Time was when you could purchase a firearm from a reputable maker and be confident it would have no issues. Yesterday, at a local shop for which I do part-time work, I inspected seven factory new .38 revolvers before they were put out for sale. Of the seven, two had mechanical defects that made them unusable. Both were made by famous makers from whom you could once expect a quality product. This is not a unique incident. It has occurred with increasing frequency the last few years. My standard answer when pressed to the wall by someone who could not make up their mind regarding a defensive handgun has been it is hard to go wrong with a quality .38 revolver of known make. Nowadays, I don't feel so confident.
They just don't make 'em like they used to.
- Thread starter TRanger
- Start date
Help Support Ruger Forum:
dlhredfoxx
Single-Sixer
With the extremely high demand for firearms right now, and the back logs at most gun manufacturers, I think all of them are letting things slip through final inspection that might not have a couple years ago. No excuse, just an explanation. The mighty dollar reigns supreme… It'll all settle down some day, hopefully…
LaneP
Single-Sixer
Just my amateur .02 but it seems like the firearms market is more competitive now than at any point in history, and we're seeing the results in the final product in many ways, ranging from premature parts failure to sloppy finishing.
However, I believe that some of it is the result of makers simply not taking the time to really wring out their product before sending it to market, which is why I see many posting to the effect that if a new model is released, they will not purchase an example "until the bugs are worked out".
This may not be entirely a new phenomenon though. I remember a quote by Elmer Keith from back in the day when he was writing about a bad example of a S&W M29 he bought, "If a gun maker produces 1000 good pistols and one bad one, I seem to always get that bad one they made".
However, I believe that some of it is the result of makers simply not taking the time to really wring out their product before sending it to market, which is why I see many posting to the effect that if a new model is released, they will not purchase an example "until the bugs are worked out".
This may not be entirely a new phenomenon though. I remember a quote by Elmer Keith from back in the day when he was writing about a bad example of a S&W M29 he bought, "If a gun maker produces 1000 good pistols and one bad one, I seem to always get that bad one they made".
protoolman
Service-Sixer
I've seen glaring issues with a few S&W revolvers that were visually so bad they should never have made it out of the factory. Ruger seems to let a few things slip by but not as obvious things as Smith. Canted sights seem to be one thing Ruger needs to
watch.
watch.
Jim Puke
Hunter
My son and I have bought about 4 new handguns in the last 3 months and we have been pleased with the quality. I bought a new Ruger Blackhawk last year that came with a problem that I was able to correct without sending it in for repair. However, don't get me started on 2 Taurus revolvers that I bought a few years ago...not good and neither is fixed now after a couple of trips back. I refuse to pay for shipping to return them again and I will not pass the problem on to someone else...they will just stay in the safe until my heirs do something with them.
Varminterror
Blackhawk
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2014
- Messages
- 513
You didn't specify the brand, but also didn't specify the era to which you are referring that "all of them were good."
Not that I lived through them myself, but I've studied and traded on some of these revolvers of yesteryear and I certainly wouldn't agree that the 50-60's were all good, and the 70's and 80's weren't either. The 90's were the beginning of the QC failure era we're still struggling through today as companies started trading hands at an alarming rate and production costs started sky-rocketing. Sure, bluing finish was better in general on many of those older pistols, but I can't say the fit and function was much better in the lower end revolvers on the market, even though it was a time that so much more was hand fitted. Nickel plating and cast "pot metal" was the rage for a time, and inexpensive "short life span" revolvers were pretty common.
The recent boom (last 10yrs) for concealed carry has brought out a lot more low cost, low value models that simply wouldn't have stood a chance in the 90's, so I suppose a guy can argue that if there was a clean used 38snubby on the shelf in 1994, it was probably better quality than one found on a shelf in 2014, but that's because it would have most likely been a ruger or smith, MAYBE a Taurus, whereas today it is not likely to be a smith, doubtful as a ruger, and more likely to be a charter, Rossi, or Taurus.
Compare it to the oil price boom. If you compare a used car lot in 1975 to one in 1990, it likely had a lot better cars in '75. But that's really because it had full size V8's or straight 6's on the lot in the 70's, but all of them would have been low cost 4bangers by 1990. The crap was always crap, but the market buys and resells more crap today than they used to.
