Do the old rifles shoot as well as the new ones?

[tazman]

There are lots of older rifles out there and I love them dearly. They are the ones I grew up with.
That said, I have to ask. Do they really shoot as well as rifles made with new techniques and machinery?

There have been many advances made in production capabilities. Better tooling and smoother finishes(I am thinking gun barrels here). Accuracy and what produces it, has been studied as thoroughly as anything these past few decades.
I would think the newer rifle barrels would be inherently more accurate.

Do the older rifles shoot as well/accurately as the new ones or is it just familiarity/nostalgia that makes them seem so good?

[Winger Ed.]

With a few exceptions:
I think the new ones level of accuracy is more consistent with the new age manufacturing methods.

In the old days, you could lay out a few rifles and pick the fit & finish on one you liked best.
Now, ya really can't tell the difference in ones of the same model.

Then & now, most guns were/are more accurate than those who fired them.
However; it's pretty rare now days that someone actually gets a 'lemon'.

[Nobade]

It very much depends on the individual rifle. Top notch stuff being made now is probably better than anything made in the past. Think those Vuduu actions, Bartlein barrels, etc. But the vast majority of rimfire rifles are made to a price point and really aren't very good. Compare that to rifles of the past and you'll see the same thing. Winchester 52s, Remington 37s, etc were some finely made guns. But the vast majority were pretty cheap and not designed for top accuracy. My old BRNO #4 is the most accurate rimfire rifle I have ever seen, made in 1958 and I'd put it up against anything made in normal production. But my Remington 40X, made in the 60's, is possibly the least accurate rimfire I have ever fired and they're supposed to be good. So it all comes down to individual specimens. But the potential for all out accuracy is probably better right now than it has ever been if you want to pursue that, but you won't be buying it off the shelf.

[kenton]

I don't have a large sample pool but it seems to me my cheaper old 22s (ranger 103, stevens semi auto, western field semi auto) shoot as well as my modern cheaper 22s. (stock 10/22, American Rimfires, Model 60) Granted I am a plinker, not a competitive shooter.

One thing I appreciate, as a plinker, is the longer barrels on older 22s seem better about shooting different brands of ammo to the same POI. It is nice to grab any box of ammo on my shelf and know I can hit an empty can without adjusting the sights

[chuck40219]

1963 Winchester 52D


Eley Edge, 50 yds., 10 shots


chuck40219

[StuBach]

I’m with the other fans of the 52 and other vintage specimens. Any gun can have a lemon rate but I’ve never seen a 52 shoot poorly and I have an original PRe-a from 1934, my brother has a 50s vintage B model, and I have a 1973 Olympic custom 52d with Freeland stock. All of them well outperform the shooters capability (even when the shooter is a competitive 4-position shooter).

I’d throw any of my original 52s against anything out there today and the 52D even competes well against my Anshutz (though there is no comparing against and Anshutz).

I also have two of the 52 sporter remakes (late nineties/early 2000s) from Miroku and they are amazing shooters that I would easily place in the “high tier modern” category and they perform nicely though not as well as an old bull barrel in my opinion.

Comparing to my Wife’s “high end” Savage Mark II Thumbhole with Leupold scope to my Winchester 52 with Lyman STS scope, I’d say I can be just as accurate with either but for me it’s easier to be accurate with the heavier older gun but newer gun is lighter and friendlier on fatigue level.

I also have some old cheap mossbergs that can shoot circles around modern guns if given the chance but they were decent specimens when acquired and were than “tuned” by me to be more accurate and smoother actions.

End result, modern or vintage, a good base gun can be made to perform as well as shooter but you have to start with a decent quality gun and might have to tweak some.

Just my 2cents.


Win 52 pre-a, win52d, Win 52 sporter remake, mossberg 146, browning 22a, mossberg 42b (old photo when this one was in process of rebuild hence zip ties and no fittings, shoots amazing now that it’s done).


