Quality control

Status
Not open for further replies.

fireman5069

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
82
Location
S.C.
I know this will bring out numerous opinions, but I would like your input on why you think quality control has suffered in the firearms manufacturing industry of late. I have been directly involved with good and bad lately and it does not fall on any one company. Personally, for the money involved, it should be better. Years ago you could get most any brand and be at least fine for a while but some are being sent back right out of the box.
 
I'm not of the opinion that quality has been lowered as a blanket statement. Manufacturing methods and designs have changed to meet market demands. Few people can afford a Rolls Royce, if that WAS the standard of quality you were referring to.
Quality is building something to the lowest acceptable standard that your customer accepts not building something that surpasses the customers expectations of quality and price. This may sound harsh but it is the real market. If your customer wants a Chevy you don't build a Cadillac, unless you want to inventory a lot of Cadillacs.

Thanx, Russ
 
Quality control costs a lot of time/money. Often times things discovered causes shipments not to happen. When many companies found it cheaper to deal with customer issues than to prevent those issues from occurring it was a simple decision.

I spent a number of years working for a major electronics company dealing with reliability issues of new products. This was during the product development cycle and the first year of production. Large amounts of wailing and gnashing of teeth by some of the managers.
 
I'm just saying that as a company, what costs you more? Ensuring a quality product at the onset by developing your product and testing for say a year before releasing it on the public or LOSING business by an onslaught of returned items for repair and workmanship issues.
 
Numerous issues on this topic. I guess one that I will mention off the long list is that most standard production guns now are being put together (not just assembled) by persons that have no background in firearms.

From top down, it is mostly just a business now, and not as much pride in the company logo as what was there in the past.
 
C96- I understand your thoughts on why they choose the cheaper method but this may work for a company that produces apple juice and can't quite get the flavor spot on but for a product that is designed to be carried to save your life, the margain for error should be VERY thin. I think it boils down to there was a surge of demand and they couldn't keep up.
 
fireman I am sure that the production surge of the last year or two is a part of it but I feel safe in saying that it is usually a well thought through decision on where to put the time and money. If managers watch anything it s the cost of doing business.

It could be cheaper to give every complainer a new product than to properly test current production. Maybe you do it with a smile like Ruger or a "get lost" like some others do. Do the companies that tell you to get lost lose business? Some certainly do. Does it put them out of business? Some it does, some it does not. I think Colt is a great example, they put out a pretty good product but God help you if you have a problem.

It is all in the numbers, $$ and cents.
 
Couple things to keep in mind. $800 in 1982 money is not the same as $800 in 2010 money, simply due to inflation. While you paid subjectively "just as much" for a gun back then, if you adjust for inflation, that $800 gun in 1982 is equivalent to say a $2000 gun now-a-days.

Internet revolution, and human nature: People will complain that something doesn't work by 20:1 over praising something that does work. When you read that 1 comment of it doesn't work, it'll stick in your mind much better than the 30 preceding and 60 following comments of how this gun is the Cat's Meow in as far as quality and reliability. So the internet and human nature gives a skewed perspective that everything is worse, but when was it really isnt.
 
I've had my share of good ones and bad ones. Not saying my bad ones are the norm and I guess you could consider yourself lucky to get one out of the masses that has no problems. I've had good ones (from a company in Brazil) but had to sell to afford another(5906) when I joined the force. Great gun but sold it to another officer when I transferred to the fire dept. Sometimes selling one can be as bad a decision as buying one.
 
I don't remember the quality being particularly great in the 80s. If you bought a 1911 and wanted to fire hollow points you had it throated and polished or it probably did not work. I had a model 66 S&W blow the cylinder out one side.
I actually think quality is higher now than its ever been. We expect reliability in autos as a matter of course. What we do have now is if something bad happens its all over the internet. We have less problems and hear more about them is what I think. This is a golden age for fire arms.
 
Sadly, many of these techniques, are not just happening, but being taught, such as eliminating middle managers, making lower level employees perform tasks undertaken by former more expensive employees. Vastly reduce repair departments, replace the defective unit with a new one. Many companies have gone beyond that, putting together a cheaper product. Stamping a known name on it. Come on, a revolver isn't a new concept, even a blacksmith in the mountains of Dara can make one. There should be no excuse for companies that have been building revolvers since the gold rush days, to have problems with a new 6 gun. Even automatic pistols have been around since before the cell phone. It's not just guns. Make the maximum profit for the board. Use the cheapest labor possible for the job. Charge the customer the maximum possible. It seems like horrible business practices from the days of hard working, honest american craftsmanship, but it is even being taught at the University level. Profit is all that matters. Take an honest look, at the guns of your fathers, side by side with todays production. :(
Have a nice day.
 
The OP"s theory is tendentious, at best.
In the 1970s it was just short of a miracle for a Colt 1911 to run with hard ball out of the box. This from a Colt registered gunsmith of the time.
Some companies do very good QC. Others are sort of challenged about it. I've never had a bad S&W and seldom had a good Taurus. Most recently some companies' QC went to heck after Obama's election as they struggled to keep up with demand. Blanket statements are difficult to substantiate.
 
My uncle bought a new Stevens shotgun in the 1950s and it broke the first week. He sent it back. They sent him a new one. Months later they sent him the original one repaired. He had to go all the way back into Charlottesville again to ship it back.

My father bought a new Python in 1990 and the front sight was canted to the left. It had to go back and it's been a great gun ever since.

I bought a Ruger 22/45 when they first came out about 20 years ago and it was a disaster - wouldn't feed, the bolt ears looked like they'd driven nails and a bunch of other stuff. Ruger fixed it up perfectly and threw in a 40-ounce trigger job that was perfectly crisp.

