Do you think the quality of firearms is declining?

[Figboot]

I agree with the folks that have said that it is not as much of a quality decline as it is we all know about the issues now. The Remington 700 is a good example of this. They had issues forever, but did not address it until the internet told everyone about it over and over again.

 

[huntsman]

I believe today’s gun buyers are more accepting.

The first time I read someone sharing the “fluff and buff” procedure for a kel-tec I thought oh hell no, if they (Kel-tec) didn’t bench their guns I sure wasn’t.

Spend a bit more for a bit better firearm is my MO.

 

[Olon]

The number of home built and pieced together ARs on gun sites is what bugs me. That and you see the title for a gun you might want only to find out it’s been altered because the owner thought it was Kool and now can’t sell it because of such

Reminds me of your other post with the severely Bubba'd AR. Maybe some guy was going for the "battle worn" look smh

 

[George P]

I've spent the last 20+ years of my career doing process improvement in multiple industries.

Some industries "get it" and some don't. The auto industry does get it, mostly fueled by competition from Toyota which is absolutely fierce about constantly doing process improvement. They have done process improvement so well and so long that US manufacturers are at a substantial production cost disadvantage, and likely will never catch up.

If the firearms industry had been doing the same, a firearm with a defect would be a rarity, and the price in constant dollars would decline year over year. We're not seeing that.

Cost of Poor Quality, COPQ, is the cost of all scrap, rework, customer support that would be unnecessary if the product were perfect, canceled development projects, and unproductive meetings. Hewlett-Packard estimated that their COPQ was around 37%. As quality goes up, costs go down and customer satisfaction goes up.

If I could find a firearms company that really wanted to change, I'd be overjoyed to help them.

That's because Toyota (and all of the Japanese companies after WWII) listened to Deming when the US companies didn't; they thought their you-know-what didn't stink, until the "Jap Crap" became more desirable than the shoddy union-made US stuff.

Deming was right; US corporate was wrong; and we have been playing catch up ever since. US corps play the three month game; Japanese companies look 20 to 50 years out. It's a lot cheaper to do it right the first time than to have to do it over and over to get it right

 

[George P]

As a slight side drift - for those unfamiliar with Deming, here are his 14 points: (If the gun makers, as well as every manufacturer followed these principles, IMO, 99% of the whining about quality would go away)

W. Edwards Deming’s 14 Points

1. Create constancy of purpose for improving products and services.
2. Adopt the new philosophy.
3. Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality.
4. End the practice of awarding business on price alone; instead, minimize total cost by working with a single supplier.
5. Improve constantly and forever every process for planning, production and service.
6. Institute training on the job.
7. Adopt and institute leadership.
8. Drive out fear.
9. Break down barriers between staff areas.
10. Eliminate slogans, exhortations and targets for the workforce.
11. Eliminate numerical quotas for the workforce and numerical goals for management.
12. Remove barriers that rob people of pride of workmanship, and eliminate the annual rating or merit system.
13. Institute a vigorous program of education and self-improvement for everyone.
14. Put everybody in the company to work accomplishing the transformation.

These total quality management principles can be put into place by any organization to more effectively implement total quality management. As a total quality management philosophy, Dr. Deming’s work is foundational to TQM and its successor, quality management systems.

It takes a lot of guts and commitment, something most US companies that have to answer every 3 months to Wall Street can be reluctant to invest in; whereas the private companies, large and small that do invest in this come out ahead.
Keeping it gun related, all one has to do is look to the private gun makers and see what they have done compared to the ones run by hedge funds, etc.

 

[Mike OTDP]

I think the answer is "Yes". Partly because the customers are a lot less demanding. I'm old enough to remember when it was normal to test a pistol at 25 yards, and a gun that could not hold a 2-inch group at that distance was either a pocket pistol...or junk. These days, there's "acceptable combat accuracy", otherwise known as a 4-6 inch group at 25 yards...and since a lot of people can't hit anything at 25 yards (to say nothing of 50 yards), they'll buy it.

There are too many people who would rather have two shoddy guns than one good one.

