Do you think the quality of firearms is declining?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hokkmike

Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Messages
3,962
Location
Snack Capital of the US
I bought a Glock 42. Lovely little pocket pistol. Learned that early models had a multiple problems. Mostly FTF and FTE.

Later picked up a Sig 365. A design game -changer. Lots of incidents of firing pins breaking, failure to go into battery, dead triggers, slides not locking back, and sights going bad.

Bought a SAKO Finnlight, my dream hunting rifle in 6.5x55. Had to check a roster of serial number with the company to make sure it wasn't in the batch with exploding barrels. (It wasn't)

Just purchased an HK 416 D 22 lr. Read about problems with thin barrels and exploding extractors.

It is wearying but there is some remedy. I am happy to say that Glock "updated" my little pistol free of charge except for one way shipping to their facility. It took them exactly one day to turn the gun around and send it back to me. Total time without pistol about 8 days.

Sig will not do anything proactively - too bad. But at least they provide a life-time warranty to the original purchaser so that you can wait "for the shoe to drop" with some confidence.

As for the HK, I always thought they were impeccable, there is only one year of protection but most people seem happy with the gun. Turns out the gun is licensed by HK, made by Walther, and owned by Umarex. Kind an illegitimate child.

It seems that when I was younger these problems didn't exist like they do now. When you bought a gun it was expected to work. No one lost sleep over what could happen after you spent your hard earned dollars.

If anybody has found the perfect, reliable, and trouble free gun I would love to hear about it just for refreshment sake....

I know I sound like I am whining. (I am)

What do you think? Is quality control going down hill? Maybe it is just me...... (*sigh
 
I bought a Glock 42. Lovely little pocket pistol. Learned that early models had a multiple problems. Mostly FTF and FTE.

Later picked up a Sig 365. A design game -changer. Lots of incidents of firing pins breaking, failure to go into battery, dead triggers, slides not locking back, and sights going bad.

Bought a SAKO Finnlight, my dream hunting rifle in 6.5x55. Had to check a roster of serial number with the company to make sure it wasn't in the batch with exploding barrels. (It wasn't)

Just purchased an HK 416 D 22 lr. Read about problems with thin barrels and exploding extractors.

It is wearying but there is some remedy. I am happy to say that Glock "updated" my little pistol free of charge except for one way shipping to their facility. It took them exactly one day to turn the gun around and send it back to me. Total time without pistol about 8 days.

Sig will not do anything proactively - too bad. But at least they provide a life-time warranty to the original purchaser so that you can wait "for the shoe to drop" with some confidence.

As for the HK, I always thought they were impeccable, there is only one year of protection but most people seem happy with the gun. Turns out the gun is licensed by HK, made by Walther, and owned by Umarex. Kind an illegitimate child.

It seems that when I was younger these problems didn't exist like they do now. When you bought a gun it was expected to work. No one lost sleep over what could happen after you spent your hard earned dollars.

If anybody has found the perfect, reliable, and trouble free gun I would love to hear about it just for refreshment sake....

I know I sound like I am whining. (I am)

What do you think? Is quality control going down hill? Maybe it is just me...... (*sigh
I think we just have the internet now, and we hear about all the problems. Also, new models are coming out all the time, and so many companies buy parts from other suppliers, you just can't rely on a brand name any more. Plus our expectations are higher than they used to be. So overall, no, I don't think guns are getting worse, but we hear about all the growing pains. I do believe some companies sacrifice quality with the materials used, but they are trying to sell to a price we can afford.
 
I believe manufacturers are trying compete with other companies. I do not believe they are releasing unsafe products, but they are using us, their customers as testers for their products. At least that is how it seems to me.

S&W 327 NG - barrel crown incomplete. Sent back and redone even though they claimed they did nothing.

S&W 60 Pro - cylinder kept hanging up. Could not release the cylinder. They had to add a couple of threads to the extractor rod and dress up the center pin.

Remington R51...don’t get me started.

Henry Single Shot - slight damage to bluing due to packaging rubbing barrel. Decided to leave it alone as the wanted to switch barrel. It’s accurate. Why fool with accuracy?

