Anyone else peeved about the material quality downward spiral? - Page 6

Blind Tree Frog · February 23, 2005, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by handy

No, there aren't any "hard numbers" for how long a plastic will last, because environmental factors come to play.

But since you're so tired of me, what numbers have you found to refute me?

I'm not the one making any claims. But every time you come into a thread that is about a non steel gun to give a comment, the extent of your commenting is that you won't touch plastic guns and you walk out. I've never seen you give anything to justify this hatred and I've seen nothing in this thread to justify this hatred, so I'm waiting to see someone of all of these people who are so worried about material quality going down actually show that material quality is going down outside of anecdotal evidence.

Blind Tree Frog · February 23, 2005, 11:09 AM

Quote:

I'll look for the tuning fork in my brother's Glock

My mistake, I'm thinking carpentry as I couldn't figure out who in their right mind would put wood on a guns hammer.

Handy · February 23, 2005, 11:10 AM

Quote:

I'm not the one making any claims.

Actually, you are claiming that I'm wrong, and you're making no effort to back up that claim.

Quote:

I got tired of reading at page one so..

Quote:

and I've seen nothing in this thread to justify...

Well, thanks for the valued opinion of the content of a five page thread you couldn't be bothered to read.

Blind Tree Frog · February 23, 2005, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Actually, you are claiming that I'm wrong, and you're making no effort to back up that claim.

Actually I asked you to back up your claims since I said it seems like you do nothing more then you say you hate these things with no evidence. If you would like references I can paste the first post of this thread here.

Quote:

Well, thanks for the valued opinion of the content of a five page thread you couldn't be bothered to read.

At the time of the first post where I said that there were two pages I had not yet read (in a thread spanning 3 pages and 1 post). You'll notice that the second post came at a later period after i had worked on the other two pages. Care to respond to my challenge above and actually post stats?

[Ad hominem comment deleted by Mal H - careful there, BTF]

**Mal H** · February 23, 2005, 11:34 AM

This thread is rapidly dropping in quality. Let's keep it civil.

IanS · February 23, 2005, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Just curious - why do you keep a $2500 watch that isn't dependable? I've had a Rolex that isn't as accurate as any $20 digital Timex - but dependable? Never failed.

LAK,

My Breitling has been dependable. I just have a feeling any mechanical watch won't be as dependable as my G-Shock. As I stated, I haven't had the heart to put my $2500 watch through the kind of rough use that I have with something that costs $100. So yes, you got me

that statement was based on an assumption and not my own experience.

Tamara · February 23, 2005, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Why, because the BDM cast frame doesn't hold up (I thought castings were just as good?

)

Didn't somebody just say:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Handy

So unless you can quote me, don't put words in my mouth.

I believe I had referenced the fact that Caspian cast 1911 frames seem to be as durable (or more so) than their forged ones. This is a specific example of 1) A frame design that is so over-dimensioned for the stresses it must take that it could be made of styrofoam and probably still work, and 2) The quality of the castings that Caspian finish-machines their frames from (I have a hunch that the name "Pinetree" shows up in there someplace...) versus that particular company's forged frames.

How this equates to a general "Castings being just as good," when it originated as "A certain casting seems to be perfectly adequate in a certain application," is beyond me. "Rolleyes", indeed...

Quote:

Well, Tam, if there was much of a market for steel, similar designs of better metals would be available.

You're still hung on this as an idee fixe. Dozens of gun owners are here telling you that what they are shopping is light weight, corrosion resistance, and price. These are amply delivered by injection-molded "goop guns". And to look specifically at the price equation: Are plastic pistols overpriced? Sure. On the other hand, find me an entirely forged and machined, all-steel gun made in a First World nation for less than a kilobuck. Even the P7, which makes large use of stampings and weldings, is priced in the gigabuck range. The CZ 75, which is 99% "toaster part"-free, demonstrates by its price that the Czech Republic is not quite yet a First World nation. Once Czech machinists decide that they need a house, an SUV, and a bass boat instead of an apartment, a bus token, and a moped, prepare to watch CZ prices edge skyward as well...

Quote:

The three stamped/welded frames I have are all fairly light...

Sorry, but to me, "Stamped & Welded" is a cost-cutting expedient no more or less annoying than castings or plastic.

Handy · February 23, 2005, 12:29 PM

Tam,

Stamping and welding are another way of working with steel. It is cheaper than forging, but probably more expensive than investment casting. It produces thin parts that derive strength from being cold forged into shape. I'm told that the P7 slide shell is "forged" and the Sig slides of old are "stamped", yet they are the same thickness. Maybe it isn't so clear that stamping is its own seperate category of metalworking?

As for the BDM, the point was simply that the gun is all steel, and light. Bringing up the quality problems with that gun doesn't change that basic equation, unless you're suggesting that the lightness DIRECTLY contributed to wear. I mentioned casting because a different (take your pick) metal working solution would have proved tougher for the same amount of metal, by weight. And we were talking about weight, weren't we?

Quote:

On the other hand, find me an entirely forged and machined, all-steel gun made in a First World nation for less than a kilobuck.

Smith and Wesson, who only recently began using MIM small parts. And they are small parts - barrel, frame and slide (which receive the most wear and tear) are forged. The ST series of Sig are also made of forged parts, and well less than $1000. Colt's cheapest 1911 is also forged, and the few parts that aren't can be replaced for less than $100. So what am I missing, since you already knew all that?

BTF, I am not a materials scientist, and don't have a subscription to Knovel, where much materials aging data can be found. So I'll post a thread about that.

Of course, that is not what this thread was about, but merely a delightful diversion. You keep insisting that I "hate polymer", when I don't. I hate paying for more expensive materials and getting cheap ones. That's what the thread is about, not all these sideline antics.

