imfdb.org - CZ 75 original

imfdb.org (http://forum.imfdb.org/index.php)

- Just Guns (http://forum.imfdb.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - CZ 75 original (http://forum.imfdb.org/showthread.php?t=425)

I'm kind of intrigued by the new LCR they're selling. I want to check it out and see if it's any good. I like to be able to disassemble my guns to clean them, and the simpley built revolver seems good for this.

And 1847? Do you mean 1947 or has Colt been in limbo for 160 years?

No, I mean 1847. Colt's never been sold or went out of business, they also never kept up with the times. They gave up on commercial innovation in the70s, and decided to subsist on military contracts. And then the US military went to the Beretta, the Minimi and the MAG, and now the only military contract Colt has is for the M4 - even the M16A4 is made by FN-USA. They completely missed the wondernine craze (their only attempt was the Colt 2000, which was a disaster), and then stopped making double-action revolvers right when concealed carry took off and snubbies were suddenly relevant again.

Huh, I guess I understand...

The M16A4 is made by FN now? What the Hell?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunmaster45 (Post 5309)

It wouldn't surprise me that the first versions were the best. A designer makes the gun with excellent craftsmenship and the best steel he/she can, and then gives the design to a manufacturer. Eventually they get cheap, make it with not-as-good quality, use cheaper materials, and so on.

This has been happening for 100s of years. Look at the Winchester 1894. The guns built by Winchester before they closed sucked. The action is sloppy, and the gun isn't built very well. Back in 1894 when the Browning brothers built it, it was as smooth and well built as the 1892. They cheapened the 92 as well, but it still maintained a lot of its good traits.

Gun manufacturers tend to be greedy cheap bastards in the end. Just ask S&W, SIG, SIG-Sauer, Beretta, Colt, and all the other companies releasing uglier, lower quality guns for higher pay these days

There's a very simple reason for that...expanded sales volume. When a gun manufacturer wants to sell more weapons, they have to increase production. And that inevitably means cutting corners on production methods. Anyone who's a fan of a particular brand or type of weapon that's seen an increase in popularity will often lament that the newer production weapons are inferior to the old in some way. Personally, I'm not as big a fan of SIG's newer pistols (which are basically cheaply CNC-milled slides on poor quality stainless steel frames) as their older ones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace Oliveira (Post 5359)

The M16A4 is made by FN now? What the Hell?

FN has had the DoD contract to manufacture M16s for the U.S. military for many years now.

Yeah I just learned that a while ago too, if you go on the FN website it says that the M16A4 is one of their products.

GM, ive seen reviews on other forums, recoil is supposed to be surprisingly light (apaprently the polymer frame doesn't transfer recoil as much, and DA pull is about 8 pounds and real smooth. Test firing shows it doing good with 158s. Id love one some day, its also cheaper than the comparitive smith j frame lightweights,

I've seen a couple of reviews on YouTube on the LCR and it is apparently the shit. Accurate as hell for a snub nose. Plus it's really thin and a good option for carry if you carry a revolver. Compared to modern Smiths, its the better gun, no question.

Ruger also makes their guns with quality metals, stronger than many brands. I heard their triggers are improving a lot lately too.