I have a love of old things, both for class, aesthetics, and also for function. Preferring function to everything else, I'll side with the newer is better in terms of manufacturing, but not always in every other term.
My favorite S&W is my 29-2 that I acquired almost unshot. Of all of my pistols, it is by far the smoothest trigger, and my finest handgun, and in top running of terms of quality of all my guns. I take great pride in the revolver, and comparing it to my other S&W's, I've drawn a few conclusions: The old bluing is nicer looking, but, in my experience, more apt to wear off and has had a few minor rust issues from being carried in the field and camping. The external hammer on my 29 and 10-8, in my opinion, can basically take the internal hammer, put its open mouth on the curb, and stomp its head in, with the older hammer/trigger being much smoother, and the newer one being good, but no where near as good as the old system. To be honest, when people here say "hold one of each, new and old, in both hands", they are right, there is something about the older pistols that feels "right".
That being said, I bought two N frames this year. Being a love of old things, and loving blue carbon steel, I first purchased a new in box old stock 22-4 1917. Why didn't I buy an old original? Because the quality of steel in the newer pistols is far, far, far stronger, besides getting a brand new gun all to myself. The fact that has been mentioned before in this thread, about being able to run hotter ammunition, played a very large role in the decision. No, I don't have an old collector's pistol, no I don't have a war time pistol, but I like the 1917, so I bought the best quality 1917 there is to have. Flat out, I admitted, when the choices were available, to purchase the new over old.
When I mulled over the 27, I thought long and hard. Loving my 29-2, and preferring the external hammer of it, and that of my 10-8 over my internal hammer 10-11, I thought very hard about buying a good old one. However, the factor of owning a brand new gun, all to myself, played a large role, I realized that my 1917 was a new made classic, worked very well, and that the terrible hammer I hated so much was probably worth the gains in newer manufacturing processes, and possibly better iron. Again, as a person who loves old things, I chose the newer version of the older gun.
Is the theory that manufacturers might send a poorly assembled weapon out of the factory over their own theories of cost effectiveness of better assembly vs. returned guns being worked on, I think I believe it in many cases. I bought a Thompson TM1, brand new from Auto Ordnance, and the gun was virtually unworkable out of the box. After sending it back, I looked into other Thompson owners and shooters, and found that it is the norm, not the exception. Auto Ordnance builds the guns with the original, worn out equipment, than simply assembles them, and throws them out the door. My guess being that they expect most people to buy them for show, to be "cool", that most will never be fired, but instead put on walls and in gun cabinets, and that it was cheaper to assemble them poorly, and reasoned that it was cheaper to have the in house gunsmiths only work on the rifles from the handful of customers who actually wanted a working gun. Of course, after their smiths worked on it, it runs like a clock. But the experience taught me something.
As far as cars go, I drive a 79 Mark V Continental. Are newer cars more reliable? Yes. Do they ride nearly as nice as my old boat? Absolutely, positively, without a question, no way at all. Are new cars as tough, or as cheap to fix? No. Is my old car more aesthetically pleasing? Hard to find people that would disagree with that subjective statement. Is it classier? Well, let's not even put that up to debate. If they made a fuel injected, higher quality, brand new version of the old boats, I would actually considering buying a new car, because I prefer the better quality product. Problem is, they don't. Are newer cars better? They may be of better manufacturing quality, but they sure as hell don't make them like they used to.
Long story short, I wear wool jackets and old clothes, both because they look nicer, and are warmer and thinner than new synthetic and cheap cotton. I shoot carbon steel, blue iron S&W's, both because I like a very heavy pistol for shooting, and they look nice. I bought a Tommy gun, both because it is a great looking conversation piece, but also because it is a very solid, very heavy .45 carbine for plinking and small game. I drive an old Lincoln, not just because I like the old style, but because they don't make a car that even comes close to the ride quality of those older cars. In short, I like old things, not because they are old, but because they are old school. I won't criticize the methods to make them better, I just hope they don't lose sight of where the older things had their qualities and purpose.
And you can run a higher rated oil in your car and stay under warranty but not one lower rated.