Charlz · February 23, 2005, 01:10 PM

I have been in quality control for 20 years. I am currently a quality systems manger and quality improvement specialist in manufacturing. I would agree that quality and the perception of quality has changed and in many regards has declined. The state of the art of quality is to optimize the marketable factors and to pay less attension to non-functional or less marketable factors. In other words if your customer is more concerned about their car lasting over 100K miles than tail fins, forget the tail fins and concentrate on the engine. Material cost have gone up and labor has always been major factors. Therefore manufacturers will use the cheapest materials that will work and reduce labor intensive processes as much as possible. I think the best approach for gun manufacturers is to embrace the Six Sigma system which would statistically identify the aspects of say an 1911 that produce optimum performance, then re-design those factors into their production lines, thus making this "art" into a science. It is possble through designed experiments to create a 1911 that would run 100% of the time (within set parameters) If the requirements for Six Sigma were met they would only find 3.4 per million that did not run 100% of the time. Of course the cost of running those experiments may be prohibative but it is possible. The polymer gun manufacturers probably used some of these statistical methods and so they may be cheap but, they go bang when the trigger is pulled. I wish Colt would hire a guy like DAve Sample to identify the high performance factors, create measurable metrics and then send their Stat geeks in to create fractional factorial Designed experiments. How about a $400 1911 that would be guarenteed to run 100% with competion level accuracy and be able to shoot a wide array of ammo. Probably not in my lifetime but, me and my calculator can dream.

Bob O · February 23, 2005, 01:51 PM

Talking about the decline in product quality, this has got to take the cake…

I have been doing a lot of looking around for a very small, lightweight, high-powered, pistol for CCW. It had come down to two possibilities, the North American Arms Guardian .32 NAA or the Kel-Tec P-3AT.

I had pretty much decided on the Kel-Tec; almost half the price, polymer (less cleaning and possible rust), much lighter weight.

Then I went to the Kel-Tec forum. What an eye opener!

Talk about lousy manufacturing and "bottom line" mentality. They actually make Kel-Tecs of poor quality knowingly. They leave the chambers unfinished and poorly shaped and actually expect the purchaser of a brand new pistol to "fluff and buff" (file and polish internal and external surfaces) and do a "rampendectomy" (reshape the chamber ramp). This means doing filing and polishing to parts and surfaces and fixing parts that should have been done at the factory. They PURPOSELY don't finish the gun to save on its initial cost and expect the buyer to do their work!

And what's worse -- the people on the forum happily go along with it!!!

We could save lots of money if auto manufacturers delivered our new vehicles with all the engine parts in a bag and had us assemble and install the engine ourselves! Think of all the things we buy that we could save on if we completed the manufacturing ourselves! And what if we ordered the raw materials and did it ALL ourselves… that would really be less expensive!

My God! What are we coming to?

OBIWAN · February 23, 2005, 03:45 PM

"I'm unsure why a hammer would have to have a plastic handle to offer MORE utility than one with a steel and wood handle."

I didn't say they did?...but now that you bring it up there are some very nice polymer and fiberglass handles you can get on shovels that NEVER break.

And I have broken a lot of shovel handles. Gotta stop using them as prybars on stumps

My point was....I would not use a "pretty" gun for a hammer...while a Glock...I really might.

Continuing the hammer analogy...the head is what needs the weight and strength...and the handle needs to dampen vibration...I just got a new carbon fibre handled hammer and it is much better than the steel w/ rubber handled one I replaced.

"I hate paying for more expensive materials and getting cheap ones. That's what the thread is about, not all these sideline antics."

Well why didn't you say so....Now I can help.

YOU DON"T....you pay for a weapon. If it does what you want and you are willing to pay the price...BE HAPPY

It is not your place to debate the cost structure of that company.
Well maybe it is YOUR place

This is a market economy...what things cost to buy does not have any direct correlation to what it costs to make them. I am certain that Glocks would cost less if some company tooled up a copycat frame and sold it cheap.

But instead, there is a 6" top end you can get for a G21 that is a whopping 1" longer and costs as much or more than a whole G21 Pistol...and it doesn't have a barrel or a recoil spring...and it is made of steel....

As I pointed out...lots of companies bought frames/slides from S&W and still beat their price point..SO WHAT? Maybe S&W pays their union employees too much.

Springfield Armory started importing HS2000 and charged a lot more just because they changed the name to XD...SO WHAT?

How can they put that cheesy grip safety on it for about the same price...I DON'T CARE.

For all we know, Kahr buys cheap Korean steel at half the price and charges more..I Don't Care!....If their pistols hold up it doesn't matter to me.

I paid more for a P-9 than a G-19 and they both have polymer frames and steel slides...SO WHAT?

(incidently, the trigger pin walked out on the Kahr and it never was reliable) yet the G-19 keeps running....KAHR should be ashamed...they are cheating us.

Maybe brand A has a really hard time molding their slides, and they run 50% scrap, driving their cost for the frame up over the relative cost of a steel frame.

Bummer for them!..same price to me...I Don't Care

Go back to my cereal analogy...which you ignored.

The cereal itself cost pennies...most of the cost is in marketing, advertising, and packaging....

And you wanna argue about why they cost about the same when corn costs less than oats!

Oyyy!

Dave Sample · February 23, 2005, 03:50 PM

A few years ago, John Taffin mentioned in passing, that I should spend a couple of weeks with Colt and teach them how to build SA 1873 type pistols. My answer was that it would be a waste of time. They know it all. Some time later they hired the Mustache and he convinced them to go back to the old time cylinder bushing and that was it. They still cannot produce a 1873 type $3000.00 Colt SA that is timed right. I had one new in the box Colt that one out of nine screws in the right holes. The hammer screw wasa the only one that was right.
What experience does Tamara have with Caspian Parts? I am curious.

Handy · February 23, 2005, 04:24 PM

Obiwan,

You are saying "so what" like it is some universal emotion. But there are just a few of us that would rather have cermic rather than asphalt roofs, glass faced watches, 6 cylinder engines, 200 thread count sheets and organic spinach.

One could always get along with a Kia, hot dogs and Walmart clothes, as those all provide exactly the same function. It sounds like you might be one of those people, maybe not.

But more than just suggesting that function is far more important than fineness, your conclusion seems to be that price value is ONLY derived from function. Since I doubt you'd take this attitude with something like a car, and pay BMW pricing for a Saturn, why are you suggesting that is proper for a different consumer item?

LAK · February 24, 2005, 06:28 AM

IanS

Quote:

My Breitling has been dependable. I just have a feeling any mechanical watch won't be as dependable as my G-Shock. As I stated, I haven't had the heart to put my $2500 watch through the kind of rough use that I have with something that costs $100. So yes, you got me that statement was based on an assumption and not my own experience

Let me put your mind at ease; based on my experience abusing a Rolex for about seven years, the odds are that your Breitling will likely not let you down. Your G-Shock will; the first time it needs a battery, if it doesn't break first

donkee · February 24, 2005, 06:47 AM

Nobody remembers the CZ75. Steel, 16+1 (mine came with 2 10 rd though, now they are supposed to come with the 16s, or go aftermarket MecGar for 18.00 each), under $400.00, SA, SA/DA, smooth trigger. But, because of the price, same as the Makarov (well under $200.00), it must be cheap, not a great deal.