 

[Axis II]

Yes! Everything is now plastic, cheap steel, cheap everything but yet still expensive! I don't see how we used to get a Remington 700 for $400 with a wood stock and now they are $1200 and plastic stocks are $600.

 

[Elkins45]

I think the answer is "Yes". Partly because the customers are a lot less demanding. I'm old enough to remember when it was normal to test a pistol at 25 yards, and a gun that could not hold a 2-inch group at that distance was either a pocket pistol...or junk. These days, there's "acceptable combat accuracy", otherwise known as a 4-6 inch group at 25 yards...and since a lot of people can't hit anything at 25 yards (to say nothing of 50 yards), they'll buy it.

There are too many people who would rather have two shoddy guns than one good one.

When was this time when most production pistols could hold 2” at 25 yards?

I don’t remember it except in the fevered dreams of gun magazine writers singing for their supper.

 

[George P]

That's called inflation. I bought my 700BDL LH in 1980'and it was $300 OTD in a Houston gun shop. Today, that would mean over $900 in equal dollar value

 

[Hangingrock]

Old history as in pre 64 Winchester the reason why. Winchester received a government contract to build M14 service rifles. Winchester's production facilities manufacturing processes thus equipment was simply not up to the task. Compared to the other manufacturing entities Winchester produced the least amount of rifles of all contracted manufactures. The manufacturing ability deficiencies were also apparent in their sporting firearms thus design changes were made to produce less complicated firearms in regards to manufacturing procedures.

 

[denton]

As a slight side drift - for those unfamiliar with Deming, here are his 14 points: (If the gun makers, as well as every manufacturer followed these principles, IMO, 99% of the whining about quality would go away)


It takes a lot of guts and commitment, something most US companies that have to answer every 3 months to Wall Street can be reluctant to invest in; whereas the private companies, large and small that do invest in this come out ahead.
Keeping it gun related, all one has to do is look to the private gun makers and see what they have done compared to the ones run by hedge funds, etc.

Deming had it right. Great post.

 

[WestKentucky]

Generally yes, but realistically no. Yes that is confusing.

Old school guns were made from a wide variety of materials, some which proved to be durable, some not so durable. Zamak was popular at one point for “budget” guns. On the other hand you had highly skilled humans making the best guns they could make as fast as they could make them and still turn out a truly good product. The spectrum went from RG, Clerke, Jennings to Colt, S&W, Beretta in handguns and long guns had similar contemporaries. We typically block out the cheaper guns when looking back at the good old days, and focus more on the Colt Pythons, Winchester rifles, etc.

Now, leaps and bounds have happened in metallurgy, materials design and availability. No longer is zamak even a realistic option, and those highly skilled humans are replaced with CNC machines with cheap assembly labor. The guns are designed to be mass produced and cheaply made. I find it hard to believe that you would find a gun as poorly made as a clerke or Jennings today. Even Cobra is stepping up in quality. Likewise, you will not find as fine of a gun as a Winchester 70, S&W registered magnum, or browning 22 automatic. You will however find more guns that work, are durable, and are useable for most purposes.

So to look back at the question posed, are guns as nice as the good old days? Generally No. Are guns as well built as the good old days? Generally Maybe. Are guns more reliable than the good old days? Generally yes.

 

[jmr40]

It depends on how you define quality. Gun makers have always made budget guns, and their top of the line models. Today's shooters are more likely to choose the budget gun option and leave the higher end guns on the shelf. Some decry the poorly finished guns, but that is the buyers choice. Manufacturers are going to make want sells. And today's guns, budget or otherwise are as a rule better built, and more accurate. Handguns are more reliable than ever, by a wide margin.

Shooters are choosing to purchase accurate rifles over rugged reliable rifles. But they still make them. It is the choice of shooters to prefer accuracy over reliability.

New
Yes! Everything is now plastic, cheap steel, cheap everything but yet still expensive! I don't see how we used to get a Remington 700 for $400 with a wood stock and now they are $1200 and plastic stocks are $600.

