CZ 75 original

[Gunmaster45]

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

[Yournamehere]

Originally Posted by Gunmaster45

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

I hear that. If you want quality, a lot of the time you have to get an older version of the same product, which in the end will yield a smaller price, better quality, and overall better enthusiasm over your product. There are exceptions, but not a lot I can think of right now.

[Gunmaster45]

Yeah. Any gun today that can even come close to matching original quality is way too expensive. Now that Colt's back in business, they manufacture their guns with the same equipment they used to use, giving the guns original specification. Except in original specification, the SAA cost $20, not $1,020.

Hell, you could buy an original in good condition for that price.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Gunmaster45

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.