Bobson
Member
The purpose of this thread is to outline a problem many people may have not considered, and to suggest a solution which benefits consumers and manufacturers alike, which can then be discussed.
Disclaimer: Please bear in mind that the generic examples used in this thread are just that – generic examples meant only to demonstrate that differences exist between products different manufacturers make. I used Hi Point and Wilson Combat as my examples of low and high value firearms because, to my knowledge, Hi Point makes the most inexpensive handguns available, while Wilson Combat makes some of the most expensive I have personally seen.
I was at work earlier during a particularly slow part of the day, and it occurred to me that guns vary in price tremendously (obviously... ). You can go out and get an NIB .45 ACP handgun for less than $200 (Hi Point), or you can go get an NIB .45 ACP handgun for over $4,000 (Wilson Combat). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know there's going to be a significant difference in the level of quality between these two pistols. Here's a short list of what some of those differences might be:
1) One with be very visually appealing, while the other might look more like your dog's chew toy
2) One will be capable of very impressive accuracy, the other will likely be noticeably less accurate
3) One will be made using very high quality parts and exquisite attention to detail, while the other will be made of arguably mediocre parts and something more likely to resemble an assembly line
4) One will be reliable for more years than you're likely to live, while the other isn't likely to outlive your German Sheppard.
Everyone knows - even expects - that two firearms with a price difference of several thousand dollars will have a lot of differences; in fact, depending how you look at it, there's probably only one thing they have in common - which is that they're both guns, so both are expected to go Bang! when the trigger is pulled. Will the specific differences I mentioned always exist? No, not always. Will some sort of differences always exist? Yes; if they didn’t have significant differences, the more expensive brand wouldn’t be in business. Plain and simple.
While almost everyone knows that differences exist, a smaller percentage of gun owners know exactly what those differences are, and an even smaller number know how those differences actually effect things like accuracy, reliability, typical lifespan of a weapon, etc. For example, I know very little about 1911 pistols, aside from visual familiarities. Among things I do know is that they're typically made and assembled with more care than the average handgun, they're generally dependable for a very long time, and they're well-known for being very accurate. Unfortunately, I don't know why any of those things are the case. But does it really matter why they're accurate and dependable? Some might say no, but I disagree, and in this, I believe I am one among the majority.
To me, knowing why my gun performs the way it does is one of many steps on the road to being a responsible gun owner. It also makes me a much more effective consumer. Without this knowledge base, my only measure of quality is the amount of money a product costs:
Most people, at being present during Mr. Smith's reasoning, would quickly reach the conclusion that Mr. Smith is an idiot. It would be difficult for me to disagree.
The fact is, without understanding the technical differences in the manufacturing of products we buy (especially when we're buying many of these types of products, and those that we buy are often made by a variety of manufacturers), we're all making our decisions in a fashion very similar to Mr. Smith's obviously flawed (while exaggerated) "process."
The problem here should be easy to see. If our only measure of quality is price, than we allow manufacturers to create an illusion of higher quality by simply increasing their prices. On the other hand, if our only measure of quality is known performance, there’s always a number of people who have to take the initial risk in testing a new product, and then everyone else is essentially forced into either accepting a review as true, or simply not buying a particular product. Currently, for the average consumer, “quality” lies somewhere in between.
Essentially, “quality” is a balance of high price and listening to what other people tell us about products we’re not willing to take a chance on. At that point, “quality” may change, as it becomes a decision we make ourselves, based on whether we’re pleased or displeased with a given product; then we share our opinion of the product by telling others of its’ level of “quality,” which they in turn use to determine whether or not a product is worth buying. This cycle repeats indefinitely.
My suggestion is a set standard of guidelines for particular weapons. An example of one of these guidelines is something we’re all familiar with: MOA – a measurement of accuracy (note: Yes, I know MOA means minute of angle). MOA works equally well for every rifle, regardless of who made it, it’s purpose (hunting/plinking/SD), or it’s condition, because MOA never changes. 1 MOA is always 1” at 100 yards. A rifle is either 1MOA or it isn’t, there is no middle ground. In this way, MOA is a concrete standard that manufacturers use to inform the consumer of a rifle’s accuracy.
Similarly, there need to be concrete standards for every part of the manufacturing process, and every part of a weapon. Magazines should have a concrete standard to measure their likelihood of causing a FTF or rounds simply falling out. Ejection ports and action types need concrete standards to measure their likelihood of being the cause of an FTE. Firing pins need concrete standards to measure the odds of being the root cause of a misfire.
The list goes on. Frankly, I don’t know enough about the internals of firearms to create a full list of parts or the standards that should be associated with them. This is a job for the community of hunters/LEOs/gun collectors/etc to come up with. You’ve all seen how MOA is successful in clearly defining a standard that rifles can be held to. Even if a weapon isn’t meant to be a “1 MOA or better” rifle, using the MOA standard to describe it’s accuracy makes the weapon’s ability clear to everyone interested. It is a clear, concise, irrefutable measure of the quality of a rifle’s accuracy.
A true measure for quality, for every gun, and every part of every gun. It will lead to more accuracy, higher reliability, and increasingly tighter standards, which increases safety for everyone involved. It also lets manufacturers know exactly what their consumers want to see.