When you could get a R700 for $400 in a walnut stock the median income was about $20,000/year. The median income today is closer to $60,000/year. A shooter today has to work fewer hours to buy a BETTER firearm than any other time in history. In 2019 a $200 scope is significantly better than a scope that sold for $800 in 1980.

In 1974 I paid $175 for a R700 when the median income was just over $10,000/year. In today's money that would be about $1100. I can buy a rifle today for $350 that is significantly more accurate and reliable. That would have been $58 in 1974.

 

[theotherwaldo]

-As my Grand-dad used to say, "Purty don't put meat on the table (unless she's sellin' her... well, never mind).

 

[George P]

Likewise, you will not find as fine of a gun as a Winchester 70, S&W registered magnum, or browning 22 automatic

Sure you can; you just have to be willing to pay for that highly skilled labor to make it. All one has to do is look at all of the custom 1911 makers alone out there and the prices they get, let alone the semi custom makers like Baer, Wilson, Nighthawk, etc.

 

[redneck2]

How many threads do you see with the title “what’s the cheapest.....”

As compared to “what’s the best.....”

I can assure you that in the 60’s if you told someone you shot 1” groups, you might as well have told them you were from Mars. Now guys just yawn and think “so what?”

 

[ilbob]

I think that the engineering of modern firearms results in firearms that are arguably "better" in most ways than firearms from 40 or 50 years ago.

I also think we tend to focus on all the stories of bad firearms because they are what people talk about. Few people go to the Internet to talk about how great their new firearm is, but a lot will complain if it has problems.Used to be that model 1911s were famous for problems. Modern ones tend to be pretty reliable. Even the sub $400 units.

 

[Zerodefect]

Quality is at an all time high. Ya'll just have terrible taste in weapons. Buy the right ones, and it's a perfect world.

Melonite and DLC have replaced blueing and parkerizing. Rust is gone. Wear is reduced.

It's cake to find a pistol that'll go 10 000 rounds with just cleaning and springs, without any failures.

We have cheap AR's that rival yesterdays bolt action precision rifles. And an excellent precision rifle is hardly more than $1200.

More varieties of every type of firearm, than ever before. And we can afford them.

If I wanted to complain, I'd complain about suppressors being nfa still. That's nonsense.

 

[ilbob]

I can assure you that in the 60’s if you told someone you shot 1” groups, you might as well have told them you were from Mars. Now guys just yawn and think “so what?”

back in the 80s I belonged to a rifle club. there were a couple guys that had AR15s. The goal was to get reliable 1" groups at 100 yards. It was a chore. Now you can often do that with a $400 rifle and the cheapest ammo you can find from Walmart.

 

[M.T.E.]

My knowledge of old/older firearms is very limited but based on my limited experience,...yes,..older firearms were better and here is why I think this;

My son and I got into shooting .22 target pistols behind my house. I purchased a new Browning Buck Mark and he purchased a new Ruger Mark IV. We compared both guns and liked them each for different reasons. My father-in-law heard about our range and wanted to come shoot with us and brought his Colt Woodsman he purchased in the mid to early 50's. My son and I both preferred the old, outdated Woodsman's looks/action/feel to our more modern target pistols. I don't think firearms have advanced as much as they should in 70 years.

 

[George P]

My knowledge of old/older firearms is very limited but based on my limited experience,...yes,..older firearms were better and here is why I think this;

My son and I got into shooting .22 target pistols behind my house. I purchased a new Browning Buck Mark and he purchased a new Ruger Mark IV. We compared both guns and liked them each for different reasons. My father-in-law heard about our range and wanted to come shoot with us and brought his Colt Woodsman he purchased in the mid to early 50's. My son and I both preferred the old, outdated Woodsman's looks/action/feel to our more modern target pistols. I don't think firearms have advanced as much as they should in 70 years.

The design and manufacturing processes have come a long way. What was once designed on paper with slide rulers is now done on computers in 3D

 

[M.T.E.]

The design and manufacturing processes have come a long way. What was once designed on paper with slide rulers is now done on computers in 3D

I should specify,...the end result has not advanced much in 70 years. I don't manufacture or design firearms so how that is accomplished means nothing to me.

 

[tark]

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.