The problem is this idiocy called ISO Quality Assurance. It’s a joke. It’s not QA. It’s a charade that makes management think they have QA but all they have are internet surfers with big vocabularies blowing smoke.
 
Last edited:
IMO it depends where you plunk your money down. The really expensive firearms are still of good quality in general. BUT those products that are competing with many other manufacturers models in a race to the bottom cost wise while maintaining a reasonable profit are showing some cracks in their armor these days it seems. Still there are a few examples that are exceptional values for their cost. A Hi Point C9 for example is still OK for what it costs and darned dependable as well. There are others that are still solid values also.
 
The internet gives everybody with a problem a megaphone. They've always been out there, we just hear from them now.

As for finishes, I really like blued on wood, and I prefer metal framed handguns. But it's my opinion that blueing is not very durable unless really maintained well. The synthetic coatings (applied properly) are more durable and are easily renewed if desired. I'll get used to the new look or get stainless firearms I guess.
 
I bought a Glock 42. Lovely little pocket pistol. Learned that early models had a multiple problems. Mostly FTF and FTE.

Later picked up a Sig 365. A design game -changer. Lots of incidents of firing pins breaking, failure to go into battery, dead triggers, slides not locking back, and sights going bad.

Bought a SAKO Finnlight, my dream hunting rifle in 6.5x55. Had to check a roster of serial number with the company to make sure it wasn't in the batch with exploding barrels. (It wasn't)

Just purchased an HK 416 D 22 lr. Read about problems with thin barrels and exploding extractors.

It is wearying but there is some remedy. I am happy to say that Glock "updated" my little pistol free of charge except for one way shipping to their facility. It took them exactly one day to turn the gun around and send it back to me. Total time without pistol about 8 days.

Sig will not do anything proactively - too bad. But at least they provide a life-time warranty to the original purchaser so that you can wait "for the shoe to drop" with some confidence.

As for the HK, I always thought they were impeccable, there is only one year of protection but most people seem happy with the gun. Turns out the gun is licensed by HK, made by Walther, and owned by Umarex. Kind an illegitimate child.

It seems that when I was younger these problems didn't exist like they do now. When you bought a gun it was expected to work. No one lost sleep over what could happen after you spent your hard earned dollars.

If anybody has found the perfect, reliable, and trouble free gun I would love to hear about it just for refreshment sake....

I know I sound like I am whining. (I am)

What do you think? Is quality control going down hill? Maybe it is just me...... (*sigh
I fully agree! Through the 50's and 60's I don't remember anyone ever complaining about gun quality and I never heard of anyone having to return either a handgun, rifle or shotgun to the factory. Just didn't happen!
 
Do you think the quality of firearms is declining?

Generally, yes. Properly finishing a blue steel and wood rifle or shotgun is expensive. Who can forget the artistry of the Smith&Wesson revolver in the heyday? I would prefer that rather than gun manufacturers reaching down to the $400 price point, that they entice the consumer to spend, say $700 for a quality product. Do we really need another bead blasted parkerized gun set in molded plastic? I know I don't.

On the flip side, I can remember the era of blued steel and walnut rifles that had accuracy problems that needed gunsmith attention right out of the box, on a regular basis. I can remember in the 70's being thrilled with a Savage 110 (C?) 30/06 that would put them into an inch with agonizingly, lovingly crafted handloads. It was a rarity. A majority of your plastic guns shoot very well out of the box. Factory ammo has come a loooong way, too.

Reliability has come a long way too. Glocks are ugly. Ugly like a fiberglass handled framing hammer. I love Glocks. I could stake my life, and the lives of my fellow officers on Glocks. My G23 in 40 has upwards of 20,000 rounds through it. I've replaced two springs. Try that with some of the "legend" pistols.
 
