Firearms Quality

B

BarryLee

New member
After working in the manufacturing industry I have noticed a steady improvement in the products that the organizations I have been associated with produce. The advancement in computer assisted design, computer assisted manufacturing, materials advancement, process control, employee training and other areas have been astounding.

So, I have noticed a few folks mentioning that the quality of a particular firearms manufacturer has diminished compared to what it once was. This has been mentioned in regards to some of the biggest names out there like S&W, Ruger, Sig, SA and I am sure a few more. So, what are these statements based on? Is it simply personal opinion or is there some type of data compiled by someone that actually supports this?

Just curious if overall quality is improving in most industries why the firearms industry would be any different?
 
Up until the 1960's or so, much of firearms manufacturing was done by craftsmen with years of experience under their belt (like most other manufacturing). In the 1970's, industry in general came under pressure from Japan and other low-cost producers to cut costs - firearms manufacters wheren't exempt from this pressure. With the rising power of labor unions, the cost of skilled labor went way up. Therefore, one of the first things to go was skilled labor. This almost killed Colt (and did indeed put them out of the revolver business).

Quality suffered because the low-cost unskilled (or moderately skilled) workforce couldn't be as precise as the skilled guys. Fast forward to today where computer controlled CNC machines and laser controlled QC acceptance devices have been able to increase precision without a significant increase in cost.

I think than any increase in end-product quality you are seeing is a result of industry adapting high technology to replace some of the skills that were lost in the dead years of the 70's and 80's.

Now, all this doesn't speak to deliberate downgrading of quality (the cheapening of goods) that we are all familiar with.
 
My personal take on it is this:

Many times when someone regards a manufacturers new products as poorer quality than in the past, it has to do with one of the following:

1) Some manufacturers used to hand finish and hand fit their arms so that, when done right, the overall appearance and sometimes the performance was better than now. New processes and materials often don't provide that same look/appearance.

2) As manufacturers change hands or hit hard times or advance through time, sometimes they cut expensive processes out. This doesn't always work out and can lead to bad performance/look/appearance. Usually such a manufacturer will pay the price for these decisions.

3) Some people just bemoan the fact that times and arms styles are changing. Similar to the folks who will vow that "They just don't make 'em like they used to." While this may or may not have merit, it is usually in the eye of the beholder.

4) Some companies just aim for the bottom rung of a particular market and as such produce lower quality products. That has always been the case and is not particularly indicative of anything other than market niche.

5) Every manufacturer, no matter how 'good' or quality driven will occasionally produce a lemon. Statistics shows you why and almost nothing prevents an occasional lemon from getting to market. Any person who purchases said lemon will understandably have a bad taste for that company's products and may go so far as to bad mouth them in print or online (GASP!).

There are more reasons, I'm sure, but I personally think that there are more manufacturers making truly fine firearms today than there were in most of the years of our past. At the same time, due to increased demand, there are many bottom feeders making marginal products too. It's to be expected.

In short, I believe that the firearms industry has also experienced the improvement you've noticed, there is just much more chatter about any given 'failure' than there ever had been in the past. My opinion.
 
Probably the best way to measure quality then and now is to compare similar priced guns from then and now. Use this calculator to convert old money into new. ( it will run the other way too ) http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

Pick yesterdays gun we consider junk even when new , a mid quality and a high end gun, enter the year and verified $ then compare what the same $ would buy today. If the gun bought with todays is better, then quality has gone up.

Do the same with ammo too.
 
Hello, There is a good article in Rifle magazine on this..The Holland & Holland company was bought by some american investors in CA. They thought with million doller+ CNC machines they could be made both cheaper & faster. Well, they got all programed up, produced parts that fit together, assembled their first double rifle...and it was stuck together like a jigsaw puzzle..The parts were to size as designed but...they ended up having to import one of the original company's fitters to hand file & fit those pieces to make them work together as they were supposed to.
 
I think it is true that firearms, like automobiles or appliances, have certain "vintages" that due to design, fit and finish, are simply more appealing than others, plus it depends on when you came of age. I have seen objections to the use of MIM parts and there are all sorts of usually unverifiable stories about them not holding up. Then there is the "pre 1964"
vs. "post 1964" Winchester debate. Also so much depends on the particular company and whoever is managing it at that time.
 
Metal Injection Molding. Advantage? CHEAP! Polymer. Advantage? CHEAP! Advising customers to "keep shooting it until it breaks in" Advantage? No warranty or repair deparment necessary.:rolleyes:
 
Hey all thanks for the feedback.

It sounds like the issue for many may be more one of design preferences than of quality. I too love older designs and although I have a few “poly guns” I really prefer all metal. I can also understand the dislike many have for being forced to accept locking mechanisms they do not want. The breakdown in Customer Service is a real issue, but not really an issue with the actual hardware. I know there are other threads debating MIM parts, so I won’t get into it here. I also respectfully disagree that “more bang for the buck” equates to greater quality. To me this may be an example of greater value, but not greater quality.

I guess at the end of the day I feel very confident buying new firearms. Although, I love older guns I do not necessarily think they are of greater quality. However, I will admit there is nothing more beautiful than my Grandfather’s fifty year old gently worn Ruger or a classic 1911 that has been loved to the point all the finish is worn off.
 
Have you ever owned any 100-year-old H&Rs or Iver Johnsons or any of the cheap guns that made up the majority of what was sold back then? They weren't all Colt target pistols and S&W Registered Magnums.

Then there were all of the older Savage, Stevens, Crescent, etc. long guns. They certainly had their problems. The ones we see now are the ones that didn't break or wear out. Or the ones that were sent back and fixed.


"The Holland & Holland company was bought by some american investors in CA."

