What does FIT and FINISH mean to you

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

The thread about MODEL 92'S got me to thinking about this. It appears that it means different things to different folks.

What's your view on this?

[horsesoldier03]

All of my guns are basic run of the mill firearms that are purchased as is over the counter from local sporting goods stores or local pawn shops. None in my opinion have the attention to detail that makes a rifle a true work of art. However, all are suitable for use and are very functional. Proper fit and finish to me, means CUSTOM. I expect every gun to have fairly close tolorances especially when you consider that they are computer machined these days. HOPEFULLY ONE DAY I WILL BE ABLE TO AFFORD A TRUE WORK OF ART!!!

[Buffboy]

Steve, I guess my estimation is lower than most. There are some that would think my 1876 Chaparral is not finished very well compared to the originals, but I think it finished very well for a mass produced rifle. I could not have afforded a Chaparral finished to the standards of an original.

All in all, it's in how much you pay for it. A perfectly inletted stock is a wonderful thing but mass production will never equal the hand fitting that the antique rifles had. On the other hand, if you figure inflation into those firearms, they were hideously expensive compared to todays rifles. A $20 rifle in 1876 is(IMO) the probable equivalent of $3K+ today. Mass production has actually lowered the price of a new gun substantially compared to back then, when you compare to the wages earned by the "everyman" of today. I've shot/handled $50k+ shotguns(not mine), in fact, I guided for a guy that builds custom rifles and shotguns. His prices START at $40k for a gun, IF you can get him to do it, and that's before any engraving. His engraving and inlaying skills are stunning. He doesn't lack for work and he's been at it now for 50+ years. They are a joy to see and the fitting is awe inspiring, absolutely perfect. The ones I've seen are truly artistic works. He is now semi-retired, and quite well off. Those kinds of skills(or those that approach them) are gone for the mass produced gun of today.

[Jaguarundi]

Proper fit and finish to me, means CUSTOM. I expect every gun to have fairly close tolorances especially when you consider that they are computer machined these days.!!

+1

[Hagler]

Steve,

I guess "fit & finish" encompasses appearance & function. Usually, if a gun looks sloppy, with outwardly ill-fitting parts, then I say that "fit & finish" are poor. Until I can open up a gun, all that I can do is judge fit & finish by external apperances.

If fit & finish, externally, affects how I hold a gun, or cycle its action, or causes me to carry it differently than I normally would, then "fit & finish" is difinately connected to how a gun feels.

Now "fit & finish" of the internal parts most assureadly causes function & feel to be a certain way. While we can say that the action of that particular gun feels a certain way, we cannot know, directly, if its internal fit & finish (tollerances, machining lines, polished wear & bearing surfaces) are good, without taking apart that gun. We often look at the internal fit & finish by how smooth the action is, and how well it feeds ammo.

Shawn

[adirondakjack]

Howdy Steve,
Sadly it HAS come to mean custom or at least slicked up. Gone are the days of the highly skilled machinists who worked (often 60+ hrs a week) with deft hands to make things "nice" before they left the factory.

I marvel at my little, well worn S&W top break, circa 1882, because the grips fit PERFECTLY (they'd stay on if the screws fell out) and the side plate would hold water (you can't feel the seam).

BUT, though modern CNC means methods have done away with such fitting, we routinely get barrels that shoot better than used to be expected, and so on.

But it does sadden me when my Ruger SA revolvers have grip frames proud of the main frame, or my Marlin rifle's bolts are proud of the reciever by maybe .020. The fit and finish is not there, even though mechanically they are good "machines" that work very well.

[TedH]

I used to have an idea of what I thought was nice fit and finish. That was all changed when I got my Krieghoff double rifle. That rifle is truly a work of art, in form and function. All my other previously owned firearms are run of the mill mass produced pieces. I thought some of them were very well fit until they were compared to the Krieghoff. But most of the mass produced guns are pretty darn good these days considering the speed that they are made and what they cost.

