Should we expect a drop in quality from now on?

[illinoisburt]

I seem to recall a couple years ago when the government was contracting for agency personal defense weapons and replacement military m4's that the price was right around $700 per unit with full kits of rails, mags, and optical sight. I think the per unit manufacturing cost for the base firearms were around $275, though I would have to fire up the Google-fu to be sure. Anyway I suspect the cost of manufacture, or in many cases the cost of assembly for the AR variants is likely somewhere around that since we have a number of firms putting out $600 retail prices guns right now. The squeeze will surely make that drop, but how far before companies start hurting is really going to be a matter of leverage and operating capital. Small shops that cannot absorb the tighter margins are likely the ones that will need to swap over to more intricate or niche designs to remain viable. I'm sure some new equilibrium will arise, and if that is a mil-spec AR at $450 then so much the better for consumers. Rather than worrying aboutvthe industry which has obviously done well (at we the buyers expense), maybe we should just look forward to a buyer market where we can finally stretch our hard earned dollars.

 

[12Pump]

I don't know about the general trend, but think denton is on to something here. Improvements to manufacturing operations should both increase quality and reduce cost. And I'm trying to reconcile this with the various threads about the poor quality control Ruger has demonstrated with the recent introduction of the GP100 in .44 Special. Many (including me) found an unacceptable gap under the front sight, and chamber throats that are oversized. Some who sent their guns back for repair are not happy with the results. Whatever the reason, something is not up to par with Ruger's quality control right now.

The Ruger 10/22 used to be made with a trigger group made of metal, but is now plastic. The Remington 870 shotgun used to be considered a great gun, but now people don't talk very highly of the Remington 870 Express. They always tell you that if you want an 870, get an older one. Also, it used to be that rifle scopes were well made even at lower prices. Now people say to not even consider one made for less than $100.

 

[illinoisburt]

The Ruger 10/22 used to be made with a trigger group made of metal, but is now plastic. The Remington 870 shotgun used to be considered a great gun, but now people don't talk very highly of the Remington 870 Express. They always tell you that if you want an 870, get an older one. Also, it used to be that rifle scopes were well made even at lower prices. Now people say to not even consider one made for less than $100.

I don't think looking at base models is the place to realistically make these types of comparisons. The 870 express model was specifically brought out to be cheaper in fit and finish than new Wingmasters so expecting them to be otherwise is folly.

Cheap scopes are a world all unto themselves. I cannot honestly recall any older cheap scopes that were anything but unreliable junk. They fogged up, lost zero when not in use, and were fragile. However when folks talk about scopes these days, the issues are not the same as in the past. Fogging is rare and wandering zeros are so much less common that most rifle manufacturers don't bother with iron sights anymore. Does that mean the cheapies are great, nope. Compared to better glass they have poorer light transmission, don't track adjustments correctly, and are more likely to break when dropped. But for the vast majority of shooters they work well enough that people don't revolt against the lack of backup irons. I just wouldn't recommend buying another inexpensive scope to replace a cheap one already mounted to the rifle by the manufacturer as it won't be particularly better.

Honestly cost cutting measures are a normal part of any manufacturing. Regardless of a drop in demand due to the change in the political landscape, all of these companies have been working to find faster cheaper ways to bring out guns for years now. It's just that we overlooked a lot of it because it people bought them up regardless. My hope is junk will become less acceptable and quality may actually improve to attract buyers who demand more value for their money in a tighter buyers market.

 

[Solomonson]

The Ruger 10/22 used to be made with a trigger group made of metal, but is now plastic. The Remington 870 shotgun used to be considered a great gun, but now people don't talk very highly of the Remington 870 Express. They always tell you that if you want an 870, get an older one. Also, it used to be that rifle scopes were well made even at lower prices. Now people say to not even consider one made for less than $100.

