Firearms Quality
- Thread starter BarryLee
- Start date
Ever since the early eighties,there has been -in all businesses worldwide- this idea promoted that we have to 'compete' with every other nation on earth.
Disrespecting that all of those other nations may have had a thirtith of the standard of living -THAT WE HAD AT THE TIME-and therefore could use labor ten times cheaper then us well living American citizens-God bless us.
At the same time,the people that run most publicly held businesses are bound by this mindless business holy grail belief that they must every three months drive down the cost of making their product and drive up sales and therefore show profits to the shareholders of those board regardless of what that does to the standard of living of the people in the area or nation where they live,the quality of the product they sell or the reaction of the customers who buy their products that fail to work.
As methods of manufacture have improved and made all products cheaper and faster to assemble,the time alloted for that manufacturing and assembly of those parts has decreased drastically and continues to decrease.
There is now no time to stop assembly of mass produced parts whether they meet the standard of the item being made or not.
Very often,it is cheaper to simply build the defective part,sell it and have the customer return it later for repair work that can be deducted as a business expense for tax reasons.
In a business climate like this,started and promoted in all the worlds business schools -as it is- and will be for the foreseeeable future-,the idea of making a product to the absolute best tolerances it can be made and building something that makes a statement about the people building it and the company that builds it,has largely been lost to the ceo's and their henchmen that seek to squeeze the ever loving guts out of every last penny their overtime working people can work.
So,yea,guns made thirty years ago or more have a much higher level of quality,simply because the people building them were afforded the time to do it right and were valued by the company for doing so.
Disrespecting that all of those other nations may have had a thirtith of the standard of living -THAT WE HAD AT THE TIME-and therefore could use labor ten times cheaper then us well living American citizens-God bless us.
At the same time,the people that run most publicly held businesses are bound by this mindless business holy grail belief that they must every three months drive down the cost of making their product and drive up sales and therefore show profits to the shareholders of those board regardless of what that does to the standard of living of the people in the area or nation where they live,the quality of the product they sell or the reaction of the customers who buy their products that fail to work.
As methods of manufacture have improved and made all products cheaper and faster to assemble,the time alloted for that manufacturing and assembly of those parts has decreased drastically and continues to decrease.
There is now no time to stop assembly of mass produced parts whether they meet the standard of the item being made or not.
Very often,it is cheaper to simply build the defective part,sell it and have the customer return it later for repair work that can be deducted as a business expense for tax reasons.
In a business climate like this,started and promoted in all the worlds business schools -as it is- and will be for the foreseeeable future-,the idea of making a product to the absolute best tolerances it can be made and building something that makes a statement about the people building it and the company that builds it,has largely been lost to the ceo's and their henchmen that seek to squeeze the ever loving guts out of every last penny their overtime working people can work.
So,yea,guns made thirty years ago or more have a much higher level of quality,simply because the people building them were afforded the time to do it right and were valued by the company for doing so.
Last edited:
The Shadow
New member
Either the manufacturer wants to produce a quality product and adhere to a higher standard, or continue to make a product with questionable quality in hopes that people will buy their product based on a lower price point (which is usually associated with sub par quality), or because of name association. Colt manufacturing is a perfect example. I own a wonderful Colt first generation SA, a truly fine gun, with the newest acquisition being a 1911 Colt .45 Gov't Model XSE. Granted their quality has improved over the past few years, however, as an example, compare Colt's SA revolvers with those manufactured by USFA. You will notice the US Fire Arms product has a distinctly better fit & finish, closer overall tolerances, and consistent cylinder diameters (with hardly any cylinder movement). Chamber mouth specs are right on, out of the box, as is the trigger pull set at slightly under 3.5 lbs. I've also experienced USFA SA revolvers to be consistently fine shooters, and am extremely pleased with the one's I own, the last purchase being a new USFA Bisley .45. It doesn't stop there however. It's not just USFA's superb quality that's admirable, but their outstanding "customer service" is documented by many owners, as being the best in the industry, with a genuine concern to correct any and all problem as quickly as possible, thanks to owner Doug Donnely's right hand man, Gary Granger.
