Why do people equate inexpensive with low quality? We're talking injection molded plastic (the industry in which I work), CNC machining, and simple designs. These are not new technology nor expensive technology. Sure, there may be shortcuts taken in these clones, some QC issues because a dull bit wasn't replaced, but bigger names with more expensive guns seem to have the same QC issues.
The R&D was done on these pistols by someone else, on someone else's dime and time. So clones and copies of expired patents (or altered enough so as not to infringe on existing ones) can be done with relatively less expense. Buying used tooling and fixing/ altering it is far less expensive than designing and manufacturing new tooling. I work with tooling for Ford, Chrysler and GM (as well as several other automotive manufacturers), repairing old tooling, or redesigning old tools to run newly designed parts is a large part of the industry and is a major cost saver. I'm sure gun manufacturers are smart enough to alter their tooling to a new design, or sell off old tooling to recoup costs.
The new upstart manufacturer can better afford older, used tooling rather than new tooling. Hence the Taurus PT92, being made on old Beretta tooling. A PT 92, one of Taurus' most reliable guns, brand new is still going to be cheaper than a Beretta 92, also brand new, on the next shelf over.
I wonder if the people who buy the CZ rather than the Canik clone drive a Buick rather than a Chevy. Same parts, same tooling, minor cosmetic changes, and the Chevy has a cheaper price tag despite being made on 90% of the same tooling, side by side with the Buick.
