How do you teach someone new to guns about quality?

[CapnMac]

Engineers rely on things not being 100% subjective in building a bridge

Not entirely so. Many things in engineering are subjective. How large the safety factor is, is a good example. Do you go 3x, 6x, 9x, 150x? How do you cope when the budget for the bridge does not allow for the "ideal" answer and you are tasked to give the "sufficient" one.

The materials in a tool matter--they are objective in that sense. But which materials are used might be subjective, and the "why" as well.

What's the "best" shovel to buy? Well, are you digging ditches 5 days a week for 50 weeks the year, or helping the neighbor bury his cat? The shovel you need to spread bark mulch is a far cry from the one you want to plant peonies. Chrome-plated Zamak might make an entirely sufficient bulb-planting trowel, but is going to be lousy for digging a hole for the post for a mailbox. But, might be just enough to put up holiday decorations in the yard. I can't tell you.
I can give an opinion. Opinions are worth about 2¢. Including the one above.

 

[lysanderxiii]

To a degree yes, but in some of these cases you mentioned it isn’t subjective. Material sciences aren’t either. Engineers rely on things not being 100% subjective in building a bridge. Zmac is objectively less strong than steel, etc. Failure rates per round and other metrics for gun models aren’t purely subjective either.

Uhhh, no.

Cost vs performance is very subjective.

As to die cast zinc, in blow back pistol slides (if properly designed) there is more than enough strength. Wear resistance, that's another matter.

 

[Autodidactic]

Not entirely so. Many things in engineering are subjective. How large the safety factor is, is a good example. Do you go 3x, 6x, 9x, 150x? How do you cope when the budget for the bridge does not allow for the "ideal" answer and you are tasked to give the "sufficient" one.

The materials in a tool matter--they are objective in that sense. But which materials are used might be subjective, and the "why" as well.

What's the "best" shovel to buy? Well, are you digging ditches 5 days a week for 50 weeks the year, or helping the neighbor bury his cat? The shovel you need to spread bark mulch is a far cry from the one you want to plant peonies. Chrome-plated Zamak might make an entirely sufficient bulb-planting trowel, but is going to be lousy for digging a hole for the post for a mailbox. But, might be just enough to put up holiday decorations in the yard. I can't tell you.
I can give an opinion. Opinions are worth about 2¢. Including the one above.

Note I said these things are not 100% subjective, just as they aren’t 100% objective.

 

[Autodidactic]

Uhhh, no.

Cost vs performance is very subjective.

As to die cast zinc, in blow back pistol slides (if properly designed) there is more than enough strength. Wear resistance, that's another matter.

Okay so another person is not responding to what I said. I stated a fact: Zmac is not as strong as steel. That’s objective.

I did not state that there is no place for it in certain guns.

However, it is objectively true that it would not be advised for certain guns. Is it subjective that you wouldn’t want a magnum revolver made out of it? Or to phrase this objectively, Zmac is not strong enough to safely handle certain cartridges in a certain size firearm.

Now extrapolate this to other firearm points. Some guns are not built to be carry/drop safe, due to the mechanics involved. Might someone want one anyways, sure. I might buy a Bearman .22 derringer one day. However, it’s objectively true that they aren’t built to be carry safe. We can argue subjectively whether that goal matters.

 

[Archie]

When I was a lowly Customs Inspector, I attended a class in counterfeit money. But they didn't show us any counterfeit money, They showed us real money. The reasoning is the more familiar with the good stuff, the more the bad stuff stands our.
I take a similar strategy about quality. In cars, in whiskey, and in guns.

 

[Insignificant bill]

The Shields are no longer that price point, new. Yes the Rugers mentioned are still affordable. To be honest, I’ve been disappointed with the cheaper Ruger offerings. Their quality revolvers seem good, but cost $500+. I have a Ruger Wrangler, and had a LCP. Cheaper, and it was apparent.

One indication of quality is that a gun has been officially adopted by a military. This is not a hard-and-fast rule, however, since militaries have occasionally adopted spectacular failures (the Chauchat?). On the other hand, military successes, such as the Sten or the Greasegun, are not thought of as "quality" in other contexts.

Well, there's a case to be made for a nonquality gun, if that's all you can afford. After all, something is better than nothing. That was the theory behind the OSS Liberator pistol.

It was a pos failure though. Not much changed with idiotic crap they came up with when they became the CIA. Men who stare at goats gives a good insight into how crazy they could get.

 

[Robert]

Do what you can to educate those that want to learn. But at the end of the day, people will use what they want. And that's their choice. Another 5 pages of this won't solve anything.