Problems and complaints (mild rant)

[Don Gwinn]

She had no choice; she doesn't know his middle name.

 

[Dogger]

Hmmm. Very interesting post. In my neck of the woods everyone hates Colt. My favorite gun is a Colt CCO in 45 ACP that runs like a timex watch. It shoots and shoots and shoots and is as accurate as the Sig P220 and Kimber Custom Walnut I used to own. Sure enough, I did have some initial problems with it -- to include a plunger tube that came unstaked and locked up the gun (YIKES!) -- but after a repair and thorough once over by a qualified smith, I trust it completely.

Still, people bash Colt all the time. Me, I am looking for another one.

 

[trapshooter]

I guess the more you shoot it, the more likely it is for something to break. My car breaks, I fix it and move on. If a gun breaks in a do-or-die situation, maybe one should have a backup, or pay more attention to upkeep. I've bought around twenty guns over the last ten years or so. Different prices, manufacturers, calibers, types, etc. They all work, and work well. I have no real complaints.

On the other hand, I don't own a single weapon that anyone here would not recognize either by model or manufacturer, and probably most would consider "quality" weapons, even if they would not prefer them. As many have said, you get what you pay for, but you don't have to spend the cash for custom work, either, to get a perfectly servicable, reliable, accurate weapon. Most of mine are 'common' out of the box shooters. They all shoot to point of aim when I hold up my end. What more can I ask.

 

[New_comer]

Yet, you not only keep buying the junk, you keep praising people who can't do the job right in the first place, the job you pay them to do with your money. you keep finding excuses for the maker of deficient products. you keep believing makers who tell you that they make only the best, even while you are complaining about their products failing.

Well, I'm no "you"... My first and only gun so far is an HK, and will continue to be a source of my pride and joy, knowing it is not junk. I sincerely believe that Mr. Ala Dan feels the same way toward his SIG 220 and the Wild Romanian to his 1911's. But if that day comes that my investment fails to live up to my expectations, I sure as hell would want the supplier to fix it till I'm satisfied. (Pardon my french, not too good )

Regards,

New_comer

 

[IRock]

I can maybe be forgiving if a gun breaks from alot of wear, but there is NO EXCUSE for a gun to be defective from the factory. We are not dealing with toys. No excuse. None.

 

[45King]

Expectations too high, or quality too low?

I am reminded of a thread I saw here some time ago. The author postulated that since the 1911 and various copies could be made to malfunction by "limp wristing," this constituted a "design flaw." His contention was that a properly designed autoloader should go "bang" every time as long as ammo was supplied and the trigger depressed, regardless of any other circumstances like poor grip, etc.

Was this truly a: 1. "design flaw;" 2. an inherent limitation in the design; or 3. a case of expecting too much? I think 85% 2 and 15% 3.

I would dealy love to know the actual cost of producing some of the more common types of firearms. Does anyone REALLY think that it costs anywhere near $600 to build a Glock, or $850 to build a Kimber? I think Jim has a valid point when he says:

The real problem is that manufacturers today don't make the best product they can and then sell it for enough to make a profit. Instead they calculate what the traffic will bear in price, then make the gun as cheaply as possible to maximize profits. This means using poorly made parts, parts made from the wrong metal, parts made in the wrong (but cheap) way, warped castings shoved into production, casting air holes welded up, heavy plating or parkerizing to cover defects, etc.

I think this has become the corporate attitude for almost all retail consumer goods. I've seen enough junk (not just limited to guns) to make me wonder about the motivations of the manufacturer. Doubt it? Think "Popeil" (sp?): Veg-a-Matic, Salad Shooter, and other Items You Didn't Know You Could Live Without.

 

[bullet44]

"All in all, I think that the quality and consistency of guns is far and away better than it has been in the past."

Nope, I have lived a "few" years bought guns in the 50's,Ruger made some fine guns on start up,
Smith was top quality, blue like a mirror.

We now have a society that believes in large profits only (at any cost)most items are over
priced and poorly made.

We have made advances in electronics,this is
one area that cars have improved,more comfort
better steering, however have they improved
to meet what they cost,I dont think so. Also
as for pollution a new car running in a garage
will kill you just as quick as a 1951 chevy
that cost $1500.

 

[James K]

Cost

"You get what you pay for" is great when talking about a $29 Lorcin. When you shell out $1500+ for a pistol you should not have to put up with Lorcin quality.

As to cost, there was an old rule in the firearms industry (and probably elsewhere) that the factory cost (U.S.) was one seventh of the retail. That was the parts and labor cost, not the cost of tooling, design, keeping the lights on, profit, etc. Foreign costs are usually much lower, even with shipping added in, which is why many U.S. "makers" are only assemblers.

In the firearms industry system part of the profit goes to a distributor, who serves as a buffer between factory and dealer. The need arises because the firearms industry consists of fairly small companies who do not keep all their guns in production at all times. They produce a batch of "Model One", then retool and produce a batch of "Model Two", etc. With distirbutors, they can get storage enough to last until the next run and keep dealers and customers happy.

Of course profit goes to the end dealer, who needs to stay in business if any of us are to have the guns we want. IMHO, folks who try to work around their local dealers to save a few pennies are very short sighted.

Jim

 

[Al Thompson]

My only problem is that I've never seen any flavor of machine that was 100%. Zero - regardless of brand.

Is it a problem? IMHO, no. Is it really irritating? Oh yeah...

Solution? For me, testing the machine (if it's a critical one) and having a spare.

