The days of good guns are pretty much over.
This is a discussion on The days of good guns are pretty much over. within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I've been looking to replace my G26 with a new carry gun, but when you go on pretty much any forum these days, you always ...
October 5th, 2013 02:16 PM
The days of good guns are pretty much over.
I've been looking to replace my G26 with a new carry gun, but when you go on pretty much any forum these days, you always read something that makes you wonder if even well regarded makes and models will run properly out of the box.
I stumbled on this article a week ago, and I totally agree with what the author says.
pistol-training.com » Trust No One: an insider?s perspective
October 5th, 2013 02:23 PM
An important lesson, right there.
Originally Posted by From the article
Hands down, the most reliable pistol I have ever shot is the CZ P-01 9mm. Sent it through ~1700rds initially, off to the gunsmith for a trigger job, then kept on going ... until a screw internally decided to back out and foul up the trigger bar operation. Simple thing, easily resolved by judicious use of LocTite. But a good example how a nearly bomb-proof design can have its issues. It's mechanical. At some point, something mechanical will go wrong in the field. Natural Law, subject to Murphy's corollaries. Absolutely.
Last edited by ccw9mm; October 5th, 2013 at 06:49 PM.
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
self defense (A.O.J.).
How does disarming
the number of victims?
Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.
October 5th, 2013 02:37 PM
Man and Murphy are the X factors. It is always a % you are playing. No gun or mechanical device is 100% reliable forever, especially the human body.
I personally believe the difference between then and now is the internet. Very easy for anyone to discuss issues with a particular platform. Not necessarily a bad thing, but needs to be taken in context.
"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt" ~ Mark Twain
October 5th, 2013 02:37 PM
Thanks for the link. That's a very good read.
The timing is interesting to me. A couple of days ago I was thinking that my Dad had quite a few guns. Rifles, shotguns, pistols and revolvers. It never occurred to us that one of them wouldn't work. We wore out two revolvers to the point they needed factory reconditioning, but other than a sear failure in the war surplus 1911, they all just worked.
If I 'had' no choice but to pick a new gun out of a box and defend myself with it, I'd pick a Glock simply because the 6 I've had were flawless out of the box. But since I don't have to do that I put a 100 to 200 rounds out of them to prove the magazines and the pistols before I put them to work.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety), by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” by H. L. Mencken
October 5th, 2013 02:51 PM
There is definatly a lot of truth to that article! For about 2 years I worked at a company that made AR-15's for various other companies that outsourced to us. We'd machine everything in house, assemble and ship. I ended up quitting because I couldn't believe some of the crap they would let go out the doors and didn't want to work for a place that would send out inferior rifles that some peoples lives may depend on in the future.
It did teach me a lot about picking out guns at the stores though, our local shop around here is kind of mom and pop and I know them failrly well, buying from there, they'll let me disassemble and check for proper fitting of all the parts at the store which helps ALOT! Makes me feel more comfortable buying a new gun.
October 5th, 2013 02:57 PM
Your quote from the article is very true, no matter what gun you choose, but basically what I was trying to get at is that most of the manufacturers don't give a crap about putting out high quality products anymore. Companies worry more about putting product on the shelves and not so much about QC, then worry about any QC issues after the end user takes the gun out and fires it, only to have issues.
Originally Posted by ccw9mm
Manufacturers advertise that their products are meant for carry, to save lives, and that they are "perfection", or use other silly marketing terms. But, if we go buy a brand new car off the lot, and then it breaks down on the way home from the lot, wouldn't we be really upset? Gun manufacturers don't seem to care if a gun runs out of the box, or fails within 1000 rds.
October 5th, 2013 03:24 PM
The XDS recall is a good example of a new machine with glitch. Think about the problems with computers and operating systems and cars too. S&W had recalls and I think Glock may have as well. I have been fortunate with both of my 1911s but still changed the springs . I have a 32 year old Model 57 still sitting at Smith and Wesson for repair work, (Yes N frame revolver) .Kept having the cylinder lock at about round 4 ,not a good thing if I needed it under a stressful condition . Can't get much more simple than a revolver but there it is .
Point of the article is that things do fail, even something as simple as a hammer or baseball bat. Or a Glock.
October 5th, 2013 03:39 PM
What makes you think anything has changed from the "Good Old Days?" I have a Colt SAA from 1900, a 1911 made by remington in 1919, and a S&W pre model 10 from 1917. Other than just basic maintanence nothing has been done to them since leaving the factory. Our oldest son shoots a Beretta 92 that he bought in the late 80s, and our youngest has a Kimber pro carry 1911 that less than just a few years old. All of these guns at one time or another has had its detractors. All of them have had people who will tell you that they are out dated, poor quality, etc... But theres a differance between these and real failures. The internet has given us instant feed back, but its also given people who have no buisness rating a product a platform to shout from. At the end of the day manufactures have always tried to produce the best product they could at the cheapest price. At the turn of the last century "Best product for the cheapest price" meant a ballance of machine work and hand fitting. By the 1950s and 60s machine work and QC had come a long way but some hand fitting was still required. The intent now is to make parts so precisly that no hand fitting is required. I dont think we are there yet but its getting close.
