Thread: Comparing the old with the new.

I think part of is that modern rifles use more stamped and cast parts (not to mention plastic), whereas almost everything on the old guns is machined. Everything just gives the aura of quality as the whole part is machined and finished to the same high standard. Old trigger guard? Machined from solid. New trigger guard? Plastic, or if an expensive gun, cast or maybe stamped.
A cast part for example, often would only be machined on the surfaces that actually matter, leaving mold lines and comparatively poor finish on the rest of the part. A stamped part may have no real finishing done to it.
I think the finish on the old guns is often better than what's seen on modern guns. Bluing is deeper and more lustrous, finishes in general are smoother and more precise, especially the surfaces that don't really matter for function.

The old guns kind of remind me of an old manual sewing machine, they are smooth due to their precision and pride in manufacture. Things that didn't really need to be done to a high standard, were still done to a high standard.
Whereas IMO new guns are often smooth due to modern design and a lack of general tight tolerances, and only have tight tolerances in only the places that are absolutely required for good operation, as opposed to the old stuff being smooth due to tighter tolerances and more care in the manufacturer and finishing on all parts.

That old M55 for example, it just feels like a much better made mechanical object than a modern tikka or other modern gun. Like a really nice fine tooth ratchet vs a clunker with massive teeth.