Top: Win 52d (Olympic sights and x-tube installed), middle: Anshutz 1974 model 54, bottom Winchester 52 pre-a with Lyman STS installed. Also pictured is a Unertl scope for Anshutz and Lyman STS for 52D.

Hard to argue with the beauty of the classic bull barrel rifles. Modern laminate or synthetic stocks just can’t compare.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Some rifles have always been better than others. If they were good then, assuming proper maintenance, they're good now. But, there is no denying that they are making some very accurate rifles today.

[Petrol & Powder]

There have always been rifles that shoot exceptionally well, both old and new.
I believe what has changed is the ability to produce better affordable rifles.

While the highest quality may not have been affected, the common quality of lower cost rifles did improve.

A friend recently purchased a Savage bolt action rifle. It has a synthetic stock, stainless barrel & action, yada, yada, yada....
I wouldn't call it "cheap" but it was certainly less expensive than other options. It easily holds 1 M.O.A. groups with factory ammo and reloads.
Most 1990's vintage Remington 700 rifles were capable of excellent accuracy right out of the box. I wouldn't call them "high end" rifles but rather more "working man" guns.

There are lots of examples of affordable rifles that represent a good value.

While it was entirely possible to get an old rifle that was an excellent shooter, I don't think is was as common in years past to find most rifles to be excellent, "out of the box".

There was an entire gunsmithing industry that focused on improving factory rifles. There are still some accuracy gains to be had but for the most part, modern manufacturing has held the relative cost low while improving the accuracy across the entire line.

Innovations such as the Savage barrel nut system that allows the headspace to be quickly and precisely set during manufacture certainly help. Synthetic stocks with built in aluminum pillars and bedding blocks allow for rapid assembly and more weather resistant rifles that remain accurate. Hammer forged rifling allows far quicker (and therefore less costly) barrel rifling than cutting rifling by hand. Reducing cost where possible, such as plastic parts, metal stampings low cost castings allow more money to be directed at the important parts like barrels and actions while holding production cost down.

A better question for the OP would be, "have AFFORDABLE rifles become better"?

[Petrol & Powder]

While not a rifle, the Remington 870 was widely criticized as "that punch press" gun when it was introduced. I've read contemporary articles written in the early 1950's that were highly critical of Remington for making such a cheap shotgun. That model was in continous production from 1950 until Remington's current problems and they sold more than 11 million copies. They did something right !

Ruger took investment cast steel to a whole new level and made guns that were affordable and strong.

40 years ago if you wanted a highly accurate, custom 1911 - you needed the services of a good gunsmith and a lot of money. Now you can buy an excellent 1911 platform from one of a couple dozen manufacturers and get just about any feature you want, right out of the box.

There will always be Super High End Guns that require a second mortgage and El Cheapo junk guns. But the selection of the ones in the middle has dramatically improved over the years.

[poppy42]

Well Tazman, When you say old rifles I don’t know how old you mean. I for one would certainly take my Remington 700 that was manufactured back in the 80s over a new one! I guess it really depends on what rifle you’re talking about.

[country gent]

One area the old rifles are better is in the smoothness they operate at and triggers. Like the old revolvers. 50-75 years of wearing in from use really smooths them up a lot. But I believe the old rifles can be and are as accurate as the new ones. they difference is the old ones had a lot more hand work in them. Today that level of hand work would make them affordable to most.

[John Boy]

My leaning is the older single shots: JM Marlin Ballards, Wurffleins and Stevens 44's and 44 1/2's
The bullet counts too: have a custom David Mos mold, 40gr for the old UMC Target bullet with a fat ogive. Reloaded in either smokeless or black powder... have no complaints for accuracy out to 100 yds

[Harter66]

Live experience .
Savage 1949 325C 30-30 , 198? 340 D 222 , 1965 110LH 06' , 1986 110E 308 , 2017 Axis 223 .
Hate the plastic stock forend flex on the last , it's not too particular about loads , I did have to "fix" the head space right off .
The 65' was extremely fussy about cases .
The 308 was a garbage disposal of 2" or less without regard to what fell in the action .
The 340 was even less particular about ammo than the 308 , any 50 gr or less was a half inch within 1" of sight .
The 325 , and not for lack of trying , never shot a bad group with any bullet compatible with the 1-10 twist and only the 230 NOE wouldn't make a group under 1.5" . The 230 made oval holes at 6" @ 50 yd .

