Crankgrinder
New member
That and they all want everyone to work 12 hour shifts and do not want to pay much more than 12/hr.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Quality of todays firearms?
- Thread starter Robinson
- Start date
Not all guns of yesteryear were quality. Lots of cheap, fairly low quality Spanish semi-auto pistols. My first revolver was an RG (Rotten Gun) because that's all I could afford.
No doubt that some of the craftsmanship has been lost in today's mass produced guns but I think we always have a tendency to remember the past more fondly than it really was.
No doubt that some of the craftsmanship has been lost in today's mass produced guns but I think we always have a tendency to remember the past more fondly than it really was.
It seems all gun mfgs suffer from poor quality control these days. I've had trouble with Browning, Beretta, Smith&Wesson, Ruger, Kimber & Taurus. I worked for BPS for a few years and there were problems with several others. Also, when you return them for warranty repair the results aren't always what you expect. With modern machines and materials we should be getting the best guns ever but it's not happening. I recently had a bad gun replaced and the replacement wasn't as good as the bad one, the repair on the second gun was a patch instead of a repair. Pretty sad and the foreign guys don't appear to be much better.
g.willikers
New member
I'm gonna' print this discussion out on the printer and hang it on the wall.
Every time I think of getting a new gun, I'm going to read it again and then go clean and lube my old ones, instead.
Every time I think of getting a new gun, I'm going to read it again and then go clean and lube my old ones, instead.
I don't know why people think old guns are better and more reliable. Semiautos manufactured before 1980 were generally thought of as unreliable. Many semi-autos couldn't hold up to the high pressures used in defensive ammo today.
Then, let's not forget about all of those old top-break .32 and 38 S&W pea shooters - I've got a box of frames and parts that I like to look through for kicks and giggles - the barrels are thinner than some of the copper plumbing in my house.
Yes, there's the Colt Python. Ok, there's ONE REVOLVER who's quality is not being replicated today for a price anyone can afford. And, maybe a C or T Series Hi-Power and the P210.
Other than the few listed above, I really can't think of even one semi-auto manufactured before 1978 that doesn't have a better equivalent being made today.
Then, let's not forget about all of those old top-break .32 and 38 S&W pea shooters - I've got a box of frames and parts that I like to look through for kicks and giggles - the barrels are thinner than some of the copper plumbing in my house.
Yes, there's the Colt Python. Ok, there's ONE REVOLVER who's quality is not being replicated today for a price anyone can afford. And, maybe a C or T Series Hi-Power and the P210.
Other than the few listed above, I really can't think of even one semi-auto manufactured before 1978 that doesn't have a better equivalent being made today.
An argument can be made that Colt is making 1911s better than ever; certainly they are better than in the last 30 years or so.Other than the few listed above, I really can't think of even one semi-auto manufactured before 1978 that doesn't have a better equivalent being made today.
An argument can be made that Colt is making 1911s better than ever; certainly they are better than in the last 30 years or so.
Some of the finest 1911's ever being made have been manufactured in the last 10 years or so. We are living in the 1911 "Golden Age", where you can get a decent new 1911 for about $500 as well as some testaments to precision in the $5,000 range, and just about any 1911 you can think of in that range.
I think lately we are advanced in metallurgy as such we can make better metal and at a cost point. Look at automotive engines and how long they can keep going long after 100k+ miles. In the old days we'd be smoking (burning oil) before 100k.
I have to say the same about guns. I've bought budget guns and they look well made and held up after thousands of rounds. Another thing is machine works, much better than before especially computer controlled. A good example of that is the budget guitars. They are made as well as premium guitars but uses cheap wood and hardware.
I have to say the same about guns. I've bought budget guns and they look well made and held up after thousands of rounds. Another thing is machine works, much better than before especially computer controlled. A good example of that is the budget guitars. They are made as well as premium guitars but uses cheap wood and hardware.
Pond James Pond
New member
I've been running a thread inspired by the OP and spurred by my own view that any drop in quality is due to cutting costs.
I have been asking members to tell me the cost a gun they bought in the past, when they bought it and what it would cost new now. With an inflation adjustment calculator I'm looking at whether guns were better value then, than now.