[.45colt]

I have bought and sold alot of guns over the years,none of the real expensive ones though. The stand-out ones are the Uberti '73 I have and some of the guns I looked at when I visited Turnbull restoration. Jim.

[Swampman]

There should be no gaps between wood and metal. They should flow as one piece. The wood finish should be smooth as silk, and the metal should look like a pool of oil.

Nearly all fall short of the mark. I'm a hunter. Good enough, is good enough.

[homefront]

I thought this was about women....

[4t5]

To me it means that WOOD TO METAL FIT is even all the way around,( please note I said EVEN not TIGHT)I have seen some tangs fitted as though the stock would split upon firing, and buttplates fitted close on one side and on the other someone must have said "times up".
METAL TO METAL fit should also be even.Loading gates for instance, should have an even gap all the way around, barrels should be on so that the front sight is plumb and square( fixed sight six guns not included)and only fixed sight, ones with adj, sight should never display that.
BASICALLY I WANT TO GET WHAT I PAY FOR! IF I PAY $1000 IT SHOULD LOOK AND FEEL LIKE A $1000 VAULE,LIKEWISE WITH A $400 GUN,
BOTH SHOULD EXIBIT A LEVEL OF CONSTRUCTION EQUAL TO ITS PRICE.
MACHINE MARKS LEFT ON THE OUTSIDE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE ON EITHER.

[Leverdude]

For me Fit & Finnish are seperate things.
When I speak of "fit" unless I say otherwise I'm talking about wood to metal fit.
When I speak of finish 90% of the time I'm refering to metal finish, depth of blue, polish, things like that.
In regards to which guns today are the most consistantly well fit & finished I'm not a real good guy to ask. My experiences with new guns is limited but of the guns I'v bought or considered I have to say that Miroku are the best.
I have a BLR that some find Fugly but it cant be because of fit & finish IMO.
I'v got Marlins that people think are gorgeous that I find inferior to the Browning in many way. Theyre as good or better than most off the shelf guns, but there are flaws left unadressed. But they dont start at $900 either.

To get a sweet fit & finish on run of the mill guns I dont think they could sell for under $500.

[RKrodle]

Freedom Arms .

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Nate

I have not been inside nearly as many guns as you have, but to me there are two entirely different components to fit and finish.

The first component is the easy stuff, the cosmetics than are visible from the outside. How well does the wood fit the metal, how well polished is the metal, are there any machining marks left on the exterior of the gun, have any of the holes been dished out, stuff like that.

To me, the second component of fit and finish is far more important than the cosmetics on the outside. How well do the moving parts inside the gun fit each other and how well have they been smoothed. This is where the pedal hits the metal. Making a gun pretty on the outside is fairly simple, it just takes a skilled hand at the polishing wheel. But on the inside, if the parts are rough, poorly machined, poorly deburred, or poorly fitted, the gun will not function properly as it was designed.

I know you agree with me on this, we have chatted about it many times on other forums. Poor internal fit is the reason so many modern guns have springs that are stronger than necessary, to overcome internal friction that should not have left the factory in the first place. This particularly prevalent with the Italian imports, manufactured by keeping the CNC equipment humming along as fast as possible to grind out the most parts in a day that are possible. The unfortunate side effect of this is parts with rough finishes and lots of burrs. Every one of these guns that I have encountered has benefitted from some judicious smoothing of wear surfaces, and removing burrs saves me from needing a box of bandaides every time I go inside one of my guns.

I had a revolver at one point made by one of the importers who claimed to spend extra time on the fit and finish of their guns, and they charged extra money for that claim to boot. Yes, it was beautiful to behold on the outside, but it had the worst trigger pull of any revolver I have ever owned. Come to open it up and it had some of the roughest parts I have ever seen. So much for the beautiful fit and finish on the outside. Both my Uberti Henry and my Uberti 1873 were also beautiful to behold on the outside, but both were rough as a cob inside and needed some smoothing up to make them operate as they should, without Mack truck leaf springs for main springs.