Not that I lived through them myself, but I've studied and traded on some of these revolvers of yesteryear and I certainly wouldn't agree that the 50-60's were all good, and the 70's and 80's weren't either. The 90's were the beginning of the QC failure era we're still struggling through today as companies started trading hands at an alarming rate and production costs started sky-rocketing. Sure, bluing finish was better in general on many of those older pistols, but I can't say the fit and function was much better in the lower end revolvers on the market, even though it was a time that so much more was hand fitted. Nickel plating and cast "pot metal" was the rage for a time, and inexpensive "short life span" revolvers were pretty common.
The recent boom (last 10yrs) for concealed carry has brought out a lot more low cost, low value models that simply wouldn't have stood a chance in the 90's, so I suppose a guy can argue that if there was a clean used 38snubby on the shelf in 1994, it was probably better quality than one found on a shelf in 2014, but that's because it would have most likely been a ruger or smith, MAYBE a Taurus, whereas today it is not likely to be a smith, doubtful as a ruger, and more likely to be a charter, Rossi, or Taurus.
Compare it to the oil price boom. If you compare a used car lot in 1975 to one in 1990, it likely had a lot better cars in '75. But that's really because it had full size V8's or straight 6's on the lot in the 70's, but all of them would have been low cost 4bangers by 1990. The crap was always crap, but the market buys and resells more crap today than they used to.
Varminterror
Blackhawk
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2014
- Messages
- 513
Jim Luke said:
Which models? I'm somewhat always on the lookout for Taurus's as parts and practice, just curious.
Jim Puke
Hunter
Varminterror said:
970 22LR and M44 44mag.
500jrh
Single-Sixer
Jim Luke said:
I agree I haven't noticed any quality slip recently with any big name makers, however you couldn't give me a product made by Taurus......I've seen them in "action".
Varminterror said:
I never said during a certain era that "all of them were good." However, having owned more than 200 revolvers of varying vintages; I can say until fairly recently, that was pretty much the case.
I am not talking about a problem of fit and finish, which has been on the decline for quite a while. The guns I mentioned would not work. Had an unsuspecting buyer needed one to defend himself, he would have been up the creek.
Not trying to be coy about identifying the makers. I recognize that all manufacturers turn out the occasional lemon. But these lemons are turning up with increasing frequency and certainly not limited to the makers of these particular guns.
22/45 Fan
Hunter
I can't let this statement go. I had and drove a lot of cars from the 60's, 70's and 80's and they, particularly American nameplate cars, were almost universally WAY worse in assembly quality and reliability then today's cars. They would rust out in a few years, water leaks caused by radiator and freeze plug failures were common and a car with 70,000 miles was pretty much a throw away. Those full size V-8 and 6s didn't last nearly as well as modern 4s and got dreadful gas mileage doing it.Varminterror said:
Case in point was my '78 Pontiac Grand AM (fancy dress Tempest) with a 4.9L (301 cid) V-8. At 75,000 miles and only 7 years the frame rails had broken twice from rust, the radiator leaked and the differential was leaking oil. And, this car was carefully maintained with frequent oil and anti-freeze changes. Unfortunately it was more typical than an exception.
This compared to my 1992 Honda Accord, 4 cyl, 5-speed manual. I put 117,000 almost completely trouble free miles on it in 8 years and then gave it to my son and he and his wife added about 75,000 more miles and another 7 years. At the end of nearly 200,000 miles the original clutch was still in it, the transmission had no repairs at all and the engine had only had the distributor replaced. Body rust was minimal and had no structural problems.
Blueduck
Bearcat
Agree on that cars today are ridiculously better than anything made in the 50's through the 90's. Good styling back then, but the longevity and reliability puts those cars to shame.
My last GP 100 purchased a few months back is perfect, the 686ssr it replaced, not so much, to the point s/w even agreed with me. It is what it is quality control is poor
My last GP 100 purchased a few months back is perfect, the 686ssr it replaced, not so much, to the point s/w even agreed with me. It is what it is quality control is poor
Varminterror
Blackhawk
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2014
- Messages
- 513
What has baffled me, since I'm a bit of a closet Walther fan, and even DEEPER in the closet Bersa Thunder clone fan, it seems like the S&W built Walther's aren't even keeping up with the Bersas in function. The finish is better, but as mentioned, function is lacking at S&W.