As far as quality manufacturing procedures are concerned, the only other gun manufacturer, IMHO, that produces a similar quality six gun is Freedom Arms. I own a Model 97 five shot .45 Colt with a similar configuration as my USFA Bisley and their both superbly crafted firearms. So if a gun manufacture really wants to create a product without compromising quality, I believe it can be done. In Colt's case, I believe there's enough purists with their heads stuck in the sand that won't purchase a DA or SA wheel gun unless it has a Rampant Colt stamped on the frame. I know, I've been there.
Shadow SD
As far as quality manufacturing procedures are concerned, the only other gun manufacturer, IMHO, that produces a similar quality six gun is Freedom Arms. I own a Model 97 five shot .45 Colt with a similar configuration as my USFA Bisley and their both superbly crafted firearms. So if a gun manufacture really wants to create a product without compromising quality, I believe it can be done. In Colt's case, I believe there's enough purists with their heads stuck in the sand that won't purchase a DA or SA wheel gun unless it has a Rampant Colt stamped on the frame. I know, I've been there.
Shadow SD
buck460XVR
New member
Funny...I actually think guns are better made(for the most part) and more affordable than ever. I grew up as a kid in a rural area where hunting and owning firearms was a way of life. Even then, most folks I knew owned only 1 or 2 guns. Many of these had matchbooks holding the sights to the proper elevation and many had bad triggers, or jammed after the second shot. Most folks used the same shotgun for deer that they used for grouse....and most shot their firearms only when necessary either during the hunt or the week before to sight it in. Back then a gun was a MAJOR investment and buying a new firearm was uncommon. It isn't that way now. Anyone that owns only one or two guns is considered a novice. The majority of avid gun owners have a hard time remembering all the firearms they have...much less use everyone of them frequently. Many folks nowadays buy more new guns in a year than folks back then did in a lifetime........the main reason is affordability. Guns produced by CNC and MIM are more consistent and reliable than many of the fragile handmade/hand adjusted firearms of the past. Folks used to accept a minor flaw in cosmetics or a rough trigger, and to play with it themselves to find a solution.......that don't happen today. Folks demand reliability outta the box, and if there is a slight scratch on the forearm it HAS to go back.
Sorry....IMHO, Many of the folks that wish for the "good old days" were never there.
Sorry....IMHO, Many of the folks that wish for the "good old days" were never there.
Everyone resists change, some fight it actively while others passively resist. Then there is a small percentage who never embrace it and will always year for "how it used to be because it was better then."
You're going to find a large percentage reject out of hand the advantages new technology has brought to MFG processes. In a lot of cases, the hand fitting required by older generations of technology isn't necessary today to have a perfectly functioning firearm.
Technological advancements are always going to be controversial because it relies on customers to accept change. Some will over time, others never will.
You can trust me on this, or not, but I deal with it every day at the office.
I'll use a recent and perfect example. Ruger recently changed the 10/22 trigger mechanism from Aluminum to plastic. The advantages to this change were numerous.
1. The plastic T/G is stronger, their bash tests bore this out clearly.
2. They no longer need a bin full of different sized parts because the tolerances from the aluminum T/G were all over the place.
3. They now have a consistent trigger pull from rifle to rifle with the standardization of the small parts afforded by the better MFG process of the polymer T/G.
Yet, with all of these advantages the typical response you'll get from consumers is Ruger cheapened the 10/22 to save money. While there was surely some of this involved with the decision, no company pursues something like this for purely cost savings reasons. (and keeps their customers of course.)
You're going to find a large percentage reject out of hand the advantages new technology has brought to MFG processes. In a lot of cases, the hand fitting required by older generations of technology isn't necessary today to have a perfectly functioning firearm.
Technological advancements are always going to be controversial because it relies on customers to accept change. Some will over time, others never will.
You can trust me on this, or not, but I deal with it every day at the office.
I'll use a recent and perfect example. Ruger recently changed the 10/22 trigger mechanism from Aluminum to plastic. The advantages to this change were numerous.
1. The plastic T/G is stronger, their bash tests bore this out clearly.
2. They no longer need a bin full of different sized parts because the tolerances from the aluminum T/G were all over the place.
3. They now have a consistent trigger pull from rifle to rifle with the standardization of the small parts afforded by the better MFG process of the polymer T/G.