AJ, I completely agree with you on the quality of the old Smith & Wessons. Although it is a bit off topic, these photos show the different qualities of machining inside S&W double action revolvers from various time periods. Even though these are modern revolvers, there are lessons to be learned here about lever guns too. This first shot is of the inside of the frame of an M&P made around 1907. This Smith was made long before CNC equipment existed, it was made on a pattern following miller. The jewel like appearance of the metal surfaces is due mostly to the skill of the operator.



Here is a photo of the inside of a K-38 made around 1948. Notice the digs and rough toolmarks left behind on the surface. This frame was probably milled on the same type of equipment the earlier one was. The difference is in the operator's skill.



This is the frame of a K-22 manufactured around 1975. This one was cut by CNC. Notice the precise toolpaths, and how all the toolmarks overlap by the same amount. This is typical of CNC machining.



Most of the Italian import rifles that I've been inside more closely resemble the rough machining of the middle photo. The difference is, the Smith is purposely designed so that no moving parts other than the rebound slide bear against the rough machining. All the other parts bear against the slightly raised surfaces of the bushings around the pins. So other than being ugly, sloppy machining in a Smith does not matter so much. This is not true of lever guns, the parts rub and wear directly against the machined surfaces of the frame. And most of the moving parts have some pretty rough surfaces too. Same with Italian revolvers, although that is off topic to this discussion. Most of the machining inside Winchesters and Marlins made 100 years ago closely resembles the machining in the first photo.

The reason for all this is simple. Money. In the old days, before CNC, gun parts were made purposely slightly oversized. Then skilled assemblers would carefully fit them by hand so the parts fit properly together with the absolute minimum of friction. Modern parts made by CNC are cut precisely to finished dimensions, with almost no hand fitting required. The cost savings are obvious. The problem is, because the machines are running at such high feed rates, the parts usually have rough surfaces finishes, with lots of tooling marks. Then the parts are popped directly from the machines into finished guns with almost no hand fitting at all. So the parts have extra friction built in to them from the start.

I'm not kidding myself that gun makers could go back to the old ways. Those old time skilled assemblers did not make very much money. If the gun makers began producing guns the 'old fashioned' way, we would not want to pay the extra cost at today's labor rates. What the gunmakers could do is slow down the CNC machines. This would automatically increase the quality of the finish on all the parts. But less parts would be made in a day, and the price would still go up accordingly.

[Grizz]

Easy, my 100++ year old Mauser 98. That's fit AND finish. The stock is detailed better than the metal on some modern guns.

There are not a lot of guns that I pick up that I can honestly say have better fit and finish than the old '98. It's my benchmark.

I'm sure the same can be said of a 100++ year old Browning or Winchester too, I just don't have one for comparison.

[86er]

I'm probably a lot more picky than most since my trade is as a gunmaker. I expect wood to metal fit to be flawless. There should be a faint line with no gaps. The surface should be smooth and even. There should not be any tool marks on the exterior of the gun. The blackening or bluing should be smooth and free of waves or lines (meaning the barrels under the color were not polished properly). The wood finish and all metal should be free of blemishes, including little pock marks, bubbles, nicks, etc. The gun should have been tested and perfected so it functions smoothly without drag on any parts. The execution of each part and function should work and be in sync with everything else. All the screws should be parallel to the bore and flush with the surface around them.

This all requires hand work and two sets of eyes for QC. That costs money.

When I work on a Purdey that cost upwards of $80,000 new, anything less is a disgrace to the individual gun and the company name. My own guns bear my name and the knowledge instilled by the best gunmakers in England. I cannot afford to be less than perfect and those price tags are a fraction of the "big names" at between $5000 and $20,000

Most of my own guns that are store bought have been tweaked so they fall into the definitions outlined above. Sometimes it is impossible to make an ill fit and finish into perfection. I can live with that on a low priced working gun. Ask anyone that has seen my Miroku 1886. It is nearly perfect in fit and finish. I was close when I got it and I spent a lot of time making it just right.

