Should we expect a drop in quality from now on?

[Ed Ames]

"Cost reduction" ...

I didn't say anything about "cost reduction".

I've been part of an engineering team designing products for manufacture in China so I have plenty of stories about corner-cutting that happens between sending off a design and unloading a container-load of products loosely based on that design, but they don't matter to my point which is that laypeople generally can't tell corner-cutting from improved engineering.

 

[LiveLife]

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

William Edwards Deming's thoughts on quality - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ts-and-discussions.778197/page-6#post-9917774

"We do not know what quality is

Lack of knowledge … that is the problem

We can do something about our problems, or we can continue the way we are

There is no knowledge without theory

We should be guided by theory, not by numbers

Without theory there is nothing to modify or learn

Without theory we can only copy

We want best efforts guided by theory

Understanding variation is the key to success in quality

We must understand variation

You can not hear what you do not understand

We should work on our process, not the outcome of our processes

When people try to do what they can not do, they wish to give up

When we cooperate, everybody wins

You do not find knowledge in a dictionary, only information

Information is not knowledge. Let’s not confuse the two"

 

[Solomonson]

I didn't say anything about "cost reduction".

I've been part of an engineering team designing products for manufacture in China so I have plenty of stories about corner-cutting that happens between sending off a design and unloading a container-load of products loosely based on that design, but they don't matter to my point which is that laypeople generally can't tell corner-cutting from improved engineering.

Likewise and "engineering refinement" is often termed "cost reduction" -- partially or wholly. "Improved engineering" has a number of facets.

 

[Ed Ames]

I guess I just don't see your point in relation to my own..of course everything has multiple facets, goats have elongated pupils, "unobtanium" is lazy fiction, and a million other things. I don't disagree but does any of that illustrate, expand upon, refute, or otherwise relate to what I was talking about? Maybe it is there and I'm just not seeing it....

 

[Solomonson]

I guess I just don't see your point in relation to my own..of course everything has multiple facets, goats have elongated pupils, "unobtanium" is lazy fiction, and a million other things. I don't disagree but does any of that illustrate, expand upon, refute, or otherwise relate to what I was talking about? Maybe it is there and I'm just not seeing it....

I don't see your comments about "engineering refinements" as being much more than cost reductions. Did the original production (I'm not talking about prototypes, or engineering A or B models, etc.) pieces work or not? If they didn't and they were still shipped, that's a huge problem obviously. Presuming they do function as designed, the focus of "engineering refinement" is typically cost reduction -- in all areas, be it processing, materials, etc.

 

[.308 Norma]

For as long as I can remember, people were buying more guns than usual because there was always a threat of a ban looming over us. Clinton back in 1994, Obama for the past 8 years, ending with the strong threat of Hillary being elected in 2016.

I’m sorry to say that I can remember “a threat of a ban looming over us” going a lot further back than Clinton 1. I’m almost 69 now, but when I was just 16 I heard a lot of folks talking about the jerks in Washington wanting to ban guns because JFK had been shot. That shooting, plus the shooting of Bobby Kennedy 5 years later, led up to the GCA of ‘68.

However, maybe people just didn’t take a possible gun ban seriously back then. Or maybe they didn’t think it was possible. Because one thing I don’t remember is mom and dad, who sold guns through their general country store, selling any more guns than usual just because the liberals in Washington were working on the GCA of “68. When the GCA of ’68 finally did become law, mom and dad quit selling guns altogether through their store.

At any rate, I think most of us here have probably heard about the “pre-64” Winchesters, particularly the Model 70s. And I doubt the “post-64 Model 70s” had anything to do with the gun ban threats coming out of Washington at that time.

 

[Ed Ames]

I don't see your comments about "engineering refinements" as being much more than cost reductions.

That's your problem, not mine. I very specifically did not qualify what I meant by "engineering refinements" because I was not limiting the scope.

