by GunsAmerica Actual on August 4, 2013 
Posted on 08/05/2013 12:02:43 PM PDT by sheikdetailfeather
KISSIMMEE, Fla. —
A gun manufacturer will soon be one step closer to opening a facility in central Florida.
Gov. Rick Scott announced in 2011 that top gun manufacturer Colt would open up a new plant in Kissimmee
(Excerpt) Read more at wftv.com ...
That is so sad when your own governor destroys an industry in his state for politics. Florida is a gun friendly state. We welcome anyone who wishes to escape from the progressive locusts who destroy everything. We prefer the progressives boycott Florida permanently.
I will do that and will also ping you and email you on FR. I follow Gov. Scott and other news sources on Twitter and am a news junky so I will know.
As Moses said to Pharoh, let my people go.
I highly doubt you’re going to see Colt come out with a revolver that has the fit, finish and workmanship of the golden era of the Pythons.
They’ve long since lost most of the people who could do that work.
Unless that “work” was done by hand, I’d venture to say that the latest machine tools can do pretty well.
Seems like all the newer car engines run 200,000 miles easy now.
While "some" credit for that goes to better machining technology, most of it is due to advances in materials (high-tech wear resistant coatings like titanium nitride, better metallurgy, and on and on).
I totally agree, and those same advances apply to firearm metallurgy!
Yes, that work was done by hand. Absolutely.
On the outside, there is the final fitting and polishing of the old Colts to achieve their vaunted (and well deserved) glorious finish. This was done by hand. There’s nothing that can replace the care and attention to detail at the corners and boundaries when polishing a firearm. You needed skilled people to perform the polishing prior to putting the gun into the blue tank. This was true of rifles, shotguns and semi-auto handguns as well, it isn’t an issue particular to the Colt revolver. The Pythons, however, were exceptionally well finished, and that’s part of their value and mystique.
This is why the large gun companies have duped gun buyers into thinking that parkerized or magnesium phosphate finishes on guns are “cool” or “better” than old fashioned blueing: Because the parking is cheaper, it hides a gun with horrible metal finishing and parking can be done by anyone with a knuckle-dragging IQ.
Now, internally: The final fit of the parts in a Python is not something that lends itself to mass manufacturing by machines. It can be done in a S&W revolver, but not a Colt. If you take apart a Colt revolver and a S&W revolver, you will immediately see the differences that lend the S&W design to mass manufacture and what stands in the way for the Colt.
In the Colt, everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) with regard to the timing of the lockwork, cylinder rotation and lock-up, is controlled by the rebound lever:
http://www.urban-armory.com/cart/blueprints/colt_python.gif
Look at park #44. What you don’t see is the multi-faceted boss on the other side of that part. There are facets on a raised boss on the right side of the rebound lever that control the timing of the gun. This is what made the Colts acquire a reputation for needing a Swiss watchmaker to work on them. For someone with careful attention to detail and a holistic understanding of the Python (and prior) Colt revolver function, it isn’t all that difficult, but it does take time. Colts also could be knocked out of time - eg, if you used the butt of a Python to hit something (like, oh, say, if you tried to use the butt as a bludgeon to pistol-whip someone), you could deform the shape/dimension of the grip, which would move the mounting point of the rebound lever, which could knock the gun out of time and out of action.
OK, that was one part of the final fitting by hand for a Colt. Another was getting the cylinder stop (aka “bolt”) to fit with absolutely minimum slop into the cuts in the cylinder. Colts, and especially Pythons, had a reputation as “locking like a bank vault” - whereas a S&W revolver will have a little wiggle here and there on the bolt, the goal of a Colt was to have none.
There’s a reason why Pythons commanded a premium when they were new, and why they command such a premium in the used gun market if they’re in 95%+ condition.
I know what CNC machines are capable of. I’ve run and programmed CNC machines. I’ve also been in and out of Colt revolvers like the Python, S&W and Rugers. They’re all good revolvers, but the Pythons, in new or like-new condition... were executed at a level of workmanship above the rest of the field.
