I never dry fire them. Of course, I cannot guarantee that nobody did dry fire them in the last 100 years. Nor can I guarantee that they were not fired with Smokeless powder.

As a matter of fact, it is only the revolvers that I restrict to Black Powder. I regularly shoot my old Winchester '92s and Marlin with Smokeless 44-40 loads. I do restrict them to cowboy loads, but with the much thicker cross section of the chambers of a rifle I am not concerned about shooting them with mild Smokeless loads. I do not put Smokeless through my antique Smiths.

[Bryan Austin]

CNC machines are probably made in China!

[will52100]

I'm with Driftwood on this one.  Especially with the colt open tops and conversions I love.  With the barrel and wedge system proper fit is crucial.  And I've done a bit of machining on replica colts and I can tell you, at least on the cap and ball guns, the cylinder and barrel steel is butter soft.  The originals had state of the art metallurgy, the repos have pretty much mild steel, at least in the cap guns, the cartridge guns I would think are a bit harder.  I would be interested in an analysis comparing the steel of modern repos to the originals.  Also the originals had real case hardened frames and parts, which granted with modern steel is not needed.

That said, I'd take a "New", as it was produced, Colt 1860 over a reproduction, and for CAS I'd take a reproduction over a 150 year old collectors item that has had who knows how hard a life and is worth who knows what.

[fourfingersofdeath]

I wasn't saying that the CNC is always superior, but that people seem to get a hard on about hand finishing and look down their nose at more efficient production methods that don't require such treatment. Old time manafacturers would have taken advantage of any production efficiencies that were available. Lots of hand finishing doesn't (always) mean that it is a better product, just one that needed hand finishing to get to where it is.

The old guns were amazing in the fact that they were produced on machines with rudimentary bearings, etc. I like them all, but generally move old guns that I come across onto collectors, no point me wearing them out.

[Mako]

There are things you can do with a 3, 4 or 5 axis milling center that a manual machinists can only dream of.  The ability to contour mill or surface machine is extremely limited with manual machining.  In fact designers have gotten lazy and assume any shape can be machined without section splits or interruptions.  

Precision is not just carefully cranking a handle until your DRO or handle dial reads a certain increment or dimension.  The ability of a machining center to make "predictive" corrections, offsets and compensate for lag, backlash and other tolerances makes it a more accurate machine than any knee mill ever made.  If you give a class A machinist or a toolmaker a tight well maintained J head Bridgeport with glass scales he can sneak up on the side or end milled dimensions, but without specialized purpose built form cutters he will never reproduce many of the sculpted forms.  Where those skilled machinists shine is in the grinding following the milling operations and especially the "bench work."

When reading the specifications of a machining center and when testing it in a capability study there are two different types of accuracy that are evaluated.  The first is called machining accuracy which for us as shooters can be like putting all of our shots in the black on a target.  This doesn't mean that they have the tightest pattern, they just hit the target aim point with some allowable deviation.  The other aspect is repeatability which to us is like group size.  That is actually much more difficult for a firearm or a machine tool.  The beauty of machining centers is that they are much more repeatable than a manual machine and the accuracy can either be taught to the tool or in some case the predictive nature of the control will move the "group size" accordingly.

Tools "push off", tools get dull, tools cut off size.  With newer NC machines they have a lot of feed back sensors that determine push off, dullness etc. The machining center will compensate for as much as it can and in the case of where the tool such as a drill will cut to large from dulling the tool will withdraw from the cut and either exchange the tool or ask for a change.

Have you ever wondered why newer vehicles are now running super thin 5W-20 or even 0W-20 oil?  It's because the new engines run tighter clearance that couldn't be machined repetitively in the past at a cost we could afford.  That along with gluing bearings in place instead of press fitting allows much more precise alignment.  In short the precision of a factory motor today with those of 40 years ago is like comparing an F4U with an F/A-18C, they are both very good, but they are very different.  The same is true with a Vertical Knee Mill (or even a production manual horizontal mill) and a modern machining center.

Regards,
Mako

[maldito gringo]

You can bet your hat that any Colt, S&W, Winchester or Remington made before 1960 was right when it left the factory. Sadly, the same isn't true for replicas. I speak from experience. Modern materials and CNC machining don't count for much if you don't give a sh*t.

[Steel Horse Bailey]

You can bet your hat that any Colt, S&W, Winchester or Remington made before 1960 was right when it left the factory. Sadly, the same isn't true for replicas. I speak from experience. Modern materials and CNC machining don't count for much if you don't give a sh*t.

Ain't THAT the truth!  Don't want any Friday afternoon guns!

