Improvements?

J

jackstrawIII

New member
In this thread I'm going to do two things I don't often do:
1. Pretend that gun companies care about my opinion.
2. Praise Glock.

It seems to me like the firearms industry is in a race with itself. Companies are trying to out-feature, out-innovate, and out-gimmick each other in an effort to get ahead and win over more of the market share.

While I understand that these companies are trying to make a profit, it really bothers me as a consumer. I wish that companies would focus less on creating something "new", and turn that focus into refining what they already have.

Perfect example: The Remington RP9, which they're now basically giving away because nobody has any interest in spending money to buy them. Answer me this, was anyone (besides Remington employees, maybe) looking for Remington to make a poly handgun? Did anyone think to themselves, "Gosh, I wish Remington would make a budget level poly gun because there aren't already 100 other options in that market segment."?

No.

The market was already saturated and yet Remington felt the need to get a piece of the action. As a consumer, I wish Remington had taken that energy and focused on improving the quality control of their bolt action line of rifles. I don't want Remington to make pistols, I want them to make better bolt action rifles.

Now, on to Glock. I'm not a Glock guy (don't shoot them well), but I will honor them for their approach. They know what they do, and they do it well. The world has need of simple, reliable, commonly available poly guns and Glock fills that niche. Instead of trying to offer every different product under the sun, they've worked on "perfecting" the product they have... and I think we can all say that it's worked out well for them.

Curious to see if I'm the only one, or if others agree. We don't need so many "new" products every year... we need more consistency and quality control.
 
Coming out with new products and refining what you already sell are not mutually exclusive. I am glad that both are happening. Remington screwed itself years ago and should not be considered the norm as far as a manufacturer in the firearms industry.
 
While I agree that specialization can have advantages, I think current business choices have more to do with survival than gimmicks. Using one company as an example also has problems.

For instance S&W could have easily stayed making pistols and never made any rifles. But their M&P15 line has become rather popular as has the M&P15-22. Locally I'd say S&W ARs might be the most popular ARs. If you asked me years ago if S&W "needed" to make an AR15 I would have said no.

SIG is another example of a company that has greatly expanded their lineup. There certainly are some mixed reviews at times when it comes their rifles (and sometimes the pistols too) but both the MPX and MCX seem to be popular items for them. And you can't forget the P320, which just won them the largest handgun contract I can think of.

HK made hammer fired pistols for a long time despite having the first polymer framed striker fired pistol. Given that their stock was downgraded twice by Moody's I'd wager that those in the company that were honest would tell you that the VP9 came out at a crucial time in order for them to get more civilian sales and help with their cash flow since they had been unable to make liability payments.

And Ruger, heck Ruger makes just about everything I can think of, even moreso than S&W.

While I think that Remington has become a sad story I don't think they are the market as a whole. What's popular in terms of firearms can vary over time. While shotguns and bolt action rifles were and still are staples to an extent, so are striker fired polymer pistols. It's not a coincidence that SIG, FN, HK, and Beretta, which were once the hallmarks of hammer fired pistols, added striker fired polymer pistols to their lineup. It's sort of like the automaker that doesn't sell a pickup truck in the US. It can be done, but you're writing off a big piece of the overall market. Even if all you get is a little piece of that market that's better than no piece.

As for Glock, Glock has had such a large market share for some time that they could rely on just pistol sales alone. But that's because they were pushing the other guys away from the table. While they were taking market share from the guys that had been the go-to option for pistols for years, those companies that got pushed aside to an extent diversified to get more sales now and to help mitigate that issue in the future.
 
Last edited:
jackstrawIII said:
Curious to see if I'm the only one, or if others agree. We don't need so many "new" products every year... we need more consistency and quality control.
Click to expand...
And yet Colt is routinely and widely castigated for NOT coming out with new products.

You can't please everyone.
 
Personally I think the market is fine, They make guns in various colors to appeal to first time buyers, pink pistols sometimes appeal to women.. that's fine more women are getting into something that's traditionally a "man" thing.

I do think it's kinda sad how everyone pretty much just copies the glock formula, Polymer frame, Striker, "safe action" trigger.

Even worse is when they take old guns and trying to redesign them with polymer frames.. it might be one thing if said retrofits ran along side their traditional model but they generally end up replacing it.

You're right Glock has refined their pistol over time but that's really all they do.. just make tweaks in size and caliber, that's kinda boring.

One of my favorite companies right now as far as innovation goes is Kel-tec, They seem to be one of the few companies embracing bullpup design I just wish they could produce them in quantity enough that you didn't have to wait years to find a new design at a reasonable price.
 
We could debate here all day that S&W should have kept building the 3rd Gen guns along with the M&P guns, but we all know that the polymer guns have a much higher profit margin, so the S&W corporate mandate was to crank out the plastic guns & kill off the 3rd Gen metal guns!
 
Both are necessary IMO for a business to remain successful.

Build a loyal following with a quality product. Nurture that following by listening to the loyal customers and acting. Expand loyal following with refined quality and new products.
 
