Does "bad" earn more posts?

[NGIB]

Just look at any Taurus thread (and some other brands) and roughly the same group of folks weigh in and say they're junk. Did they get a bad one, I'm sure they did, but to me it seems we focus on the bad ones.

I just wonder how many good guns of a make and model exist for every bad one that gets all the thread traffic. I expect quite a few, as many folks don't bother to post anything on a gun that functions just fine. Another example is the poly Kahrs. Early production did have problems, in fact Kahr replaced a lot of barrels for certain serial number ranges. I've had a number of poly Kahrs and they all ran flawlessly if you operated them correctly.

In the owners manual it states that the first round must be chambered by locking the slide, inserting a mag, and then hitting the slide release. I've seen at least a half dozen threads complaining about Kahrs because they have problems chambering the first round - all when this method isn't followed. (After breaking them in mine worked OK even if I didn't follow this method)

This is how the "bad" gun stuff starts. Me, I tend to take everything I read on the net, especially the "junk gun" claims with a grain of salt...

 

[KyJim]

People who have problems with a product are always more vocal than those who are satisfied. It's human nature.

As far as the poly Kahr is concerned, the approved method of chambering a round is contrary to the established manner of doing so in semi-autos (unless firing a magazine dry first). To me, that seems to be a design flaw by Kahr. Sort of like having your car's gear stick go from park to drive, rather than park to reverse.

 

[Tamara]

It's a well-known fact that "bad" earns more word-of-mouth than "good". People will go on and on about the lemon car or the poor service they received at a restaurant because that is supposed to be exception. Why would you comment one way or another if a product you purchased merely performed as advertised? That's what it's supposed to do, right? "Dear Everybody: The sun rose in the east today."

You have to think about the numbers behind something, however. Suppose you had one pistol from the BrandX Corporation. The pistol worked well for you, and you totally enjoyed owning it. Somebody starts a thread entitled "The BrandX BlastOMatic: Is it a good pistol?" You reply "I love my BlastOMatic! I've had it for three years and never had a problem." Someone else replies with "I used to be a BrandX dealer. We stopped carrying the BlastOMatic because almost forty percent of the ones we sold needed to go back to the factory for warranty work." Which one of you is lying? (Hint: Neither.)

 

[B.N.Real]

Taurus sure is the 'star' of internet negative posts.

And some of their models seem to get more negative press than others.

It makes me wonder if Taurus is simply making the guns way too fast to undercut Smith and Wesson's price.

Obviously,if Taurus is selling more handguns than any other company in the world right now,there would be much more negative posts because they would have a much higher number of customers to sample the product.

But I've also seen negative posts about Kimber,that makes the custom 1911's.

Kel Tec,that makes an entry level priced but thouroughly newly designed work grade handguns.

I own a used P-11 and I must say,I'm impressed with it's design and reliability.

I've also seen bad press about all kinds of compact semi auto pistols of all brands -EVEN GLOCKS.

Heck,I've even seen bad press about Smith's revered Model 41's (ammo finicky to the max) and it's 617 22 revolver (six shot) and Sig's Mosquito is (according to the internet) one of THE WORST new semi auto's in recent history.

Heck,I've even seen on the internet where Walther's new small 22 semi auto broke it's slide right in half at the front of the slide!

So even though Taurus gets hammered for quality,gun problems are by no means a Taurus exclusive.

So real question about the Taurus's is:

Would you pay another two hundred dollars for a Taurus if the quality was as good every time as a Smith?

I doubt it.

 

[Tamara]

But I've also seen negative posts about Kimber,that makes the custom 1911's.

Kimber's "customness" exists mostly in the minds of their marketing department.

 

[Don P]

Bad Firearms

Well, as with any product that we deal with in our daily lives, there are good functioning products that work as intended and give good, long reliable service. And there are products that are problemmatic from day one. It does not matter WHO the manufacturer is they make mostly good reliable products and YES every once in a while a LEMON gets out.
That's why all manufacturer's have a service department. To service there products for normal wear and tare, and to repair the items that are under warranty. I personaly do not know of any manufacturer that DOES NOT have a service department. As stated the bad always comes to the surface first.

 

[CraigC]

Absolutely! Welcome to the internet where people come to complain about their one little problem with their one little (insert product here) and make mountains out of molehills. Yet we complain about the evening news doing the same thing???

 

[Tamara]

Welcome to the internet where people come to complain about their one little problem with their one little (insert product here)

Generally if I complain about a gun, it's not because of "one little problem", it's about a few dozen too many problems out of the hundreds I've seen.

Me: "Thirty percent of the BlastOMatics I saw had QC issues, so we stopped carrying them."

Joe Randomposter: "omg u hater! my blastomatic haz been perfect with no jamz!"

Me: "Congratulations. You're one of the lucky 70%."

 

[T. O'Heir]

When Taurus revolvers first came up here, in the early 80's, they still had heavy tool marks on them. I suspect a lot of the 'bad' reports come from the first examples people saw. Japanese manufactured stuff was the same way until they came to North America and saw what was being made here.
"...if Taurus is..." Third World labour costs makes a difference in the end user price.