There have been a few exceptions, but the majority for now have mostly worked out as being relatively more expensive if bought in the past, so it does seem that relative cost of guns is often going done based on this mini sample. So this begs the question, in those cases, where does the money get shaved off from?
I have been asking members to tell me the cost a gun they bought in the past, when they bought it and what it would cost new now. With an inflation adjustment calculator I'm looking at whether guns were better value then, than now.
There have been a few exceptions, but the majority for now have mostly worked out as being relatively more expensive if bought in the past, so it does seem that relative cost of guns is often going done based on this mini sample. So this begs the question, in those cases, where does the money get shaved off from?
Unlicensed Dremel
Moderator
Don't BUY them - make these companies pay in lost sales for the cheapening! Demand quality and pay for it (pay more when a company offers a better one over a cheaper one).
The reason they do this is because everyone buys the cheap crap and we never stop (not me personally but....). The T/C Icon Classic should have thrived as one example (but was discontinued instead), and the junky modern turnbolt rifles with plastic everywhere including the trigger guards shouldn't sell at all - but they do. Glocks are all they rage and they are horribly junky. Junky plastic sights, guide rod, magazines, magazine release, recoil spring, etc. And what makes it worse is they cost a lot more than several much-higher-quality pistols. People buy into marketing it seems - not quality.
All you can do is pounce on a quality item when one comes out - and make it fast, because they'll go out of business soon. They can't compete with the junky makers with big marketing budgets.
The reason they do this is because everyone buys the cheap crap and we never stop (not me personally but....). The T/C Icon Classic should have thrived as one example (but was discontinued instead), and the junky modern turnbolt rifles with plastic everywhere including the trigger guards shouldn't sell at all - but they do. Glocks are all they rage and they are horribly junky. Junky plastic sights, guide rod, magazines, magazine release, recoil spring, etc. And what makes it worse is they cost a lot more than several much-higher-quality pistols. People buy into marketing it seems - not quality.
All you can do is pounce on a quality item when one comes out - and make it fast, because they'll go out of business soon. They can't compete with the junky makers with big marketing budgets.
Pond James Pond
New member
The T/C Icon Classic should have thrived as one example (but was discontinued instead), and the junky modern turnbolt rifles with plastic everywhere including the trigger guards shouldn't sell at all - but they do. Glocks are all they rage and they are horribly junky. Junky plastic sights, guide rod, magazines, magazine release, recoil spring, etc. And what makes it worse is they cost a lot more than several much-higher-quality pistols. People buy into marketing it seems - not quality.
But do they work?
Junky and crappy become questions of opinion if the guns work as intended. If they don't, then yes, buyers are lining themselves up for a fall with a cheaper gun that will break and need replacing.
In the case of the Glocks arguably they work and last, so are they bad quality?
In the case of the Glocks arguably they work and last, so are they bad quality?
While I don't think Glocks are "junky", and while they do work and last, I don't find mine particularly accurate. I am consistently more accurate with my: CZ 75B, Stock 10mm, STI 2011, Colt 1911, Hi-Power, Steyr GB, and of course Sig X-Five than I am with a Glock 17. So, I consider all of these guns better quality than the Glock.
Unlicensed Dremel
Moderator
But do they work?
Junky and crappy become questions of opinion if the guns work as intended. If they don't, then yes, buyers are lining themselves up for a fall with a cheaper gun that will break and need replacing.
In the case of the Glocks arguably they work and last, so are they bad quality?
Those are the right questions - let's look at them:
But do they work?
No, they DON'T work!!! Back 15 or so years ago, when I bought Glocks (and rest assured they ARE "junky" - this is before I quickly came to that conclusion), I had plastic guide rods break within a month of owning them. Had plastic sights get partially "crushed" - so in the END, in the long run, and in my case, even in the short run, no they don't work - they stop working properly because small plastic parts BREAK - plastic sucks, and it sucks worse when it's cold. Even a broken plastic trigger guard on a rifle (which I've had happen) can cause an AD, which means the gun is NOT "working" as intended. Sure it shoots, but if the trigger guard isn't properly performing its intended function, then overall, the rifle is not "working" as intended! It may take a few months or a few years, or even a decade or so, but in the end, metal of any reasonably-good quality alloy of of aluminum still LASTS and RESISTS BREAKAGE much much longer than the best plastic.