These are the benefits of universal standards, and they’re something we should all be striving for. Can we make it happen?
Disclaimer: Please bear in mind that the generic examples used in this thread are just that – generic examples meant only to demonstrate that differences exist between products different manufacturers make. I used Hi Point and Wilson Combat as my examples of low and high value firearms because, to my knowledge, Hi Point makes the most inexpensive handguns available, while Wilson Combat makes some of the most expensive I have personally seen.
I was at work earlier during a particularly slow part of the day, and it occurred to me that guns vary in price tremendously (obviously... ). You can go out and get an NIB .45 ACP handgun for less than $200 (Hi Point), or you can go get an NIB .45 ACP handgun for over $4,000 (Wilson Combat). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know there's going to be a significant difference in the level of quality between these two pistols. Here's a short list of what some of those differences might be:
1) One with be very visually appealing, while the other might look more like your dog's chew toy
2) One will be capable of very impressive accuracy, the other will likely be noticeably less accurate
3) One will be made using very high quality parts and exquisite attention to detail, while the other will be made of arguably mediocre parts and something more likely to resemble an assembly line
4) One will be reliable for more years than you're likely to live, while the other isn't likely to outlive your German Sheppard.
Everyone knows - even expects - that two firearms with a price difference of several thousand dollars will have a lot of differences; in fact, depending how you look at it, there's probably only one thing they have in common - which is that they're both guns, so both are expected to go Bang! when the trigger is pulled. Will the specific differences I mentioned always exist? No, not always. Will some sort of differences always exist? Yes; if they didn’t have significant differences, the more expensive brand wouldn’t be in business. Plain and simple.
While almost everyone knows that differences exist, a smaller percentage of gun owners know exactly what those differences are, and an even smaller number know how those differences actually effect things like accuracy, reliability, typical lifespan of a weapon, etc. For example, I know very little about 1911 pistols, aside from visual familiarities. Among things I do know is that they're typically made and assembled with more care than the average handgun, they're generally dependable for a very long time, and they're well-known for being very accurate. Unfortunately, I don't know why any of those things are the case. But does it really matter why they're accurate and dependable? Some might say no, but I disagree, and in this, I believe I am one among the majority.
To me, knowing why my gun performs the way it does is one of many steps on the road to being a responsible gun owner. It also makes me a much more effective consumer. Without this knowledge base, my only measure of quality is the amount of money a product costs:
Most people, at being present during Mr. Smith's reasoning, would quickly reach the conclusion that Mr. Smith is an idiot. It would be difficult for me to disagree.
The fact is, without understanding the technical differences in the manufacturing of products we buy (especially when we're buying many of these types of products, and those that we buy are often made by a variety of manufacturers), we're all making our decisions in a fashion very similar to Mr. Smith's obviously flawed (while exaggerated) "process."
The problem here should be easy to see. If our only measure of quality is price, than we allow manufacturers to create an illusion of higher quality by simply increasing their prices. On the other hand, if our only measure of quality is known performance, there’s always a number of people who have to take the initial risk in testing a new product, and then everyone else is essentially forced into either accepting a review as true, or simply not buying a particular product. Currently, for the average consumer, “quality” lies somewhere in between.
Essentially, “quality” is a balance of high price and listening to what other people tell us about products we’re not willing to take a chance on. At that point, “quality” may change, as it becomes a decision we make ourselves, based on whether we’re pleased or displeased with a given product; then we share our opinion of the product by telling others of its’ level of “quality,” which they in turn use to determine whether or not a product is worth buying. This cycle repeats indefinitely.
My suggestion is a set standard of guidelines for particular weapons. An example of one of these guidelines is something we’re all familiar with: MOA – a measurement of accuracy (note: Yes, I know MOA means minute of angle). MOA works equally well for every rifle, regardless of who made it, it’s purpose (hunting/plinking/SD), or it’s condition, because MOA never changes. 1 MOA is always 1” at 100 yards. A rifle is either 1MOA or it isn’t, there is no middle ground. In this way, MOA is a concrete standard that manufacturers use to inform the consumer of a rifle’s accuracy.
Similarly, there need to be concrete standards for every part of the manufacturing process, and every part of a weapon. Magazines should have a concrete standard to measure their likelihood of causing a FTF or rounds simply falling out. Ejection ports and action types need concrete standards to measure their likelihood of being the cause of an FTE. Firing pins need concrete standards to measure the odds of being the root cause of a misfire.
The list goes on. Frankly, I don’t know enough about the internals of firearms to create a full list of parts or the standards that should be associated with them. This is a job for the community of hunters/LEOs/gun collectors/etc to come up with. You’ve all seen how MOA is successful in clearly defining a standard that rifles can be held to. Even if a weapon isn’t meant to be a “1 MOA or better” rifle, using the MOA standard to describe it’s accuracy makes the weapon’s ability clear to everyone interested. It is a clear, concise, irrefutable measure of the quality of a rifle’s accuracy.
A true measure for quality, for every gun, and every part of every gun. It will lead to more accuracy, higher reliability, and increasingly tighter standards, which increases safety for everyone involved. It also lets manufacturers know exactly what their consumers want to see.
These are the benefits of universal standards, and they’re something we should all be striving for. Can we make it happen?
Last edited:
)
