Do you think the quality of firearms is declining?

[earlthegoat2]

I was looking through a used gun display at one of the LGSs when I saw a 629 4”. I asked to have a closer look and noticed it was a lock gun. I simply said to the seller that I wanted something older. The guy proceeds to educate me that the newer guns have fewer problems than the older ones.

Well I sure hope so. They better have learned from their past mistakes. But in the meantime they filled them with poorly executed MIM, frame mounted firing pins, and questionably manufactured crush fit barrels.

 

[gbw]

People tend to equate good looks (fit, finish, aesthetics, etc.) with quality. I have stunningly beautiful Colt and S&W autos and revolvers that shriek ‘quality’. They shoot lousy, and any stock modern Glock, FN, or whatever will outshoot them easily in ergonomics, reliability, accuracy. And cost, but not in looks. It’s sad but true.

Deming defined quality to be measurable conformance to clearly defined requirements. I still love the beautiful old models. But if I want a gun that does what I want when I want it to, the new generations are higher quality, no contest.

If your requirements are for both form and function, well, that’s available too - get out your wallet.

 

[Axis II]

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.



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.

I agree 100% I was just stating how marketing dictates price. Cooler look = more $.

 

[rust collector]

Seventy years ago, guns were made by people who understood the balance between function, finish, aesthetics and accuracy. Materials and tolerances have since improved, but most buyers are not willing to pay the cost of the labor-intensive finishes that were once more common. Buyers now value function and accuracy, while producers value cost savings and profitability. We now get more gun for the money, but "inspection and quality assurance" has shifted from producer to consumer.

 

[Obturation]

Yes, i think the overall quality standards are lower. Just cant price production guns reasonably with nice wood and high polished blue. 2 of the last 10 guns ive bought had to be sent in, right out of the box, 1 glock, 1 ruger revolver - a couple of the most robust firearms anywhere. But i do agree the internet gets it all out there for the world to see.
I have older guns with issues that have needed to be fixed too, except i couldnt send them in to the manufacturer. So 6 of one , half dozen of the other.

 

[Shane in MT]

There's just a lot more to choose from nowadays, and most are the budget-friendly modern designs.

You can still get as much quality as you want, it's just a matter of how much you are willing to spend.

 

[paulsj]

No, Fanzoj, Holland, Purdey, Lebeau Courolly, AyA, Beretta Custom Shop, Hartmann und Weiss, Ziegerhahn,......still craft fine firearms.

 

[hemiram]

In the late 70's and early 80's, I had a lot of spending money for a young guy and I bought a lot of new guns. For a couple of years, I couldn't buy a decent gun. Colt Combat Commander, for many years the most expensive new gun I ever bought, was just sad. Chatter marks, bad machining in general and zero QC. Another real dud was a FTL "Auto Nine". S&W, Ruger, and a bunch of other guns were messed up in one or more ways. Beretta was the exception, I've never even seen a Beretta made gun that had any problem that wasn't blown up or ancient. That all changed about 30 years ago. A couple of guns I've bought had minor issues, but almost all of them were simply just a parts swap away from perfect. I'm pretty happy with todays QC, the finishes aren't as good, but function is the big deal in most cases. If I want all steel with a nice finish, I have to look for classic stuff, or crack open my wallet, like I did when I bought my Sig P226 SSE recently.

 

[wanderinwalker]

No, I don't think that the general quality of firearms is declining in the current market. In fact, I think that today's manufacturing generally puts out a decent product at a fair price. With exceptions, of course.

I don't admit this a lot on the open forums, but I moonlight part-time at a local gunshop. (Coincidentally, mostly for gun money...) I've had a lot of the "junk" of yesteryear pass through my hands. Believe me, a lot of the memories of the "good old days" are based on bias toward the higher end stuff that was well cared for and survived in good condition until today.