The Remington 870 (even the express) is still a great gun. I was recently out at the range. I had my 1975 Wingmaster and my son has his 2016 Express. Someone else had an 870 made in 1953. The differences between each was remarkable. The 1953 model was by far the heaviest and had the nicest wood. My 1975 was probably the best finished, inside and out. The 2016 looked like a workhorse in comparison. Yes, far less expensive to manufacture, but also likely the one I would choose if my life depended on it working correctly.

 

[larryh1108]

This feels like a damned if you do and damned if you don't kind of thing.

During the rush to get as many guns to market to keep up with demand, we complained that the QC process was compromised. The gun makers had to meet orders so they put out less than perfect guns to meet demand and figured their warranty department would fix any issues.

Now, with less demand, we are saying that the gun makers will cut corners to meet a lower price point and that QC will be cut to reduce costs. Quality will suffer as a result.

So, which is it? Increased demand will compromised QC or reduced demand will compromise QC?

I think that a good, established company will put out a good product because their name is on it and they have decades of loyal customers. Screw the consumer over and over and soon there won't be any to buy your product. Yes, demand is down so what that means is they'll eliminate that third or second shift. They'll lay off the least seniori and/or the least productive help to get overhead in line. They'll pay more attention to the small details because the demand to push, push, push is reduced. Good companies realize they have to take care of their customers to remain in business. Fly-by-night companies will vanish and our overall quality in the market should rise. I think the industry will be fine because the big guys have been through cycles like this many times over. Don't over think this. We'll be fine.

 

[straightshooterjake]

If you think about the law of supply and demand, I am not sure it allows quality to go down when demand goes down.

When demand is high, consumers have to compete to find the products that they want. So prices go up, and is also hard to find anything in stock. When you do find something in stock, you have to settle even if the item is not perfect.

When demand is low, then manufacturers have to compete to sell their products. Manufacturers can choose different strategies, and may adjust price, quality, or promotional advertising. But consumers will find lots of products in stock, so they can compare and make a choice. So the pressure is on manufacturers. It is notable that during the great depression, quality was very high at Colt, Smith & Wesson and Walther.

Of course, consumers do choose price over quality in some markets, with airline seats being a well known example. So it is possible the market will be dominated by poor products at low prices, but I do not think that will happen in the firearms market.

 

[Tirod]

I'm still waiting for someone to define "quality."

When Mauser was making rifles in the 1920's they had beautiful polished and blued steel parts, good wood to metal fits, and a smooth action. In May of 1945 just before the plant closed, they were making hundreds of thousand MORE each year, with a rough milled parkerized finish, plywood stocks that still had good wood to metal fits, and the action was still as smooth as ever. And the rifle was just as accurate. I have seen and handled them.

The point is that too many confuse "quality" with "bespoke finish" and don't have a clue how to define it other that to say if it resembles a gun that costs twice as much it must be good. Then we get into a discussion of "tight tolerances" which immediately goes off the deep end describing it as parts that fit tightly together - which is not what tolerances are about. That is clearances - and a tightly clearanced gun is one more prone to stoppages. Military actions are required to work in both desert heat AND arctic cold, the expansion and contraction rates are calculated to make the parts still work with enough space between them to prevent binding or excessive friction. Add lubrication at your peril, tho, in the desert it attracts sand and dust, in the artic it can freeze at -20F and jam the action.

A quality gun will work in both environments - for military purposes, but the uneducated consumer might look at it as a rattling poor fit with horrible gaps. The problem is that the average gun owner doesn't even know what he doesn't know. He judges all based on his concept of aesthetics, not correct fit and clearances, and then demands it conform to the standards of guns built by hand one at a time commissioned by the owner with no expense spared.

And yet for the most part very few firearms are made that way - they come off machinery operated by programs and designed to minimize costs and maximize profit. Not polish the internal parts of a gun that never see the light of day nor do they actually bear on any other part.