Giz

 

[leej]

The other part of me recognizes that since the 1800's, goods are mass produced, often machine assembled, not hand fitted,

In the past most firearms were indeed hand fitted. True, they were first machined with great care and pride of workmanship but one of the standard tools of the fierams maker was the file and stone during assembly.

Yes, most things are not what they used to be. They're better! Cars are better

Partially true. Cars get better miliage due to advances in technology but not due to better workmanship.

In decades past, if there was a problem with a product, nobody knew about it. Who's to say for sure that quality is worse today than it was 25 years ago?

I am afraid you will have to go back more than 25 years. During that period of time there was a big change in how fireamres were being manufactured such as negative impressed checkering of gun stocks and the first inclusion of lots of plastic and non-ferous metal in workingmans guns. None of this was accepted or liked but if you wanted a low priced firearm this is all you had to choose from.

The famous gun writer Jack O'cconer did an outstanding write up in Outdoor Life magazine 25 years ago complaining of how firearms were then being made as compared to the firearms of the recent past.

People did know about problems with firearms in the past but it took longer for the information to spread than the instant information you get on the internet.

Anyone who has owned and used a large quantity of both new firearms and old firarms is well aware of the tremendous difference in average accuracy and quality control and the difference in the quality of materiels used in their construction. Labor was cheaper then and so was the price of quality materiels used in their construction. They could be built of quality materiels with lots of close fitting hand labor and still be affordable to the average worker.

With todays computer machinery it is possible to make firearms quicker and for less money but when it comes to final assembly the quality of the firearm still rests with the man assembling it. Today it is rush , rush get the product out the door for maximum profits, not consumer satisfaction. This results in a lot of returns and angry customers and in the end loss of buisness to the manufacturer.

As far as worker ethics. People today do not live for their jobs as in the past, they live for themselves and very little thought or care goes into the building of a quality product. Part of this problem is not bad people but bad management. When people in the work place are treated like machines and are considered expendable there is no company loyalty or care about putting out a quality product. Work place violence is at an all time high and most of it is directly the fault of how management runs their facilities and treats there workers.

All in all, I think that the quality and consistency of guns is far and away better than it has been in the past.

I could not disagree with you more. When comparing the workmanship of some of the older model firearms that are still being produced today and then comparing them often to almost identical models made today it is very obvious which ones had the better workmanship , accuracy and reliability.

What amazes me is how in the world these old timers actually were able to precisely fit together some of the precision made parts that they manufactured. I have often looked at how side plates were fitted to revolvers and how various small parts were fitted into the frames and slides of automatics. Unless you look closely the small inserted parts are barely visible to the naked eye due to the tremedous machine fitting of these inletted parts. And all this was often done fully or partially by hand.

In conculsion these old time weapons often gave trouble free service for years because they were first tested in great secrecy and often for years before being released to the public when they were in the developement stages of invention. When they were put into mass production the standards of quality control were far beyond what we have today. Nothing left the factory unless it was considered perfect in every way.

Today it cannot leave the factory fast enough and it does not matter if it works or not. I have personally seen products go out the door that did not work at all. The foreman was only concerned with high output and the worker was only concered with his next coffee break.

What amazes me is that any of the consumer goods we buy today work at all. As we all know every one of us is absolutely amazed today when we buy something that actually does work as compared to the attitude of yesteryear when we expected our products to work flawlessly after purchase.

When it comes to firearms the good old days really were the good old days because I was there and I have lived in both worlds, the past and the present. I treasure my collection of older well built firearms. Their value is constantly sky rocketing because people place great value on a quality product made of quality materiels. Newer designed guns, even ones made 15 or 20 years ago often have a decreasing resale value because nobody collects them or wants them unless the price is very low.

 

[Oris]

Testing the machine should be done at the factory.
Customer is not the one who is responsible for testing.

 

[Trsnrtr]

I probably fall somewhere in the middle on this one. I give my guns a sort of "honeymoon" period to get rid of any jitters, but after that they better perform if they know what's good for them.

Seriously, I've only had bad experiences with one manufacturer and others seem to love the same company so I just avoid the company and try to keep my mouth shut while others praise them.
(end run-on sentence)

All in all, most guns I've owned (probably 95%) were pretty good as long as I used quality ammo.

 

[James K]

Last word from me, but just for the record, I don't think I mentioned finish, fit, polishing, nice bluing, craftsmanship, or any of those wonderful but basically irrelevant indicators of "quality". I was considering a handgun, and doing so from the point of view of its ultimate purpose. If I need a gun, I would much rather have one that works and looks like heck than one that does not work but looks nice.

Jim

 

[Carbon_15]

That was my $800 SIG that started flakeing after one day and 150 rounds of mild plinking ammo. Its also proven to be unreliable and horribly inacurrate. I know this dosnt represent the norm for Sig, but at this price point, leamons like this should
be non-existant. I have yet to hear back from SIG after over a weeks worth of e-mail's and phone calls. When I had a breakage with my Professional Ordnance Carbon-15 (it was kinda my fault...for using cheap russian ammo that was double loaded and sheared the rim around the bolt face off along with the case head) it took one week from the time it left my house till it was back in my hand. In the time I have been waiting for a top-of-the line univeraly respected pistol companyto call me back, a company with a horible (undeserved and untrue) reputation for quality and workmanship had repaired my gun and sent it back to me. I can think of atleast 3 guns in my collection that have a similar undeserved reputation among gunshop commandos as crap....all three performed perfectly from day one. Sometimes you just DONT get what you pay for. When it comes to guns that is simply unaceptable.