Just off the top of my head, a Kel-Tec or a Ruger LCP is head and shoulders above most of the old inexpensive top-break pocket revolvers. It isn't rare to find an old H&R, or Iver Johnson that isn't loose, out of time or simply broken in some way. More of the S&Ws seem to have survived the last 100 years mostly intact, but they were better built in the first place and expensive too.

Farmer's utility guns? Not unusual to see old American side-by-sides with bad lockup, broken firing mechanisms and cracked stocks. A cheap modern pump gun with a authentic stock is going to take all of the abuse those old farm guns did and never skip a beat.

There are other examples I can think of, but they'll take more time to post later. I will also add, having seen enough older examples of DIY improvements, that Bubba's family tree goes way back in time.

 

[crestoncowboy]

As I have stated before, I love when people talk about the "good old days" when they catch me out in a classic vehicle. They had one back in the day and it was 10x the vehicle they make now. Then I let them drive and "the good old days" are debunked about the time they have to pull the choke, pat the gas and fire them up. Then try to turn the non- assisted steering without rolling, hit the manual drum brakes, or get the column mounted gearstick in gear. Lol. Can you imagine buying a vehicle and having to actually adjust the points, change the coil, plugs, plug wires, rotary button, adjust the carb, valves, timing, or brakes routinely, grease 50 fittings etc. Many many times over to even think about getting 100 thousand miles? When is the last time you you drove through a 6 inch thawed hole in the windshield the entire drive because of an inadequate heater? Or sweated behind the wheel? Now you change the oil every 10k and never give the engine a thought for 100k. Most folks don't for 200k But "THOSE were the good old days. A 400+ hp car with a 100k warranty getting 25+ mpg for a year's salary isn't uncommon. 0-60 in 3-4 seconds, 12 second quarters.... those were myths in the 60 and 70s either lies or they took a ton of money and work(we wont even mention the 80s or 90s) just like the MOA rifle back then.
I love my old cars just like I love the old guns.... to look at and take out a few weekends a year. The new stuff is so much more functional. And just like guns, people claim cars quality has actually decreased.

I have bought many a 22 with a nail for a firing pin, I'm sure those never fired 10s of thousands of bulk packed rounds before they broke. Many filed down sights because none were adjustable. Seen plenty of brazed hammers too. Those things just don't happen nowdays even though people shoot more I believe. And most of that deep bluing and walnut has ruined. Now it's rough brown and bubbled stocks. Guns that are made today will be just as ugly in 50 years as they are today but they won't look worse either

They looked different, classic lines and prettier materials. Fond memories of the time causing people to think better of things that weren't so grand really. Other than that guns and cars are better now imo. Other than lack of testing, and that goes for both as well.

 

[BSA1]

There is a very good reason beautiful bright blue finishes are not seen on new guns these days...

Our friends in State and Federal Governments.

The chemicals used for old fashion salt bath bluing have been determined to be carcinogenic and are banned.

Bright blue finishes are done by a few custom companies like Turnbull but it will cost you a lot of money.

 

[buck460XVR]

People tend to equate good looks (fit, finish, aesthetics, etc.) with quality. I have stunningly beautiful Colt and S&W autos and revolvers that shriek ‘quality’. They shoot lousy, and any stock modern Glock, FN, or whatever will outshoot them easily in ergonomics, reliability, accuracy. And cost, but not in looks. It’s sad but true.

Deming defined quality to be measurable conformance to clearly defined requirements. I still love the beautiful old models. But if I want a gun that does what I want when I want it to, the new generations are higher quality, no contest.

If your requirements are for both form and function, well, that’s available too - get out your wallet.

