How to value an Altered firearm.

Dpmsman

Active Member
Old revolvers just have a special place in my heart. Like you said they are quality all the way. New revolvers Just don’t measure up as far as fit and finish. More companies took pride in there work back then. Also I don’t think there was such a push to get product out the door. I suppose more product means more profit.
 

462

California's Central Coast Amid The Insanity
Profit is always the top priority for a company, otherwise it fails.

My opinion is, when you consider the total cost of overhead, that of labor at the turn of the last century was a smaller percentage than what it is today (e. g. paid vacations, socialist security, workman's comp, unions), and there weren't the myriad nonsensical laws and regulations that had to be complied with. And with less competition, a gun company could hire the very best workers, rather than just a warm body that could pass the mirror test.

The mud of trench warfare was the demise of the triple lock, not its cost of production nor frivolousness.
 

Dpmsman

Active Member
I am not talking about just triple lock I am in speaking about firearms in general. It seems to me like things really went downhill about 15 years ago as far as quality goes.
 

Brad

Benevolent Overlord and site owner
Staff member
Quality goes down largely because the consumer isn’t willing to pay for quality.
Marlin could high gloss blue their rifles and make the pars with no sharp edges and nicely finished but would people buy a 1200 dollar Marlin?

Quality costs money and most people won’t pay for it.
 

Ian

Notorious member
Some people will pay for top quality, but not enough to drive the market.

Quality of most things started going down hill a decade or more ago, partly driven by a sharp rise in cheap import products due to the new internet market....and cheap consumers. With the import tax finally being imposed on China, we're in a hurt currently, but will recover for the better I think as the market adjust to higher prices and USA/Mexico/Canada begin to restart their production machines and hire workers.
 

Dpmsman

Active Member
Quality goes down largely because the consumer isn’t willing to pay for quality.
Marlin could high gloss blue their rifles and make the pars with no sharp edges and nicely finished but would people buy a 1200 dollar Marlin?

Quality costs money and most people won’t pay for it.

You read my mind I was just about to write something along those lines. The blame ultimately lies with us the consumer. As they say the buck stops here! But there are things that ultimately contribute to the increased cost like 462 says with the extra costs of workers salaries vacations unions and such. But let’s not forget the CEOs as well. Those are the people that ultimately run the company. I don’t know what the CEO of Smith and Wesson makes but I can imagine it’s no small chunk of change. And I understand that profit is the ultimate goal. I run two small businesses granted not large but the same principles apply. It’s a real balancing act between time spent on quality and profitability. Quality goes down too far you get unhappy customers and ultimately no future jobs.Too much time spent on quality too costly no profit.
 

Charles Graff

Moderator Emeritus
It has been almost 20 years since I have bought a new firearm, so I can't speak to the quality of such guns. I was 22 years old, when Winchester did it's 1964 thing. I remember the almost universal howl and rending of garments that went up from the entire shooting community. What is or is not a high quality firearms often depends on your age and shooting history. In general the country has been going to hell in a hand basket, for as long as I have memory, or so it has been said.
 

Pistolero

Well-Known Member
Not all old guns were wonderful, but many were, no doubt. A recent acquisition of a 1922 era
S&W .44 Spl 6.5" 2nd Model HE (I believe) immediately started shooting fine groups with all that I tried. Exterior
is only fair-to-good, insides are minty. Grips are genuine old sambar stag with a lot of 'grip' wrinkles in them. Not
my favorite LOOK, but they sure do WORK well and are unlikely to be replaced with my near-standard S&W grips,
the Hogue Monogrips, which happen to fit my hand perfectly, even though they are pretty plain jane at
best for looks.

I have an old Colt Police Positive .38 Colt New Police (.38 S&W) and when I got it, it was a mess timing
wise, and end shake, and all jammed up. Once I got the timing right and the end shake eliminated, it
is a really great shooter, like 1.5" at 25 yds many times. Well worth the $100 I paid about 6 or 7 years ago,
with it locked up and unusable.

Each gun is it's own thing, I have seen some S&Ws from the 80s that were pure horrors of beautiful looking
junk. My newest 625, after a barrel reset is a tack driver, and I love the great easy-to-change front sight and
factory stock 1.5 lb single action pull. Old vs new, shiny vs worn???

All sorts of things set values on guns. Some must have shiny new, others want the latest style and features,
others looking for a certain nostalgia. Others want just performance.