Just my humble opinion........

LAK · February 24, 2005, 07:07 AM

Charlz

Quote:

I wish Colt would hire a guy like DAve Sample to identify the high performance factors, create measurable metrics and then send their Stat geeks in to create fractional factorial Designed experiments. How about a $400 1911 that would be guarenteed to run 100% with competion level accuracy and be able to shoot a wide array of ammo.

Let's forget about competition accuracy for a moment since we are talking about what is afterall primarily a service pistol from inception, and remains so, though nowadays more of a personal arm, and merely ask for reliable out of the box and minimum practical accuracy. Those who desire more of the latter can be free to spend what they please over the base gun and tinker all they want.

Why don't Colt simply hire the materials and production engineers at NORINCO? While labor costs are a fraction of what they are here, evidently the folks at NORINCO have all the other material and production factors nailed down quite tightly.

But if Colt can not get it consistantly right after almost 100 years - it is down to a QC problem, or other management factors that fall into the catagory of gross negligence.

Charlz · February 24, 2005, 09:12 AM

Quote LAK:
"Why don't Colt simply hire the materials and production engineers at NORINCO? While labor costs are a fraction of what they are here, evidently the folks at NORINCO have all the other material and production factors nailed down quite tightly.

But if Colt can not get it consistantly right after almost 100 years - it is down to a QC problem, or other management factors that fall into the catagory of gross negligence."

This is certainly a good point. The Chinese do not have that great of machinery nor is their cheapp labor any more dedicated than American workers but yet as you said "evidently the folks at NORINCO have all the other material and production factors nailed down quite tightly." Well said, Well said, This is exactly the case. In many cases American Companies are badly managed and are tied up with internal politics and arrogance to be able to focus on critical factors. Rumor has it that Colt is the personification of this sterotype. As someone said recently "they know it all."

IanS · February 24, 2005, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Let me put your mind at ease; based on my experience abusing a Rolex for about seven years, the odds are that your Breitling will likely not let you down. Your G-Shock will; the first time it needs a battery, if it doesn't break first

Yes, you're probably right. I got a Breitling based on its reputation for being a tough mechanical watch. Ironically, I worry about it getting dinged up and I want to keep it looking new. I know. I know.

Its like those people who finally saved up and got the gun they've always wanted like a Colt SAA, SIG P210, or a custom 1911. Instead of enjoying it, they end up babying it and not really enjoy shooting the snot of it.

OBIWAN · February 24, 2005, 01:11 PM

Handy

I think both BMW's and Saturns..indeed all cars are overpriced...so what

"But there are just a few of us that would rather have cermic rather than asphalt roofs, glass faced watches, 6 cylinder engines, 200 thread count sheets and organic spinach."

Exactly...and you will pay more...If I won't it doesn't automatically make the Asphalt roof guys crooks. They hopefully make an Excellent Ashphalt roof...which for some people may actually be preferrable.

Now...the guy that puts on a crappy asphalt roof that leaks...him you can whine about all day long. But don't start going on about the relative cost of ceramic over ashphalt...or wood!

The point that I have tried unsuccesfully to get through is that the cost of a polymer frame compared to a steel, or aluminum frame means nothing and has nothing to do with quality.

I like steel guns better than aluminum...as a rule....

But I like polymer frames because they reduce the weight from a steel gun, they don't rust, and they are very durable. I read about a marine that used a lightweight commander as an impact device and crushed the trigger guard.

Actually caved it in

I am willing to prove that won't happen with my G-19....line up people!

And I still don't think that the relative costs of the two matters.

All that matters is...what do I want and am I willing to pay for it

Kahr P-9 costs more than my G-19...it is also a polymer frame/steel slide

It holds less rounds but it is a little flatter

If/when I decide it is worth more to me than the g-19 I will buy it....I won't wonder about why it cost more than the G-19.

That is what marketing is all about...figuring out where to position products in the market. Kahr obviously thinks their pistol has a "perceived value" that is more than the G-19. Or they simply feel that they will sell all the pistols that they want to or need to at their price.

They market the MK9 at $719 and the PM9 at $707

Why??....surely tthe difference in the cost of the Polymer frame is more than $12? They are the same company , so the cost structure should be similar...hmmm...could be R&D was more on the polymer...could be marketing

But who cares...amybe they really are cheating us?

All I know is that if Glock could, and did charge $250 for their pistols...the world would probably not be a better place.

Handy · February 24, 2005, 03:08 PM

Obiwan,

In your last post, I think I detected the miscommunication we are experiencing.

When I say "quality of materials" I was not implying that the overall quality of the weapon comes from what it is made out of. Rather, some materials are nicer, better, finer, require more care to manufacture, etc. There is always debate on what material might be "finer" than another, but I think we all understand that carving something out of quality forged steel is one of the "finest" ways of producing a tool; be it a gun, knife, wrench or timepiece.

So, I'm talking about the "fineness" of materials adding inherent value to a finished product, which might matter if you are the one paying for your gun.

And yes, when Kahr charges almost no difference for their polymer frame, but Sig charges $250 less for a polymer frame, someone is ripping you off.

OBIWAN · February 24, 2005, 04:30 PM

Ah....inherent value..no thanks....I shoot guns I don't "value" them...except to shoot.

If they don't work...even just for me, I don't keep them

That is absolutely the disconnect...as I have been trying to point out..
The weapons need to work and you need to want one.

As Tamara pointed out, the cheaper material may have more "Inherent value" depending on your requirements.

Did I mention that guns are tools!

It's like that old wester dialogue..."what is the name of your horse?"....

"He doesn't have a name...you don't name something you might have to eat"

rellascout · February 24, 2005, 04:54 PM

They are only ripping you off if you buy it and it does not do its job. If it functions as it was intended and I agreed to pay x amount for it i fail to see how I was cheated.

