Differing definitions of performance

Status
Not open for further replies.

ATLDave

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
8,906
Any time a discussion involves comparison of guns or shooting technique, if the thread/discussion goes long enough, someone will assert that their position is supported by "performance" over "aesthetics" or some other less-important value. These remarks often overlook the fact that "performance" means different things in different contexts and to different people. For instance, imagine three semi-auto pistols:
  • A polymer-framed service-grade pistol in 9mm with good clearances and a consequent ability to run reliably even when fouled by foreign matter;
  • A double-stack 1911/2011 in .40 S&W with a crisp single action trigger, flared magwell, fiber-optic front sight, thumb-rest, and a heavy frame with full dust cover;
  • A .22 blowback pistol with the magazine forward of the large and heavily contoured grip, and an extremely light single-action trigger.
Which of these guns has the best/most "performance"? Well, it depends. If the intent is to go crawling through the mud and still have a gun that will go "bang," the first gun likely has the best performance. If the purpose is to shoot large numbers of targets with multiple shots quickly with fairly powerful rounds and to allow speed reloads at around 1 second of time, the second likely has the best performance. If the purpose is to print tiny groups well-centered on small targets from a standing, one-handed position, the third likely has the most performance to offer.

Before criticizing someone's preferred gun or technique as offering suboptimal performance, consider whether you're talking about the same performance they are.
 
Next up, we should have the same conversation about the term "Quality."

They sure don't make modern guns to the same level of Quality as they used to.


Or....it sure was harder back in the day to get a Quality sidearm or hunting rifle for less than a few days' pay.

For some folks, "Quality" means that the item in question is made of tree wood and carbon steel. Many of those folks feel that in order to be truly "Quality" that gun also is required to have needed someone to work on it with a file, by hand, to get it to function right or make the stock(s) fit it.

For others, "Quality" means reliability, materials that won't rust, and parts that can be bought off-the-shelf and will work perfectly.

Somewhat like "Performance", when you discuss "Quality" with people it tends to devolve into a conversation where both sides declare that the other "Just wouldn't understand!"
 
The only judge of quality is time. Are the cheaper mass produced firearms of the past collectors arms? How many buyers of older firearms are looking for $2 dollar Sears & Robuck "Aubrey" .38 Short revolvers? How many buyers would prefer a 2nd Gen Colt .45 that sold for $18 bucks? :thumbup:
 
The only judge of quality is time.... How many buyers of older firearms are looking for $2 dollar Sears & Robuck "Aubrey" .38 Short revolvers? How many buyers would prefer a 2nd Gen Colt .45 that sold for $18 bucks? :thumbup:

By that logic, this was the highest "quality" stamp of all time: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/US_Airmail_inverted_Jenny_24c_1918_issue.jpg

Numerous factors go into prices of antiques. Not all of them are connected to quality.
 
I thought the connection was pretty clear. You argued "The only judge of quality is time," and then pointed to collectors' desire for various older firearms as proof of their quality. I then responded that collectors of things have numerous non-quality-based reasons for their interest in a given item - rarity being chief among them, and totally disconnected from quality.

But to give a gun-specific example: I think it is widely agreed among experts that the small number of .45ACP Lugers that were submitted for US Army testing are extremely valuable. While I'm sure they are/were of good fundamental quality, countless other guns of similar and superior workmanship/ergonomics/reliability/refinement are all less valuable... because they're not rare or perceived as historically significant.

I think Sam1911 had it right: "quality," like "performance," means different things to different people.
 
Well, yeah, that was all I was getting at. We like things for various reasons. A really great Colt SAA may speak of great quality to many folks, but other folks wouldn't buy one because it wouldn't hold up to the sorts of uses they'd want a gun for. Same with some folks who might really want a gorgeous vintage pre-'64 Winchester rifle with it's "minute-of-deer" accuracy, but might be happier to have a much cheaper modern rifle that shoots tiny groups.
 
What has the 4 Lugars submitted for testing by the Army to do with this? Lugers are at the top of the food chain by collectors. I am a Luger collector. Colts, Winchesters S&W etc are relevant as they are among the most sought after.
Can you show me the facts? How many of the low end arms have high collector's ratings? Where is the demand for cheap sporting arms pushing them onto the high demand markets? Sorry comparing firearms to postage stamp on this thread???:thumbdown:
 
And then we need to revisit the use of the terms "precision" and "accuracy".