Do we really need to engrave a trigger transfer bar, chase it with gold, and require all others should be - because "quality?" And yet most of the comments I read across the net on the subject seem to turn toward that goal, with no quarter drawn that the manufacturer who doesn't supply it must be making junk. "It has a sharp edge." "The trigger bit me underneath." "There are tool marks under the slide." I'm going to suggest that yes, that is a quality gun - in that price range for that purpose. If we want all six sides of a part finished, with impeccable scratch free looks, an assembled with an action that seems to be rolling on ball bearings, then triple the price and you might find that grail gun. For $450 shipped from a distributor to your dealer? You're fishing for rainbow trout in the tailwaters of a treatment lagoon. Fly to Colorado and try again. Start looking at guns priced from $3000 up. You cannot purchase a perfect work of gunsmithing from a commodity gun maker who churns out reliable working guns at a competitive price. You have to go look for gunmakers who don't compete on price, they compete with aesthetics and finish. There is no scale of price to rate them in that category, and go too far, you may even see them sacrifice performance for art. If you like, try leaving a $25,000 engraved Belgian Browning shotgun in the bottom of your duck boat while you pole to your shooting stand in the marsh and see. It may well rust before you even get there. A Remington 870 pump, part of the day's work. Now which is the better quality?

 

[.308 Norma]

This feels like a damned if you do and damned if you don't kind of thing.

Or a "caught between a rock and a hard place" kind of thing.

 

[Solomonson]

I'm still waiting for firearms to drop a great deal more in price! Take the Glock 17. A number of years ago it cost Glock about $80.00 to produce one. Let's say it costs them $100/unit today (it might well be less than what it was, but let's use the $100 number.) An extremely healthy 50% profit margin equates to a wholesale price of $150/unit. Let's say distributors earn 25% on sales (most do not), which would equate to a sales price of $187.50. Let's say retailers earn another 25% (none do), which would equate to a sales price of $234.38. That's just about half of what a G17 costs today if one makes an effort to shop. At some point, if sales continue to drop, or if a new player enters the market, there is obviously plenty of room to cut sales prices. That could cause some real problems for the makers and the industry:

First; it could trigger a pricing war, which has been historically common in small arms sales. Pricing wars ultimately hurt manufacturers and the industry. Second, most consumers aren't well informed. Many would incorrectly attribute a drop in price to a drop in product quality -- that's happening with ARs right now -- just look at this thread. Third if prices dropped low enough (for the same quality/safe hardware), the anti-gun politicians would likely jump back onto the "Saturday night special" bandwagon. Finally Glock and to a lesser degree their competition, would no longer enjoy hoggish margins which might possibly impact R&D spending (but probably not.)

What's it's going to take is a hungry company in my estimation. A company like Hi-Point to offer a Glock-level firearm in the ~$250.00 range. Yes, there will be plenty of naysayers that claim a quality handgun cannot be produced and sold for that price. That's obviously ridiculous, especially with the ever more common practice of deleting the distributor tier. If their new products caught on at a lower price, the Glocks, SIGs and S&Ws would have no choice but to follow. THAT would lead to much lower priced firearms in some market sectors.

 

[illinoisburt]

Solomonson I agree with your thoughts. Just want to +++1 and then some on folks thinking lower prices equates to poorer quality, with the inverse higher prices equaling higher quality which often enough is not necessarily true. Especially over the recent panic years many of the items going up in price were not suddenly being made better.

 

[Solomonson]

I'm still waiting for someone to define "quality."

Product quality must be defined in terms of customer expectations and how well those expectations are met. Once customer expectations (or rather requirements) are ascertained, the manufacturer creates a design replete with specifications. These specs range anywhere from price, measured reliability, maintainability, wood grades, polymer and steel types, dimensions, etc., etc. It's adherence to those specifications which defines product quality for any given product.

As you point out, an army procuring carbines for infantry use will have drastically different requirements than a collector commissioning H&H to produce a new 4-bore double rifle. The army would scoff for instance at the price/unit, limited firepower and weight of the H&H. The collector would scoff at the finish, the "looseness" and the commonness of the infantry carbine, yet both based on their specifications might be of equality and superior product quality.