 

[Hawg]

I've got a Rohm and an Arminus. I couldn't be happier with them. They shoot well and always go bang when they're supposed to. They don't spit lead or any of the stuff they're "famous" for. I've never heard anything good about either of them except from me.

 

[funon1]

I don't think so. In fact, most of the threads are positive

And almost all gun reviews in the magazines are all positive. It is really hard to find a negative comment on many guns, even poor quality ones in the gun rags.

Generally if I complain about a gun, it's not because of "one little problem", it's about a few dozen too many problems out of the hundreds I've seen.

Exactly. And Taurus has earned its reputation, I can assure you. Not every Taurus is defective, but most of the hundreds of their wheelguns that I've shot or examined over the years were poorly made and were not functional.

But I always give credit when it is due. Although S&W revolvers are far and away better than Taurus revolvers, I would choose a 24/7 or Pro over a Sigma any day. I even wrote about the improvements Taurus made in their polymer autos of late in the forums not long ago. But they are still on the whole vastly inferior to Smith and Ruger, Colt, Sig and Glock.

I think people get upset because of all the falsely positive advertising-dollar-driven reviews they see in the gun rags that stand in stark contrast to the reality of independent reviewers who have nothing to gain by being dishonest. Many people seem to think that print sources such as G&A et al are trustworthy sources of unbiased information and writers on Net forums are liars. Interesting paradox in my opinion.

Funon1

 

[Colt Delta Elite]

I don't think so. In fact, most of the threads are positive

Two different things being talked about here.
True, I never have read a review in a gun magazine (except Gun Reports) that panned a firearm. Not too confident in them being unbiased (conflict of interest), so I use them for obtaining specs but little else.

NGIB, was taking about bad reviews from internet posters -- something I believe is completely different than a magazine writer. However, I am not sure I put a ton of stock in those opinions either. Example: I own a number of Kimbers w/o problems. Yet to some, these are the worst pistols out there. The folks that had a bad experience (with any brand) are far more vocal; some make it seem like the end of civilization as we know it.

I tend to toss out the extremes and look for what the general trend seems to indicate. But that does not necessarily influence my final buying decision. Where will all those people (pro if you end up with a lemon, and con if you get a jewel) be after the sale? Make your own informed decision and then live with it. You have to accept personal responsibility in the end.

 

[sholling]

Truth be told there are some that deserve to be brought out into the light of day. Those companies with short warranties, p-poor customer service, horrible waits for repairs, or just a bad product. My beef is with those posters that are stupid, malicious, or just want attention. For example a thread labeled: "Warning!!! XYZ Sucks!!!!" and inside you find that some newb had a very minor easily resolved issue and just wanted to make a federal case out of it. I guess momma hadn't paid them enough attention that week.

 

[Teuthis]

Taurus

I have been told by more than one gunshop worker that they have a lot of returns on Taurus for quality reasons; that is returns for repairs. There is usually some basis for "reputation" and it seems, if we consider the statistics, that Taurus has earned its share of bad revues. It seems that inconsistency is the most serious problem with Taurus. They produce just too many lemons to be considered a top brand.

 

[whiplash]

Well I have had no problem with my Taurus M44...seems to work just fine...I wouldnt hesitate to get another one.

 

[Tom2]

I had a Taurus revolver with an insurmountable QC failure once. And I had a Taurus 92 clone that was a pretty good autopistol, even used. However much negative posts an item gets, when I see some thread with like 30-40-50-300 posts, I don't bother to even get in there and read all of them or skip it entirely, unless I think some useful specific info might be in there.

 

[Technosavant]

As Tam said, it has a lot to do with people being more vocal when they have problems. You also need to take each model/type of gun individually. Problems with a revolver doesn't mean that their semiautos are crap, and vice versa. Major differences in design also need to be taken individually.

For example, Taurus may have QC issues with the revolvers and their poly-framed semiautos, but their Beretta clones and 1911s seem to be plenty competent. I can understand not wanting to be first in line for one, but I keep seeing people poo-poo the PT1911 based on their experience with a poly framed Taurus, which is a completely different animal and unrelated in all things but for the name.

Also, those brands which have very consistently high quality tend to not need many threads. For example, the questions "Is the Sig P series gun worth buying?" and "How often do you need to send a Glock in for service?" and maybe even "Just how much does HK think we suck and therefore hate us?" are pretty obvious. The Sigs are great, you'll darn near never need to send in the Glock, and quite a bit and very much.

 

[cool hand luke 22:36]

Would you pay another two hundred dollars for a Taurus if the quality was as good every time as a Smith?

I doubt it.

If the quality of the average Taurus was as good as a S&W, and if by quality you're including the warranty and customer service aspects of ownership, then I'd be willing to pay extra for a certain Taurus revolver that Smith refuses to make.

That would be a revolver sans ugly integral lock hole drilled in the frame.

 

[lon371]

Back to your question. Probably. Its kinda like the Iraq, the bad generates more talk then does the good.

 

[NGIB]

I think Colt Delta Elite summed this one up well. The gun mags will not risk their advertising dollars by being negative. Then you have to toss out the extremes and look for emotionless reviews. I've seen some folks bash a brand in every thread they can and it's about a single pistol. The 3 Taurii I own are reliable and good shooters so maybe I'm just lucky...