I think this is a matter of "you get what you pay for". It is also an individual discretion of need and want. My Savage 99 is one of my favorite rifles. It came to me used. It is not perfect but I respect the gun for what it is and have no desire to change it. On the other hand, I just got an Icon to present as a gift. I wouldn't give it until I re-fit the butt pad so there was no visible gap between the wood, and I re-cut two lines of checkering that were flat. The wood was proud on one edge of the floorplate. I brought that down even and refinished it to match perfectly. That Icon is $900 and mostly machine made. I didn't expect it to be perfect and I accepted the fit and finish it came with. I happed to be able to touch up the few flaws it had.

So, my expectation of fit and finish fluctuates with the price of the gun. My desire for fit and finish is sometimes pacified by touching up the way the gun left the factory to suit my own eyes.

[RKrodle]

I can testify to 86er's 86. It is one sweet rifle.

[marlinman93]

When I hear the term fit and finish, I always think of the wood to metal fit, the finish of the metal, and finally the internal finish, which means is it smooth and functions flawlessly.
If a gun doesn't function well, the appearance doesn't mean as much. Ideally the gun's metal to wood fit is flawless, and wood is neither higher or lower than adjacent metal. Perfect wood to metal fit means you wont feel the transition between wood and metal; all you'll feel is the warm wood and cold steel as you slide your hands across the gun's surfaces.
Wood and metal finish depends on the gun. I wouldn't want an old Winchester or Marlin to have that high gloss finish that early S&W revolvers had, as it would look weird. A gun's wood and metal finish should reflect that type of gun.
As for the action (beyond accuracy) I want it to be buttery smooth. I think this is part of what I'd call mechanical fit and finish, and just as important as external fit and finish.

[Mike Hunter]

Good Fit & Finish vs poor fit & finish, hard for me to decribe in detail...But I know it when I see it.

Mike

[Noah Zark]

Fit and finish? Can't describe it, but I know it when I see it.

EDIT TO ADD: Dang, Mike beat me to it.

Noah

[gon2shoot]

For me, fit and finish is just that.
Wood to metal, or metal to metal fit. Finish, I look at quality, and what I feel compliments the gun.

Probably the best I've had in years is the B92 Centenial.

That being said, I don't buy guns to dance with, I buyem to shoot.
If they feel good & shoot good, I'm happy.

[Pete44ru]

Joe & Vall took the words right out of my mouth.

These, however, are IDEALS, what I look at/for, and not the norm of what I find.
Sometimes, though, I get lucky - and find one that can be easily brought up to these standards.

"I expect wood to metal fit to be flawless. There should be a faint line with no gaps. The surface should be smooth and even. There should not be any tool marks on the exterior of the gun. The blackening or bluing should be smooth and free of waves or lines (meaning the barrels under the color were not polished properly). The wood finish and all metal should be free of blemishes, including little pock marks, bubbles, nicks, etc. The gun should have been tested and perfected so it functions smoothly without drag on any parts. The execution of each part and function should work and be in sync with everything else. All the screws should be parallel to the bore and flush with the surface around them."

"Ideally the gun's metal to wood fit is flawless, and wood is neither higher or lower than adjacent metal. Perfect wood to metal fit means you won't feel the transition between wood and metal; all you'll feel is the warm wood and cold steel as you slide your hands across the gun's surfaces.
Wood and metal finish depends on the gun. I wouldn't want an old Winchester or Marlin to have that high gloss finish that early S&W revolvers had, as it would look weird. A gun's wood and metal finish should reflect that type of gun.
As for the action (beyond accuracy) I want it to be buttery smooth. I think this is part of what I'd call mechanical fit and finish, and just as important as external fit and finish."

[Peter M. Eick]

The posts above about the S&W 5 screw revolvers took away my thunder so I will focus on my 210's.

The fit and finish of my Sig 210's is flawless. There is no over polishing, no missed checking or cuts, no toolmarks, no gaps in the metal to metal fit etc. The inside of the slide of my Sig 210-5 is better finished then the outside of my Baer PII. There is no slop in the system and it is exceptionally smooth when you move the slide back and forth. Even dry with no oil, the fit is exceptional.