 

[larryh1108]

I'm still waiting for firearms to drop a great deal more in price! Take the Glock 17. A number of years ago it cost Glock about $80.00 to produce one. Let's say it costs them $100/unit today (it might well be less than what it was, but let's use the $100 number.) An extremely healthy 50% profit margin equates to a wholesale price of $150/unit. Let's say distributors earn 25% on sales (most do not), which would equate to a sales price of $187.50. L

I'm curious about figures like these that pop up every now and then. Where do theu come from? The cost of the actual raw material? Plus the labor? What?
Let's assume that daily costs for rent, insurances, permits, licenses, lawyers, heat, A/C and maintenance is included in the guesstimates.
Let's even assume that advertising is also included in the per unit costs quoted here. Doubtful but hey, this is the internet.

How about the million dollar machines they buy to produce various parts. These machines have their own parts that wear from use and need to be replaced.
How about the R&D needed to make their current offering better or to make the next, best wundernine? Where does that money come from?
How about the money needed for the warranty department? They all have warranty claims no matter who they are.
There are hundreds of costs we couldn't even dream of in any manufacturing environment. Most aren;t cheap.

Bottom line?
If you say it costs $100 to make a Glock, what is the real cost? 2x as much? 2.5x as much? 3x?

I'd guess (since we all are) that the true cost to make a Glock (or whatever) is what they charge the military or LEO departments per unit. What was it? $250?

 

[jmr40]

The Ruger 10/22 used to be made with a trigger group made of metal, but is now plastic. The Remington 870 shotgun used to be considered a great gun, but now people don't talk very highly of the Remington 870 Express. They always tell you that if you want an 870, get an older one. Also, it used to be that rifle scopes were well made even at lower prices. Now people say to not even consider one made for less than $100.

I'm gonna have to disagree with all of this. The metal trigger group on the old 10-22 was made of a cheap aluminum casting that was painted black. The new plastic trigger group is a much tougher, better looking, better functioning trigger group. The 870 design is still the same 870 design. In rare cases some get out the door with some minor issues, but in my experiences the new 870's are just as well made as anything. Optics have increased in value far faster than any other part of shooting.
Today a $200 scope is better than a scope costing $1000 in the 1980's.

You are also forgetting inflation. The cost of everything has gone up as have wages. You cannot expect to pay 1980's prices while earning 2017 wages. And paying 2017 wages to the man making today's products. A $100 scope today would have sold for $20-$25 in the 1980's, and I wouldn't recommend one of those either. You can buy an 870 Express for $289 and get a $50 rebate bringing the cost down to $239. In 1980 money the same gun should have cost. about $72.

I can assure you that in 1980 you couldn't buy an 870 for $72. Guns and shooting related gear are at an all time low in price and an all time high in functional quality. 99.999% of complaints about guns lack of quality has to do with aesthetics. If you want to get the same aesthetics from the 1940's then you have to pay for them in 21st century prices. It would be possible to get the same wood, and wood to metal fit from 70-80 years ago. But a "FAIR" price for that quality would run the costs of an 870 up over $2000. Not many would be willing to pay that price for an 870.

 

[Solomonson]

I'm curious about figures like these that pop up every now and then. Where do theu come from? The cost of the actual raw material? Plus the labor? What?
Let's assume that daily costs for rent, insurances, permits, licenses, lawyers, heat, A/C and maintenance is included in the guesstimates.
Let's even assume that advertising is also included in the per unit costs quoted here. Doubtful but hey, this is the internet.

How about the million dollar machines they buy to produce various parts. These machines have their own parts that wear from use and need to be replaced.
How about the R&D needed to make their current offering better or to make the next, best wundernine? Where does that money come from?
How about the money needed for the warranty department? They all have warranty claims no matter who they are.
There are hundreds of costs we couldn't even dream of in any manufacturing environment. Most aren;t cheap.