The point I was trying to make regarding the 70's vs 90's used car lot was NOT about the quality of vehicles over the ages, but about the AVERAGE DISTRIBUTION OF QUALITY ON THE LOT. Back then, everything sucked compared to today, but the average car wasn't a low cost "Charter arms" version, whereas today, cheap econ cars are the average. Not trying to say a 1973 V8 was a better vehicle, but that the distribution of vehicles is completely different 20yrs later - at the time, the average vehicle owned and sold was closer to the top end available than it is today. As I pointed out, there weren't really very many snubby 38's on pawn shop shelves in the 80's and 90's compared to today, there weren't very many 4 bangers on the car lots in the 70's, proportionately. I remember hunting for my second S&W 60 15yrs ago for a few months. You didn't see proportionately as many AR's on shelves 10yrs ago either, but now there's a huge market for them, he11, you can buy them at Walmart!! And inevitably, you've started seeing the cheap, low end AR's popping up a lot more commonly as well - supported by the high AR market, and the cheap or broke consumers that want to be a part of it, but don't have the cash for a proper model.
Think about even just 10yrs ago, or a safe 15yrs ago. How many 380 pocket pistol models did you see flying around? Now they're all over the place. It's just a different market today.
So again, 20yrs ago, IF you saw a 38spcl snubby on the shelf from a known manufacturer, and NOT from some of the more obscure crap manufacturers, then yeah, it was safe to buy. Today, those obscure crap manufacturers are dominating the market, and there are tons of CC pieces available as a sign of the times.
Now, if the OP is specifically referring to the quality control issues that S&W is having of late, and how the uneducated flock of new firearms owners give up and pawn these revolvers rather than having the OEM do the warranty repairs, that's a different conversation. Most new gun owners don't realize that they can get it fixed by sending it back, and that it ACTUALLY WORKS to do so, so then they trade it in or sell it off, and you see a less-than-ideal functioning, BRAND NEW firearm on the used rack. Frankly, I think that's why Remington, Marlin by extension, S&W, Bushnell, etc all get away with not correcting their QC issues. Fixing the problem costs more than the 1 in 10 warranty issues that they ACTUALLY have to fix, so they don't fix it. New gun owners are still buying, and they only have to correct 1 in 10, so why fix 10 out of 10?
The point I was trying to make regarding the 70's vs 90's used car lot was NOT about the quality of vehicles over the ages, but about the AVERAGE DISTRIBUTION OF QUALITY ON THE LOT. Back then, everything sucked compared to today, but the average car wasn't a low cost "Charter arms" version, whereas today, cheap econ cars are the average. Not trying to say a 1973 V8 was a better vehicle, but that the distribution of vehicles is completely different 20yrs later - at the time, the average vehicle owned and sold was closer to the top end available than it is today. As I pointed out, there weren't really very many snubby 38's on pawn shop shelves in the 80's and 90's compared to today, there weren't very many 4 bangers on the car lots in the 70's, proportionately. I remember hunting for my second S&W 60 15yrs ago for a few months. You didn't see proportionately as many AR's on shelves 10yrs ago either, but now there's a huge market for them, he11, you can buy them at Walmart!! And inevitably, you've started seeing the cheap, low end AR's popping up a lot more commonly as well - supported by the high AR market, and the cheap or broke consumers that want to be a part of it, but don't have the cash for a proper model.
Think about even just 10yrs ago, or a safe 15yrs ago. How many 380 pocket pistol models did you see flying around? Now they're all over the place. It's just a different market today.
So again, 20yrs ago, IF you saw a 38spcl snubby on the shelf from a known manufacturer, and NOT from some of the more obscure crap manufacturers, then yeah, it was safe to buy. Today, those obscure crap manufacturers are dominating the market, and there are tons of CC pieces available as a sign of the times.
Now, if the OP is specifically referring to the quality control issues that S&W is having of late, and how the uneducated flock of new firearms owners give up and pawn these revolvers rather than having the OEM do the warranty repairs, that's a different conversation. Most new gun owners don't realize that they can get it fixed by sending it back, and that it ACTUALLY WORKS to do so, so then they trade it in or sell it off, and you see a less-than-ideal functioning, BRAND NEW firearm on the used rack. Frankly, I think that's why Remington, Marlin by extension, S&W, Bushnell, etc all get away with not correcting their QC issues. Fixing the problem costs more than the 1 in 10 warranty issues that they ACTUALLY have to fix, so they don't fix it. New gun owners are still buying, and they only have to correct 1 in 10, so why fix 10 out of 10?
Blueduck
Bearcat
I see what your saying.
I wonder if it's 1 out of 10 guns they are fixing though. From the forums you might think so but I'm guessing 9 out of 10 people who buy pistol shoot half a box of ammo then stick it in a drawer for 20 years. So that's one out of a hundred and $50 shipping and two hours labor or swap out might not be of great concern to them.