In the case of the Glocks arguably they work and last, so are they bad quality?
Again, the right question, but the answer is, no they don't work and last - see above. They break. Not the frame or the metal internal parts, but some small parts do eventually.... sometimes very quickly (like the guide rods that broke) that's the very definition of junky, to me. And the magazines are very ill-fitting. Mags and mag releases should be metal on metal so that neither of them wear down (e.g. Smith & Wesson M&P). Not plastic on metal or plastic on plastic (e.g. Glock).
But your point is exactly right and taken on SOME parts - like the recoil spring itself - it's cheap but it does work and never had them break.
Funny how Glock is perfection as is supposedly, yet for some reason, more people replace parts on them than ANY other pistol known to man - how could that be? Lipstick on a pig indeed. And they're just not *more* reliable than other pistols - they're *equally* reliable as any other good one - but guess what? Glock had to take out more chamber support to MAKE them equally-reliable as their competitors. If they had the same chamber support, they'd be LESS reliable - so it's poor design when you have to remove that much chamber support to make them work well.
Declare war on plastic, folks - demand metal! Hell, a zamack alloy pistol is stronger than a plastic one. Don't get me wrong - I'm ok with plastic-FRAMED guns (though they're not my favorite, they do have a place for weight savings) - but the smaller, thinner parts should not be plastic.
Roll pins. Used to be solid pins. Used to be screws before that. Used to be screws that were secured by a lock screw (think the old Mauser 98k or some of those earlier Colt DA revolvers).
MIM. OK, it works when used properly. But it used to be casted or forged. Casting is cheaper (cost wise) and forging was very labor intensive (not just forging but a lot of grinding/filing to make it fit).
Castings v. forgings. Casting is the old new back in the '60s when Springfield Armory was first trying it out to test its feasibility. They got shut down before it could be implemented on a wide scale measure. Castings must be thicker for equal strength. However, it's just as viable for fabrication as forging and is cheaper and more flexible (for the designer). I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Ruger.
Polymers. OK, some advantage like weight and no rust. But it used to be steel.
Yes, this - exactly. The cheapening is in all areas of products; not just sporting goods. Furniture is the worst. Talk about junk. I can't believe that people buy that crap new, instead of searching for old stuff made 20 times better 50 years ago.
Last edited:
No, they DON'T work!!! Back 15 or so years ago, when I bought Glocks (and rest assured they ARE "junky" - this is before I quickly came to that conclusion), I had plastic guide rods break within a month of owning them.
Well, mine works - bought it around 1992. It came with night sights which are metal - no issues there. Put thousands of rounds through it with no breakages - same plastic guide rod in there. I've done plenty of mag dumps through it back when 9mm was dirt cheap; in fact I rarely shoot anything except for wolf steel cased ammo in it - no problem. Left it in a scorching hot vehicles over the years and even a very humid basement for about 6 months unprotected - never any rust. Dropped it and banged it around a good bit - never a mechanical or cosmetic problem. The only problem I have with it is the trigger is crappy and I'm not very accurate with it.
In any event, I like steel guns better than plastic ones, and there are some exceptional quality firearms still being manufactured today. As far as screws secured by lockscrews being better than solid pins (which are still used on many guns today) - seems like an inferior design intended to correct a problem with screws getting loose and backing out.
Nickel Plated
New member
The reason they do this is because everyone buys the cheap crap and we never stop
I think that's really the crux of the problem here. Manufacturers, including American manufacturers. And the workers that work for them are perfectly capable and willing to make high quality guns. But in the end they gotta make what sells.
Say someone goes to the gunshop with the intention of buying a shotgun. A basic pump just to use for home defense. Maybe hunt once in a while and bust some clays at the range.
They look up at the rack and see 2 guns side by side.
A new 2014 870 Wingmaster, beautiful bluing, polished wood. Action slick as butter: MSRP $830
Or a new 2014 870 Express, cheap Express finish, laminated stock, action that will take a thousand rounds before it's in the same league as the Wingmaster out of the box, but otherwise it's pretty much the same gun: MSRP $400
Which one do you think they'll go for 90% of the time?