Yet, with all of these advantages the typical response you'll get from consumers is Ruger cheapened the 10/22 to save money. While there was surely some of this involved with the decision, no company pursues something like this for purely cost savings reasons. (and keeps their customers of course.)
And I actually think guns are "more affordable than ever" because they're made cheaper (which doesn't necessarily translate as being inferior) and because people earn a lot more recreational spending money today.
Well, you're probably right about that but, speaking for myself, I was around then and I'm here now and can attest to the fact that, though we don't live in the "new bad days", there is some merit to the argument that firearms were made with greater attention to finish, material and workmanship back in "the good old days."
Good is the enemy of best.....
And best (price) is the enemy of high quality.
Lots of good, valid points have been raised already, lets add just a few more...
One is the general, overall consumer market. Firearms are a consumer product, but they are not a product like most others. Making and selling guns is not the same as making and selling bricks. Times change, tastes change, manufacturing methods change, laws change, all of these, and more, have an effect on the market.
Using an inflation calculator is an interesting comparison, but it is not entirely a valid reference, because the cost of items has not been a linear change. Some things cost more than they used to, even adjusting for inflation. Changes in supply, demand, and taxes have an effect that is not figured into the calculations for "buying power" then and now, because it is specific to the item(s) being discussed. And, it is also relative to the individual's finances who are buying those products. Also, the calculator provided (thanks for the link, btw) "only" goes back to 1913!
We, as Americans of the last 50 years have gone through a tremendous change in what we buy, and the way we buy things. The cash price of many, many items is of smaller concern than it used to be, due to credit cards and financing. 50+ years ago, the only things that got financing were major purchase items, like houses, cars, and major appliances. Stores often did "lay away" for other items, which seems to have mostly gone away today (other than at some gun shops), which allowed you to buy goods over time, and you didn't get the goods until they were paid for.
Today, buy it on plastic, and take it home, paying for it over time (with interest) is the common method. So, lots of things can get sold, even though the buyers might not have the cash on hand to pay for them, at the time. That is one change that didn't exist in the past. In the "old days", you didn't get your gun until you had completely paid for it.
The firearms market used to be a larger segment of the economy than it is today. We had a larger rural population, with both a need and a desire for firearms than we do today. Even the urban population contained a higher percentage of hunters and sportsmen than it does today. So, the (sporting) market has shrunk. A partial balance is the increase in the personal defense market, but I don't think it evenly balances out.
More modern designs, particularly in handguns, focuses more on function and less on fit and finish than they used to. This is something that began during WWII, and the basic idea has carried on. Look at the guns made before WWII. All of them, including the military ones were made using traditional gun making methods, milled steel, assembled by skilled/semi skilled craftsmen, and intended to give a lifetime of good service. This also has an effect on today's market, as many of those guns are still in use today.
WWII saw the beginning of the "make it cheap, make it fast, make it work well enough to do the job, and don't worry about how long it lasts" philosophy on a large scale. Planned obsolescence has become a way of life in manufacturering in recent decades (more so than ever in the past), however, that doesn't work well in the firearms industry. Everything can be worn out, and guns are no exception, but traditionally, guns don't wear out from normal use, during an everage user's lifetime. Part of that is the way guns were (and are) built, but a lot of it comes from the fact that the ordinary gun owner rarely, if ever, used their guns enough to actually wear them out.
So, it is ingrained in our psyche that "good guns don't wear out (or have problems), and if they do, they weren't good guns". Or something close to that. The information age (Internet) also has an effect. Today, when somebody has a problem with a gun, they post it, and the whole world knows about it, instantly. This makes it seem like there are more problems than there used to be, because we are hearing about them, constantly. In the good old days, the only time you heard about guns with problems was when you talked to people who had had them. And those rare occassions when magazines actually gave unfavorable reports.
Labor costs have been mentioned, and that's another truism. Skilled labor costs more in the USA than in other nations today, because of who, and what we are. Take a look at a typical pocket pistol made in Germany between the wars. Fine fit and finish. Many I have seen even have the insides polished, and not just those areas necessary! Labor costs were much lower than today, so they could take the time to finish products to a high level of quality. We did the same thing. Guns were a product of pride, as well as marketability.