Your Sig example only reinforces OBIWAN's point about marketing. The Sig Pro line is a fine pistol. It as a thick grip but I have not heard anyone complaining that it is not a Sig. It is just a polymer Sig. Sig felt that its core buyer would not pay the same price for a polymer gun as they do for a P series, unlike Kahr. They lowered the price point to attract a new, different set of buyers. They are looking to enlarge their market share. Marketing is what drove the lower price point not necessary the cost of materials as you suggest. That said I own a P228 not a Sig Pro.

The problem here is that your definition of the "finest" materials is subjective. It is not universal. Not everyone buys a gun for the same reasons you do. You cannot apply your buying motivations as universal principles. You want a gun that lasts forever and has a high level of craftsmanship, which you see as inherent value. I want some thing that is light, doesn't rust, easy to field strip and goes bang everytime i pull the trigger. Glock might be for me. If its the same price as a classic P series Sig it doesn't matter because the Sig does not meet my needs. If I buy the Glock am I being ripped off? Only if I apply your subjective criteria as universal.

Rellascout

Handy · February 24, 2005, 05:12 PM

Obiwan,

Certainly, guns are tools. Cars are transport and dinner plates are there to keep the gravy at bay. But to suggest that the intangibles have no value is absurd. I bet even you wouldn't buy a gun, no matter how efficient, if it deeply displeased you in some way that might be considered "aesthetic", a word that implies many things more than just looks.

One of the "aesthetics" that some of us value is a material that offers the very best performance for the longest time. Of the easily obtainable materials, steel and titanium are probably the ideal, with other materials being increasing compromises.

What I am most bothered by is not the EXISTANCE of those compromises, but lack of consumer benefit to having them. For instance: I think most people would agree that using pot metals in firearms production is a compromise - so what is the benefit of that compromise to someone eyeing a $230 Walther P22?
Could it have been made from more durable materials for that selling price? Yes.
Are there similar pistols for that price made of superior materials? Yes.
Would the P22 be a more attractive buy for consumers with better materials? Yes.
Would the P22 be a more effective tool in the long term if produced from better materials? Quite probably: Yes.

The Glock was an outstanding $275 gun back in 1987. The P22 would be an amazing $140 purchase. But when we agree to pay extra for no return we agree that NOTHING has any real value, and that there is no point producing anything of utility that is made to last and be valued above its intended use.

Obiwan, you're a proponent of tar paper shacks, Yugos and tupperware plates. They all do the job, and that's all that is important.

Chui · February 24, 2005, 06:15 PM

Very interesting subject and a subject that I ponder on long drives home from work. I'm an engineer and a pretty anal one when it comes to a few things like:

Materials
Material Processes
Manufacturing Processes

I strongly prefer cold hammer forging to any other AISI 4140 manufacturing methodology. To obtain a 1911 made entirely of this method would prove frightfully expensive. The costs are associated in the processes involved, but once throughput becomes a major factor then other mfg methods must be investigated. The same with MARR [Minimal Annual Rate of Return (on Investment)].

An all high quality steel piece (any desirable piece) has a certain air about it that makes one wish to hold and admire it. I cannot exactly state why, but it seems to be a universal truth for those who have a prediliction for machinery.

I think several things have happened.

Lower Margins. Lower margins will cause a manufacturer to reduce the cost of doing business. Thus we see castings and MIM components. Yes, some of the best castings are very good, but apples to apples a quality forging will be better. Same with MIM.

These lower margins can be due to economic downturns or predictions of economic downturns. It could be due to a saturated market. Another is the inevitable Political dark clouds on the horizon which will effect investor confidence and ultimately drive up the interest rates on any loans required to expand or modify production. The reduction in Tariffs also make it far easier for foreign companies to import items into the US. These products often time have cheaper labor associated with them. The cost of raw materials may also be cheaper abroad.

As far as polymer is concerned it is more effective for the end user in many cases as it's impervious to salts, lighter in weight, absorbs recoil to a greater extent than Aluminum or 4140 or 416R. Is it as aesthetic? No. It's utilitarian. And that's okay, by me. It will depend on what one wishes or needs to have.

The cost of erecting a manufacturing facility that utilizes polymer as opposed to CNC machines required for frames for, say, Springfield and SIG will be less. The raw materials will also cost less - especially than high quality steel used in, say, a 1911. With China gobbling up resources the price of steel will NOT reverse it's trend anytime soon, but the demand for polymer in our industry may, in fact, drive up the cost of polymer.

The time required to machine an Aluminum steel forging is much greater than heating up "plastic" beads and dehumidifying them before dumping them into a mold and increasing the temp. A human must remove any flash that is left and the mold should last indefinitely if it's made and coated correctly.

So the polymer pistols require less initial investment (once the technique is well understood) and they can be processed much quicker than CNC'd alloys.

The steels that Glock and H&K uses are as good as any and the "tenifer" treatment both of their steel parts receive make them industry bests for corrosion resistance and surface hardness (SIG is better here with "Nitron"). They can afford to take the necessary hour to treat their steel since they saved maybe four hours on the frames alone. Once combined they produce a product that is extremely corrosion resistant compared to conventionally treated alloy pistols. This is a fact of life.

This is also why soldiers will enjoy using them - though they may not ultimately covet them the way some would covet a 1911, SIG P210 or an H&K P7. That's understandible from my perspective. They focus on the task at hand not on the weapon systems. Since I'm not consciously deciding to step into or sky dive into harm's way I focus more on the weapon system and details of it's construction.

So, are Glocks "overpriced" for what you get? I dunno. I love the brute simplicity, reliability and overall ruggedness of them. Same with the H&K. I could toss either of the polymer guns across the dirt and wouldn't think twice about it; something I'd never contemplate with my Kimber or Springfield.

Glock is making a killing I believe. The frames are inexpensive to manufacture. The barrels can be made within one minute prior to properly machining the lugs. Same with H&K. Hammer forging equipment is expensive. Once you have it the cost of MACHINING the barrel ONLY drops dramatically. Both manufacturers use forgings for their slide which is then milled with CNC equipment. This is no different than say, Springfield Armory - who has it's raw forgings done in Brazil (for reduced labor rates - and no import duties when it rearrives to Geneseo, IL...