Bill
 
Last edited:

CZ93X62

Official forum enigma
Good points, all around.

I have only held and never fired any Triple Lock. This example was inherited by a then-LT at my agency, one of few of admin rank that was also a very good man and a knowledgeable gun fancier. His example was at least 95%, all-OEM, 6.5" nickel. Exquisite.

I have a number of firearms made between 1897 and 1960. Their overall quality, fit, and finish give me great pleasure to own and to use. I also have a like number of arms made between 1960 and the present day. I enjoy them as well--or they don't last long around here.

Then there are the Glocks. The AR-15s. And the Ruger LCR. All were about as aesthetically-pleasing to my eye as a mud fence. It took actual usage and eventual enjoyment of these artless abominations to prompt a purchase on my part. So, there is no "requirement" that a firearm be nicely-proportioned or finely-executed artwork. But such arms ARE my first love, and are more likely to prompt a purchase than some plasticating beer-can alloy Buck Rogers afterthought.
 

RBHarter

West Central AR
On side arms .
I had several revolvers .
A 66 Taurus the fit and finish wasn't bad and it shot reasonably well .....as long as you didn't break into 357 loads ...... The trigger was ok too I guess .
Ruger Sec 6 .... By comparison it's built like a tank and was always tighter and felt generally more solid . It also would shoot 357 loads , so that was bonus points .
Then I got a 47' Smith M10 and all of the sudden the superior Ruger had a gritty 35# boat anchor in a gravel driveway trigger . The sharp edges bugged me on the Ruger too .......
Then came the 76' BH ODE TO JOY ! Or something like that. That was the best thing to come along 4# no creep a regular bank vault ....... Except that runaway base pin , thankfully it's captive .
Most recently the last of the S&W managed 1917s fell in my lap . The others simply aren't even in the same class . The pistol is as near as any can tell untouched , but , I'm almost certain it has had some work done or was never issued bought the day of it's release and basically lived in a shoe box in the closet for 70 years . It runs like greased glass . It's zero slop , 6 holes 1 diminsion , can't say that about a Ruger . The 40 yr between the 1917 and the M10 show about the same decline as the 30 years between the M10 and the 2 Rugers .

There isn't anything like a Model 12 Winchester . They were exactly the same from the beginning to the end in spite of 4 wars . The 1916 feels exactly like the 1940 , 1957 and 1968 . They don't clunk , rattle or slack . They're strong and they just have flowing lines . They were also all machined parts which is expensive and that's why they're gone .
I have an Ithica 37 infact 2 in 16 ga , they just don't compare to the "refined" BPS Browning . It's a polished copy and that's it . The BPS is simply better , it does have a couple of faults but it took me 10,000 rounds to find them and I should probably just sent it back and get it overhauled .

There are just guns that can't be compared to anything new . I'm actually kind of surprised that the 700 has lasted this long and that Mauser is actually selling $1200 brand new 98's .
The first Montana Rifleman rifles were nice , then great , then gone .....
Savage has done they're own thing , because it works in spite of how it looks , very successfully for 70 years this run in all honesty I don't see or feel the difference between the 1965 110LH and the 2016 Lefty Axis beyond finish and stocks .
No I don't think there's anything , maybe a 30s vintage K98 , that is close to what a low mileage 1950s M70 is . There's a new FN M70 but it's like $1400 . So much for the Rifleman's rifle .
 

Bret4207

At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
Beauty must be in the eye of the beholder. The few examples of the BPS I've held (never shot one) were clunky, heavy, oversized things with all the grace of a 10 foot treated 2x8 compared to my 16 ga Ithaca 37. The finsih was nicer on the Browning, but it hadn't been in a closet between hunting trips for 60 years. But you make some great points in spite of a minor disagreement, especially on Smith '17's.
 

RBHarter

West Central AR
Could be my BPS example . I have a 28" invector barrel for it but much much prefer the 26" fixed barrel . The variations in stocks is weird too mine is a near perfect fit for me but it has zero cast and compared to my buddies the wrist is really fat . I've worn most of the gold tone off the trigger and need to find a fore stock for it . One of the model 12s the 68' I think is only 28" it makes all the difference . Dad's 32" isn't going anywhere but it's not my favorite to shoot . It's probably the poly choke and the 16 ga barrel step that puts me off the Ithica .