testtest

Old guns

I've long been of the opinion that we get "imprinted" during adolescence with our preferences in cars, music, and women, and I guess for many of us, guns should be on that list. The vast majority of my guns are based on designs from the beginning of WWII to the end of the Vietnam War, and most of those were actually built during those years. I have two pre-WWII handguns (a Colt 1903 .32 and a S&W I-frame .32) and possibly two .22 rifles (depending on when the Winchester 69A was built). My "newest" handgun is a Smith 5906, which is based on the M59 of the mid-1970s, which was in turn based on the post-WWII Smith 39. My newest rifle is a Rhineland Arms R22 which is almost 20 years old now. Its styling is based on the HK 93, more or less, but it's actually built around a 10/22 bolt and magazine system and AR-15 FCG guts. I wouldn't trade any of my S&W revolvers for THREE of ANYTHING in their current catalog.

But that's just me, and I admit to being an Auld Phart. Now, get off my lawn! :oops:
 
Didn’t read it (refuse to give any support to the CTD scumbags).

But:

I’ve played with current issue Pythons; they do NOT compare to my 70’s and 80’s models; and, as much as I love S&W…the best Performance Center models coming out fir 20 or so years don’t come close to my 1921 vintage M&P .38 that was redone and massaged by S&W in 1952.

Maybe rack grade have gotten better…but the old skills are being lost.
 
HansGruber said:
Didn’t read it (refuse to give any support to the CTD scumbags).

But:

I’ve played with current issue Pythons; they do NOT compare to my 70’s and 80’s models; and, as much as I love S&W…the best Performance Center models coming out fir 20 or so years don’t come close to my 1921 vintage M&P .38 that was redone and massaged by S&W in 1952.

Maybe rack grade have gotten better…but the old skills are being lost.
Click to expand...
I think the writers must write even when they have run out of cogent ideas to write about
 
A pic and comment from the author in this article…..

IMG_5405.jpeg


My answer would be I trust old steel a hell of a lot more than the Chinese 💩 being sent and used now …

Its an opinion article.. like Hays stated. They run out of 💩💩 to talk about.
 
I think any one of us could write a similar article, sniffling about the past and crowing about today. I do miss a good leather holster at a below an $80 price, 5K primers for $100 and $20/lb. powder. I still like a lot of today even if it doesn't cost $5K. Haven't handled a Glock and no desire to. Everyone has different tastes and likes. There is something for everyone, but don't expect everyone to like what you do.
 
KillerFord1977 said:
A pic and comment from the author in this article…..

View attachment 53388

My answer would be I trust old steel a hell of a lot more than the Chinese 💩 being sent and used now …

Its an opinion article.. like Hays stated. They run out of 💩💩 to talk about.
Click to expand...
Collectors of WWII pistols know that the folks at FN were not happy about making P35 Hi-Powers under Nazi occupation. All wartime Hi-Powers that carries a Nazi proof (most common is an eagle over WAa140) were produced by forced labor and may not be up the standards of a commerially producted Hi-Power.
 
Recusant said:
Collectors of WWII pistols know that the folks at FN were not happy about making P35 Hi-Powers under Nazi occupation. All wartime Hi-Powers that carries a Nazi proof (most common is an eagle over WAa140) were produced by forced labor and may not be up the standards of a commerially producted Hi-Power.
Click to expand...
Agree, but the Inglis was not made in Europe for the Germans occupation.

I’m referring to the statement generally that older steel would be inferior
 
Other than pre-1945 1911 slides not being heat treated, really don't know of many WWI or WWII firearms that have been deemed unsafe due to inferior steel. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to learn that the Brits still have some Inglis pistols in their inventory. In fact, the word is that the SAS used Hi-Powers until 2013 when they went to Glocks, but don't know if any of them were Inglis models.
 
"Low risk use" or not, I recently ran across and bought a little 'Kit' gun just like this one. Looks unfired, in the box with cleaning rod et al, owner's manual, and all original purchase papers from the original purchase. Neat little package going to some good nephew or other when time comes.
 
Recusant said:
Other than pre-1945 1911 slides not being heat treated, really don't know of many WWI or WWII firearms that have been deemed unsafe due to inferior steel. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to learn that the Brits still have some Inglis pistols in their inventory. In fact, the word is that the SAS used Hi-Powers until 2013 when they went to Glocks, but don't know if any of them were Inglis models.
Click to expand...
Pre serial number 800,000 (or so) Springfield 1903's had non-heat-treated receivers (or maybe bolts...or both) that are considered unsafe to shoot (or maybe better to say "risky.")
 
Jfal said:
Pre serial number 800,000 (or so) Springfield 1903's had non-heat-treated receivers (or maybe bolts...or both) that are considered unsafe to shoot (or maybe better to say "risky.")
Click to expand...

Only when firing higher pressure ammo than they were designed for, most of the 03 receiver failures were from people shooting non-06 ammo out of them, and Hatchers Notebook shows several examples of failed low number 03s that exploded because the guys shooting them tried firing 8mm Mauser ammo out of them.
And to further reinforce the point, the Marine Corps never retired their low numbered 03s until the type went out of service.
CTD and most other gun periodicals are long on opinion and cherry picking.
 
Snake45 said:
I've long been of the opinion that we get "imprinted" during adolescence with our preferences in cars, music, and women, and I guess for many of us, guns should be on that list. The vast majority of my guns are based on designs from the beginning of WWII to the end of the Vietnam War, and most of those were actually built during those years. I have two pre-WWII handguns (a Colt 1903 .32 and a S&W I-frame .32) and possibly two .22 rifles (depending on when the Winchester 69A was built). My "newest" handgun is a Smith 5906, which is based on the M59 of the mid-1970s, which was in turn based on the post-WWII Smith 39. My newest rifle is a Rhineland Arms R22 which is almost 20 years old now. Its styling is based on the HK 93, more or less, but it's actually built around a 10/22 bolt and magazine system and AR-15 FCG guts. I wouldn't trade any of my S&W revolvers for THREE of ANYTHING in their current catalog.

But that's just me, and I admit to being an Auld Phart. Now, get off my lawn! :oops:
Click to expand...
Love ya man👍. My first rifle was/is a 69 A bought used for $20 when I was 12 (1963) Lotta lawns and newspapers to get that old rifle. My Dad mounted an M1 leather sling on it and it’s still in that configuration today😊. My “new” guns are 1911’s😊
 
Shibadog said:
Love ya man👍. My first rifle was/is a 69 A bought used for $20 when I was 12 (1963) Lotta lawns and newspapers to get that old rifle. My Dad mounted an M1 leather sling on it and it’s still in that configuration today😊. My “new” guns are 1911’s😊
Click to expand...
Just for your nostalgia, here's my 69A before and after. When I bought it a small, out-of-the-way LGS around 2005, it had a crummy old vintage 3/4" scope on it. I replaced that with a 2x-7x AO scope, and then replaced the invisible old front sight with a nice classy ramp.

1710195150365.jpeg


1710195170133.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top