For some things, it's only that we're able to hear about them vastly more.
On the other side, it's that cost of labor, taxes, and materials have gone up. That, matched with the market buying to a price point opposed to quality, means they focus on that instead. People that really want that pretty finish will pay for it--from their Custom Shop.
For the crowd that wants a $400 gun, they don't see the point when the machines can get it off the line with a serviceable finish that just needs a dip, when a pretty finish would raise the cost by 70% in man-hours alone.
And in a world where reviews are readily available, they send out models that function well before anything else. Before, it was word of mouth--they had to make things work acceptably or they wouldn't sell, and look really good or no one would ask about it. Finish was marketing.
And, really, we see things in relative terms. A $500 gun now functions better than a $500 (adjusted for inflation) gun then, in general; they often had to do the hand-fitting and polishing to get it that way. Design is (usually) better, but it may not feel as nice.

For the most part, people want function before anything else, and are fine with ugly as long as it works. Is your standard buyer going to comfortably buy that Toyota Corolla that gets them to work 7 days a week for the next fifteen years, or spend more for that Jaguar that's... well, a Jaguar? Even if Jag contracted with Toyota for motors, is someone that needs a daily driver going to enjoy scraping together more for a Jag with one more than buying that Corolla and having money left in their pocket for gas?

And, yes, in some cases the companies are now owned by managers that know management, not manufacturing. They want feature X, at Y price, introduced by date Z. They're unable to do all the real-world R&D (which took years decades ago, but can be 90% reproduced in simulations and labs in months now, which doesn't always account for handling and standard user experience) so expect things to go wrong that wouldn't in the lab, and make the Blastech (TM) Budgetgun MkII that much better.
 
Last edited:
You are correct about brand new guns brought to market too soon. Most know you need to give any new gun, other than a select few, like glocks and guns that have been made for 20+ years. The first year almost all of the new models from every manufacturer have a problem or two that needs to be fixed. I just bought a 365 now, date end of DEC18, It shoots well and so does the Shield 45 PC I picked up. But if I had bought either of them when they first came out, they would have gone back 1-3 times until they get the kinks out, Never buy a gun the first year it comes out, unless it's just a takeoff of am existing gun, like the 43x
 
I think the average (adjusted for inflation) prices have come down, and quality has come down with them. Mainly due to MIM, CNC machines, and less human interaction with the finished, or nearly finished product.
You can still get quality, but your going to pay more for it. I don’t necessarily think the “more” would be that out of line with the prices of old.
And I could be entirely off, I wasn’t buying guns before the late 90’s so I don’t really know the prices of old, I could be totally off.

Another thing to consider is the term “quality” the fact is the quality of a gun is at least somewhat subjective. Now days many people rave about how good a Hi-Point is, while 10 years ago every Kimber thread had the “junk” in it at least a dozen times.

My last point, is that the guns of yester year might not have been as high quality as the legends are. For instance why did it take LEO’s so long to give up revolvers, maybe because the semi’s of the way back just sucked, as in the quality just wasn’t there.

I also remember as kid when a gun malfunctioned it wasn’t a big deal. If we were driving deer and the 1100 failed to fire, we’d jack the shell out on the ground and move on with life, if the .22 jammed you cleared it, put a function check shot down the barrel and it was a nonissue.

Now if I have a gun that fails in nearly anyway, I keep the shell and an investigation will be done at some point, why the light strike? why the stove pipe? Etc etc..... When I was a kid a gun had to be fairly unreliable to get much attention.
 
I think that firearms “quality” is stable, “value” is increasing and the cost of refined quality has ever greater diminishing returns. In turn, if we could CNC people, life would be much more consistent.
 
Getting ISO certified is no small task. I remember my company getting it about ten or 15 years ago. Was a chore. And no, it didn't change a thing as far as our quality. It does however open doors as far as who you can supply.

My point about not thoroughly testing guns Is easily verified. How many new guns do you read about that had "teething problems". There are enough that I hesitate to buy any new product (the asinine pricing above MSRP is another reason). Some companies like Kimber though, deserve their reputation, I've been brought more catastrophically broken new looking Kimbers than every other brand of handgun combined (excluding rimfires which tend to be worn slap out). I wouldn't think "teething problems" would apply to Kimber either since they copied a 100+ year old design.