Rem 700 BDL 72' , 80' , 07' , 78' 760 , 1935 M14 .
The 72' was fussy and required hand loads to really shine . 25-06' generally MOA but best loads were truck hood rested were capable of 500 yd half gallon milk carton kills .
The 80' was never particularly fussy about ammo until the 2010 season , bum ammo lots with irregular brass capacity , it was only fed factory . MOA or less .
The 07' was a 2" rifle with enough slop to make Nina Hartley blush . 06'
The 760 was reamed with an 06' match reamer I think . Once I figured out a slide action hold groups came together but it was exhausting to shoot more than 20 rounds of anything and cast forced me to buy a 30 cal neck reamer which in hindsight should have been a turning tool .
The Model 14 32 Rem made very clear the phrase "long , gravely trigger" . Once I found OM 1960 factory ammo and got into it's preferred window and fixed the washboard road in the trigger group it was a great rifle probably not withstanding design complexity a better rifle than the 760 .

Marlins ......... I can't compare them within early vintage to late model really . 1895s 86 and 2010 . The JM was just over all more aesthetically fluid and had better wood fit than the first of the Remlins from Illion action , triggers were about equal , and the net accuracy was only bettered in the JM I think by the 24" vs 18" barrel on the 17' 1895 G .

There simply isn't any real comparison in the pistols that have past my way .
I really felt like that 74' Ruger SS Sec 6 had a pretty good trigger compared to the almost new 90s Smith Chiefs special and a Taurus 66 . That is until I shot a 1947 built 38 Special M10 just 1200 digits from a Victory . The nearly untouched 1917 , made in Aug of 1918 isn't even in the same league with those affore mentioned examples . The Sec 6 was probably the best shooter of lot but the 57-58' BlackHawk shamed it .
BlackHawks 57/8' and 76' are fine shooters but a little trigger heavy .

The end conclusions ?
There is simply no way to compare a hand fitted , polished , and lapped gun to a line production gun built from +0- bins .
Savages are as good now as they have ever been since WWII , you don't get pretty from a plow horse .
Rem fell short of their heritage 40 yr ago and will probably not survive .
Browning remains unchanged in shotguns in the last 70 years . Heritage guns in all truth are probably better than they have ever been but you have to pay for that .
Marlin was robbed , maybe Ruger can resurrect it .
Colts .........no comment
Winchester ........ Just old junk has come my way and in probably the most Unamerican statement in history the 94 just never had any appeal . They did get the fires put out from the 64&68' changes and are a fair example of adapting quality/price points .

[GBertolet]

When comparing old to new rifles in present day, you have to take in consideration the thousands of rounds fired in the old ones, before the comparison. The accuracy of the old ones will reflect that wear, vs newly manufactured.

[tazman]

Well Tazman, When you say old rifles I don’t know how old you mean. I for one would certainly take my Remington 700 that was manufactured back in the 80s over a new one! I guess it really depends on what rifle you’re talking about.

Fair question. I am just under 70 years old. That gives you an idea what was available when I was growing up and during the first years of my adulthood.
I would call an old gun one that was made before 1985. I owned and shot a large number of rifles before I turned 35.
Since this is the rimfire forum, the ones I referred to were the 22lr rifles from that era.
I have never handled one of the Winchester 52 rifles or any Anshutz at all.
Up to this point, I haven't been interested in achieving accuracy better than a squirrel's head at 50 yards. I am wondering which of the older rifles would do 1/2 inch or better at 50 yards consistently.
The older rifles I have, I love. They will do the squirrel's head but not a lot better. I never handles any of the older target rifles.