^^^This. Guns have always been tools. When one looks back at old hand tools, they too used to be prettier. Look at old hand planes and hand saws. They are now prized collector items because of their beauty. While they were well functioning tools for their time, who uses them now? Guns used to be a piece of art too, but it was found to be unnecessary and when the cost of labor skyrocketed, it was given up for the option of better accuracy or endurance. Folks have realized that dull finishes work better in the duck/turkey blind than deep blueing and shiny walnut. They found that their stainless rifles look better after a week of hunting in the rain than their old blued ones, not to mention the accuracy in that rain from the synthetic stock over older wood. Folks also wish to spend their monies on more guns that are more specialized than all on one gun they use for everything. Buy a hand plane nowadays. Works just as well if not better than the old ones. Ain't near as pretty as an old 45 or 55, but it fits your hand better and will stand up to being thrown in the tool box longer. Gotta make some trim/moulding? Whadda you gonna grab, the #55 or a router/moulder? Gonna hunt Turkeys in the rain tomorrow, are you gonna take the $300 Remington 870 Express or your old 870 Wingmaster BDL? Both will kill turkeys with the same efficiency, altho the express will probably let you put in a turkey choke. On the trap range someone might make a comment.....not so much once you get in the woods. The beauty is in the way it shoots, not in how it looks.

 

[Hokkmike]

Thanks all for the great reading. I appreciate your responses.

 

[ATLDave]

As many have noted, "quality" is a word that people use in a lot of different ways. "Quality" might frequently be used by different people to mean:

• Fit-and-finish
• Degree of handwork
• Durability
• Reliability
• Peak performance
• Ergonomics/user-friendliness
• Consistency/variability of the production population of an item

There are other potential dimensions/characteristics that might be the specific thing meant by "quality." Some of these things even tend to trade off against one another.

Then the other axis of the matrix would be manufacturers (or even models). For any given characteristic, some manufacturers might be declining, while others might be increasing. I don't think there's a reasonable way to say, across the different dimensions of what "quality" might mean and across the different manufacturers and models, that "quality" is headed in any particular direction right now.

 

[paulsj]

I was looking through a used gun display at one of the LGSs when I saw a 629 4”. I asked to have a closer look and noticed it was a lock gun. I simply said to the seller that I wanted something older. The guy proceeds to educate me that the newer guns have fewer problems than the older ones.

Well I sure hope so. They better have learned from their past mistakes. But in the meantime they filled them with poorly executed MIM, frame mounted firing pins, and questionably manufactured crush fit barrels.

I love MIM, two piece barrel, frame-mounted firing pin in my 10.5 oz five-shot revolver, stupendous. State of the art baby! I wish it had that wonderful lock with hole above cylinder release latch.

 

[CraigC]

Sorry, you lost me at Glock, "lovely"???

I think we're in the middle of a century long trend of making everything easier and cheaper to produce with less and less human input. More and more people are online. People are like chickens. They're dramatic, love to complain so naturally, every problem gun has ten threads on ten forums and three or four social media outlets and is sounding the death knell of the industry. I miss the days when they suffered in silence.

 

[Tommygunn]

The quality of firearms varies over time, by individual brand, but generally I think it's going up.
Marlin famously has recently gone through a slump in quality, but appears to be improving. Colt has had its slumps in the past.
Some companies seem notorious for using customers as "beta testers," like Sig Sauer. I still think they make good guns, and they claim to be trying to do better in the QC area as they get into optics (which are darn good) and ammunition.

 

[tark]

The chemicals used for old fashion salt bath bluing have been determined to be carcinogenic and are banned.

Not really. Blueing salts consist of sodium Nitrate, sodium nitride, and sodium hydroxide. ( lye ) Dangerous....yes. Carcinogenic....no. They are not banned and I know of no restrictions on their purchase.

 

[ATLDave]

IIRC, it's the chroming process that really took a beating for being toxic (both to the workers and the environment in terms of the byproducts/waste). This is also a big issue in the golf world, as there used to be many shops where you could get your old irons re-chromed, though only a few that would do a good enough job with the prep work to keep the clubs feelings and performing the same. One of the few shops that was really good at that stuff got shut down about 20 years ago for dumping their toxic effluent into the city sewer where they were located. It was a shame to lose that resource, but, yeah, you can't just dump toxic waste down the drain.