[SmokeEater2]

To me it's the wood to metal fit and the quality of the bluing on a C.Sharps or Shiloh rifle.
Take a close look at one and your other guns look kinda' shabby after that.

[Griff]

I have always thought that Shiloh Sharps exemplified the best of "fit and finish". However, even my Shiloh has a sight flaw in the pewter nose cap casting. However, the wood to metal fit at that point is still flawless. I've grown adjusted to the flaw, and even find it of some value. On a rack of Shilohs with a pewter nosecap, mine stands out.

The other day I was in a Dallas gunshop and spied a double shotgun all by its lonesome. I asked to fondle it... oh my word! What a thing of beauty! It was an "off-brand", the clerk told me the maker used to be a master gunsmith for Purdey, and this was one of his new make. What a sweet 12 gauge. Beautiful wood, wonderful colors on the receiver, fine engraving and checkering that was solid, but didn't cut the hand, as Joe said, an almost imperceptible line between wood and metal. Would that it was in my price range, for it would've been mine even though it didn't have hammers! Hey, I'd have shared pics with ya'll!

Driftwood and Joe pretty much described what "fit & finish" is defined as by me.

[JimT]

I'd like to be FIT enough to FINISH well.

[KirkD]

Some things that come to mind:
- no gaps between the wood and metal.
- wood flush with metal, or slightly proud
- mechanically reliable 100% of the time
- metal edges deburred
- rifling smooth and sharp
- all parts fit together well, with no looseness.
- no defects visible to the critical eye looking over the gun

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

I'd like to be FIT enough to FINISH well.

Jim,
I know that was in jest but it fits right in with this post. The very reason I ask for these opinions is because of a pet peeve of mine. For years fit and finish was important to me. What I mean is how the gun looked, wood to metal fit, quality of the polishing for the blue, things like that. Way back when, if a gun was really nice on the outside you could trust that it was as nicely done on the inside as well. Too many times nowadays that’s just not the case. Because I have the most experience with them let’s take the case of the various 92’s that have been made.
First though my perspective of why 92 is so popular and I think this applies to other guns as well. The 92 is a very strong design, very simple with robust parts that hold up well over time. Colt SAA’s are another example, 1911’s, model 12’s, 94’s, 86’s any of the guns that stayed in production for all these years fall in that category. Guns that come to mind that didn’t do well over time usually were complicated designs with small delicate parts. The Colt opentops come to mind, the S&W Scholfields or any of the top breaks for that matter. Colts first attempt at double actions, their lighting rifles. The list is long.
The original 92’s are great guns but too many of them just didn’t have the best metal to say they will do the job that a modern 92 will do. I personally think the Browning/Miruko B92 was the finest 92 ever made. Sadly they are made any more and were only available as carbines in 44mag mostly and 357m limited. Oh, but you say that Miruko still makes a 92 for Winchester. (they may be out of production I think) The problem with the Win 92 is it’s all lawyered up with small delicate parts . They’ve added a lever activated trigger block, and hammer blocking tang safety, re rebounding hammer to hit a 4 piece inertia type firing pin that’s too short to reach the primer unless the hammer knocks hell out of it, and for some reason the carrier detent springs are too light. (prone to stove pipe). But, the fit and finish is as good to look at as the B92.