). So Glock and H&K (to a lesser extent) can manufacture a polymer-framed Pistol much cheaper than a 1911 and SIG. H&K does use external safeties which complicates things compared to Glock and they also use stainless steel inserts placed within their frame to improve the overall stiffness so there's some money and time associated with these differences. But the MSRP of Glocks is less than that of SIG. By about $150 and H&Ks are more expensive than SIGs ($50 to $75). So what gives? Manufacturing inefficiencies with H&K? Or are they simply pocketing the profits? A large part of the money is re-invested into R&D. I think Glock is simply charging what the market will bear - which does not make me disappointed at all. They are affordable and are not rivalled at their price point in my view. It's difficult to compare the Steyr M Series since they are artificially priced to give them away at this time.

But I digress. I think Glock should modify it's basic pistol to make some improvements. The increasing of models cost next to nothing as it's merely same frame different uppers with some exception. At least with H&K we see some innovation or at least different outward appearances and the LEM trigger on the P2K.

Yes, I'd gladly accept a 1911 from my grandfather. Same with a Glock, H&K or SIG. But to be honest I'd have a 'double woody' if the handed down weapon was handcrafted - something the newer designs are not. This is not a bad thing as it makes them affordable to you and I and if you're anal about corrosion the polymer frames don't and you get tenifered steel with a "spray and bake" coating.

At least SIG is using state of the art coatings with it's NITRON, as is Kahr on some models. The "next big thing" will be PVD coatings, i.e., Physical Vapor Deposition coatings and I also predict that we'll be getting more polymer frames since the cost of steel is skyrocketing. Gentlemen, buy your 1911s, P210s, P7s and BHPs while you can. They won't be the same soon. Well, the 1911s will. They may move to more castings and MIM components but we can purchase what we wish and either put them together or have them put together to make that "heirloom" quality tool. Now you're talking!

LAK · February 25, 2005, 06:58 AM

A cheap pair of scissors, or a dollar store screwdriver will "work", so will many other cheap tools. But for how long? Sometimes cheaply made items can keep going an extraordinary long period of time. But they are only reliable while they last and do not break over the long haul. And they usually do not last very long. Cheaply made socket sets, wrenches, screwdrivers, cutters. Watches, clothing, footwear and the list goes on.

In the case of plastic framed pistols, let's start at their beginnings. It was a cost cutting production expedient that brought them into being. Companies like Glock didn't wake up one day and say "we can make a more durable and better pistol with plastic frames". It was purely a cost cutting measure.

Glock did manage to make them work, but the question remains for how long - before the frames degrade with the effects of heat, cold, UV and time? Is anyone other than Glock (and the the other companies) monitoring this as time goes by? The institutional users are likely to change from one pistol to another, phase out one, buy another as trends or other factors run their course. No major agency is going to be likely to keep using the same pistols over more than a certain number of years. But what of the dedicated private users who buy their pistols with the intention of keeping them indefinately? It is these users that will likely find that the frames are breaking down with increasing frequency as time goes on.

The first synthetic rifle stocks were developed for their stability and it's effect on accuracy for competition. But these were fiberglass etc, and in addition to being stable, proved to be very strong as well. The first injection molded stocks were a cost cutting measure. They are not as stable, nor strong, as fiberglass and other laminates or composites - but they are significantly cheaper reflected at the retail level.

No one argues that Glocks and other pistols with plastic frames work, are generally reliable, and are relied upon by some very credible and intelligent people and institutions. But let's be clear on the reason for their introduction in the first place, and the fact that their retail costs should reflect this.

February 23, 2005, 01:10 PM	#134
Charlz Member Join Date: February 8, 2005 Location: Middle TN Posts: 18	Downward spiral of quality I have been in quality control for 20 years. I am currently a quality systems manger and quality improvement specialist in manufacturing. I would agree that quality and the perception of quality has changed and in many regards has declined. The state of the art of quality is to optimize the marketable factors and to pay less attension to non-functional or less marketable factors. In other words if your customer is more concerned about their car lasting over 100K miles than tail fins, forget the tail fins and concentrate on the engine. Material cost have gone up and labor has always been major factors. Therefore manufacturers will use the cheapest materials that will work and reduce labor intensive processes as much as possible. I think the best approach for gun manufacturers is to embrace the Six Sigma system which would statistically identify the aspects of say an 1911 that produce optimum performance, then re-design those factors into their production lines, thus making this "art" into a science. It is possble through designed experiments to create a 1911 that would run 100% of the time (within set parameters) If the requirements for Six Sigma were met they would only find 3.4 per million that did not run 100% of the time. Of course the cost of running those experiments may be prohibative but it is possible. The polymer gun manufacturers probably used some of these statistical methods and so they may be cheap but, they go bang when the trigger is pulled. I wish Colt would hire a guy like DAve Sample to identify the high performance factors, create measurable metrics and then send their Stat geeks in to create fractional factorial Designed experiments. How about a $400 1911 that would be guarenteed to run 100% with competion level accuracy and be able to shoot a wide array of ammo. Probably not in my lifetime but, me and my calculator can dream. __________________ "Harps in Heaven, banjos in Hell. These are the rules I don't make them up." Charlz

February 24, 2005, 09:12 AM	#142
Charlz Member Join Date: February 8, 2005 Location: Middle TN Posts: 18	Quote LAK: "Why don't Colt simply hire the materials and production engineers at NORINCO? While labor costs are a fraction of what they are here, evidently the folks at NORINCO have all the other material and production factors nailed down quite tightly. But if Colt can not get it consistantly right after almost 100 years - it is down to a QC problem, or other management factors that fall into the catagory of gross negligence." This is certainly a good point. The Chinese do not have that great of machinery nor is their cheapp labor any more dedicated than American workers but yet as you said "evidently the folks at NORINCO have all the other material and production factors nailed down quite tightly." Well said, Well said, This is exactly the case. In many cases American Companies are badly managed and are tied up with internal politics and arrogance to be able to focus on critical factors. Rumor has it that Colt is the personification of this sterotype. As someone said recently "they know it all." __________________ "Harps in Heaven, banjos in Hell. These are the rules I don't make them up." Charlz