 

[Teachu2]

I'm willing to bet a lot of ar companies will be conglomerating and fighting for military and police contracts. That's not counting that if trump gets all 8 the ar market will dry up like scotch in fajita meat and force the lazy bums to either make better ARs for cheaper or make something new, the only problem is that making something new requires skill and time, when analyzing how long the made took I imagine that they'll find a middle ground in making American copies of foreign guns like fals, H&Ks, and stuff because the designs are proven but rare.

That's quite a statement right there, fellas.

 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

Prices at the LGS here haven't gone down yet---most of the models I'm interested in have actually gone up----the only place where I've seen the price go down is Walmart.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Some might argue we have been seeing a "reduction in quality" since the 1950s.....

 

[larryh1108]

Pre-internet, how did we really know how good the guns were 'in the good old days'?

Today, a company makes 10,000 of Gun X and we hear of all the horror stories of QC on the internet. Poor fit, poor customer service, poor accuracy, poor function, etc.
Gun forums are ablaze with these stories and soon Gun X is on the "do not buy" list from our community grapevine.

50 years ago, a company makes 10,000 of Gun Y and there are issues like mentioned above. No internet. No 6:00 news. No daily newspaper stories unless a recall is initiated and that news was in back, near the classifieds. Word of mouth at the LGS gets the story out to the local regulars. Perhaps a shop-to-shop discussion gets the word around county wise. The Shotgun news has only so many inches to spare and they won't bite the hand that feeds them unless there is a public safety issue. How do we know that Gun Y is a risky purchase? We find out by buying one and complaining to our family and buddies.

We hear about how well made the guns were made in the good old days. How do we know? The better made guns that were well taken care of and are still around show how nice they were but how about the lemons we didn't hear about and were disposed of years ago? Just because we have some wonderful examples of guns made years ago doesn't mean all of the ones made were equally wonderful. The only way we knew about the quality is when dad told us to stay away from Gun Y because it was crap (he had a buddy with a lemon) or how your uncle told you he had a POS Gun Z and he swore off that company forever because they didn't help him with it. We see and read about present gun makers who were vilified for (fill in the blank) years ago for something they did or were perceived to have done. Ruger, S&W, Taurus, Colt, the list goes on and on yet they are still around today pumping out guns for our pleasure.

The glory years of gun making are just that, memories of the good old days. I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of lemons was greater 'back then' than today because of the advancements we've made since then. As time goes on we tend to remember the good stuff and forget or dismiss the bad stuff. The same applies to our glorifying the good old days of guns and their perceived quality.

Yeah, technology has allowed us to cut costs. So? You make it sound like a bad thing when the reality is it is a good thing. I believe the guns made today are as good or better than any mass produced guns ever made when we consider reliability and accuracy. In the gun word, that's what matters most. It may not have that beautiful deep blue finish but I'd put the Glock finish up against any finish from the past in regards to keeping the guns rust free. I thought that was what the finish is for.

 

[PabloJ]

Pre-internet, how did we really know how good the guns were 'in the good old days'?

Today, a company makes 10,000 of Gun X and we hear of all the horror stories of QC on the internet. Poor fit, poor customer service, poor accuracy, poor function, etc.
Gun forums are ablaze with these stories and soon Gun X is on the "do not buy" list from our community grapevine.

50 years ago, a company makes 10,000 of Gun Y and there are issues like mentioned above. No internet. No 6:00 news. No daily newspaper stories unless a recall is initiated and that news was in back, near the classifieds. Word of mouth at the LGS gets the story out to the local regulars. Perhaps a shop-to-shop discussion gets the word around county wise. The Shotgun news has only so many inches to spare and they won't bite the hand that feeds them unless there is a public safety issue. How do we know that Gun Y is a risky purchase? We find out by buying one and complaining to our family and buddies.

We hear about how well made the guns were made in the good old days. How do we know? The better made guns that were well taken care of and are still around show how nice they were but how about the lemons we didn't hear about and were disposed of years ago? Just because we have some wonderful examples of guns made years ago doesn't mean all of the ones made were equally wonderful. The only way we knew about the quality is when dad told us to stay away from Gun Y because it was crap (he had a buddy with a lemon) or how your uncle told you he had a POS Gun Z and he swore off that company forever because they didn't help him with it. We see and read about present gun makers who were vilified for (fill in the blank) years ago for something they did or were perceived to have done. Ruger, S&W, Taurus, Colt, the list goes on and on yet they are still around today pumping out guns for our pleasure.