Guns got sold by their reputation, not just their performance. Making and selling a high grade product was part of ensuring continued sales. You don't see that much today.
Brand loyalty is still pretty strong in the firearms market, but not like it was. And its almost non-existant in the rest of the consumer market. There its the bottom line, cost. As long as the product is good enough to work, long enough to satisfy the consumer, that is what gets built, and sold.
I think perhaps the best way to explain some of it is that a century ago, gun companies were in the business of making guns to make a profit, while today, they seem to be in business to make a profit, by making guns.
We have created this situation, in guns, and other products, by our insistance on low cost goods, and acceptance of lesser quality (or the perception of lesser quality) as long as the price is good.
Playing with the inflation calculator was entertaining, and using my (perhaps fallible) memory I found a few instances where a straight calculation does not equate to market costs today. Here are a few examples,
a can of soda, $.25 in 1976 calculates to $.96 today. In my area, they sell for less than that (but not a lot). A gallon of premium gasoline $0.60 in 1976, calculates to $2.31 today. I would be very happy to only pay $2.31 a gallon today! A ruger Super Blackhawk .44 Mag had msrp of $135 in 1974. The calculator says that today that is $599.16. MSRP on Ruger's website $670! A Marlin .444 was msrp at $145 in 1974. Calculator says $643.54. One is on a website right now for $498.
So, we pay both more, and less for our guns today, than we used to.
With all the "advances" in manufacturing (CinC machining, etc.) it seems that guns cost both more, and less than they did even a few decades ago. It is very ...model specific.
As to the customer service, I can't say much, directly. I have had very, very few instances of using any gun company's customer service. Ruger did me fine, the one time (about 20 years ago) that I did have a problem. Today? All I know about it is what I read on the Internet!
And best (price) is the enemy of high quality.
Lots of good, valid points have been raised already, lets add just a few more...
One is the general, overall consumer market. Firearms are a consumer product, but they are not a product like most others. Making and selling guns is not the same as making and selling bricks. Times change, tastes change, manufacturing methods change, laws change, all of these, and more, have an effect on the market.
Using an inflation calculator is an interesting comparison, but it is not entirely a valid reference, because the cost of items has not been a linear change. Some things cost more than they used to, even adjusting for inflation. Changes in supply, demand, and taxes have an effect that is not figured into the calculations for "buying power" then and now, because it is specific to the item(s) being discussed. And, it is also relative to the individual's finances who are buying those products. Also, the calculator provided (thanks for the link, btw) "only" goes back to 1913!
We, as Americans of the last 50 years have gone through a tremendous change in what we buy, and the way we buy things. The cash price of many, many items is of smaller concern than it used to be, due to credit cards and financing. 50+ years ago, the only things that got financing were major purchase items, like houses, cars, and major appliances. Stores often did "lay away" for other items, which seems to have mostly gone away today (other than at some gun shops), which allowed you to buy goods over time, and you didn't get the goods until they were paid for.
Today, buy it on plastic, and take it home, paying for it over time (with interest) is the common method. So, lots of things can get sold, even though the buyers might not have the cash on hand to pay for them, at the time. That is one change that didn't exist in the past. In the "old days", you didn't get your gun until you had completely paid for it.
The firearms market used to be a larger segment of the economy than it is today. We had a larger rural population, with both a need and a desire for firearms than we do today. Even the urban population contained a higher percentage of hunters and sportsmen than it does today. So, the (sporting) market has shrunk. A partial balance is the increase in the personal defense market, but I don't think it evenly balances out.
More modern designs, particularly in handguns, focuses more on function and less on fit and finish than they used to. This is something that began during WWII, and the basic idea has carried on. Look at the guns made before WWII. All of them, including the military ones were made using traditional gun making methods, milled steel, assembled by skilled/semi skilled craftsmen, and intended to give a lifetime of good service. This also has an effect on today's market, as many of those guns are still in use today.
WWII saw the beginning of the "make it cheap, make it fast, make it work well enough to do the job, and don't worry about how long it lasts" philosophy on a large scale. Planned obsolescence has become a way of life in manufacturering in recent decades (more so than ever in the past), however, that doesn't work well in the firearms industry. Everything can be worn out, and guns are no exception, but traditionally, guns don't wear out from normal use, during an everage user's lifetime. Part of that is the way guns were (and are) built, but a lot of it comes from the fact that the ordinary gun owner rarely, if ever, used their guns enough to actually wear them out.