I feel like some of the lesser known gun manufacturers of "other" guns are winning some of the market over by actually listening to the consumers of their products and making relevant changes. And...they're doing it at bargain basement prices.

Two examples, both Turkish. Canik and Sarsilmaz.

Canik has a great product in the TP9 series and they've been constantly improving upon it.

Sarsilmaz gave the K2P 9mm a facelift with an updated frame including finger grooves. More styled slide serrations and some bulk removed from the muzzle area. 3 different back straps and 2 17 Rd mags. And, I've seen it listed for less $ than the 1st generation.
 
While I am not interested in every new offering, I'm nonetheless glad that gun companies continue to innovate. The Remington RP9 is a good example. It may be a perfectly serviceable handgun, and I ordinarily value function over form in guns, but that sucker makes my Glock look sleek and graceful by comparison. That said, I'm sure someone out there wants one, and I'm glad that Remington has them to offer. Competition is good for the consumer, and that's me.

Glock's business model is boring, but it works. Glock uses a simple, reliable design, and markets the snot out of it.
 
I think Remington's rocky sales in pistols has more to do with performance issues (real or perceived) than leaving their traditional field. I gave them a look just because they are Remington but their execution is not yet top o' the heap, at least judging by internet test samples.
 
For instance S&W could have easily stayed making pistols and never made any rifles. But their M&P15 line has become rather popular as has the M&P15-22. Locally I'd say S&W ARs might be the most popular ARs. If you asked me years ago if S&W "needed" to make an AR15 I would have said no.

SIG is another example of a company that has greatly expanded their lineup. There certainly are some mixed reviews at times when it comes their rifles (and sometimes the pistols too) but both the MPX and MCX seem to be popular items for them.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing this. In my opinion, S&W and Sig are PERFECT examples of what I'm saying. Let's start with Smith. I like the S&Ws that I own. The M&P9 is one of the best non-Glocks out there and I've owned a few nice revolvers, including the 627 Pro I have now. However, as we all know, the Quality Control and Fit and Finish of their standard revolver line has suffered as of late.

Smith and Wesson was historically known as a high quality revolver/handgun company. To see the quality/consistency of their revolver line to take a drastic step down is just sad. It kills me.

Now to Sig. I respect Sig as a company historically. Obviously they've done something right and continue to do something right. However, it's generally agreed here on the Forum and elsewhere that "old West German Sigs" are higher quality than what they're producing these days in the P226, P229, and P220 lines.

As I said before, the Sig P series of pistols is legendary and it's so disappointing to see the quality control and reliability go down. When I say reliability, I'm not talking about the performance of a "good example". I'm talking about the consistency of "good examples".

And yet Colt is routinely and widely castigated for NOT coming out with new products.
Click to expand...

Not by me :-)

I think Remington's rocky sales in pistols has more to do with performance issues (real or perceived) than leaving their traditional field. I gave them a look just because they are Remington but their execution is not yet top o' the heap, at least judging by internet test samples.
Click to expand...

You're exactly right. I'm not bashing Remington for trying something new. It's a quality issue. I'd rather have them make JUST good bolt actions than inconsistent bolt actions and questionable pistols.
 
If S&W had just stayed making revolvers and SIG just making classic series pistols I'm not sure they would have survived until today. Like it or not the choices to expand their product lines came from a need, not just a desire. I think you're letting your personal desires for certain products from each company cloud you to the realities of the firearms market.

Quote:
And yet Colt is routinely and widely castigated for NOT coming out with new products.
Not by me :-)
Click to expand...
Colt after the Colt All American 2000 stayed with making 1911s and ARs. Now they're bankrupt (and it's not the first time). Diversifying your product line isn't just about gimmicks.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me like the firearms industry is in a race with itself. Companies are trying to out-feature, out-innovate, and out-gimmick each other in an effort to get ahead and win over more of the market share.

While I understand that these companies are trying to make a profit, it really bothers me as a consumer. I wish that companies would focus less on creating something "new", and turn that focus into refining what they already have.
Click to expand...

Companies need to keep pushing the envelope in order to stay in business. Ask blockbuster how focusing and refining their video store chain worked out for them. Instead they should of jumped on digital video right away but nope they decided not to compete until it was too late.

Now, on to Glock. I'm not a Glock guy (don't shoot them well), but I will honor them for their approach. They know what they do, and they do it well. The world has need of simple, reliable, commonly available poly guns and Glock fills that niche. Instead of trying to offer every different product under the sun, they've worked on "perfecting" the product they have... and I think we can all say that it's worked out well for them.
Click to expand...

I would argue that Glock copies the market just like every other company (ie g43/G42). And when they released the G42 is had a bunch of problems.
 
However, as we all know, the Quality Control and Fit and Finish of their standard revolver line has suffered as of late.
Click to expand...
As I said before, the Sig P series of pistols is legendary and it's so disappointing to see the quality control and reliability go down.
Click to expand...