February 24, 2005, 06:15 PM	#149
Chui Senior Member Join Date: June 28, 2004 Posts: 1,784	The State of the Nation Very interesting subject and a subject that I ponder on long drives home from work. I'm an engineer and a pretty anal one when it comes to a few things like: Materials Material Processes Manufacturing Processes I strongly prefer cold hammer forging to any other AISI 4140 manufacturing methodology. To obtain a 1911 made entirely of this method would prove frightfully expensive. The costs are associated in the processes involved, but once throughput becomes a major factor then other mfg methods must be investigated. The same with MARR [Minimal Annual Rate of Return (on Investment)]. An all high quality steel piece (any desirable piece) has a certain air about it that makes one wish to hold and admire it. I cannot exactly state why, but it seems to be a universal truth for those who have a prediliction for machinery. I think several things have happened. Lower Margins. Lower margins will cause a manufacturer to reduce the cost of doing business. Thus we see castings and MIM components. Yes, some of the best castings are very good, but apples to apples a quality forging will be better. Same with MIM. These lower margins can be due to economic downturns or predictions of economic downturns. It could be due to a saturated market. Another is the inevitable Political dark clouds on the horizon which will effect investor confidence and ultimately drive up the interest rates on any loans required to expand or modify production. The reduction in Tariffs also make it far easier for foreign companies to import items into the US. These products often time have cheaper labor associated with them. The cost of raw materials may also be cheaper abroad. As far as polymer is concerned it is more effective for the end user in many cases as it's impervious to salts, lighter in weight, absorbs recoil to a greater extent than Aluminum or 4140 or 416R. Is it as aesthetic? No. It's utilitarian. And that's okay, by me. It will depend on what one wishes or needs to have. The cost of erecting a manufacturing facility that utilizes polymer as opposed to CNC machines required for frames for, say, Springfield and SIG will be less. The raw materials will also cost less - especially than high quality steel used in, say, a 1911. With China gobbling up resources the price of steel will NOT reverse it's trend anytime soon, but the demand for polymer in our industry may, in fact, drive up the cost of polymer. The time required to machine an Aluminum steel forging is much greater than heating up "plastic" beads and dehumidifying them before dumping them into a mold and increasing the temp. A human must remove any flash that is left and the mold should last indefinitely if it's made and coated correctly. So the polymer pistols require less initial investment (once the technique is well understood) and they can be processed much quicker than CNC'd alloys. The steels that Glock and H&K uses are as good as any and the "tenifer" treatment both of their steel parts receive make them industry bests for corrosion resistance and surface hardness (SIG is better here with "Nitron"). They can afford to take the necessary hour to treat their steel since they saved maybe four hours on the frames alone. Once combined they produce a product that is extremely corrosion resistant compared to conventionally treated alloy pistols. This is a fact of life. This is also why soldiers will enjoy using them - though they may not ultimately covet them the way some would covet a 1911, SIG P210 or an H&K P7. That's understandible from my perspective. They focus on the task at hand not on the weapon systems. Since I'm not consciously deciding to step into or sky dive into harm's way I focus more on the weapon system and details of it's construction. So, are Glocks "overpriced" for what you get? I dunno. I love the brute simplicity, reliability and overall ruggedness of them. Same with the H&K. I could toss either of the polymer guns across the dirt and wouldn't think twice about it; something I'd never contemplate with my Kimber or Springfield. Glock is making a killing I believe. The frames are inexpensive to manufacture. The barrels can be made within one minute prior to properly machining the lugs. Same with H&K. Hammer forging equipment is expensive. Once you have it the cost of MACHINING the barrel ONLY drops dramatically. Both manufacturers use forgings for their slide which is then milled with CNC equipment. This is no different than say, Springfield Armory - who has it's raw forgings done in Brazil (for reduced labor rates - and no import duties when it rearrives to Geneseo, IL... ). So Glock and H&K (to a lesser extent) can manufacture a polymer-framed Pistol much cheaper than a 1911 and SIG. H&K does use external safeties which complicates things compared to Glock and they also use stainless steel inserts placed within their frame to improve the overall stiffness so there's some money and time associated with these differences. But the MSRP of Glocks is less than that of SIG. By about $150 and H&Ks are more expensive than SIGs ($50 to $75). So what gives? Manufacturing inefficiencies with H&K? Or are they simply pocketing the profits? A large part of the money is re-invested into R&D. I think Glock is simply charging what the market will bear - which does not make me disappointed at all. They are affordable and are not rivalled at their price point in my view. It's difficult to compare the Steyr M Series since they are artificially priced to give them away at this time. But I digress. I think Glock should modify it's basic pistol to make some improvements. The increasing of models cost next to nothing as it's merely same frame different uppers with some exception. At least with H&K we see some innovation or at least different outward appearances and the LEM trigger on the P2K. Yes, I'd gladly accept a 1911 from my grandfather. Same with a Glock, H&K or SIG. But to be honest I'd have a 'double woody' if the handed down weapon was handcrafted - something the newer designs are not. This is not a bad thing as it makes them affordable to you and I and if you're anal about corrosion the polymer frames don't and you get tenifered steel with a "spray and bake" coating. At least SIG is using state of the art coatings with it's NITRON, as is Kahr on some models. The "next big thing" will be PVD coatings, i.e., Physical Vapor Deposition coatings and I also predict that we'll be getting more polymer frames since the cost of steel is skyrocketing. Gentlemen, buy your 1911s, P210s, P7s and BHPs while you can. They won't be the same soon. Well, the 1911s will. They may move to more castings and MIM components but we can purchase what we wish and either put them together or have them put together to make that "heirloom" quality tool. Now you're talking!

February 23, 2005, 11:34 AM	#130
Mal H Staff Join Date: March 20, 1999 Location: Somewhere in the woods of Northern Virginia Posts: 16,955	This thread is rapidly dropping in quality. Let's keep it civil.

February 23, 2005, 01:51 PM	#135
Bob O Member Join Date: February 23, 2005 Posts: 50	Talking about the decline in product quality, this has got to take the cake… I have been doing a lot of looking around for a very small, lightweight, high-powered, pistol for CCW. It had come down to two possibilities, the North American Arms Guardian .32 NAA or the Kel-Tec P-3AT. I had pretty much decided on the Kel-Tec; almost half the price, polymer (less cleaning and possible rust), much lighter weight. Then I went to the Kel-Tec forum. What an eye opener! Talk about lousy manufacturing and "bottom line" mentality. They actually make Kel-Tecs of poor quality knowingly. They leave the chambers unfinished and poorly shaped and actually expect the purchaser of a brand new pistol to "fluff and buff" (file and polish internal and external surfaces) and do a "rampendectomy" (reshape the chamber ramp). This means doing filing and polishing to parts and surfaces and fixing parts that should have been done at the factory. They PURPOSELY don't finish the gun to save on its initial cost and expect the buyer to do their work! And what's worse -- the people on the forum happily go along with it!!! We could save lots of money if auto manufacturers delivered our new vehicles with all the engine parts in a bag and had us assemble and install the engine ourselves! Think of all the things we buy that we could save on if we completed the manufacturing ourselves! And what if we ordered the raw materials and did it ALL ourselves… that would really be less expensive! My God! What are we coming to?