Interesting stuff.
Like comparing Deusenbergs to Toyotas.
I’m just interested in functionality as opposed to cosmetics so I’m not too worried.
Not really. The firearms industry has largely ceased looking for new metallurgy. They’re content to run 4140 and 8620 alloy steel for frames, 4140-like steels for barrels, or 410, 416 or 420 stainless for stainless guns and call it pretty much done. S&W has played with these aluminum-scandium alloys for handgun frames, but I think the results will deter most others from following them down that road.
If you want to see advanced metallurgy on guns (with regard to strength/weight/etc), you’d need to look at the German gun trade, not the US gun trade.
If the US gun trade were not so lawyer-adverse, then you might see alloys like 4340 make it into use, but seeing as how lawyers make the use of anything new a legal liability, we probably won’t. 4140-like steels have a long track record in the US gun industry, and that’s where we’re likely to stay for a long time to come.
The functionality of the Python was that it had an exquisite trigger, the “bank vault” lock-up and impressive accuracy. It was, functionally, at the very top of the double action revolver field. Everything else was a step down from the level of performance of the Pythons. Due to the tighter chambers, the tighter cylinder-to-breech gap (half or less than that of S&W’s revolvers) and the clockwise rotation (which wants to rotate the cylinder into the frame, not out as on a S&W), they achieved a premium product in most all aspects.
Again, there’s a reason why they command such demand and value in the used gun market.
If all you want is functionality, then buy a Ruger GP-100. They’re cast, have an OK finish, and they work. But I doubt they’ll ever command a premium.
I remember reading many years ago that John Browning was really impressed with the workers at Colt, Winchester, FN etc.
The workers all liked him because he was a gun smith and like them worked with his hands.
While no one could equal Browning as an inventor of guns, Browning was impressed with the workers ability to produce finely finished pieces.
The workers at Colt and Winchester in the era from post-WWI to the 1950’s were at the very top of the game. Both of these companies turned out premium products as a regular catalog item.
That came to a close at Winchester in ‘64, and in Colt in the mid-80’s.
The knowledge to reproduce this level of work is not gone, but gun buyers won’t pay for it. Most gun buyers today have no appreciation (or knowledge) of the finest levels of gun making, and therefore no willingness to pay for it. Most guy buyers think that magnesium phosphate is a “good” firearms finish, because it’s “mil-spec.” What they don’t realize is that the military buys their material from the lowest bidder. Phosphate finishes came about because they’re cheap, not because they’re good.
As a result today, you see the level of fit and finish that used to be an “everyday” catalog item from US gun companies available only from custom gunsmiths/gunmakers. The “custom shops” of the big gun companies don’t even pretend to offer the level of product they used to carry in their catalog as an everyday item.
by GunsAmerica Actual on August 4, 2013
Around 1978 A distributor in Selma, Alabama got in a bunch of new in the cosmoline, unfired 98-09 Argentine Mausers. My particular one was actually made in 1909. It also came with the original test target.
It was manufactured by Deutsch Waffen und Munitionsfabriken, of Berlin, Germany. The workmanship was almost unbelievable. These guns were made by the million and they still somehow kept that standard of manufacture.
Around the same time, I knew a game warden who had bought a mint model 95 Mauser made by Ludwig Loewe, also of Berlin. His was every bit the equal of my model 98.
I think they could afford to hire enough craftsmen back then because wages were probably lower.
I lived their a fews years as a kid, we did try to peek thru the fence. probably a good thing we failed.
That was part of it.
And currencies had some real value to them too, so people were not getting screwed by their currencies being worthless against tangible goods.
Relative to salaries and wages of the day, those guns were pretty expensive. People back then simply weren’t going to shell out hard-earned money for crap. The companies marketed their products on the actual and reputed quality of their workmanship.
Today, marketing “geniuses” are forever busy inducing people to buy cheaply made crap that won’t last. If companies spent the money they spend marketing on actual product manufacturing and development, the customer wouldn’t have to be duped into buying a piece of crap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.