[355sigfan]

I just had a conversation with another poster and it was mentioned that overall it seems that more lemons are leaving the factories these days for all price ranges. Do you all feel this is true? Based on the threads on various other boards I feel he was on to something. My Kimber has been a good handgun for example but it’s a series one. I have heard some complain about the series 2 guns. I am a Glock fan but their is that issue with their LEO recall while they screwed civilian shooters. Anyway anyone care to share his or her views?
PAT

[Mastrogiacomo]

I can't comment as far as other guns are concerned. I only have Berettas -- and although I love the gun, they aren't as well made as the Italian models which don't use plastic and have a better finish. I've also heard of the customer service needing improvement. This isn't to say I wouldn't keep buying Beretta because I'm happy with my guns that have never given me any problems or reason for concern -- but if I controlled the company -- they'd all be made like the Italian models.

[Handy]

There are some techniques, like C&C machining and investment casting, that have improved the fit and precision of many guns.

On the other hand, reliance on some of these computer aided processes has lead to a decrease in the need to handcheck all components.

With so many companies here and abroad, it's hard to get a feel for what's happening and why. While it does seem like alot of new designs are getting Beta tested on the public, common sense tells me that ALL industry (cars, electronics, etc) are only getting better.


The good ol' days are never quite as good as in memory.

[Smoke]

My gut reaction was an enthusiastic YES! For many reasons, production processes have been greatly improved across the board.

But, I am not a fan of poly guns. Its just me, I'm a wood and steel guy not a plastic and polymer fan. In this instance I'd say NO!

I also think this is hard to answer across the board. If you ask on a single manufacturer then it would be easier to answer. There are too many guns I'm not familier with, foreign imports, clones, brands I've not handled frequently if at all.

Colt is an ideal example, they were great, then they weren't, now they're getting better. (1911s)

[Flashpoint]

With companys looking to increase profit margin, it doesn't surprise me to hear of lemons coming out of the factorys.
Personally I haven't been involved in guns long enough to remember the good old days. I also think that guns are way over priced, for what you get but I know that's prob. because everyone dipping into the pot to get their share on the industry. I figure it will only get worse, and prices will just exponentially increase.

[10-Ring]

I would guess that since more are being produced, there woud be more that are defective. I would also guess that if companies are maintaining a certain standard, the percentage of defects has remained he same (hope that made any sense at all).

[Dr.Who]

The material and manufacturing processes are much better. However, 90% of the new guns, I have purchased have had something wrong with them in the last few years. It was stuff I could fix, but it was stuff wrong that should not have been. Just some examples: Extractor spring that was so loose in a new 94 it would not remove the spent case (Winchester 94, they sent me a new spring) bought a pair of Ruger's one was to the point of aim, the other front sight was .030 too high. Bought pair of Cimmeron's and the action was so tight on one it hung up. No matter, I had planned an action job on it any way, Brand new pump shotgun, would not retain the rounds in the load tube.

Now the used guns I have purchased work and do not give me any problems to the extent as mentioned above. Maybe I'm overly critical when buying or it is good luck or the other owner too care of the "new gun blues"

I believe that the attention to quality is a rare commodity in this day and age. "Buyer beware" are still good watch words as well as "you get what you pay for"...

Enjoy...
:cuss: :evil:

[Sean Smith]

Mixed bag. Some up (Colt), some down (Kimber), most others about the same.

[Mastrogiacomo]

Checking the poll, it looks like more people are just voting and not stopping to comment on their choice....:scrutiny:

[litework]

Cosmetically, I feel the quality of firearms has gone down a bit. However, I think today's guns function every bit as good, if not better than the guns of yesteryear. I feel Glock, Beretta, Sig, H&K, and others have brought reliability in a firearm to new, uncharted heights. I think you have different markets today. I'm sure, in the past, there were gun manufacturers who catered to the less fortunate, but I don't think it was as prevalent as today. I feel there are certain companies who take advantage of the low income population by providing cheap and unreliable weapons. These unreliable weapons taint the "big picture." Our society communicates. When a gun breaks down in today's society, everyone knows about it. The internet is riddled with horrific stories of gun failures. I'm sure these failures existed in the past, but the word didn't get out. This information media wasn't available even 20 years ago. When you compare the current price of even a high end weapon vs the current average salary, I think you'll find that purchasing a firearm is easier than it was in the past. A reliable gun costs less than a week's salary. I don't think you could do that twenty years ago. I think that today's firearms represent a bargain to the consumer in quality, reliability and cost.

