"They" is almost everybody. Most new developments are just updated copies of old designs, soulless polymer framed gun, copies of newer innovative ideas, or and AR

There is a lot of hype about old guns though. I mean a new sig/cz/Smith/beretta is going to be asolutely reliable. Id take a modern springer loaded as a defensive gun over any 1960s 1911s. Ill take the cz75 b over a pre b. But id also rather have a old school k frame smith over a modern one.

That can go either way, but more often than not it's usually the case. The only example where I can think of newer is better is the Mini-14, thicker barrels.

Depends on how old you mean. See below.

My 92FS Inox was made in '93, I'll take it over the newer ones with their plastic guide rods and shit ass warnings on the dust cover. Same with my SIG P220. I watched a video a few days ago where a guy had a older German made P226 and a newer American one. The German made had twice the number of rounds compared to the newer and had less finish wear on the barrel hood. Older autos are usually better fitted, because they had to be to work.

For a defensive gun a Springer Loaded is better than an unmodified 1960s 1911 (which is either going to be a well worn M1911A1 or Colt Government Commercial). I actually have a Springfield Loaded, I would take a 1960s Colt Commercial over it. You can always add better sights, checkering and whatever tactical bs on them which wasn't available back in the day.

Anyone know of any credible reviewers on the net? Most of what I see is incredibly biased

I usually just watch videos on youtube, while there are some that were given guns to test, Nutnfancy, hickok45 etc. (Most of hickok's guns are his own though) A lot on youtube show their own personal guns and will tell you if something was or goes wrong with them because they are not being paid. Nutnfancy does a thorough job on his gun reviews. But they are so long you can watch 5 other vids on the same gun he tested by the time you get through one of his vids. Then your getting 5 opinions vs 1.

Nutnfancy has different tastes in guns, hes into being all tactical. But he is unbiased and thorough, bit long winded though and cares too much about weight. Yeah, a 7lb rifle is easier to tote than a 12 pound one, but a 26 ounce handgun isnt vastly superior to a 28 ounce one base don weight alone....

Hickock45 is entertaining and a great shot, reviews are not thorough at all though....

Id say any new ruger is probably better than old besides their 22 pistols. The new 77s have lighter crisper triggers, the gp100 are now 9lb pulls instead of 14, the minis have heavier barrels and now ruger makes standard capacity magazines. The company is better, guns are better.

I think smith and wesson would dominate the market if they removed internal locks. People say they want old all forged smiths with deep blue steel and very nice wood grips and all the extra hand fitting. Problem is though, i think the same people would bitch about extra price and not buy it.....Taking out ILs would not affect price and would take some people off the fence.

While I agree with you that this is true more often than not, there are some exceptions. I think many of the AR-15s that are being made today are vastly superior to those made in the 1980s (and I'm not saying this because new ones come with accessory rails and other modern features). My uncle owns a 1980s-vintage Colt AR-15 A2, and I'd rather have my 2010-vintage DPMS Panther over his rifle any day. Unfortunately for him, he lives in New York, so he probably won't ever be able to buy a new AR again.

Gun tests does fair reviews but theres not many.

Buy factory mags, or Mec-Gar replacements (they make or have made a lot of factory magazines for gun manufacturers). Search around on the internet before you buy them too, a lot of gun sotres will charge almost right at MSRP for them which is nuts, and you can usually find good deals on places like GunBro... oh you meant reading material...

[/intentionallymisinterpretedforthelulz]