The glory years of gun making are just that, memories of the good old days. I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of lemons was greater 'back then' than today because of the advancements we've made since then. As time goes on we tend to remember the good stuff and forget or dismiss the bad stuff. The same applies to our glorifying the good old days of guns and their perceived quality.

Yeah, technology has allowed us to cut costs. So? You make it sound like a bad thing when the reality is it is a good thing. I believe the guns made today are as good or better than any mass produced guns ever made when we consider reliability and accuracy. In the gun word, that's what matters most. It may not have that beautiful deep blue finish but I'd put the Glock finish up against any finish from the past in regards to keeping the guns rust free. I thought that was what the finish is for.

You know Remington seems to get lot of complaints. I'm am on my eighth firearm from that company and had absolutely no problems with any I have owned in the past. Gee, do you think competitors provide some kind of undisclosed benefits for people to write unfavorable things against products they make?

 

[12Pump]

Prices at the LGS here haven't gone down yet---most of the models I'm interested in have actually gone up----the only place where I've seen the price go down is Walmart.

It's funny 'cuz I was just about to mention that. I was thinking about getting a Smith & Wesson MP15 Sport 2 because it seems to get the most mentions when people ask about the best AR15 for the money. I've seen the price down as low as $550 not too long after Trump was elected. Now, Bud's gunshop lists it at $620. A LGS by me has it on their site at $635, and Gander Mountain advertises it at $699. Hmmmm. Oh, and another thing....American Eagle 5.56 ammo at the same LGS used to be the best deal in my area, at $8 for a box of 20. Not great, but it was the best deal locally. Now they're selling it at $14.50. Talk about a markup! They also had Wolf steel cased ammo for slightly less, at $12.50 for a box of 20. I walked out empty handed.

 

[toivo]

I'm not very sa

I think what he is getting at is that companies will have to lower their prices because of the over saturation of the market.
In order to lower their prices, they will have to manufacture the firearms for less money, resulting in a decline in quality.

I'm not very savvy about economics, but I have to ask: How can the market be over-saturated by guns they haven't made yet? To me, the logical response to over-saturation is to reduce production until the pipeline clears out a bit. If anything, shouldn't reduced production result in an overall improvement in quality?

Again, you could fill a stadium with what I don't know about economics and manufacturing, so I could be way off-base on this. I look at this as a learning opportunity.

 

[.308 Norma]

Again, you could fill a stadium with what I don't know about economics and manufacturing, so I could be way off-base on this.

Ha! That's okay - I'll bet you could more easily "fill a stadium" with what some of the folks on these internet forums (including myself at times) profess to know about such things.

 

[larryh1108]

How can the market be over-saturated by guns they haven't made yet?

I'd guess that there are a lot of guns already made sitting in warehouses waiting for hillary to get elected. I have no doubt the gun makers turned out every gun they could make in anticipation of the huge demand (and higher profits) when the wrong person got elected. Trump may be a friend in the WH but I have no doubt he cost gun makers millions of dollars in anticipated profits.

 

[.308 Norma]

I'd guess that there are a lot of guns already made sitting in warehouses waiting for hillary to get elected. I have no doubt the gun makers turned out every gun they could make in anticipation of the huge demand (and higher profits) when the wrong person got elected. Trump may be a friend in the WH but I have no doubt he cost gun makers millions of dollars in anticipated profits.

In a small way, I'm an example. I've posted in other threads about my buying an AR the day before the election because the media claimed billary had it in the bag. I didn't need an AR, I don't even particularly like ARs, but I figured I could resell one at a profit after the election. Right! My AR is still in the box - I haven't even shot it yet. And with my turning 69 next month, I seriously doubt I'll be around long enough for it to be worth more than I paid for it.
Oh, well....