My point to all this is that we are still turning out great guns at a price the avarage american can afford to buy. And 99% of them work! DR
October 5th, 2013 03:40 PM
Even Glock is having some pretty serious issues these days.
October 5th, 2013 03:50 PM
Agreed, so far with all the guns I have been through and its been alot, my revolvers i.e. SP 101, 642, Mod 60 have been great, the semmis have been all over the place most trouble free have been Sig P228, an CZ 75, CZ 75 P01.
October 5th, 2013 04:10 PM
It's easy to claim that guns were better in the "good ol' days," but were they? Really? The highest quality firearms have usually been rare and expensive. And those are legendary - your S&Ws, Dan Wessons, Colts. Today's firearms, on the other hand, are made with tools that didn't exist yesteryear. They are usually milled with greater precision and tolerances. There are fewer Saturday Night Specials - Jimenez, Raven, Bryco - because those things were garbage and almost as likely to kill the owner as an intended target.
Yes, I know the counterarguments: Used to be, guns were all made in the USA, with American steel, hand-assembled by master craftsmen. Now they're just cheap alloy crap roughly punched out in Mexico. Triggers are gritty and barrels fall off, we know.
Rather, it's probably a push. Chances are, a top-end gun today will be pretty good, and maybe just need a trigger job to get to perfection. You might need to buy an additional part or two, but with care and good selection, modern technology will have accomplished what used to require some old dude at a workbench. No question your average Glock is more sturdy and reliable than practically anything ever manufactured in the past. I had to put around $200 into my new 10/22 to get it just right, but now it'll hold its own against rifles that cost three times as much.
"It may seem difficult at first, but everything is difficult at first."
October 5th, 2013 04:23 PM
The days of good guns are pretty much over.
It was an interesting article. However the old revolvers were not that problem free. The Police issued model 66 would get the cylinder out of alignment with the bore real and result in the cylinder not rotating. I don't know it was from wear or what there was a guy that just maintained them for the dept.
Last edited by Happypuppy; October 5th, 2013 at 06:05 PM.
October 5th, 2013 04:38 PM
IMO, we are living in a Golden Age so far as handguns and ammunition for SD are concerned. when i first began to look at SD handguns in the late 1950's, the choices were DA revolvers from Colt and S&W, 1911's which generally needed at least a little work, and the Browning Hi Power. SD bullets didn't really exist as a category - virtually everything was lead.
today we have a cornucopia of products to choose from, with many, many companies making decent products at prices virtually anyone can afford.
one negative consequence of this new order is, i believe, more product failures. back then, there were fewer manufacturers, and the product line was much more stable and limited. in other words, companies made fewer models, and the same models for much longer periods of time, so they had a chance to work out the bugs over time. i also believe that some current companies (Taurus being a prime example) rely too much on their warranty service to back up their lack of initial quality control.
with today's companies under pressure to come up with the 'new and improved' every year, there are bound to be more chances for individual and systemic failures, than there were in the 'good old days'.
i admit to being somewhat amused when i read forum comments about how such and such a gun failed for the buyer, and how they just cannot trust that gun or brand ever again. it seems some folks expect immediate and consistent flawless operation of their new SD weapon, often, it seems, just taking it from the store to the range, with no prior cleaning and lubrication. if a new car had some problems which needed fixing by the dealer, i doubt that these same folks would be demanding their money back, or declaring that they would never buy that brand again.
i'm also amused by the fervor with which some revolver shooters praise the reliability of their weapons, and how they have functioned for 'x' thousands of rounds without a problem. i believe what they say, yet any mechanical product will fail at some point. past reliability doesn't preclude future failure.
so the next time some other old-timer tells you that today's guns aren't up to the standards of the guns of days past, just nod and agree with him, knowing in your heart that today's shooter has many more and better products to choose from. like i said: we're in a Golden Age.
October 5th, 2013 04:41 PM
I wish I had become a gun enthusiast many many years ago. So much more to learn now and so much more to sort through.
"If guns kill people then pencils misspell words, cars make people drive drunk and spoons made Rosie O’Donnell fat."
- Author Unknown
Last edited by rcsoftexas; October 6th, 2013 at 05:10 AM.
October 5th, 2013 04:43 PM
Fact is, adjusting for inflation, guns are cheaper now than they were 50 years ago, and more people can afford them. They're mass-produced, which means you're more likely to have problems than if every one is worked by a real gunsmith, which simply isn't possible at modern production volumes. If you want a gun built like the good old days, you can get a S&W Performance Center gun, a custom 1911, or a tuned gun from any number of gunsmiths. But then you have to pay good-old-days prices, which in today's dollars means $800 and up.
Besides, in the good old days, most people really didn't speak in terms of "mean rounds between failure" or other such nonsense. Nor were they able to complain at the speed of light, as the Internet allows. Folks seem to have it in their heads that they can get a 20-oz 9mm, feed it any crap ammo, clean it once every three thousand rounds, submerge it in mud, and hold it in a poor grip with no failures - and if they can't, they'll get online to tell EVERYBODY about their "terrible experience."
End rant, sorry.
"Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of the way... The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way."
Search tags for this page
glock gen 4 torture test
minn lawyer blog hussman
model 637 airweight torture test
Click on a term to search for related topics.