You're thinking of Rigby. The Chanel group bought H&H in 1990.

John Rigby & Co. (Gunmakers), Inc.
500 Linne Road, Suite D
Paso Robles, California 93446



John
 
I think the "cheaper" guns of a hundred years ago might be all gone or worn out due to materials deficiencies, like soft steels, imperfect hardening, etc, but for fit and finish, they could hold their own against todays "expeditious/practical" fit and finish guns that cost alot of money. THis is in reference to US made guns, not bad import cheap guns. If you can somehow find a secondary brand of inexpensive top break(for instance) revolver at a gun show that is in mint or unfired condition( they do occasionally show) and compare it to say, a modern revolver that is in production, you might find the oldie well fit and polished and nice looking. BUt shooting it alot may reveal the weaknesses. Same for alot of old auto pistols. Unfortunately alot of old econo guns are used up and leave the impression of being junk right off. I have a pocket .22 short that sold for a buck maybe, in the 1890s. Unfired and nice looking little pistol, would equal any lower priced revolver you could find today for what..200$?
 
So, I have noticed a few folks mentioning that the quality of a particular firearms manufacturer has diminished compared to what it once was. This has been mentioned in regards to some of the biggest names out there like S&W, Ruger, Sig, SA and I am sure a few more. So, what are these statements based on?
Click to expand...

Without saying that is short of BS, I'll say my newer gun's (S&Ws) seems to be very well made.
 
"If you can somehow find a secondary brand of inexpensive top break(for instance) revolver at a gun show that is in mint or unfired condition( they do occasionally show) and compare it to say, a modern revolver that is in production, you might find the oldie well fit and polished and nice looking."

Find them? I inherited a bunch of them as the older generations died off and most of them were little used and seldom fired. Some were carried, but most were house guns or car guns. I'll take the new ones thank you. The 1884-made S&W .38 breaktop that my great uncle Ed carried everyday is probably the best of the bunch as far as fit and finish goes, but that's the only first tier gun in the bunch.
 
You mention a breakdown of customer relations.
Ok, I will mention a lack of final inspection/quality control.
Sometimes my mind wanders into auto workers unions and a few factories moving from the north for some unknown reasons.
But then I remember one of my Colt's was built by scabs during a late 80's walkout and it's no great shakes overall.
A lesser final inspection, with a lesser customer relations, together.....can't figure into a big positive for everyone. CNC has also come of age, for better or worse, are machinists running the machines?
Apprentice system still functioning in the various trades?
In some industries, bean counters can cite acceptable returns. Seems like an open door to flaws.
And then there is the I-net factor.
But I can see gunsmiths still work the custom shops and refinishing, in a few companies.
 
with the advances in technology,i wonder why guns continue to be so damned expensive,maybe someone in the industry can make me understand it.
 
I do not know the answer to your question. I do think it is one of the best questions I've read on a gun forum.

Peachy
 
Yep, they sure don't build em like they used to.
Click to expand...

How true, now they build them better............before you needed craftsmen, because the manufacturing process was so poor, they couldn't replicate parts consistently so they HAD to hand-fit everything. Now, a CNC machine programmed by a CD/CAM program can replicate parts to tolerances measured in the 10,000 of an inch - something not even the craftsmen of the day could do.

Since WE, as the American consumer want guns as cheap as possible - just look at all the folks who brag about buying the Chinese stuff - makers have responded by doing as much as possible without human intervention.

If you want that "build them like they used to" scenario, then be prepared to PAY for it and not whine about it. Labor costs, and USA Union labor is one of the highest in the world........
 
.

I think in many instances quality of firearms is improving. A lot.

I recently purchased a Ruger Blackhawk 50th Anniversary 44 Magnum.
I can say easily this is the finest single action Ruger I have ever owned.
I have Ruger single actions in my collection that date from the
"begining" up until this current purchase. Just amazing fit. Finish is
excellent to. The action on this gun cycles like a gunsmith has honed it.

I know that Ruger retooled much of their plant in the past few years
with CNC machining, etc. It shows on this gun. Just superb.

Just a comment since I saw Ruger thrown in here.

dxr

.
 
An admittedly small aspect of the parameters involving the manufacturing of firearms but I think the blue jobs on modern guns as compared to much older firearms (for instance, comparing older Colt and Smith & Wesson revolvers with more contemporary ones) leaves much to be desired. I don't think we'll ever again see the blue finishes we used to anticipate on some production firearms. Probably way too labor and time intensive (i.e., expensive) today to expect the "Royal Blue" and "Bright Blue" finishes we were accustomed to seeing on higher end Colt and Smith firearms in the past.
 
"" with the advances in technology,i wonder why guns continue to be so damned expensive,maybe someone in the industry can make me understand it. ""

The only way to confirm they are still "so expensive" is to provide the purchase price and year from the good old days and run it through the inflation calculator in my post above. Anyone have old catalogs or actual sale prices from days gone by?

In general , many items have gone down in price due to better design and manufacturing. For example that basic 3 1/3 HP Briggs and Stratton lawnmower you bought in 1970 would cost $ 325 today. Now that kind of money buys a larger engine, self propell , bag and electric start.

There is a lot of design, fine machining and finishing that goes into a good gun. The person working in the factory also expects to paid for their days work. And there is the conflict, some want high wages for their work but want low prices when they go to make a purchase. It just does not work that way unless the company sends manufacturing to a developing country where the people are happy to be making more than tending small patch farms but way less than US wages. But wait, that person that wants low prices no longer has a job.

At the typical retail of $ 400 - 425 a Ruger LCR isn't expensive and works exceptionally well right out of the box. I'd expect that gun to cost 2x in equalized dollars 40 years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top