 

[1911 guy]

Cuts both ways. A case could be easily made that due to the larger demand recently, QC was allowed to be a bit sloppy and higher sales would offset any complaints or warranty work. Firearms are regulated enough at the production level here in the U.S. that much deviation from established practice and design would be more trouble for the manufacturer than any small savings would be worth. My opinion, of course. Sure, there are lemons. Yes, there are a small few companies I choose not to patronize. But an overall shift in quality? I don't see it coming.

 

[Stevenvalleyky]

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

The wingmaster being the high end model at $119.99. If they had offered the express in 1975 instead of 1987, wouldnt you think it would have sold for under $100?
I think accuracy and reliability have gone up on firearms. I think fit and finish and the quality of blueing has gone way down. But a matte finish is surely cheaper to produce than a deep beautiful blue and nice wood furniture is for sure more expensive than the tupperware stocks being produced now.
Newer guns are not nearly as aesthetically pleasing but are probably more accurate and reliable than guns of old.
My $.02

 

[.308 Norma]

The wingmaster being the high end model at $119.99. If they had offered the express in 1975 instead of 1987, wouldnt you think it would have sold for under $100?
I think accuracy and reliability have gone up on firearms. I think fit and finish and the quality of blueing has gone way down. But a matte finish is surely cheaper to produce than a deep beautiful blue and nice wood furniture is for sure more expensive than the tupperware stocks being produced now.
Newer guns are not nearly as aesthetically pleasing but are probably more accurate and reliable than guns of old.
My $.02

Yeppers, but "aesthetically pleasing" is, and always has been a matter of opinion. I like brunettes, old Ford trucks, matte finishes, and I prefer most synthetic stocks over wood stocks.

 

[larryh1108]

and I prefer most synthetic stocks over wood stocks.

That surprises me considering how "young" you are. Old timers like blued steel and wood. Where did you go wrong?

 

[Ed Ames]

matte finishes, and I prefer most synthetic stocks over wood stocks

That's evidence of a really important factor: the attributes people use to judge quality are almost entirely cultural. You learn them from people around you. Something you perceive as a sign of high quality may be learned by another person as a sign of low quality, and vice versa. There are times when something a person learns as a hallmark of quality is objectively not in any way connected to what I'll call objective measures such as performance, reliability, maintainability, durability, longevity, et cetera. That actually happens very frequently when people learn to associate a name or brand with quality, because eventually someone will realize that they can make more money by lowering production costs.

 

[.308 Norma]

Old timers like blued steel and wood. Where did you go wrong?

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! I don't think of it as "wrong" anymore. I did at one time. And I spent years trying to blame my wrongness on everything from my mom to high school bullies. But I've finally learned to like myself. At least that's what my shrink says is what I should do.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

I'm not very savvy about economics, but I have to ask: How can the market be over-saturated by guns they haven't made yet?

Well, I don't think the OP was referring to the development of new firearms, but rather the continued production of firearms already in existence.
For instance the market is oversaturated with AR15s right now due at least in part to panic buyers buying up every rifle that was black when President Obama was elected. Surely you remember when ARs flew off the shelf at ridiculous prices. I remember seeing S&W M&P Sports (a fine AR by the way) going for $1500-$2k on local boards because you couldn't find a new one in the stores.

Well now hundreds of thousands of people have them because of the panic buying.
So they're not paying a premium right now. This is the golden age of ARs mostly because of that.

If that wouldn't have happened, you wouldn't be seeing all of these sub $500 ARs on the market.

This is just me sitting here thinking though. I don't lay any claim to be smarter than anyone here, and other factors may play into it, but that's what I meant when I said the market is oversaturated.

 

[toivo]

Well, I don't think the OP was referring to the development of new firearms, but rather the continued production of firearms already in existence.

Yeah, that's what I meant too. I don't think we need to worry about lower demand causing manufacturers to cut corners on production. Their challenge is going to be how to get rid of the guns they've already made, not how to make more guns more cheaply.