Although how often does that distinction really impede communication? I rarely see people get truly frustrated and unable to communicate because one is talking about "accuracy" while they really mean precision.

"Performance," OTOH... oh, man, the hurt feelings and misunderstandings....
 
In the simple case, quality means freedom from defects. In this model, a Ford Pinto that is defect free is a higher quality vehicle than a BMW with a transmission that pops out of gear.

In the broader case, quality means having the attributes that suit it to a particular use, as ATLDave discussed. Under this model, the Sccy pistol is a high quality item, because it is very well designed to be an inexpensive, close range self defense weapon and it fits that particular market niche very well.

Reliability is being able to continue functioning properly for a long time.

Performance is the ability to excel at key functions. A rifle that routinely puts rounds in a 1/2" circle at 100 yards is a high performance rifle.

We could do accuracy and precision again, but just because we could doesn't mean we should.
 
Colts, Winchesters S&W etc are relevant as they are among the most sought after.
Can you show me the facts? How many of the low end arms have high collector's ratings?

But that would pin quality to collector interest and I don't see why that is some universally true factor. Many high quality guns have very little collector interest, and the relative demand for them is not especially high because they're still in production.

And there's folks who collect almost anything, including some of our members who seek out rare "suicide special" revolvers because they find them interesting. But the quality is notably bad by any objective standard.
 
Yes, Ed, yes we can. Though I'm afraid that we might lose a few members when they get to the later parts.
 
Can we force everyone to read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" first? :)

That was my first thought too. Let us hope this thread does not go down the rabbit hole of performance the way Phaedrus hits the deep end on quality.
 
Can we force everyone to read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" first?
Good one. There was this guy, we'll call him "Durango Kid" who just had the worst time with that book. No matter how many times we tried to explain it, he just couldn't grasp it. Great book BTW.
 
I think when people say quality they are often going off perception more than reality. Several years ago, Mercedes had the perception of being high quality even as surveys in Europe were giving it very low marks in customer satisfaction. At one point early in military career both my room mates owned a Rolex. They did not keep time accurately compared to a cheap quartz watch, they both broke over the two years I knew both of them but in their minds it was a quality watch. My perception was I would not ever buy one.

To me quality in guns is about doing what it is meant to do and its nice if you can't see the tool marks. A quality target gun is different from a quality carry gun.
 
The only judge of quality is time. Are the cheaper mass produced firearms of the past collectors arms? How many buyers of older firearms are looking for $2 dollar Sears & Robuck "Aubrey" .38 Short revolvers? How many buyers would prefer a 2nd Gen Colt .45 that sold for $18 bucks? :thumbup:


Sorry but there is little to no logic in linking quality to time, collectors value/desirability, and price, as you've done there



Humm!! If your Rolex fails you may be late for Coffee. If your handgun fails your time is up.:eek::D


So now price and desirability doesn't have anything to do with quality?


Anyways, now you're bring watches into the discussion which seems more than a bit odd that you would do that right after posting,,,,


Can you show me how firearms values are linked to postage stamps? Gees! lets stay on guns. Have you checked out this link.:)

http://www.stampboards.com/



Perhaps you should honor your own request. :thumbup:
 
I think when people say quality they are often going off perception more than reality. Several years ago, Mercedes had the perception of being high quality even as surveys in Europe were giving it very low marks in customer satisfaction. At one point early in military career both my room mates owned a Rolex. They did not keep time accurately compared to a cheap quartz watch, they both broke over the two years I knew both of them but in their minds it was a quality watch. My perception was I would not ever buy one.

To me quality in guns is about doing what it is meant to do and its nice if you can't see the tool marks. A quality target gun is different from a quality carry gun.

Confusion ???:rofl: I was responding to JohnBlitz.
 
Humm!! If your Rolex fails you may be late for Coffee. If your handgun fails your time is up.:eek::D
does performance = quality ???
For handguns, I like Gunsite's term "Heavy Duty Pistol". Something that can run all day, every day for days, with minimal maintenance. On the first, pre range day, I witnessed Louis Awerbuck individually asking each participant what they brought and predicting (with uncanny insight), which guns would and wouldn't fail to function throughout the course.
For rifles, it's probably even more the singer than the song. I'd say it would be consistent accuracy, off the bench, including some (very) less than ideal conditions.
 
I'm building a 22WMR AR on a Tennessee Arms poly lower. Should read the hoots and howls over on another board. Even though their poly lowers have a very low failure rate. Some folks just want metal ... It's higher performance - ya sure, uh huh ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top