Quality of todays firearms?

[KyJim]

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.

[Skans]

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.

[Oysterboy]

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.

[Pond, James Pond]

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?

[Unlicensed Dremel]

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.

[Pond, James Pond]

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?

[Skans]

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]

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.

[Skans]

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]

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.

[Pond, James Pond]

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.

[SIGSHR]

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.

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

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."

[kraigwy]

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.

[4V50 Gary]

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.

[osbornk]

I think today's guns are probably the best quality than they have ever been. We have or fondly remember the better guns from yesterday but we tend to forget the tons of really poor quality and lousy guns that were made then. I'm 67 and remember a lot of the poor quality guns that were made in my youth. My mother had a really lousy and poor quality H & R 32 break top revolver that was truly scary and dangerous to shoot. My Dad and some really lousy shotguns and I had a very poor quality 22 rifle. My 2 old shotguns are late 40 or early 50s vintage and they are far from good quality (only have them because I inherited them from a favorite cousin). We remember and have the good but forget about the crap that broke or wore out and was thrown away decades ago.

[sirgilligan]

Remington has mutiple recalls, everyone says buy older marlins, buy older smith and wessons, buy older pre 64 winchesters, buy older colt pythons, etc. Ruger firearms prices have gone up to rival smiths, $1000 for a good bolt action .22 from ruger?. Why does it seem like non american companies have better quality control, almost more innovation. CZ, Benelli, Browning, etc. I want quality american guns.

The answer is complex and may be dominated by economics.

For example, let's say today that 80% of all hand gun buyers will spend no more than $500.00 to buy a handgun. It is the consumers opinion that $500.00 should be enough to produce a handgun that they feel is satisfactory. That is what consumers do when the purchase something, they state their opinion, it is like voting.

The company may be able to produce a high quality firearm for $500.00 and then one day something changes, the price of steel goes up, health care costs increase, workers demand higher pay, etc., something changes the costs to produce the handgun. At first the company shifts profits from going to bonuses to cover the higher costs, but at some point that doesn't cover it. The entire process of development comes under review and waste is identified and removed. Waste is one of the things a company can control so it will try and control it. Waste could be corrected by removing inefficient employees. Waste could be corrected by shortening supply chains, removing middle men, removing a step such as polishing the inside of the magwell that no one seems to notice, etc. When all of the waste is removed that can be the next thing may be to look for different materials and manufacturing to reduce cost. On and on the process goes, removing waste and reducing costs, until the efforts result in a product that no one wants to buy. At that point the consumer opinion will shift. Say another company is producing a hand gun that costs $650.00. Everyone raves about it. People start buying it. Now the customer has shifted his opinion and will now pay $650.00 for a handgun. The company making the $500.00 has to figure out how to get into this new market. Their reputation may be damaged because they produced "junk" that had lots of recalls. Their shop needs re-tooling, not only in machines, but in employee skills to make the new $650.00 hand gun. The company may not recover, or may decide it will now compete with the "cheap" guns out there, because there are 20% of the market that thinks there is not much difference in any of the handguns. This could lead to further reductions in staff and quality because now they are competing for a smaller slice of the pie, maybe move manufacturing to Asia, etc.

Why do European products seem to be better? Maybe the keyword is the "seem" to be better for the price. I have a CZ bolt action rifle that cost around $650.00 and I could have got a Ruger that cost $350.00. I like both companies. Why did I buy the CZ? Because I wanted it more.

[Robinson]

I understand that quality exist today for more money. I understand americans want cheap over quality. But when you look over the vast majority of products on the market we aren't reinventing the wheel. Most american based guns are based on designs that are 40-100 years old. I just figured that after that amount of time that these designs in fact should be perfected. Todays cnc machines are capable of exceptional accuracy. One machine now replaces a dozen people from the past. We should be in a golden age of firearms not dwelling on firearms made 30 years ago.

[sirgilligan]

I understand that quality exist today for more money. I understand americans want cheap over quality. But when you look over the vast majority of products on the market we aren't reinventing the wheel. Most american based guns are based on designs that are 40-100 years old. I just figured that after that amount of time that these designs in fact should be perfected. Todays cnc machines are capable of exceptional accuracy. One machine now replaces a dozen people from the past. We should be in a golden age of firearms not dwelling on firearms made 30 years ago.

Let me express some of my frustration with things and I think it will be apparent that I too think things should be better than they are.

I love architecture, especially Gothic. When in Europe I always make my way to a Gothic cathedral. Just look at the vaulted ceilings, and how the ribs on the carved stone work in strength and beauty at the same time. And to think they carved it out of stone with chisels. Then I look at a modern building, all plain and simple and think, "We could have computer controlled machines carve the most beautiful fixtures and 3D printers make the most magnificent moldings but we don't even bother."

I love cars. I was reading about the 2012 (I think that was the year) Dodge Challenger with the Hemi. You would think the Hemi would be perfected by now right? Well, at 6,000 miles people were having catastrophic engine failures in the automatic transmission versions of the car. The culprit, the time chain was described as a chain from a bicycle, and all they had to do was put the same chain used on the truck engine and this would have never happened.

I love firearms too. I bought the Sig 238 HD as soon as the came out. It was a SIG, it was a direct copy of a Colt Mustang, so what could go wrong, a quality company and a gun design that was 40 years old. Well a friend of mine mocked the little gun so much that joked one day, "You know SIG's slogan, To Hell and Back Reliability? Well the should change that to be To Hell with Reliability." I really felt I was the beta tester for SIG and wondered how it got out the door. SIG is a good company and they made things right, but it does cross one's mind that with today's experience and precision machinery that flops and failures should not happen. But yet they do.

Why do flops and failures happen? Is it an American problem only? Is it cultural?

I still think it is economics that are at the root of the problem and it manifests itself in a myriad of ways.

Imagine this scenario, a company with a brilliant machinist that has been working for 18 years. Some "bean counting" accountant trying to cut costs looks at this machinist's salary, the cost of paying full retirement, etc., and convinces the boss to lay him off and replace him with two persons right out of college. Next thing you know things are out of spec because the new guys didn't now that machine X likes to get out of adjustment and machine Y is due for a new part, etc.

Now the story can go the other way as well, you have an old employee that will not learn how to operate new machines or use new techniques but the company will not let the person go out of loyalty and they fall behind the curve.

There are infinite things that cause this, and I wish we were past it, but we are not.

I am by profession a computer programmer. I have a graduate degree in Computer Science and I have worked for the top companies in desktop computing. I have seen the following pattern over and over, a bunch of programmers get together and make a product and they grow this product into a company. Somehow the business guys get their foot in the door, usually invited in because there are real business needs, but the guys I refer too really believe that management is what makes success and they soon work their way to the top. As soon as the CEO of a tech company isn't a tech person the technology of the company starts to falter. The more that the engineers say no the more they hire managers to say yes. I asked a manager once if they believed they can manage what they can't do. "Can you manage programmers when you don't know how to program?" "Yes I can", the replied. "How?", I asked. "I can ask questions that provoke thought and guide the process" the replied. "How do you know when a programer is lying, when the programmer is actually working hard, when the programmer is doing a good job?", I asked. They couldn't answer, yet they thought they could identify waste and improve the software process. That is just simple bull crap.

So I understand your statements. It boils down for me to a question of economy and finance.

[manta49]

Things are made to a cost, a few tool marks won't make any difference to a firearms performance. Want to get better quality you will have to pay for it. That goes for most things not just firearms.