SAAMI Is A Crock !

[Big Frank]

I said the material today is better. No question about it. However that doesn't mean what was used in the past was inferior.

If one is better how can the other one NOT be inferior?

[billt]

If one is better how can the other one NOT be inferior?

Now you're being silly. Look at all of the millions of older guns out there, that have been shot with nothing but hot ammo. Because that is all that was available for decades. Before SAAMI started watering down all of the standards. If these guns were all made from "inferior" materials, they all would have been blown up or damaged by now. That's hardly the case is it? Why would you describe something that works as designed for decades as, "Inferior"?

[billt]

1970's Smith & Wesson Model 29

1.) Beautiful hand polished Royal Blue finish.

2.) Crisp, smooth, hand fitted lock work and trigger assembly.

3.) Counterbored chambers that completely encase the cartridge heads. With no cartridge rims, or gap showing on the rear of the cylinder.

4.) Each one packaged in a beautifully crafted, blue velvet lined wooden case, complete with solid brass hinges and closing latches, with places for cleaning rod, bore brush, and mop. And a proper fitting screwdriver for the sights, with a nice machined Aluminum handle.

2017 Smith & Wesson Model 29

None of the above. And packed in a blow molded plastic box with a built in lock and key.

Now which, by your definition would you call, "inferior"?

[Big Frank]

Now you're being silly. Look at all of the millions of older guns out there, that have been shot with nothing but hot ammo. Because that is all that was available for decades. Before SAAMI started watering down all of the standards. If these guns were all made from "inferior" materials, they all would have been blown up or damaged by now. That's hardly the case is it? Why would you describe something that works as designed for decades as, "Inferior"?

I'm not being silly. Compare ANY 2 objects. If one object is superior to the other, then the other one has to be inferior to it. It doesn't get any more simple than that. They aren't equal if one is superior to the other, and one can't be both superior and inferior to the other in any particular way. They could each be superior to each other in different ways but when you name one particular category neither can be both superior and inferior in that way.

[Big Frank]

1970's Smith & Wesson Model 29

1.) Beautiful hand polished Royal Blue finish.

2.) Crisp, smooth, hand fitted lock work and trigger assembly.

3.) Counterbored chambers that completely encase the cartridge heads. With no cartridge rims, or gap showing on the rear of the cylinder.

4.) Each one packaged in a beautifully crafted, blue velvet lined wooden case, complete with solid brass hinges and closing latches, with places for cleaning rod, bore brush, and mop. And a proper fitting screwdriver for the sights, with a nice machined Aluminum handle.

2017 Smith & Wesson Model 29

None of the above. And packed in a blow molded plastic box with a built in lock and key.

Now which, by your definition would you call, "inferior"?

None of that has anything to do with which one has better metallurgy.

[Sponsor]

[billt]

None of that has anything to do with which one has better metallurgy.

What's the difference in metallurgy between a 70's S&W and today's? Be precise.

[Rastus]

Glad I've got my boots on for this pissin' contest.   

Angels fear to tread and all that.  So why am I going to post a comment?

Metallurgy may be better or worse for a given spec metal.  If the same ingredients are used I'm going to bet you'll get the same metal...be it now or 100 years ago.  The precision of measurement probably isn't any better now than 100 years ago and the foundry procedures are much the same. 

There may be better castings in the investment process because of the materials available today...so long as everything else is held to standard. So now we are talking about the "illusion" of quality.  Castings reduce machining processes (as opposed to working from say bar stock).  Is a casting better or worse than machining from bar stock of the same metal?  I'd say it is the same unless the bar stock was hammered...and who knows if it is/was?

The quality control procedures may be better now but there is not guarantee they are properly applied today or yesterday.  What is better is the ability to detect imperfections in metal that are not on the surface.  I don't know if that is done on a casting or bar stock...and I doubt they do that on bar stock if it's going to be hammered (improved).

Precise temperature control is better now with the advance in electronics and sensors.  This may gain significant quality.  If you have a casting a big gain in quality is possible.