Oh right, that was the SECOND 22/45. I made the dealer take the first one back and give me another one because the first one wouldn't feed 2 rounds in a row.

Do I need to list more examples?

How about a Guerini Woodlander that ejected empties from one barrel, but only extracted from the other? We wanted it to be extractors-only, so we were going to send it back anyway for the modification. Wes Lang offered to talk me through the modification on the phone, but it was my father's new gun and I was feeling unlucky that day. :)


Sure, most of the old guns work, they've already been fixed. :neener:

John
 
When the customers have chosen to buy very cheap imports from China, Brazil, etc., other companies trying to compete have to cut costs dramatically. When you are talking about the niceties like highly-polished bluing, hand-fitting, etc., you can't get that on a $300 gun.

Most of the threads by folks on places like this who are looking for guns want the absolute lowest price thing, but then they'll come back and gripe about how poorly it is made.

I believe in my sig line. I would rather have a few guns if high quality, than a few safes full of cheap junk. Since I seem to be in the minority in that regard, the companies will crank out the cheap stuff because most folks want that. It just means that the custom folks' business has increased dramatically.

Supply and demand
 
Sure, most of the old guns work, they've already been fixed

Exactly. They've always made junk, but most of the old junk has long since been scrapped, melted down, parted out or turned in to the police in exchange for $50 gift certificates. The old guns that remain tend to be the ones that still work.

Are guns as a whole better or worse now? This is a tough question to answer. After all:

1.) There is genuinely less handwork that goes into guns today.
2.) New guns compete with many more used guns on the market today and this, combined with modern consumer expectations (i.e. something for next to nothing) have forced manufacturers to keep prices down (witness the huge numbers of plastic framed guns).

However, there are several huge mitigating factors:

1.) As pointed out, old junk broke.
2.) Stuff that was worth fixing was fixed and is still for sale.
3.) People bought fewer new guns in the past because they were more expensive on a real dollar basis, so they sampled much less of what was available.

And most of all:
4.) The internet didn't really exist thirty (even fifteen) years ago in a way that would allow the slightest complaints to be broadcast to the universe. If the internet had existed, say, in 1948, you can bet someone would've been out there raising hell about the appalling from-the-factory condition of the forcing cone of the S&W Military & Police that would become mine nearly sixty years later.
 
I really think it has less to do with quality control and more to do with the broad availability of the internet and message boards for folks to come and complain to. In other words, there are probably no more problems than in previous years, we just hear about more of them now. Perception is everything.

I also think that there are more folks who feel the need to complain. Probably a result of our self esteem oriented education system.

If I go strictly by personal experience, QC issues are scarce. I've been through about a hundred guns in my lifetime and there have only been two QC issues that required attention. Both guns were promptly replaced by the manufacturer, quietly. No corresponding threads were created on message boards.


When the customers have chosen to buy very cheap imports from China, Brazil, etc., other companies trying to compete have to cut costs dramatically. When you are talking about the niceties like highly-polished bluing, hand-fitting, etc., you can't get that on a $300 gun.

Most of the threads by folks on places like this who are looking for guns want the absolute lowest price thing, but then they'll come back and gripe about how poorly it is made.

I believe in my sig line. I would rather have a few guns if high quality, than a few safes full of cheap junk. Since I seem to be in the minority in that regard, the companies will crank out the cheap stuff because most folks want that. It just means that the custom folks' business has increased dramatically.
Agreed 110%!!!
 
Last edited:
This statement is very fitting for this post. My Dad always told me that the most expensive tool in my toolbox was the the cheapest one. I never forgot that.
 
In the 70' there were a lot of firearms that did not fire when new in the box. They had to be sent back.
Not so now days. CNC machining and quality control is evident now days. Most new guns revolver or pistol do what they are ment to do.
 
This has been said before but here it is again.

The companies make the product as well as they deem is fit for the market and then they cover their behinds by having a good warranty.

Good enough QA means the majority of the guns will pass muster in the real world and the rest will be sent back for repair. This is apparently a fair trade off to the company.

Now on to the point. Dont by anything new from any high volume company. Period.
 
Numerous issues on this topic. I guess one that I will mention off the long list is that most standard production guns now are being put together (not just assembled) by persons that have no background in firearms.
From top down, it is mostly just a business now, and not as much pride in the company logo as what was there in the past.

You mean like many of the 'Rosey the Riviters' who put Garands, Carbines, and even B 17's and 24's together? Many of them didn't have backgrounds in firearms and even fewer were pilots. That didn't seem to cause too many problems with quality control. They did have some problems, but they were only human. The number of firearms and other items that rolled off the lines during World War II was amazing. As fast as they moved, I would have expected many more problems.

Firearms today are an unbelieveable value. Throughout history, certain firearms have suffered from quality control issues. Remember all the milsurp 1911's guys chopped to make them hit the broad side of a barn? My new Kimber custom is more reliable and in SOME cases can out shoot those built up pistols. When you compare what guys spent building them up in the 70's to what they cost today, we are getting a bargin. Remember that money is a lot different now.
 
Quality control Vs Fit and Finish are two different things.

Fit and Finish is what most people who are used to the guns a few decades ago expect....gorgeous finishes, manufacturing tolerances so close you'd think it was a single piece, amazing wood selection, etc.

Quality control is merely how consistant a product they make. If product a,b,c,d,e,f....z all perform the same, or how close to the same they perform....it all varies upon the quality model that they're trying to attain or maintain.

For example...my Sccy has excellent quality, but the quality control of their product may be lacking (I lack enough solid evidence, just anecdotal that says they aren lacking....but same for them not lacking), however the fit and finish was rather good, only exception being the polymer had obvious molding lines in it.

That's the thing....fit/finish vs quality control vs single unit quality.....they all have different meanings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top