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Again

I have to agree with the previous sentiments. I do actually understand everything Mako said, I am familiar with just about all he was talking about. But if the company does not put in the time to take full advantage of all the bells and whistles that come with their equipment, then the product will not reflect what the technology is capable of. All CNC equipment is capable of making light finish cuts that will leave almost a mirror finish on the parts. And most equipment can also run a V cutter along the edges to almost make the need for deburring the part go away. But these touches require that the part spends more time in the machine. Finish cuts usually have low feed rates. CNC shops are very concerned with what they call 'cutter time'.

Time is money, and the more time the parts spend in the machine equals less parts produced every hour. That drives up the unit cost of each part. I repeat what I said before about Uberti parts and burrs and rough finishes. Uberti is cranking their parts out as fast as physically possible. And that results in rough finishes on the parts, sharp edges that will cut you if you are not careful, and burrs. The first time I opened up my '73 I found a hanging burr in the toggle link mortises almost as big as a finger nail paring. Yes, it was positioned so that it did not affect the operation of the gun. But if it fell off, it might have lodged someplace and jammed up the gun. But more important than that, it is simply unprofessional to leave such a poor finish on parts. This is not limited to my '73. Every single Uberti product that I have ever been inside has shown the same lack of attention to the finish of the parts.

And that is why ALL the Italian clones will benefit from an action job. Because Uberti does not take the time to finish the parts properly. There are rough surfaces inside rubbing against each other and chewing each other up. And that is why Uberti puts such heavy springs in their guns, because the rough surfaces left behind generate more friction and the springs have to be stronger to overcome the internal friction.

The industrial model Colt, Winchester, S&W, et al followed in the 19th Century was VERY efficient. Make the parts a little bit oversized in a few critical dimensions, and then pay highly skilled craftsmen a very low wage to get the fit just right. What's inefficient about that? It wasn't fun for the workmen, who sat at the same bench all day long, probably ruining their eyesight while they carefully brought parts to the perfect final shape, but it was VERY efficient and guns produced that way were affordable.

Rather than 'getting a hard on' about hand finishing, I simply recognize the reality of 19th Century manufacturing.

Make no mistake. If Uberti slowed down their machinery and got the parts right, they would cost more. That's simple economics. But maybe then we would not be taking the guns to a Cowboy gunsmith to get right what Uberti was sloppy about. I can assure you that no S&W that ever left the factory before WWII needed to go to a gunsmith to make it right.

P.S. Savvy Jack: I am a little bit out of date, but when I was designing parts most of the really good CNC equipment came from Japan.

[StrawHat]

I have been fortunate to be able to have starting shooting origianls and switch over to shooting replicas.  While I have not worn out either one, I have had to replace parts on both.  I veiw the Italian copies ( of revolvers) as kit guns and am happy to be able to get them where I wnat them.  They are good bases from which to start.  Originals I tend to shoot as is but have modified many in the past and may do so in the future. 

I have just recieved a Springfield 1873.  Will I run it as hard as a modern made one?  No, but I will run it as it was intended to be run, with black powder and lead.  I guess that is the way I'd run a new made trapdoor also.

[Slowhand Bob]

At some point of development in the manufacturing process most companies swapped out their machinists for machine operators and then went from there to CNC as it became practical.  I have known many guys who described themselves as machinists in the aero-space industry and when their jobs were lost to CNC they were actually unqualified for true machinist work.  One of my son-in-laws was actually in this boat, after over twenty years as a machinist for Bowen he lost his job to CNC and it turned out that in twenty years he had never operated anything but a drill press and a vertical mill.  I'm sure that at some point, something similar would have happened at most successful gun manufacturing facilities.  One other thought that we should all be able to relate to, no matter what skill we talk consider, there is always the best guy there and the worst.  If human hands are responsible, there will never be true zero tolerance, and we have not even considered the trainees and fill ins! My biggest question, if the men or machines are really that good, and truly they do match some mighty small and tiny internals to minute dimensions, why the heck are the so dang far off between any two given grip frames that have ten times more area to work within the lines! 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Again

Because grip frames and grips have always been ground down together by hand as one unit. It was not just this way with Colt, S&W did it this way too. Watch this video. Uberti is still matching up grips with grip frames pretty much the way it has always been done. The narrator makes a few errors in her narration, but in a lot of ways Uberti is making guns the way Colt did. For instance they are still forging frames before machining them.

Actually, I just watched it again. It does not show the assembler mating up the wooden grips to the grip frame, but it does show how the outside surfaces of the frame, backstrap and trigger guard are all brought even with each other by grinding or buffing on a wheel. That's part of the reason why grips won't match from one gun to another, because the final shaping of the grips has been done by hand.



At S&W parts were 'soft fitted' first. The parts were numbered to each frame they had been fitted to. Then the parts were sent to another section of the factory for hardening. Once hardened, polished, and blued they came back for any final fitting needed and were assembled into a finished gun.