What about between an Ithaca 37 Featherweight for $800 or a Stevens 350 for $250?
Afterall "Why would I pay $800 for a pump gun, these companies are ripoff artists"
As for the workers. I work in construction. In a union infact. I know the badmouthing unions tend to get around here.
Of all the guys I met, VERY few of them were content with halfassing a job just to get it done. We get paid very well and we prefer to take the time and do the job to reflect that. Especially since we do exterior stone and finish work that will be there for everyone to see for the next several decades.
But when the higher-ups say "Hurry up we gotta get this done, just set 'em and forget 'em" What are we supposed to do?
Quality takes time and the bean counters don't like spending time.
Last edited:
Pond James Pond
New member
No, they DON'T work!!!
Strictly speaking, that is not entirely true.
The truth is yours didn't work, or at least parts failed.
Whether or not the gun ceased functioning as a result is a different story. I'm not saying that it is OK for stuff to break on a new gun, it isn't, but we'd need to know if this was a widespread issue in order to make it a criticism of the design and production methods as a whole.
One thing that I've understood from the this whole thread is that the companies are not the problem, we the consumers are.
We're led my the nose by clever marketing to buy buy buy and as such choose cheap over decent, having fallen into the mentality of use then bin it/sell it, instead of demanding a product (what ever it may be) to work and work.
It makes sense for the producers: sell a product at a high price once over a period of years, or sell several at a slightly lower price, but more often: more profit.
Quality control is the responsbility of supervisors and managers, not workers.
If people are demanding higher wages for the same work, perhaps it's due to the government always taking a bigger bite.
Also the problems with many corporations-like many families-is due to what generation they are in. Many companies go through a lifecyle-first you get the innovators, the inventors, the entrepeneurs-the enthusiasts. Then they give way to the professionals. Then you get the careerists-that's when you start to have problems.
And Yes, These are the Good Old Days.
If people are demanding higher wages for the same work, perhaps it's due to the government always taking a bigger bite.
Also the problems with many corporations-like many families-is due to what generation they are in. Many companies go through a lifecyle-first you get the innovators, the inventors, the entrepeneurs-the enthusiasts. Then they give way to the professionals. Then you get the careerists-that's when you start to have problems.
And Yes, These are the Good Old Days.
Sure Shot Mc Gee
New member
Snap together revolvers. Plastic pistols. Saturday night weaponry made here and abroad. Wide spread use of Aluminum. Absolutely No (organized) skill tradesman need apply.
I'm tickled I bought my series 70s Cups when I did. Everything factory made today the consumer's mind set, including mine, "use it, abuse it, its just a throw-a-way."
I'm tickled I bought my series 70s Cups when I did. Everything factory made today the consumer's mind set, including mine, "use it, abuse it, its just a throw-a-way."
I was going to chime in and say the quality of firearms today isn't what it use to be.
Maybe so, maybe not, depends on the firearm in question.
I address Winchesters because I like Model 70's and have several from Pre to post '64s and the New FN Model 70s.
I like all Model 70s, but I will admit, the best quality, the pick of the M-70 litter is the new FN Model 70s. They are smother, more accurate (off the shelf) and in my opinion are a higher quality then any others Model 70s I own. That's not to say there is anything wrong with the others, I'm just comparing model 70s.
I can't address Remingtons, I have several but their all older, 70s models.
But I look at my vintage military rifles.............I don't know if they are better then the new stuff. But I like to look at my old Krag, Springfields, M1917 and look at the tool marks. The machining is something to behold. All done by hand (meaning no CNC machines) by several different machinist, yet the parts are interchangeable.
Something has to be said about the craftsman of yesterday's gun makers.
But again if you look at the ARs, investment castings and pretty much "plug and play" yet they are mostly high quality. Strong and accurate.
There are a lot of high quality high priced rifles out there, Some, the Actions alone cost $1500-2000, yet there are cheaper actions that are every bit as good that don't come close to that figure.
Its hard to beat the Springfield action as far as quality and accuracy. Look at the Mann Accuracy Devices the army uses to test ammo, for the most part they are built on the 1903 action. (I do have a Mann device in 5.56 that is built on the M-700 action). The '03 action was used in Mann's for the '06, 308, 30 cal Carbine, 45 ACP, and 22 Hornet.