No problem. Any good S&W or Colt revolver can probably do that without replacing ANY springs.

When I worked for Les the girls on the shooting team were putting 30-50,000 rounds through their 1911s, before sending them back to to be "Refreshed" Which usually meant we just built them a new pistol. But their old guns were just fine, in excellent shape, just having lost a tiny bit of accuracy. When I was in Germany, ( A half a century ago ! ) my MOS was 45B20 Small arms repair. One of my jobs was to send 1911s off to Dachau to be re-parkerized by the Germans. The guns were used in an OCS training program near Nurnberg. I got to see the round counts for some of those guns and it was staggering. Several had gone past 25,000 rounds with nothing breaking and, presumably with no spring replacements.

Now, I love Glocks myself. I would trust my life to one, without hesitation. To answer the OPs question, I think guns are getting uglier but they are also getting better .
A gun can be both ugly and indestructible at the same time.

Try to wear out an M-3A1 Grease Gun.

I rest my case.......

 

[george burns]

I'm by far no expert, but after 48 years of carrying a gun, I will say that semi-auto's have come a long way as far as reliability goes. I usually average about 2 guns per year purchased. I also get rid of whatever I no longer use, "no kids or grandkids who shoot" my 4 granddaughters are all in anti gun, mom and pop homes. So I no longer collect. But I started with revolvers and most guys back in the early 70's didn't trust semi auto's unless they were ex military and had a 1911. Most semi's were just not reliable for defending your life, so the 38/357 was the way to go. Plus there were no mass shootings back then, so 5- 6 rounds was plenty with a reload or two, then the Smith 39 and 59 changed that, and the Glock cemented it. I haven't bought a new gun that had a real problem in 10 years. But that's just me, and I usually buy something that I researched to death, before buying, back before computers you needed to rely on friends or someone from the range to get your info from. And if you buy quality, you are usually ok.
I should also say that after all is said and done, a Glock 19 with a laser/light and Ghost mag extension sits on my night table and a Sig 365 is attached to a pillow holster on my side of the bed. I place a tissue over the gun to break up the profile. Both have night sites and a tac light, is in the sleeve of the nightstand. Glocks just work period, Not that I don't trust my 1911, I just trust the Glock more. They are the revolver of our day.

 

[giggitygiggity]

It depends on how you define quality. With respect to fit and finish, firearms have, generally speaking, reduced in quality. The days of deep, gorgeous bluing, beautiful wood stocks, and hand-fitted parts are long gone unless you intend to pay a premium and/or have custom work done.

However, the quality of machining has improved, generally speaking. This varies based on manufacturer, but I have firearms which have no visible tooling/machining marks on them whatsoever (my Aero Precision AR lowers, my Walther PPQ Navy, my CZ P10C). Additionally, quality with respect to accuracy continues to get better. When I can buy a $200 Thompson Center Compass that can shoot sub-moa (truly sub-moa and not just on a manufacturer's spec sheet), I have to say that quality in terms of accuracy is remarkable and far better than that of even 10 years ago. These examples are more a testament to advances in precision machining technology than anything else, but still worthy of a mention.

Quality in terms of defective products is more manufacturer-specific. I agree with other members that it may seem that there are more sub-par products produced, but that is largely because social media enables those with issues to quickly broadcast their dissatisfaction. However, I would say that I have seen trends of dissatisfaction concerning Remington products over the last few years. With respect to other manufacturers, it's been more model-specific than anything else. The SIG P365 is one example; it got beat up with people claiming to have had issues. I don't dispute that people had legitimate issues. However, I believe that it was a case in which the pistol was hyped up, people experienced issues, lynched SIG on social media, and it gave an appearance as if the the quality of the P365 and SIG, in general, may be questionable. In the same vein, I think it's important to cut manufacturers a little slack. Manufacturers are trying to push boundaries in order to create better products and improve on existing products and ideas. There are going to be lemons, regardless of how much QC and testing is conducted. The good thing is that, in my experience, most gun manufacturers are customer-friendly and will resolve issues encountered by customers.

I am not saying I am right in all my points, but those are simply my observations/thoughts.