I wonder if it's 1 out of 10 guns they are fixing though. From the forums you might think so but I'm guessing 9 out of 10 people who buy pistol shoot half a box of ammo then stick it in a drawer for 20 years. So that's one out of a hundred and $50 shipping and two hours labor or swap out might not be of great concern to them.
Varminterror
Blackhawk
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2014
- Messages
- 513
Yeah, that was exactly what I meant, I just wasn't very clear...
Out of ten PROBLEM firearms, I expect only about 1 in 10 are actually getting processed for warranty repairs. Maybe 0.5 out of 10 are going to a local gunsmith to get repaired, another 0.5 out of 10 problems are getting fixed by owners, then the rest are either hitting pawn shops or getting stuck in a drawer.
Didn't mean 1 in 10 have problems and they need to fix them all, but meant out of what DOES need fixed, it's cheaper to less of them as warranty work than it is to fix all of them before they get sent out.
A buddy of mine says all the time that the way to get around Lean Manufacturing or Six Sigma is to relax your definitions of "failure". If the stipulation is 3.4 parts per million are allowed to fail, and there are 30 parts per revolver, that's 102 revolvers with issues per million. Still not many, but you can meet your quota by saying the specs on your lock up are allowed to be loose (isn't Ruger's BC gap requirement something like 0.012"), then you get even less failures per million. Then when many of those failures don't get caught, and only 1 in 10 of those that DO catch it return it for warranty work, you meet your quotas, and you look like a champion by having great customer service...
Out of ten PROBLEM firearms, I expect only about 1 in 10 are actually getting processed for warranty repairs. Maybe 0.5 out of 10 are going to a local gunsmith to get repaired, another 0.5 out of 10 problems are getting fixed by owners, then the rest are either hitting pawn shops or getting stuck in a drawer.
Didn't mean 1 in 10 have problems and they need to fix them all, but meant out of what DOES need fixed, it's cheaper to less of them as warranty work than it is to fix all of them before they get sent out.
A buddy of mine says all the time that the way to get around Lean Manufacturing or Six Sigma is to relax your definitions of "failure". If the stipulation is 3.4 parts per million are allowed to fail, and there are 30 parts per revolver, that's 102 revolvers with issues per million. Still not many, but you can meet your quota by saying the specs on your lock up are allowed to be loose (isn't Ruger's BC gap requirement something like 0.012"), then you get even less failures per million. Then when many of those failures don't get caught, and only 1 in 10 of those that DO catch it return it for warranty work, you meet your quotas, and you look like a champion by having great customer service...
David LaPell
Blackhawk
I'm not so sure about cars today being made better than anything from a few decades ago. I have been talking to some mechanic friends and they are seeing a lot of cars, only two-three years old of all makes and models coming in for some major repairs. I know one was a Toyota not two years old and the A/C compressor crapped out, I know of a Mercedes with 400 miles on it having major engine issues and a buddy of mine bought a new Chevy truck with less than a thousand miles on it having to have a new oil pump and rear main seal put in it. That's just for openers. I have a 74 Ford F-100 outside that I bought three years ago. I paid $2000 for it as a project restoration / driver. I had the motor rebuilt, brakes, shocks, and a few other things gone through from start to finish. I think I might have $5500 all told. It starts when I want it to, drives where I want it to go. Parts for it are laughably cheap. I put a new fuel filter in it, $4, air filter, $10, and to do all the brakes including the lines was cheaper than doing the front brakes for my Jeep I had. That included labor. I wouldn't trade that truck for anything.
As far as guns, well I can tell you I have seen some pretty lousy guns from all makers coming out and they don't compare to some of the older stuff. I know my little single shot .22 Remington has the nicest wood I have ever seen on a "cheap" gun, much nicer than a entry level beginners gun now. I looked a new Model 69 Smith .44 Magnum a couple of weeks ago and it looked like someone polished it grinding wheel. Hideous. I saw one of the new Remington 1911 pistols brand new never fired and the finish was worn through in spots. Nope, I'll keep my old stuff.
As far as guns, well I can tell you I have seen some pretty lousy guns from all makers coming out and they don't compare to some of the older stuff. I know my little single shot .22 Remington has the nicest wood I have ever seen on a "cheap" gun, much nicer than a entry level beginners gun now. I looked a new Model 69 Smith .44 Magnum a couple of weeks ago and it looked like someone polished it grinding wheel. Hideous. I saw one of the new Remington 1911 pistols brand new never fired and the finish was worn through in spots. Nope, I'll keep my old stuff.
Similar threads