So, it is ingrained in our psyche that "good guns don't wear out (or have problems), and if they do, they weren't good guns". Or something close to that. The information age (Internet) also has an effect. Today, when somebody has a problem with a gun, they post it, and the whole world knows about it, instantly. This makes it seem like there are more problems than there used to be, because we are hearing about them, constantly. In the good old days, the only time you heard about guns with problems was when you talked to people who had had them. And those rare occassions when magazines actually gave unfavorable reports.
Labor costs have been mentioned, and that's another truism. Skilled labor costs more in the USA than in other nations today, because of who, and what we are. Take a look at a typical pocket pistol made in Germany between the wars. Fine fit and finish. Many I have seen even have the insides polished, and not just those areas necessary! Labor costs were much lower than today, so they could take the time to finish products to a high level of quality. We did the same thing. Guns were a product of pride, as well as marketability.
Guns got sold by their reputation, not just their performance. Making and selling a high grade product was part of ensuring continued sales. You don't see that much today.
Brand loyalty is still pretty strong in the firearms market, but not like it was. And its almost non-existant in the rest of the consumer market. There its the bottom line, cost. As long as the product is good enough to work, long enough to satisfy the consumer, that is what gets built, and sold.
I think perhaps the best way to explain some of it is that a century ago, gun companies were in the business of making guns to make a profit, while today, they seem to be in business to make a profit, by making guns.
We have created this situation, in guns, and other products, by our insistance on low cost goods, and acceptance of lesser quality (or the perception of lesser quality) as long as the price is good.
Playing with the inflation calculator was entertaining, and using my (perhaps fallible) memory I found a few instances where a straight calculation does not equate to market costs today. Here are a few examples,
a can of soda, $.25 in 1976 calculates to $.96 today. In my area, they sell for less than that (but not a lot). A gallon of premium gasoline $0.60 in 1976, calculates to $2.31 today. I would be very happy to only pay $2.31 a gallon today! A ruger Super Blackhawk .44 Mag had msrp of $135 in 1974. The calculator says that today that is $599.16. MSRP on Ruger's website $670! A Marlin .444 was msrp at $145 in 1974. Calculator says $643.54. One is on a website right now for $498.
So, we pay both more, and less for our guns today, than we used to.
With all the "advances" in manufacturing (CinC machining, etc.) it seems that guns cost both more, and less than they did even a few decades ago. It is very ...model specific.
As to the customer service, I can't say much, directly. I have had very, very few instances of using any gun company's customer service. Ruger did me fine, the one time (about 20 years ago) that I did have a problem. Today? All I know about it is what I read on the Internet!
It's all business and someone trying to make money. Let's all just keep shooting and remember that every company has some junk they put out there for a quick buck. We should all just be grateful we are allowed to own these firearms.
Taurus vs. Glock....?
Colt vs. Hi-point....?
They all shoot and we get to shoot them! Ask an Australian which handgun he prefers and which is of better quality.
Taurus vs. Glock....?
Colt vs. Hi-point....?
They all shoot and we get to shoot them! Ask an Australian which handgun he prefers and which is of better quality.
No, we shouldn't. We should be grateful for the sacrifice of our forefathers, and the continued sacrifce of our selves and family members that made us and keep us the free nation we are.
I feel no gratitude to the ruling class for being allowed my natural rights. I do feel gratitude for those who worked and sometimes gave all to preserve those rights.
Count yourself lucky for being allowed? Not me.
"WWII saw the beginning of the "make it cheap, make it fast, make it work well enough to do the job, and don't worry about how long it lasts" philosophy on a large scale."
I disagree, it started at least 50 years before that. All you have to do is look at Crescent shotguns to see that cheap guns were very popular well before the beginning of the 20th century. (There were lots of cheap handguns, too.)
www.briley.com/articles/grampas_shotgun.html
Or all of the Belgian imports that everybody says to avoid and/or don't shoot.
My father got a Crescent 16 ga. in the late 1930s and it was worn out by 1940. And he didn't do any target shooting, only upland hunting. And ammo was expensive during the Depression era.
