Modern Retro Guns? - Gun Hub
Gun Hub

Go Back   Gun Hub > Gun Hub Forum > Gun Talk

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-07-2016, 02:56 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Skeptic49's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Posts: 2,242
Modern Retro Guns?

I've been thinking, my Lady Wife insists I do it on the back porch because of the hot dust/burning insulation smell, and wonder if one of the smaller Mfgs could bring back some missed guns the major manufacturers have dropped?

The Ruger PC9 PC40 carbines come to mind, as do the Winchester M100 and the Ruger clone.

I have no idea of the cost effectiveness and I have visions of the tooling being purchased and shipped to Turkey or points east.

I note the Beretta M70s is selling for more than current equivalent models.

Geoff
Who looked at the PC9 P-95 combination, but wasn't really in the market at the time.
Skeptic49 is offline  
Old 11-07-2016, 12:00 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
CaptainGyro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Greater Waxhaw Metropolitan Area
Posts: 1,150
Back when Colt didn't seem interested in manufacturing the SAA anymore I decided to buy one of the USFA models. When I went to the website I found out that they'd gone under about a month before.

More recently, the latter-day crop of third party M1 Carbines doesn't seem to be setting the world on fire. I wonder what it is about resurrected guns that is so difficult to pull off.
CaptainGyro is offline  
Old 11-07-2016, 12:41 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Northern NV
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainGyro View Post
Back when Colt didn't seem interested in manufacturing the SAA anymore I decided to buy one of the USFA models. When I went to the website I found out that they'd gone under about a month before.

More recently, the latter-day crop of third party M1 Carbines doesn't seem to be setting the world on fire. I wonder what it is about resurrected guns that is so difficult to pull off.
I think on some level guns go away due to natural selection (although clearly not the case with the Peacemaker).
GunGeek is offline  
 
Old 11-07-2016, 03:07 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
TommyGunn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Morgan County, Alabama "In Dixie Land I'll take my stand."
Posts: 8,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainGyro View Post
Back when Colt didn't seem interested in manufacturing the SAA anymore I decided to buy one of the USFA models. When I went to the website I found out that they'd gone under about a month before.

More recently, the latter-day crop of third party M1 Carbines doesn't seem to be setting the world on fire. I wonder what it is about resurrected guns that is so difficult to pull off.

Apparently, in the case of the carbine, making them function as reliably as originals and consistantly throughout production has some bearing ...(from what I've heard)......
TommyGunn is online now  
Old 11-07-2016, 03:58 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Diamondback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Seattle area--Sodom & Gomorrah on Puget Sound
Posts: 1,774
I would suspect that the reason the 1911 and Carbine took their divergent paths was that the 1911 has been in continuous production, with the Army open-sourcing the blueprints and thus indirectly promoting its proliferation and the attendant growth of "tribal knowledge" while the Carbine quickly went out of production and didn't get a chance to see that knowledge base develop. (With sporting goods stores getting 'em by the barrelful, what was the market demand for new production?)

The root similarity is they're both the product of a time when machining was expensive and manual labor cheap, though the M1 is from a point closer to the flip between those.

Which also explains why domestic 1911s are so expensive relative to Tactical Tupperware: 1911s are hand-fitted and manual-labor intensive, while the Wunderneunen go together like a tactical Lego set.

Not claiming to be a gun expert, just a historian and particularly a student of manufacturing-technology history--we see something similar with the fact that we couldn't build an Iowa-class battleship again today if we HAD to because with the process being Classified, the men who alloyed and forged the STS steel used to make the hull armor took the secret to their graves.

Last edited by Diamondback; 11-07-2016 at 04:06 PM.
Diamondback is offline  
Old 11-07-2016, 06:30 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
WaltGraham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 3,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamondback View Post
...we couldn't build an Iowa-class battleship again today if we HAD to because with the process being Classified, the men who alloyed and forged the STS steel used to make the hull armor took the secret to their graves.
I suspect we could come up with a pretty good substitute.
WaltGraham is offline  
Old 11-07-2016, 06:30 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
bearcat6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,765
USFA made some fine SAA Armies, they were better than the Colts' for awhile. It's a shame they went out of the business. Here is one of my USFA SAAs, it's their repro of the US Artillery model.
bearcat6 is offline  
Old 11-08-2016, 10:26 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Northern NV
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamondback View Post
The root similarity is they're both the product of a time when machining was expensive and manual labor cheap, though the M1 is from a point closer to the flip between those.
I think we're seeing a return of the M1 Carbine now because manufacturing technology has arrived to a point where they can be made the right way (for the most part), in a cost effective manner once again.



As for the Iowa class battleship...It's a relic of the past; can't think of a reason they'd ever need to make another one. But you are correct in that sometimes we lose some manufacturing technologies forever. Look at Damascus barrels, although there have been some attempts at modern Damascus, there remains NO ONE in the world who can actually make a Damascus barrel like they did in the 19th century. Because no one can afford to make a barrel in that manner anymore. Sure it made for first rate barrels of a high metallurgical quality and a beauty second to none. But today we can create a barrel 50% stronger for 1/1000th the price; and that's pretty hard to ignore.
GunGeek is offline  
Reply

  Gun Hub > Gun Hub Forum > Gun Talk

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Retro Military Style Rifles GunGeek Gun Talk 18 11-03-2016 04:43 PM
Obama's Latest Move on Guns csmkersh Gun Rights 17 08-04-2016 11:59 PM
THE FINAL WORD on SHTF Guns shep854 Gun Talk 9 07-12-2016 05:10 PM
For Sale: Lot of guns for sale veus00 Guns 0 06-11-2016 01:32 PM




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2002 - 2017 Gun Hub. All rights reserved.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.