February 23, 2005, 03:45 PM	#136
OBIWAN Senior Member Join Date: March 16, 1999 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,340	"I'm unsure why a hammer would have to have a plastic handle to offer MORE utility than one with a steel and wood handle." I didn't say they did?...but now that you bring it up there are some very nice polymer and fiberglass handles you can get on shovels that NEVER break. And I have broken a lot of shovel handles. Gotta stop using them as prybars on stumps My point was....I would not use a "pretty" gun for a hammer...while a Glock...I really might. Continuing the hammer analogy...the head is what needs the weight and strength...and the handle needs to dampen vibration...I just got a new carbon fibre handled hammer and it is much better than the steel w/ rubber handled one I replaced. "I hate paying for more expensive materials and getting cheap ones. That's what the thread is about, not all these sideline antics." Well why didn't you say so....Now I can help. YOU DON"T....you pay for a weapon. If it does what you want and you are willing to pay the price...BE HAPPY It is not your place to debate the cost structure of that company. Well maybe it is YOUR place This is a market economy...what things cost to buy does not have any direct correlation to what it costs to make them. I am certain that Glocks would cost less if some company tooled up a copycat frame and sold it cheap. But instead, there is a 6" top end you can get for a G21 that is a whopping 1" longer and costs as much or more than a whole G21 Pistol...and it doesn't have a barrel or a recoil spring...and it is made of steel.... As I pointed out...lots of companies bought frames/slides from S&W and still beat their price point..SO WHAT? Maybe S&W pays their union employees too much. Springfield Armory started importing HS2000 and charged a lot more just because they changed the name to XD...SO WHAT? How can they put that cheesy grip safety on it for about the same price...I DON'T CARE. For all we know, Kahr buys cheap Korean steel at half the price and charges more..I Don't Care!....If their pistols hold up it doesn't matter to me. I paid more for a P-9 than a G-19 and they both have polymer frames and steel slides...SO WHAT? (incidently, the trigger pin walked out on the Kahr and it never was reliable) yet the G-19 keeps running....KAHR should be ashamed...they are cheating us. Maybe brand A has a really hard time molding their slides, and they run 50% scrap, driving their cost for the frame up over the relative cost of a steel frame. Bummer for them!..same price to me...I Don't Care Go back to my cereal analogy...which you ignored. The cereal itself cost pennies...most of the cost is in marketing, advertising, and packaging.... And you wanna argue about why they cost about the same when corn costs less than oats! Oyyy!

February 23, 2005, 03:50 PM	#137
Dave Sample Junior member Join Date: December 10, 2004 Location: Prescott, AZ Posts: 1,002	A few years ago, John Taffin mentioned in passing, that I should spend a couple of weeks with Colt and teach them how to build SA 1873 type pistols. My answer was that it would be a waste of time. They know it all. Some time later they hired the Mustache and he convinced them to go back to the old time cylinder bushing and that was it. They still cannot produce a 1873 type $3000.00 Colt SA that is timed right. I had one new in the box Colt that one out of nine screws in the right holes. The hammer screw wasa the only one that was right. What experience does Tamara have with Caspian Parts? I am curious.

February 23, 2005, 04:24 PM	#138
Handy Junior member Join Date: August 31, 2001 Posts: 8,785	Obiwan, You are saying "so what" like it is some universal emotion. But there are just a few of us that would rather have cermic rather than asphalt roofs, glass faced watches, 6 cylinder engines, 200 thread count sheets and organic spinach. One could always get along with a Kia, hot dogs and Walmart clothes, as those all provide exactly the same function. It sounds like you might be one of those people, maybe not. But more than just suggesting that function is far more important than fineness, your conclusion seems to be that price value is ONLY derived from function. Since I doubt you'd take this attitude with something like a car, and pay BMW pricing for a Saturn, why are you suggesting that is proper for a different consumer item?

February 24, 2005, 06:47 AM	#140
donkee Junior member Join Date: November 7, 2004 Location: Mid-Michigan Posts: 449	Nobody remembers the CZ75. Steel, 16+1 (mine came with 2 10 rd though, now they are supposed to come with the 16s, or go aftermarket MecGar for 18.00 each), under $400.00, SA, SA/DA, smooth trigger. But, because of the price, same as the Makarov (well under $200.00), it must be cheap, not a great deal. Just my humble opinion........

February 24, 2005, 01:11 PM	#144
OBIWAN Senior Member Join Date: March 16, 1999 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,340	Handy I think both BMW's and Saturns..indeed all cars are overpriced...so what "But there are just a few of us that would rather have cermic rather than asphalt roofs, glass faced watches, 6 cylinder engines, 200 thread count sheets and organic spinach." Exactly...and you will pay more...If I won't it doesn't automatically make the Asphalt roof guys crooks. They hopefully make an Excellent Ashphalt roof...which for some people may actually be preferrable. Now...the guy that puts on a crappy asphalt roof that leaks...him you can whine about all day long. But don't start going on about the relative cost of ceramic over ashphalt...or wood! The point that I have tried unsuccesfully to get through is that the cost of a polymer frame compared to a steel, or aluminum frame means nothing and has nothing to do with quality. I like steel guns better than aluminum...as a rule.... But I like polymer frames because they reduce the weight from a steel gun, they don't rust, and they are very durable. I read about a marine that used a lightweight commander as an impact device and crushed the trigger guard. Actually caved it in I am willing to prove that won't happen with my G-19....line up people! And I still don't think that the relative costs of the two matters. All that matters is...what do I want and am I willing to pay for it Kahr P-9 costs more than my G-19...it is also a polymer frame/steel slide It holds less rounds but it is a little flatter If/when I decide it is worth more to me than the g-19 I will buy it....I won't wonder about why it cost more than the G-19. That is what marketing is all about...figuring out where to position products in the market. Kahr obviously thinks their pistol has a "perceived value" that is more than the G-19. Or they simply feel that they will sell all the pistols that they want to or need to at their price. They market the MK9 at $719 and the PM9 at $707 Why??....surely tthe difference in the cost of the Polymer frame is more than $12? They are the same company , so the cost structure should be similar...hmmm...could be R&D was more on the polymer...could be marketing But who cares...amybe they really are cheating us? All I know is that if Glock could, and did charge $250 for their pistols...the world would probably not be a better place.