Next is the Armi Sport 92’s now imported by Taylors, Cimorron, Charles Daley and EMF. These guns look pretty good. The lines are true to the old 92 on the outside at least. As for the insides, the early Armi Sport guns were made from Armi San Marco parts and had some functionality problems. The current guns are much better but they have done some things I think are solutions to problem that don't exist. (cut cost?) The lever/bolt pin is screwed in. Somebody's gonna end up beating he!! out of one of these guns thinking it's like the original. The other issue is the tiny nut the added to the loading gate rather than thread the gate. If you don't know this taking one apart you will most likely lose it. They have changed the angle of the rim slots in the cart guides too. This will make them more ammo sensitive, but more import the 357m guns have a left side guide but it doesn’t have the carrier detent skirt on it like the original. Rather than leave enough metal on the inside of the frame for the detent they added a piece the has a screw into the inside of the receiver that I know can’t have more than one full thread holding the piece in place. But the one that drives me nuts, like the old ASM’s it has a two piece ejector that is prone to separate. I do like their takedown gun. I bought one in 357mag but it now has a Rossi ejector, lever/bolt pin, cart guides and loading gate.
Down the economic scale is the Rossi 92. It’s imported now EMF and LSI. Not the most accurate profile of the original on the outside. Not the best fitted or finished inside or out. This is not a high end gun. But what’s important, at least to me is the dang thing is works. The critical mating surfaces and interfaces inside are just like the original. The only change that has had any effect and a good one to boot is the coil over strut hammer spring. They did finally crater to the lawyers and add the stupid firing pin blocking safety on top the bolt. The quarter cock is still there so just plug it.
ROSSI SAFETY PLUGGED
Think about this. All the folks that made the original 92's are long dead and gone. The folks with the most experience building 92's now are the Rossi folks. They have been doing it for 30 something years. To look at they aren't fitted and finished as nice as the others but they don't cost twice as much either and it’s closer to the original than the others.


Jim, you and I are somewhat like old guns worn and tattered on the outside but the insides were done right. Our abilities are now limited by age but we value folks trust in us and will do whatever is needed to maintain it.

Or like the Rossi, we started out sorta rough but we cleaned up pretty good.

[Jaguarundi]

+++AMEN to that!Nate Kiowa Jones very excellent post!

[Jackrogers3]

I just received my new 24" / .357 rifle two days ago. The stock is out of line with the butt plate and the reciever by about a mm. Not overtly visible but when you run your finger over both sides you feel metal on the short side and wood on the over side ( or vice versa I guess ). Is this something I should complain about to EMF? I didnt buy it to show off to friends or anything like that... I got it to shoot and have fun with. I figure if you have a gun that you cant take into the field cause your afraid it will get scratched... whats the point? This is the first rifle I have owned... all the other rifles I have ever used have been black plastic and .223 and (altho Heavens Forfend turning one of tthem back in with any dirt on it) I never worried about getting any scratchs on the stock or forend.

So what do you think.... keep it or send it back?

[Hobie]

Fit is how the parts fit together, finish is how the surface of the parts is, well, finished. There are degrees of "fineness" or refinement.

I must have missed the whole point of the topic. I never thought that people applied so much implication to such a simple concept.

[bogus bill]

The short version is this. I love fine fit and finnish. Almost all my guns are the older S&Ws, colts and winchesters. I am not into any kind of plastic or cheap hardwood. I dont mind fine older guns with light worn blue.

[CowboyTutt]

Steve, that was a mighty good post, and an even better follow-up post. Look forward to meeting you again someday! Still haven't given up on that Pedersoli Lightning but I've been vacationing and now I'm looking for a better paying job in a better area, and that takes precidence for right now....

-Andy

[claybob86]

I just received my new 24" / .357 rifle two days ago. The stock is out of line with the butt plate and the reciever by about a mm. Not overtly visible but when you run your finger over both sides you feel metal on the short side and wood on the over side ( or vice versa I guess ). Is this something I should complain about to EMF? I didnt buy it to show off to friends or anything like that... I got it to shoot and have fun with. I figure if you have a gun that you cant take into the field cause your afraid it will get scratched... whats the point? This is the first rifle I have owned... all the other rifles I have ever used have been black plastic and .223 and (altho Heavens Forfend turning one of tthem back in with any dirt on it) I never worried about getting any scratchs on the stock or forend.

So what do you think.... keep it or send it back?

Welcome to Leverguns!

Someone else had the same situation here the other day. IIRC, he just loosened the buttplate screws, lined things up, retightened the screws, all was well.

[Noah Zark]

Fit and finish is hard to define, but I know it when I see it.

Noah