Internet forums and general opinion are typically that the quality control of basically every major manufacturer has gone down in say the past decade, and that includes Glock which you use as your main example of why specialization is key. Whether this is due to the sheer quantity of firearms every manufacturer is putting out now (not just model diversity but even of classic series pistols from those companies' past), the ease and readiness by which people can share and report problems with their firearms online, or some combination of both is hard to discern easily.
 
If S&W had just stayed making revolvers and SIG just making classic series pistols I'm not sure they would have survived until today. Like it or not the choices to expand their product lines came from a need, not just a desire. I think you're letting your personal desires for certain products from each company cloud you to the realities of the firearms market. Colt after the Colt All American 2000 stayed with making 1911s and ARs. Now they're bankrupt (and it's not the first time). Diversifying your product line isn't just about gimmicks.
Click to expand...

I agree with you and this is well said.

I think I'm not explaining myself well. I'm NOT saying that companies should not innovate, create, or diversify. I'm saying that they shouldn't sacrifice the quality of their already successful models in order to bring out the next best thing.

Let's use Toyota as an example of a company I think is doing it right. There are lots of ties between the gun and car industries.

Toyota is famous because of the the Camry and the Corolla. Now, do they make other good vehicles? Sure. The Rav, Tundra, Tacoma, Highlander, etc are all great vehicles.

The fact that Toyota has been able to adapt to today's market and today's consumer is good... but if they let the reliability of the Camry decline when then started making Tundras... this would have been a horrible decision and would have tarnished the Toyota brand.

Toyota is doing it right.

I think companies like Remington, S&W, Sig, etc could take a lesson from them. I will echo what I said before. I like the M&P series and S&W still makes some great guns, but them letting the quality of their revolver line suffer is like Toyota dropping the Camry. It just doesn't seem wise.

That make more sense?
 
Agreed on the Colt thing. Their firearms are just a "brand name" and whilst they are supposed to be very high in quality, their prices are so high above other products of the same quality that they drove themselves bankrupt. They depended upon their name to get them along and in today's consumer market, that's not enough.

I know I said that I think Savage is doing a great job to hang with the best of them (not trying to come off as a fanboy). They just released a new line of ARs and by all accounts, they hit a home run with them. S&W is also doing a great job and I'm torn between the M&P15 or the MSR15. Savage hasn't gotten into pistols and honestly, I hope they don't. They are expanding their long guns with an H&R clone and they also just updated their O/U. I think they're going to be around for a good long time, but I hope that they continue innovating as much as the rest of them.
 
Toyota hasn't dropped the Camry anymore than SIG dropped the P series or S&W dropped revolvers (S&W stopped making the classic line for a bit but now are making many of them again and given the number of nice revolvers on the used market I imagine there is some question of how many sales they're getting given the cost of making those handguns new). But Toyota has had many recalls in the past decade. You keep cherry picking examples without realizing that even the examples you're picking have had issues, including Glock (not just the Gen 4 fiasco, as someone that has owned a dozen of them I go out of my way now to buy older Gen 3s of certain dates). I've owned 80 handguns and I've seen quality issues from the vast majority, even ones that stayed with one line for a long time.

And since you like car analogies I'd point to the one I gave before:
It's not a coincidence that SIG, FN, HK, and Beretta, which were once the hallmarks of hammer fired pistols, added striker fired polymer pistols to their lineup. It's sort of like the automaker that doesn't sell a pickup truck in the US. It can be done, but you're writing off a big piece of the overall market. Even if all you get is a little piece of that market that's better than no piece.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I think another thing that is important is warranty work/standing behind your product. Carrying on the car analogy, one of the Asian based car manufacturers had a serious issue a little while back and they came out, apologized, and said they would fix it at all costs. No idea if they actually followed through, because I lost track of the story.

If one of my firearms has a serious issue, I just want it fixed in a concise amount of time and 1 trip. Or to have it replaced. If the manufacturer stands behind their product, I'll give them a chance.
 
No, in general, companies don't care about individual opinions or complaints. Why would they?

For one thing, people are in general idiots. They will complain if the cheese on their hamburger is off center. If their fixed sight handgun doesn't fire to the same point of impact every time they might trash that entire brand mercilessly all over the internet without even trying to contact the maker.

Any company will generally apologize for what they feel is a trivial complaint without really caring at all. When my wife bit down on a piece of dry roasted rat femur, planters paid attention. When a green stink bug appeared in a bag of frozen peas, birds eye paid attention. When a steel nut showed up in a can of vegetables, gee, we got a coupon because they figured that I was lying.

A magazine that doesn't function well will happen occasionally, and seriously, the only thing that is owed is a free replacement with free shipping. If a gun vaporizes, well, both ammo supplier and firearms maker will step forward.

In general, though, any complaints will be logged and added to databases that check for statistical anomalies that could indicate large scale trouble. So while in general, if the product is minimally "substandard", like the pepperoni on your pizza is heavier on the right side (or the left side), every person in any business will roll their eyes and say something insulting as soon as they hang up, reports of mushy crust or snotty drivers will at least be logged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top