February 24, 2005, 03:08 PM	#145
Handy Junior member Join Date: August 31, 2001 Posts: 8,785	Obiwan, In your last post, I think I detected the miscommunication we are experiencing. When I say "quality of materials" I was not implying that the overall quality of the weapon comes from what it is made out of. Rather, some materials are nicer, better, finer, require more care to manufacture, etc. There is always debate on what material might be "finer" than another, but I think we all understand that carving something out of quality forged steel is one of the "finest" ways of producing a tool; be it a gun, knife, wrench or timepiece. So, I'm talking about the "fineness" of materials adding inherent value to a finished product, which might matter if you are the one paying for your gun. And yes, when Kahr charges almost no difference for their polymer frame, but Sig charges $250 less for a polymer frame, someone is ripping you off.

February 24, 2005, 04:30 PM	#146
OBIWAN Senior Member Join Date: March 16, 1999 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,340	Ah....inherent value..no thanks....I shoot guns I don't "value" them...except to shoot. If they don't work...even just for me, I don't keep them That is absolutely the disconnect...as I have been trying to point out.. The weapons need to work and you need to want one. As Tamara pointed out, the cheaper material may have more "Inherent value" depending on your requirements. Did I mention that guns are tools! It's like that old wester dialogue..."what is the name of your horse?".... "He doesn't have a name...you don't name something you might have to eat"

February 24, 2005, 04:54 PM	#147
rellascout Junior member Join Date: September 2, 2004 Posts: 2,435	They are only ripping you off if you buy it and it does not do its job. If it functions as it was intended and I agreed to pay x amount for it i fail to see how I was cheated. Your Sig example only reinforces OBIWAN's point about marketing. The Sig Pro line is a fine pistol. It as a thick grip but I have not heard anyone complaining that it is not a Sig. It is just a polymer Sig. Sig felt that its core buyer would not pay the same price for a polymer gun as they do for a P series, unlike Kahr. They lowered the price point to attract a new, different set of buyers. They are looking to enlarge their market share. Marketing is what drove the lower price point not necessary the cost of materials as you suggest. That said I own a P228 not a Sig Pro. The problem here is that your definition of the "finest" materials is subjective. It is not universal. Not everyone buys a gun for the same reasons you do. You cannot apply your buying motivations as universal principles. You want a gun that lasts forever and has a high level of craftsmanship, which you see as inherent value. I want some thing that is light, doesn't rust, easy to field strip and goes bang everytime i pull the trigger. Glock might be for me. If its the same price as a classic P series Sig it doesn't matter because the Sig does not meet my needs. If I buy the Glock am I being ripped off? Only if I apply your subjective criteria as universal. Rellascout

February 24, 2005, 05:12 PM	#148
Handy Junior member Join Date: August 31, 2001 Posts: 8,785	Obiwan, Certainly, guns are tools. Cars are transport and dinner plates are there to keep the gravy at bay. But to suggest that the intangibles have no value is absurd. I bet even you wouldn't buy a gun, no matter how efficient, if it deeply displeased you in some way that might be considered "aesthetic", a word that implies many things more than just looks. One of the "aesthetics" that some of us value is a material that offers the very best performance for the longest time. Of the easily obtainable materials, steel and titanium are probably the ideal, with other materials being increasing compromises. What I am most bothered by is not the EXISTANCE of those compromises, but lack of consumer benefit to having them. For instance: I think most people would agree that using pot metals in firearms production is a compromise - so what is the benefit of that compromise to someone eyeing a $230 Walther P22? Could it have been made from more durable materials for that selling price? Yes. Are there similar pistols for that price made of superior materials? Yes. Would the P22 be a more attractive buy for consumers with better materials? Yes. Would the P22 be a more effective tool in the long term if produced from better materials? Quite probably: Yes. The Glock was an outstanding $275 gun back in 1987. The P22 would be an amazing $140 purchase. But when we agree to pay extra for no return we agree that NOTHING has any real value, and that there is no point producing anything of utility that is made to last and be valued above its intended use. Obiwan, you're a proponent of tar paper shacks, Yugos and tupperware plates. They all do the job, and that's all that is important.

February 25, 2005, 06:58 AM	#150
LAK Junior member Join Date: May 14, 2002 Posts: 2,251	A cheap pair of scissors, or a dollar store screwdriver will "work", so will many other cheap tools. But for how long? Sometimes cheaply made items can keep going an extraordinary long period of time. But they are only reliable while they last and do not break over the long haul. And they usually do not last very long. Cheaply made socket sets, wrenches, screwdrivers, cutters. Watches, clothing, footwear and the list goes on. In the case of plastic framed pistols, let's start at their beginnings. It was a cost cutting production expedient that brought them into being. Companies like Glock didn't wake up one day and say "we can make a more durable and better pistol with plastic frames". It was purely a cost cutting measure. Glock did manage to make them work, but the question remains for how long - before the frames degrade with the effects of heat, cold, UV and time? Is anyone other than Glock (and the the other companies) monitoring this as time goes by? The institutional users are likely to change from one pistol to another, phase out one, buy another as trends or other factors run their course. No major agency is going to be likely to keep using the same pistols over more than a certain number of years. But what of the dedicated private users who buy their pistols with the intention of keeping them indefinately? It is these users that will likely find that the frames are breaking down with increasing frequency as time goes on. The first synthetic rifle stocks were developed for their stability and it's effect on accuracy for competition. But these were fiberglass etc, and in addition to being stable, proved to be very strong as well. The first injection molded stocks were a cost cutting measure. They are not as stable, nor strong, as fiberglass and other laminates or composites - but they are significantly cheaper reflected at the retail level. No one argues that Glocks and other pistols with plastic frames work, are generally reliable, and are relied upon by some very credible and intelligent people and institutions. But let's be clear on the reason for their introduction in the first place, and the fact that their retail costs should reflect this.