Casting small parts I don't like.  I think machined is better.  What are the parts in today's guns???  But then again, some castings are better than machined parts (can't remember where I saw that on a particular gun but the article was pretty thorough and had references).

Is Tupperware better than steel?  Maybe.  Depends on the application.  Better how?  In actual use is it better or better to admire?  I'd rather carry and use my lighter Tupperware than steel guns but I love my CZ 75's...go figure.  I want to carry those CZ's and sometimes I do...but more like a "barbeque gun" to show and talk about rather than everyday carry.  Exception is my PO-1 CZ which I like when shooting a competition over 150 rounds because it's weight absorbs recoil and helps me towards the end of round keep the shots where they need to go and not left and down.

I think there is some art vs. purpose considerations.  Hand fitted and counterboring is great but comes at a price.  If the castings or machine parts are good enough to escape the hand fitting is hand fitting really better than just slapping the parts together....you gotta wonder if a design or parts at the end of the manufacturing process require hand fitting is the overall quality really there if hand fitting is required?

Is the metallurgy better today?  If you are talking about the actual foundry process maybe not...on selection of a particular metallurgy it can go either way (save a buck or improve the performance).

Shoot, I can't remember where I was wandering with this and I'm too lazy to read what I typed already to know which way to go.  So why do I carry the "low quality" Ruger SR-9 that has never failed to fire in several thousand rounds with the excellent trigger (thanks to $20 Ghost connector upgrade) over the "obviously" higher quality and much higher priced CZ's and 1911's (and the 1911's have FTF quite a few times on a lower round count despite some hand fitting by a gunsmith).

Going to SAAMI...it was likely based on observed performance using the tools available at the time.  I am betting the SAAMI specs were influenced the same way engineering specs were influenced in the past.  The lack of having sensitive and repeatable tools caused the spec to have a much larger safety factor in the past than it may have today. 

[billt]

I agree that the processes are much more improved than the actual material. Just as heat treating has, along with surface hardening and corrosion treatments such as Tennifer and the like. Even if the material itself has seen minor improvement. We really don't know without examining the technical specifications. Ruger has proven this by how far they have taken vacuum investment casting. Their Model 77, Mini 14, and #1 falling block actions are some of the strongest on the market. Yet they are all investment cast.

As far as SAAMI, I think fear of the legal community, along with their actions have influenced chamber pressures today, far more than improved test equipment has. As I said, if the pressures were too high, we would have had evidence of that by disintegrating weapons. Regardless of the equipment they used to test it. That never happened. And because we don't know the exact chemical compositions of the materials used now, as opposed to then, we can only speculate on the material being "better".

[Timothy]

I read material specs and test reports every day of my workweek.

Today's alloy metals have very precise percentages of base chemical contents, tensile strength, hardness, etc. and our ability to measure those percentages is lightyears ahead of 19th and 20th century metallurgy.  That said, you may infer that today's guns quality is superior to 100 years ago.

Now, continue to piss away! 

[billt]

While mechanical machining methods have improved. Such as the repetitive accuracy of today's modern CNC Machining Centers, and newer coated high speed tooling. The hands on skill level has sadly deteriorated. It's why many of the finer guns of the 70's can no longer be manufactured. Let alone made at a profit. Guns like the Colt Python, which featured hand stoned and fitted lock work, could not be made today in mass quantity.

Back then the people who assembled these guns were on an almost gunsmith level of talent. Today that is not the case. If you look at Remington and Marlin, along with others, the quality level has gone way down. For example, I was all set to purchase a Remington 572 Speedmaster Pump .22...... Until I read on several sites that the new models are plagued with feeding and operational issues.

This should not be the case with any new firearm...... Let alone a $700.00+ premium .22 rifle. On most every thread on these guns people all say, "Look for a good used one. Don't buy new!" That's just crazy... But it's a sad fact. So instead I'm looking at a Browning BL-22 Grade II. It's in the same price range, but they run flawlessly. So it really doesn't matter what the level of metallurgy is that the new Remington 572 contains..... If the damn thing won't even run right after you take it out of the box. Again, which one is "inferior"? When it comes to gun making, there's a lot more in play that matters far more, than what's in the bar of material they start out with.