Does your current-production gun have markings this neat?

[TomTeriffic]

The number one deal-breaker on buying a gun for me is the lack of neatness and legibility in the markings. The very first thing I check on a gun that interests me is the markings. If I don't like the markings, I tell the gun clerk to put the thing right back in the showcase or on the rack. From about 1980 or so, markings on firearms have progressively gone downhill. You might have to pay $2K+ for a new gun with nice markings. When putting letters and numbers on guns, this is where gun makers often skimp the most. It is these superb old-school markings that I miss the most on new guns.

 

[HuntTalk Freak]

The number one deal breaker for me is wether or not the tool performs it’s job; killing either men or beast.

Firearms are not toys and I don’t treat them as such. Markings mean naught if the hammer can’t hammer nails.

 

[HandgunHunter]

 

[Jbaldwin40]

The number one deal breaker for me is wether or not the tool performs it’s job; killing either men or beast.

Firearms are not toys and I don’t treat them as such. Markings mean naught if the hammer can’t hammer nails.

Or extract rounds...common issue for the 788.

 

[Bambistew]

One of Remingtons first forays into cheap price points and your are enamored with the embossing? Hahaha

788s shot well but are as ugly as a Salvage.

 

[ImBillT]

Yes. Perhaps I’ll post pics when I get home.

 

[Farmerj]

One of Remingtons first forays into cheap price points and your are enamored with the embossing? Hahaha

788s shot well but are as ugly as a Salvage.

The 788 did itself in by embarrassing the rem 700 it wasn’t even supposed to be competing against.

 

[OntarioHunter]

I appreciate cosmetics but it's way down the deal breaker checklist for me. At the top is functionality: useful calibre, a practical smooth action, appropriate weight, perfect fit, and well balanced ... not necessarily in order of importance. I really could care less about the font the manufacturer uses to label its guns. Doesn't affect its ability to kill things. Note that sub MOA isn't anywhere on the list. MOA is good enough for the kind of hunting I do.

 

[TomTeriffic]

Or extract rounds...common issue for the 788.

You mean to tell me Remington spent all that money for such crisp letters on a gun that can't even extract spent shells?

 

[TomTeriffic]

I appreciate cosmetics but it's way down the deal breaker checklist for me. At the top is functionality: useful calibre, a practical smooth action, appropriate weight, perfect fit, and well balanced ... not necessarily in order of importance. I really could care less about the font the manufacturer uses to label its guns. Doesn't affect its ability to kill things. Note that sub MOA isn't anywhere on the list. MOA is good enough for the kind of hunting I do.

I was always under the impression that if craftsmen at Smith & Wesson, FN, Remington, Colt, Ithaca Gun, Savage, Husqvarna, Marlin, Beretta, etc. took the trouble to get the letters and numbers so pretty, they took the trouble to ensure the rest of the gun was well built as well. I cannot imagine perfect markings on an otherwise crappy gun.

 

[rtraverdavis]

I think the markings on mine are pretty good.

 

[Dsnow9]

I was always under the impression that if craftsmen at Smith & Wesson, FN, Remington, Colt, Ithaca Gun, Savage, Husqvarna, Marlin, Beretta, etc. took the trouble to get the letters and numbers so pretty, they took the trouble to ensure the rest of the gun was well built as well. I cannot imagine perfect markings on an otherwise crappy gun.

Strippers look good with a lot of makeup too! It’s what is on the inside that counts if you want it to last.

 

[Don Fischer]

I think cosmetic's are a bigger sales point than most realize but I don't own a rifle that doesn't have clear marking'son it. Why would anyone buy a gun withh markings they couldn't read? Why would a manufacturer bother to not mark a firearm clearly? I had to go in the bedroom and look at all my guns and every one is clearly marked!

 

[Beignet]

Figure OP would appreciate the clear markings and quality workmanship that have gone into this fine rifle. We call it the “Possum King.”

It had allegedly been run over, breaking off the original stock. Another stock got dremeled up and epoxied onto the back of it. It’s been outfitted with a top notch 4x K-Mart scope (only the best glass for me).

It’s my understanding that opossums have not yet made it to Montana. Me and this rifle aim to keep things that way.

 

[TomTeriffic]

I think cosmetic's are a bigger sales point than most realize but I don't own a rifle that doesn't have clear marking'son it. Why would anyone buy a gun withh markings they couldn't read? Why would a manufacturer bother to not mark a firearm clearly? I had to go in the bedroom and look at all my guns and every one is clearly marked!

It's true that many markings in gun metal can be read but how NEAT are they anyway? I don't like impressions of uneven depth, letters and numbers that are cockeyed or letters and numbers with rough edges. Some letters and numbers are not adequately spaced. I don't like letters and numbers that are too thin or too squatty. Take a look at that Remington Model 788 photo again. Notice the uniform depth and thickness of the characters. Notice sufficient character spacing. Notice how the edges of characters are not saw-tooth or rolled up along the edges like sea waves. The edges are flush with the metal surface. It may have been that the metal surface was machined AFTER the roll stamping was made. It may have also been that a machine engraving process was used. The Remington Arms factory employee who made that marking had pride in his workmanship and/or his boss was old-school tough. Manufacturing has largely gotten sloppy these days. It's due to loss of work ethic.

 

[Guest member 25165]

Neat markings are right above "it needs to come in an attractive cardboard box" on my list to look for.

 

[OntarioHunter]

Tom, the lettering of labels on most guns made today is not engraved. It's pressed in. Any lettering cut into the metal is done with computer guided machinery. In both cases the end result is bound to be more "perfect" than anything done by hand. Look at any newspaper or magazine from the 80s or earlier. They were printed with type set in blocks. No way could anyone print that neatly by hand. It would be essentially impossible to achieve that kind of uniformity in spacing, letter height, thickness, etc. The process of pressing letters into guns is pretty much the same. Computer engraving is even more precise. Take a look at computer cut checkering vs hand cut. It's silly to rate the quality of a gun based on impressed/cut engraving. It involves zero skill level.

 

[SaskHunter]

Neat markings are right above "it needs to come in an attractive cardboard box" on my list to look for.

If the company doesn't stamp their logo on the trigger lock it comes with, no thanks...

 

[Addicting]

This has got to be the dumbest series of threads in HT history.

 

[Don Fischer]

Nobody has mentioned checkering. Pressed lppks a bit shaby to me. maching is really to perfect if what your wanting is all hand done. Know how to tell the difference between machine checkering and hand? Pull the rifle up to your eye and machine checkering will be perfectly straight and hand checkering won't be. From other stuff I'm reading here, hand checkering is a flaw!