[cool45auto]

I'm with Mas as far as Beretta's go. Except for Beretta's I'm staying around old rifles now so I can't comment much. My P32 seems to be made well and so does my Ruger P97DC.

[Dave Markowitz]

I voted down. In my experience, if you compare a Smith & Wesson revolver from say ~1970 with one made in the past 5 - 10 years, there really is no comparison. The fit and finish on the old gun -- even one with tons of holster wear -- is noticeably finer.

Now, modern designs like Glocks and XDs may give great reliability, but heck, so do AKs.

[New_comer]

Then and now, the same rule of manufacturing applies:


CHEAP, FAST, GOOD...


Only two will do; the third almost always looks the other way ;)

[Standing Wolf]

Down. Some of the small new firearms manufacturers are putting the big old companies to shame; on the whole, however, hand guns seem clunkier and more poorly finished than the used to be, and craftsmanship is largely a thing of the past.

[surfinUSA]

Guns , at least defensive guns have gone up greatly. Prior to 1975 the only real defensive handguns were the Smith and Wesson and Colt revolvers. In semi auto the 1911, BHP, S&W 39 and P38. The sights were terrible (except for the Gold cup) they were designed to be reliable with ball because there were no hollowpoints when they were designed. If you were lucky with a little work you could find one or two reliable hollow point loads that would work in these pistols. And even then they didn't have a real reputation for reliability.

Pocket pistols were the PPK, HSc, Beretta 34, Same problems as the larger pistols only in a weaker caliber.

Then in the late 70s you have the Beretta 92, the Sig 220 (and progeny) and the H&Ks now guns had better sights and magazines that worked from the factory. They fed any factory ammo you can find in their respective calibers. The 80s brought the Ruger semi autos, more refinements to these designs and the Glock, about as close to a revolver in great defensive calibers as you are going to get. Guns keep getting better. Some folks just aren't old enough to have carried before the real improvements came about. Now we all expect a gun to be both reliable and accurate from the factory without tuning and aftermarket mags. It wasn't always this way and it wasn't that long ago.

[MPFreeman]

UP and Down

The tolerances the new "Standard" guns have is better than the custom jobs. THe New NC machinery sure beats the old mechanical lathe.

Look how Sprinfield Armory has improved?

*&* does cintered pieces now on triggers and hammers.

Overall, guns are purely a "MECHANICAL" device that has been engineered for a long time. Only materials have improved as todays metals (& Plastics) are superior to older/earlier metals. Same goes for machining processes.

[JohnBT]

The best production guns might not be quite as good, but I don't see the vast numbers of poorly made guns I did 30 or 40 years ago. Regression to the mean?

John

[Dorrin79]

up, accross the board.

It would not have been possible to get an autoloader as reliable as my P89 30 years ago - some people may have had heavily customized 1911 & BHP's, but certainly nothing out of the box.

The only bad things I ever hear about modern firearms are anecdotal, and fairly uncommon.

[dairycreek]

and I would have to say that the overall quality has improved somewhat. Today there are many, many more gun owners than there was 40 years ago as well as many more readily available brands of guns. Further, there are many more ways of communicating (particularly the internet) about guns. How many belong to TFL alone? While I read a lot of complaining posts I also read more posts lauding a particular gun. My personal opinion is that the quality of guns goes up and down over time. But, in general, the overall quality is pretty good. Good shooting;)

[CZ-75]

I say down, but predicate that.

I think that reliability is probably up, but fit and finish are down.

Glock and all the "plastic-fantastics" out there aren't nicely blued or have sweeping lines. Hence, though they are machined just right, and are very reliable, they were never designed to have a "look" of quality to them. Appliances, IOW.

It also depends on what periods you're referring to. Guns, up to a few years ago and back to some time in the '70s often sucked b/c of labor problems and the antiquated manufacturing processes exacerbated this. A CNC machine, to give an idea of what I mean, wouldn't come in drunk from the weekend or get PO'd that he didn't get a raise and take it out on the product. Not so for a human worker for the majority of the past 25 years. I owned and have seen a few Colts that drove this point home. Can't say as much about S&W.