 

[Bill Raby]

Quality has not gone done at all. It has actually gotten much better over time. In 1873 a Colt SAA cost about a month's pay for the average person. With average salary of about $50,000 that would be over $4000 today. For that much you can a gun that is a lot nicer than what the first Colts were. Look at the what one of those fine Smith & Wessons cost new 80 years ago. They were expensive. Adjusted for inflation it well into the custom gun price range. Decades ago normal people did not have gun "collections". It just cost too much. Look at the guns from 250 years ago. Every one was custom made and generally of very high quality. They were also about the same expense as a new car is today. Problem is that was your ONLY option. What has changed is that now you can also buy cheap guns. There are hundreds of different guns out there that you can buy with 2 to 5 days of your paycheck and that is what most people buy now. In 1940 that did not exist. Look at original price of an old Smith & Wesson or 1911. Adjusted for inflation you can get a similar new gun now that is better and cheaper.

 

[wanderinwalker]

OK, I'm back with some more observations.

1) The inexpensive rifles of yesteryear, made out of "quality blued steel and wood." Handle a Stevens 340, 325 and get back to me about how superior it is to a Ruger American Rifle. The Stevens has lots of cost saving moves with stamped parts, plain beech wood stocks, little metal polish prior to bluing and they're kind of clubby feeling overall. I don't mean to pick on Stevens specifically, it was just the first example that came to mind. You could substitute the Winchester Model 670, Remington 788 and a few other designs with similar cost-cutting features.

2) Modern designs. Look, I absolutely love to look at and hold old Colt DA revolvers. They're true classics, typically well finished, fit and just kind if nice to behold. However, as a hard use tool their actions are terrible. (Don't worry, I won't be offended when you disagree with me.) The old Colt action has many small parts that have to be carefully fit just so. They need to be tuned up occasionally too, as once the parts start to wear, they batter on themselves. And I wouldn't count on an old revolver to come up in perfect firing order if it takes a long tumble out of your holster down a hillside.

Whereas a modern semi-automatic pistol is mechanically very simple. Most of the parts can be built in large, consistent batches and assembled into a working firearm with reasonable ease.

3) CNC and other modern production methods lead to more consistent finished products. You get a lot less variability than with a hand finished product that will vary by the skill, experience and preferences of an individual fitter.

 

[dcloco]

YES! Easy to prove. Buy a borescope and start buying barrels. In my case, does not matter if they are $50 or $400 barrels - bad machining, bad rifling, bad chambers, terrible throats, and off center crowns. I am NOT typing of minor issues....but MAJOR!!

...and not kidding, I buy four barrels at a time, to get one that will at least pass the basic visual inspection (naked eye) and then look at the internal machining.

 

[Flechette]

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.

ISO is indeed a joke. It is basically nothing but a paper mill.

"Total Quality Management" is a another one. By minimizing warehouse overhead they put constant pressure on production at perfect rates. This means that there is little margin to correct something as you produce it. Overwhelming pressure to "get it out the door".

 

[CopperFouling]

Whew. That's a tough question. In terms of fit and finish, I challenge anyone to look at a new Browning BPS and tell me quality hasn't dropped (the same could be said for S&W revolvers, the centerfire CZ rifles, etc., etc.). On the other hand, it's not unusual for a $600 rifle to shoot one MOA. The equivalent rifle from 70 years ago would have a hard time doing that. Win some; lose some.

 

[Texas10mm]

Whew. That's a tough question. In terms of fit and finish, I challenge anyone to look at a new Browning BPS and tell me quality hasn't dropped (the same could be said for S&W revolvers, the centerfire CZ rifles, etc., etc.). On the other hand, it's not unusual for a $600 rifle to shoot one MOA. The equivalent rifle from 70 years ago would have a hard time doing that. Win some; lose some.

Well seeing as how the Browning BPS is cheaper in real dollars than it was during the '80's something had to give. Not too many people want to pay $1300 for a pump shotgun.