[Jack Stanley]

Here's an example for you . A Remington 700 "Police" rifle chambered in .308 that was a contract over run for the military . Shoots great sub MOA all the time if the operator is acting right . No issues at all ....... other than I sold it


A Remington "Police" rifle made for the commercial market several years later . Synthetic stock on it as opposed to walnut on the contract over run . It would shoot two different groups always high and low . Turns out it was rocking in it's bedding , only thing it had going for it was it was available with a left hand action .

Remington started going downhill just a few years after Marlin did . Maybe because of us cheap gun owners that wanted the lowest price possible ? Not to worry , there is a company that has been building factory assembled do-it-yourself guns and the company has quite a following . And we are still cheap , for the most part .

Jack

[ShooterAZ]

I have shot some very, very accurate 22LR's. The most consistently accurate (for me) have been the Kimber 82's, the CZ's and the Thompson Contender match barrels. I have one 14" Contender 22LR pistol barrel that will easily do under .5 MOA all day long at 50 yards with the ammo it prefers. In fact, it can outshoot many of my rifles from a sandbag rest. Old and new is subjective, but the Win52's seem to rule the roost (I wish I owned one).

[Stephen Cohen]

once read that shooting well is 85% mindset 10% skill and 5% equipment, I tend to believe there is much truth in this, we all shoot well with a firearm we love. I also believe that guns of yester year were built to a standard not a price, modern manufacturing methods should have given us guns that shoot one hole groups all the time, if that standard of yester year was still used. Just look at some of the groups that are shot with some old original sharps and such that have seen over a 100 years of use and abuse. I wil not be around to see it, but I wonder will our new age guns have the same said of them in a 100 years. I will continue to shoot my old Mausers and Sportco rifles to astound the young. Funny thing is all the new guns I have purchased over the last 30yr are modern copies of old guns this must account for something. Regards Stephen

[tazman]

I have shot some very, very accurate 22LR's. The most consistently accurate (for me) have been the Kimber 82's, the CZ's and the Thompson Contender match barrels. I have one 14" Contender 22LR pistol barrel that will easily do under .5 MOA all day long at 50 yards with the ammo it prefers. In fact, it can outshoot many of my rifles from a sandbag rest. Old and new is subjective, but the Win52's seem to rule the roost (I wish I owned one).

I had a Kimber 82G. It didn't shoot well at all. I have no idea what the trouble was. I tried lots of different ammo in it to no avail. My CZ 455 American would outshoot it easily. It got traded off.
Oddly, that was one of the few rifles I actually made money on when I sold it.
The older rimfire rifles I currently own are the Remington 510-512 series and a Winchester 72a I have owned since I was ten. While great hunting rifles, they can't compete with my new CZ457 MTR.
I would like to get my hands on a Winchester 52. Their reputation is outstanding. You just don't see them around here.
Back in the early 80s, I had a Weatherby Mark XXII that was made in Japan. It was superbly accurate. I would love to have it back to see how the accuracy compares to the rifles I have now. Unfortunately, life required that I sell it as well as some other guns I wish I had back.

[Bigslug]

Several ways you can look at this:

1. We are definitely CAPABLE of making a better rifle now. At least we are capable of doing it more easily. That said, I tend to think the only real competitive difference between the Winchester 52 and Remington 37's of old and the newer Olympic guns is the modern ability to adjust stocks to fit every quirk of the shooter. Perhaps the lock time of a modern Anschutz is faster, but from a solid rest or good slung prone, who would notice?

2. While modern manufacturing methods CAN make for a more accurate gun, we see plenty of use of those methods to make them CHEAP, not necessarily to make them BETTER.

3. Since we are talking rimfires here, we are not talking about a cartridge that imparts a lot of vibration to the system. While things like having all the surfaces squared and mating properly DO matter, they matter less than on say, a .308. If modern ammo is better, the old guns get that advantage as well as the new.

4. All a manufacturer has to do is make a rifle/ammo combination better than the human shooting it. As easy today as it was 70 years ago.