Bottom line?
If you say it costs $100 to make a Glock, what is the real cost? 2x as much? 2.5x as much? 3x?

I'd guess (since we all are) that the true cost to make a Glock (or whatever) is what they charge the military or LEO departments per unit. What was it? $250?

"Cost" in this context is Cost of Goods Sold (COGS.) Period. That's an accounting definition that takes all the individual costs you mentioned and a great many more. (I don't "dream" about them, I KNOW them for the products I produce.) Actually it's more than that -- it's Cost of Sales which is COGS plus every external sales expense like shipping, warranty costs (as a % of sales) etc. The $80.00/unit number came from an interview of Paul M. Barrett who researched and wrote: Glock: The Rise of America's Gun. I wish I had a copy.

 

[Solomonson]

...I can assure you that in 1980 you couldn't buy an 870 for $72. Guns and shooting related gear are at an all time low in price and an all time high in functional quality. 99.999% of complaints about guns lack of quality has to do with aesthetics. If you want to get the same aesthetics from the 1940's then you have to pay for them in 21st century prices. It would be possible to get the same wood, and wood to metal fit from 70-80 years ago. But a "FAIR" price for that quality would run the costs of an 870 up over $2000. Not many would be willing to pay that price for an 870.

I agree with much that you posted except for "Guns and shooting related gear are at an all time low in price.) That's definitely not true, particularly when compared to other durable goods. Were it not for gun-specific rules and laws, plus what many would consider the unsavory industry of making and selling of firearms, far more guns would be built offshore (at the same product quality levels) and they would sell for a great deal less than they do. Less than half.

 

[paulsj]

I'm still waiting for firearms to drop a great deal more in price! Take the Glock 17. A number of years ago it cost Glock about $80.00 to produce one. Let's say it costs them $100/unit today (it might well be less than what it was, but let's use the $100 number.) An extremely healthy 50% profit margin equates to a wholesale price of $150/unit. Let's say distributors earn 25% on sales (most do not), which would equate to a sales price of $187.50. Let's say retailers earn another 25% (none do), which would equate to a sales price of $234.38. That's just about half of what a G17 costs today if one makes an effort to shop. At some point, if sales continue to drop, or if a new player enters the market, there is obviously plenty of room to cut sales prices. That could cause some real problems for the makers and the industry:

First; it could trigger a pricing war, which has been historically common in small arms sales. Pricing wars ultimately hurt manufacturers and the industry. Second, most consumers aren't well informed. Many would incorrectly attribute a drop in price to a drop in product quality -- that's happening with ARs right now -- just look at this thread. Third if prices dropped low enough (for the same quality/safe hardware), the anti-gun politicians would likely jump back onto the "Saturday night special" bandwagon. Finally Glock and to a lesser degree their competition, would no longer enjoy hoggish margins which might possibly impact R&D spending (but probably not.)

What's it's going to take is a hungry company in my estimation. A company like Hi-Point to offer a Glock-level firearm in the ~$250.00 range. Yes, there will be plenty of naysayers that claim a quality handgun cannot be produced and sold for that price. That's obviously ridiculous, especially with the ever more common practice of deleting the distributor tier. If their new products caught on at a lower price, the Glocks, SIGs and S&Ws would have no choice but to follow. THAT would lead to much lower priced firearms in some market sectors.

I always thought government agencies like military & police get those for far far less and those savings are passed on to the civilian customers. If you want to avoid "double taxation" choose Turkish gun. Those are most likely made on state of the art machinery just like the Glock.

 

[Stevenvalleyky]

I can assure you that in 1980 you couldn't buy an 870 for $72.