Something has to be said for the '03 actions.
It would be hard to come up with a stronger action then the M1 Garand Action.
Excluding match rifles and only using "as issued" or arms room rifles, I don't think there is a military rifle out there that can out shoot the M1903/03A3s.
There are good guns out there, new and old, I don't think we can make a blanket statement that modern guns are inferior, nor can we say the old guns are inferior.
Each has to be judged on its on merit.
Maybe so, maybe not, depends on the firearm in question.
I address Winchesters because I like Model 70's and have several from Pre to post '64s and the New FN Model 70s.
I like all Model 70s, but I will admit, the best quality, the pick of the M-70 litter is the new FN Model 70s. They are smother, more accurate (off the shelf) and in my opinion are a higher quality then any others Model 70s I own. That's not to say there is anything wrong with the others, I'm just comparing model 70s.
I can't address Remingtons, I have several but their all older, 70s models.
But I look at my vintage military rifles.............I don't know if they are better then the new stuff. But I like to look at my old Krag, Springfields, M1917 and look at the tool marks. The machining is something to behold. All done by hand (meaning no CNC machines) by several different machinist, yet the parts are interchangeable.
Something has to be said about the craftsman of yesterday's gun makers.
But again if you look at the ARs, investment castings and pretty much "plug and play" yet they are mostly high quality. Strong and accurate.
There are a lot of high quality high priced rifles out there, Some, the Actions alone cost $1500-2000, yet there are cheaper actions that are every bit as good that don't come close to that figure.
Its hard to beat the Springfield action as far as quality and accuracy. Look at the Mann Accuracy Devices the army uses to test ammo, for the most part they are built on the 1903 action. (I do have a Mann device in 5.56 that is built on the M-700 action). The '03 action was used in Mann's for the '06, 308, 30 cal Carbine, 45 ACP, and 22 Hornet.
Something has to be said for the '03 actions.
It would be hard to come up with a stronger action then the M1 Garand Action.
Excluding match rifles and only using "as issued" or arms room rifles, I don't think there is a military rifle out there that can out shoot the M1903/03A3s.
There are good guns out there, new and old, I don't think we can make a blanket statement that modern guns are inferior, nor can we say the old guns are inferior.
Each has to be judged on its on merit.
Unlicensed Dremel - you're right about furniture. Plenty of plood (particle board wood) and that cheap Ikea stuff is garbage. All the "newest" furniture I have I bought from a second hand store. I bought one oak dresser that had built in cedar at the bottom of the drawer. Bought a horizontal file cabinet that was oak (it was painted olive drab) and so I got it cheap.
One area of improvement is in synthetics. The plastics of today are far superior to that of the '70s. Less prone to breakage and longer life span. I think if the Nylon 66 was reintroduced, it would be a bigger success today than it was decades ago. The attitude of the public has been swayed somewhat by the success of the AR with its plastic hardware, the Glock (even though the HK-VP70 was the first polymer frame handgun) and the multitude of other polymer framed pistols.
The one area we haven't advanced much is in ammunition. We are still using metallic cased cartridges. We should be moving into caseless. If so, there will be fewer parts (no extractor, extractor spring, ejector). Think about it, the round ball was the predominant bullet for centuries. It was replaced by the short lived minie which in turn gave way to the metallic rimfire and that in turn by the centerfire. But we stopped there and have been stuck there for over a century now.
One area of improvement is in synthetics. The plastics of today are far superior to that of the '70s. Less prone to breakage and longer life span. I think if the Nylon 66 was reintroduced, it would be a bigger success today than it was decades ago. The attitude of the public has been swayed somewhat by the success of the AR with its plastic hardware, the Glock (even though the HK-VP70 was the first polymer frame handgun) and the multitude of other polymer framed pistols.
The one area we haven't advanced much is in ammunition. We are still using metallic cased cartridges. We should be moving into caseless. If so, there will be fewer parts (no extractor, extractor spring, ejector). Think about it, the round ball was the predominant bullet for centuries. It was replaced by the short lived minie which in turn gave way to the metallic rimfire and that in turn by the centerfire. But we stopped there and have been stuck there for over a century now.