In the past few years we’ve seen Glock quality take a hit, the S&W M&P had accuracy issues. Sig quality seemed to decline with the arrival of Ron Cohen and now their latest offering is having teething issues.
So is this a byproduct of shoddy design, from a lack of QC on the engineering side? Perhaps due to cost or a desire to push a product out the door before it’s ready?
Is this purely money driven? Seems this would be counter productive due to returns, recalls and bad PR.
Or a less likely possibility, Guns are too complicated for current production methods? Seems unlikely as most guns are not that complicated.
Maybe a lack of actual engineering over cheaper gunsmith workbench Gun plumbing designers?
I haven’t seen Glock quality take a hit. If you’re referring to the ejection issues from almost a decade ago then it never actually failed. It only ejected back at the shooter but never actually failed
I have seen their finish quality with some of the current production examples fall well behind their older models. My personal 19, gen 3, had flashing around the molding line of the frame, and especially the trigger guard area, that was so bad that just dry firing it would leave a blister, and if one was to try to run a class with it I am relatively certain it would have drawn blood prior to me pulling out sand paper and sand the line down. It is a small detail but rather large in regards to comfort.
As far as companies putting out guns that might not be ready for prime time, or have issues. It might be partly them unable to figure out how to fix the issues and figuring it is easier to just update later than work it out now since they will have at least some income coming in, and while there are some who will swear the gun off they know a large majority of the shooting public is too stupid to do so, and many will praise the guns as being super greatest zombie killer ever and never shoot more than 500 rounds out of the gun.
It could also be that the issue didn’t come up with pre-production models because perhaps they didn’t think to test it, tested it half way, or the pre-production models were made to different standards than the production models. Also there is the likely change that areas were changed prior to mass production to ease manufacturing.
Lastly, and perhaps worst, companies only looking at the bottom line and giving not two ****s about the consumer and playing the odds that it is easier to just throw something out, pay off some magazines to give positive reviews, and hope the issues don’t rear their head and no one finds out they put out a piece of garbage.
What do y’all think about the theory that most, not all but most of the issues we see reported on gun forums are mostly operator error and not the product?
Glock limpwristing comes to mind as well as people riding slide releases.
If you read he article Recoil did with Kevin brittingham right after he left Sig and started his own company, you’ll see that companies develop a quality product but choose to figure out how to make that same product cheaper rather than expand into new markets to raise profits. You rarely ever see a product that is manufactured for less money be as good as the original.
To be honest to me a Glock is a Glock is a Glock. So the way I see it is why pay $550 for a new one when an older gen 2 or 3 is $200 less. So I have not been following the problems of gen 4
I’ve heard it said on more than one occasion that “Colt is producing the best 1911’s they ever have”. I’m not sure what justifies that, or if it’s even accurate since I’m not a 1911 guy (yet).
"due to cost or a desire to push a product out the door before it’s ready?
Is this purely money driven?"
All of those things. Guns should be better than ever but as in all other industries you will see new design and manufacturing methods and new materials that are far superior to anything prior being applied to make it not better, but at a lower manufacturing cost. I believe the lower cost part is doabl;e while creating better quality products but it’s like the “cheaper” part snowballs until it gains such momentum that “better” or even “almost as good as before” is pushed to a second place so distant they can’t even see it any more.
For some manufacturers, I believe quality control is better than it was 30 years ago. Anyone who served with a large agency and was issued a second or third generation S&W service pistol in the 1980’s or 1990’s would agree.
Money and as always putting out a product as cheaply as you can to maximize profits.
However I think that the Internet also plays a role in blowing things out of proportion and making mountains out of mole hills on small issues with guns. Now everyone can communicate and connect with other gun owners to tell of their experiences with models.
In return people love to gripe and make things seem worse than they are.
Products designed on computers by focus groups, refined by bean counters, assembled from mass produced parts by semi-skilled labor for gullible end users looking for “style” at a price point.
We are seeing the gun industry turning into the auto industry.
The top end in business are focused on the bottom line and having ego parties at clubs during off hours. The engineers are more motivated to pass blame than to acknowledge and address problems that could damage their careers or complicate their day to day working lives, and the laborers doing QC are hourly workers who don’t know anything about the product other than what’s on their checklist who have daily quotas to meet to avoid the threat of job loss.
No one really cares about a problem with the product unless it affects the prestige of the company, the individual careers of those designing the products, or the wages of the laborers. When the brand is threatened, it’s far cheaper and easier to ignore the problem, blame the end user for being incompetent or pedantic, and/or wait for the fanboys to come out of the woodwork to downplay the issue.
The lacking ingredient is personal interest in the product.
I’d guess they don’t care because they sell boatloads of them… Out of 4 Glocks I own or have owned, (3g19’s, (1gen3, bought and sold a few months later, worst pistol I’ve ever owned) 2 gen4’s, 1gen4 g17)all but the g17 needed a Apex extractor, I’m down to 2 Glocks now, A gen 4 g19, and the g17, I traded off the other gen 4 g19 for a NIB HK USP compact, (LEMgun) that worked out well,and when the CZ P-10 c came out, I bought one when I could find one. Once it was broke in, I put the g19 in the safe and have’nt looked back, it’s nice not to get brass thrown at you…At this point, I don’t see myself getting rid of the Glocks I have, but by the same token, I don’t plan on buying a Glock again…Barring some huge improvment that solves the ejection issue, I’m done with them.
I kinda think part (not all of it, and maybe not even most of it, but some) of this is Internet- and gun magazines, which are also far more common than years ago- hysteria. Like the post above about older S&W pistols, there have always been problem pistols (and other guns, too), but now EVERYBODY knows about it, and in some cases the problem is not as great as it is made out to be.
This is not unique to the firearms industry. All publicly traded companies are expected to increase profits for their investors. If the gun industry doesn’t to it for an investor then they move to tech companies to maximize their portfolio.