The thing is, how do we measure quality? Modern machines regardless of where the machine is situated in the world can produce highly accurate rifles as parts will be made to exact specs. On the other hand we can look at old Rigby rifles that was definitely not remembered for their accuracy (meaning that parts was not made that precise) but were hand made and is supposed to be what some see as top quality. Which of the two is better quality then?
Pieter
Today, I think a combination of both. Toss in basic design, materials, quality of parts,and construction (assembly in particular). I have seen a fair number of rifles that refused to shoot and function well due to poor assembly than many other issues....meaning they had enough wrong when they were put together that they did not shoot their best, or work as they should.
As to function, Phil Shoemaker did a side bar article on this referring to it as the "Final 10%",or something like that, the finishing touches many rifles do not get that take them from just OK to great.
Some of this is understandable since makers can't sell us rifles for a grand or so with all these final touches and hands on tweaking...some we have to do ourselves. We know all about it from the accuracy standpoint because we pay accuracy smiths to square up receivers to barrels, re turn action threads,bed stocks and other stuff like that.
All this stuff costs money. Problem is a lot of us expect this with any factory rifle just because we pay $800 bucks for it and expect to get it all. Inexpensive rifles are more accurate today than they used to be but accuracy is half the story in a real quality rifle. Hard to get it all for little money.