[surfinUSA]

A nicely blued gun is fine for the collection. But for a working gun I'll take tenifer (glock), Bruniton (Beretta), nickel, or stainless steel everytime.

[Hal]

Dead bang certainty the overall quality is going down.

Only 2 or 3 of the 30 new guns I've bought in the last 4 years have been trouble free.

Nothing really major, but problematic nonetheless.

[SouthpawShootr]

I said down. I think alot of the quality problems would be solved if manufacturers would quit tinkering with their designs by add ridiculous crap like internal locks, loaded chamber indicators, and the like. When adding these things, manufacturers tend to just stick it in there while not taking into account the ramifications of changing the way (ever-so-slightly) the gun works.

Also, in the old days guns tended to be handfitted. Now with CNC machinery, you get closer to finely tuned, but still not quite there. Problem is manufacturers often leave it at that. Most products from S&W, Ruger, and even Taurus would make great starting points for expertly tuned guns.

[Bowlcut]

I dont know, for all the variity of guns that end up going shooting with us on weekends Id say no.

there used to be an older colt 1911a1 that never had any troubles. Darrin and his semi old astra, only has had maybe 3 problems in the probaly 1000 rounds hes put though it, less than 1% of the time. Then rod's early 90's USP, not one problem. My brand new sw99, not one problem. Darrin's p22....few errors but they are well known, and it is a rim fired semi so thats part of its downfall. Then another guy brought an older 92f...it never once failed, along side a guy with his brand new M2, not one problem. so a simple cross section of us shows new and old guns....no problems really that cant be attributed to limp wristing, fouling, or design problems.

Yea way back people hand fitted every gun, but that was when tollerances were harder to follow. now with cnc and various other computer controls you dont have that problem.

so be it a plastic gun like my sw99 or rods usp .40, or darrins astra or the 92f....the tollerances and quality of materials have only went up with time

[Watch-Six]

I voted down. Those beautiful older Colts and Smiths are very hard to beat. On the other hand a lot of junk (RG, AMT, FIE, etc.) is gone. It's a mixed bag. Some newer companies are turning out great guns that were not available in the past. Watch-Six

[cratz2]

Well, my thoughts on it are this: I've bought several excellent guns in the past two years and not one single lemon. Of course, I'm usually pretty picky when selecting which ones to actually take home. I think that most of the major brands are making better sub-$1,000 guns now than 5 years ago. Springfield and Colt's are prime examples of this.

Now on the high end, I really don't see any reason a $2,500 1911 should have to go back to the manufacturer. You get a Wilson Stealth for $3,000, there is zero reasons that it should have to go back. You aren't paying for mass produced junk, it's completely hand fitted and it should be fitted by guys knowing what they're doing. But I think it's just that they plan on most guys only buying one gun so they aren't really expecting repeat customers. But word of mouth advertising means a lot on guns over $1,000. My personal experience is that 5 years ago, you were hard pressed to find folks knocking their $2,000 1911s and $3,000 1911s whereas now there is no shortage of guys that will tell you that they had to send their guns back once or twice. It could be dismissed as internet guys that talk crap about guns they don't even own but I know two guys that have had to send Wilson pistols back to get them to run 100% with quality ball ammo on the approved list.

[Majic]

Overall I point to the advancements in manufactoring techiques have drove the quality down. Todays parts are built to such tight tolerances that the the gun are just assembled and not fitted as they once were. As an example take any makers utility gun over their match models. The match model have superior parts, but they are more hand fitted that results in the better product. Then take the utility model and have it reworked by a good smith and it also becomes a much better product. The cost factor of hiring gunsmiths as opposed to parts assemblers would drive the price up. Like any other business, they are there to make a profit. They can hire smiths and make fewer units, or buy new CNC machines, hire parts assemblers and turn out more units for a cheaper price. The bottom line is that the share holders want rapid growth dividends or they will invest in another market.

[telewinz]

Being a steel and wood man myself I think quality guns are being made much more cheaply with polymer frames and therefore are less durable and have a shortened life expectancy. I just wish the drastic cost savings were passed on the the consumer instead of the stock holders.