Well, I cant say what they were in 1980 as I was still a wee little person. But in 1990, Walmart was selling the 870 express for $169.99. That was not a sale price, that was the regular price. With that being the case, I wonder what an 870 express really did sell for new in 1980, as Im sure it wasnt much over $100.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

In 1980 my brand new 870 Wingmaster 12 gauge cost $200.
When the first 870 express models came out they had problems with cycling. Buffing the rough edges of some parts would solve the issue.

 

[Solomonson]

Well, I cant say what they were in 1980 as I was still a wee little person. But in 1990, Walmart was selling the 870 express for $169.99. That was not a sale price, that was the regular price. With that being the case, I wonder what an 870 express really did sell for new in 1980, as Im sure it wasnt much over $100.

As a data point, a 870 Wingmaster was $119.99 in 1975

 

[Solomonson]

I always thought government agencies like military & police get those for far far less and those savings are passed on to the civilian customers. If you want to avoid "double taxation" choose Turkish gun. Those are most likely made on state of the art machinery just like the Glock.

Well, the military and police contracts (at least the big ones) are subject to competitive bidding. Glock for instance was struggling to get a foothold in the public safety arena in the US. They couldn't make a sale to the NYPD, LAPD or other large public safety organizations.

Glock finally cut a deal with the NYC Transit Cops. The price was very close to their cost. Some say they were an outright gift. The Transit Cops got them and loved them and it made the NYPD and a lot of other public safety organizations very interested in acquiring Glocks.

From there, Glock would routinely trade their brand new wares for department's used handguns -- usually revolvers. The revolvers would then be wholesaled out and the proceeds would more than pay for the Glocks plus a hefty profit margin.

 

[Solomonson]

This feels like a damned if you do and damned if you don't kind of thing.

During the rush to get as many guns to market to keep up with demand, we complained that the QC process was compromised. The gun makers had to meet orders so they put out less than perfect guns to meet demand and figured their warranty department would fix any issues.

Now, with less demand, we are saying that the gun makers will cut corners to meet a lower price point and that QC will be cut to reduce costs. Quality will suffer as a result.

So, which is it? Increased demand will compromised QC or reduced demand will compromise QC?

I don't know ANY reputable gun maker that allowed their product quality to slip due to increased volume. That's the mark of a schlock shop! I certainly wouldn't do business with one that did that.

I also don't understand what you mean by "QC will be cut to reduce costs"? You cannot inspect or rework quality into a product.

 

[12Pump]

The Remington 870 (even the express) is still a great gun. I was recently out at the range. I had my 1975 Wingmaster and my son has his 2016 Express. Someone else had an 870 made in 1953. The differences between each was remarkable. The 1953 model was by far the heaviest and had the nicest wood. My 1975 was probably the best finished, inside and out. The 2016 looked like a workhorse in comparison. Yes, far less expensive to manufacture, but also likely the one I would choose if my life depended on it working correctly.

I currently have a Remington 870 Express Magnum. I also have a Mossberg 500 Persuader. The Remington's forearm, when the internal hammer is not cocked and the chamber is empty, has a whole lot of play in it. It can be moved a full 1.5" forward and back without moving the bolt. By comparison, the Mossberg's forearm moves only about a half inch at most. Most people have told me that Remington is to be preferred over the Mossberg, but when I compare the 2 guns I have, I say "Ha!, no way!"

 

[Ed Ames]

I'm still waiting for someone to define "quality."

Good luck.

One of the really frustrating things about progress is that it is very difficult for people to intuitively recognize the difference between engineering refinement and corner-cutting.

 

[Solomonson]

Good luck.

One of the really frustrating things about progress is that it is very difficult for people to intuitively recognize the difference between engineering refinement and corner-cutting.

"Cost reduction" is a formal part of the design process and need not equate to "corner cutting" as you not. Sadly, "corner cutting" also takes place on the shop floor in some firms where the widgets being built don't match the approved design.

 

[Shaq]

Manufacturers have been cutting costs (and raising prices) on products for several years. That's why I decided I have all the guns I need now.