I disagree, it started at least 50 years before that. All you have to do is look at Crescent shotguns to see that cheap guns were very popular well before the beginning of the 20th century. (There were lots of cheap handguns, too.)
www.briley.com/articles/grampas_shotgun.html
Or all of the Belgian imports that everybody says to avoid and/or don't shoot.
My father got a Crescent 16 ga. in the late 1930s and it was worn out by 1940. And he didn't do any target shooting, only upland hunting. And ammo was expensive during the Depression era.
Since the end of the era of a "Gunsmith" building a complete gun and the switch to mass production with the individual tasks of making a gun has been divided among the machine operators, there has been no individual "craftsmen" producing firearms. The perception therefore, of early 20th century "craftsmen" building guns is a romantic myth.
Advances in metallurgy, machine tools, machine tool bits, and processes have improved the product of gun making along with virtually every other industry.
There is no process a craftsman could perform that would "make a gun last longer".
The handguns of earlier years may have better cosmetic appeal due to more polishing (more time spent on that process), and type of bluing (more labor intensive), and hand-fitting, but the quality (metals, tolerances, heat-treat, etc.), of the firearm is logically better than those that pre-date current firearm products.
Albeit, the modern management mind-set of "increase profit", usually results in a "get it out the door", instead of making sure it works correctly first, managerial attitude.
44AMP - I agree completely. Our forefathers recognized that we the people need firearms to uphold the rules, defend ourselves from whatever, and make sure that a tyrant does not come along and remove our rights as humans. At the same time, I feel that this ruling class could take away anything we have. Hurricane Kartrina ring a bell? Martial law is very real. I would like to think that we Americans would stand up for our rights. How many people would just give up their guns and submit? How many would fight? By fighting, I don't mean complaining or rallying... So at the same time, I am thankful that we are allowed to have our firearms still. I should have explained myself better. I did not realize at the time how others may have construed my statement. Firearm owners are of all backgrounds, generations, and beliefs. It is America, after all!
Hope that helps. Cheers!
Hope that helps. Cheers!
1. Nothing is as good as it used to be.
2. Many things are better than ever.
3. The "Good Old Days" or the "Golden Age" either happened before you were
born or you were too young to remember or enjoy.
There is the ongoing "Pre-" vs. "Post 1964" Winchester debate. The only Winchester M-70 I have ever fired is my 1978 XTR in 308 Win. I fired a 1.5" group at 100 yards with the factory sights.
Then there is the MIM vs. sintered (?) parts debate.
It seems to me Ruger has provided us with firearms that are both top quality
and affordable using injection molding in place of machining. I also recall reading George C. Nonte write that he replaced several pawls and related parts on an old H&R DA revolved before deciding it wasn't up to sustained DA shooting.
Don't recall any article on torture tests/10,000 rounds through an Iver Johnson or Hopkins and Allen revolver.
Also there is a "cachet" to the "custom" or "gunsmith built" firearms. Cf. the appeal of custom made knives.
And those of us who are Steel and Walnut men see "plastic" and "lightweight" guns as "cheap". But the Glock's reputation is well established.
2. Many things are better than ever.
3. The "Good Old Days" or the "Golden Age" either happened before you were
born or you were too young to remember or enjoy.
There is the ongoing "Pre-" vs. "Post 1964" Winchester debate. The only Winchester M-70 I have ever fired is my 1978 XTR in 308 Win. I fired a 1.5" group at 100 yards with the factory sights.
Then there is the MIM vs. sintered (?) parts debate.
It seems to me Ruger has provided us with firearms that are both top quality
and affordable using injection molding in place of machining. I also recall reading George C. Nonte write that he replaced several pawls and related parts on an old H&R DA revolved before deciding it wasn't up to sustained DA shooting.
Don't recall any article on torture tests/10,000 rounds through an Iver Johnson or Hopkins and Allen revolver.
Also there is a "cachet" to the "custom" or "gunsmith built" firearms. Cf. the appeal of custom made knives.
And those of us who are Steel and Walnut men see "plastic" and "lightweight" guns as "cheap". But the Glock's reputation is well established.
oneounceload
Moderator
If you VOTE, then YOU are the ruling class..........