As far as fit and finish though, it's our fault (and Ruger) that guns are ugly and plastic and coated rather than blued and walnut. I'm only nearing 40 but I know that new guns haven't really increased in pricing linear with pay. In 1950 minimum wage was 75 cents, a new winchester 70, or a Remington 700 adl was 150 dollars. Minimum wage is 10x what it was. But if the rifles were 1500 (10x what they were) no one would buy them. A model 5 browning was 200 dollars. An 870 was 125. So for the most part, guns have doubled/ tripled but pay has went up far more. The companies that tried to keep prices up but make heirloom quality guns are owned by others now. We wanted function at a lower price, we got it.
 
Finishes are certainly declining. Polycoats and matte finishes instead of the bluing common to even pedestrian guns in days of yore.
I won’t disagree with finish and woodworking is worse. However the days of a gun cabinet in the living room to show off are long gone. . I must say this is a great time to be a gun owner. You can buy a lot for the money these days and with a much larger selection than ever before. The pristine finish just costs more .
 
The human interaction gun mfg,Les Baer,Brown etc are a lot of money because of hand fitting etc. Labor is a huge cost and that's why the big gun companies are going to more automation,etc. The only human factor is a quick inspection by QC which Im sure they have quotas to meet. Mistakes happen when you are under a rushed atmosphere make your numbers.
 
I just bought a Mini-14, I’m a little disappointed in some of the parts of the whole. Stamped sheet metal pieces, cheesey rear sight, uneven finish on the stainless steel.

I’m happy it shoots well and consistently, but I expected more from an $800 gun.
 
In large part, a lot of products have gotten cheaper (not many got worse; we remember the 'good old stuff' because that's what didn't wear out long ago) by necessity.
Living costs have gone up.
No one on minimum wage can afford what S&W used to do. It used to be what you can live on. Now housing costs have gone up (doubled in my area in the last decade or so), it's not possible to live without internet and/or cell phone costs if you expect work, in many places you can't survive without a car (which have gotten more expensive, and relying on public transport in my area adds two hours minimum over driving--and don't get me started on the bicycle), and good luck seeing a doctor or dentist without insurance.
Which, especially recently, you're not likely to have. Full-time work around here is hard to come by even with experience, working part-time cuts out benefits , and many, many people aren't breaking into $11 an hour on the limited part-time hours.
You want full-time? You need a degree. Even retail is starting to pick degrees over experience. And then you're lucky if it evens out because of the debt payments.
So the population demands a cheaper product either through necessity or so we can actually enjoy some of our money.

It's not just that manufacturers have changed, it's that the available market has. Manufacturers have to provide. Want that nice polish? That's what the custom shop and third parties are for.
 
Last edited:
Gun people are like car people. Listen to car people gripe about the good old days and laugh, given that a muscle car from the 60's would be considered completely worn out if it somehow managed to make it to 100K miles before needing a complete rebuild. Now compare that to all the Hondas and Toyotas tooling around on their original parts with well over 200K on them.

I bought my first S&W revolver new in 1981, so it was a Bangor Punta gun. It looked fine to me but people would go on and on about how BP had ruined S&W with their poor quality finishes. Nowadays people look at that gun and say "Boy, they don't make them like that anymore. Those were the good old days."

I think there are specific companies that have declined (anything Remington touches) and cosmetics are not as important in this hyper-competitive market, but the actual functional quality of guns is better than it ever was. I just think people like to think things were always better when they were growing up. Nostalgia is a powerful drug.
 
I just bought a Mini-14, I’m a little disappointed in some of the parts of the whole. Stamped sheet metal pieces, cheesey rear sight, uneven finish on the stainless steel.

I’m happy it shoots well and consistently, but I expected more from an $800 gun.

Tech-sights sells a Mini 14 rear sight that is better than stock. Better aperture size, windage and elevation adjustable.

As far as the OP is concerned, yes. Sometimes.

Taurus quality seems to be on the rise again, S&W is going downhill. My brand new in box 686 would not reset the trigger consistently. I was going to take it back to swap, but the other 2 they had were just as bad.
I am done with Remington unless their new plant starts turning out more consistent rifles than NY
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top