Todays post will be something usually not found
in most firearm reviews. I will be
talking about quality defects. Most
reviews read the same, X firearm is the greatest thing since sliced bread and
will outshoot anything produced. Boring
and tells me nothing.
As firearms are mechanical devices you will
once in a while have a defect. Some are
minor and easily fixed. Others are major
and warrant a return to the factory. No
manufacturer can have zero defects. That
is impossible. But all manufacturers
should strive to minimize defects.
Rework costs money and therefore profit.
There is also the hazard of perception.
You many have the greatest product every produced. But if buyers perceive your product to be of
low quality and do not buy it, you are done and your business will fail.
I understand manufacturers are trying to reduce
costs as the economy flushes down the crapper.
Thanks Federal Government for the wonderful mismanagement of the
economy. But there is a point cost
cutting must stop in order to maintain quality.
If quality drops too far, people stop buying your products.
And this drop is quality is what I am seeing
across the firearms industry. The next
section will outline the defects I have seen.
IWI:
The maker of the must have rifle of 2013, the
TAVOR. Yes, this $2000 rifle had issues
right of the box. It would
shortstroke. Shortstroking is when rifle
does not have enough gas pressure to push the slide all the way rearward to
pick up the next cartridge from the magazine.
So you end up pulling the charging handle each time you want to fire the
rifle. Very frustrating.
After 500 rounds the problem seems to have self
corrected itself. It cycles fine now
with no problems. I’m not sure what was
the problem. It could be as simple as it
needed a break-in period. But 500 rounds
is an expensive break-in. That is 500
rounds that I did not get to train with and practice my skills. And luckily I did not need to bet my life on
this rifle.
I will not trust this rifle until I have
another 500-1000 rounds through it, trouble free. This is a serious defect of perception. Luckily I can afford to own more than one
rifle.
Taurus:
I recently purchased a model 650. This is a subnose .357 revolver. Taurus’s version of the Smith and Wesson
model 640. Everything looked fine when I
purchased it. But went south the first
time I fired it. It turns out the barrel
isn’t installed correctly. The barrel is
not fully seated and is crooked. Since
this is a fixed sight revolver, this means the front sight is canted to the
left. It shoots 2 inches right at 7
yards and 5 inches right at 15 yards.
Again, I’m fortunate to have the means to have more than one
handgun. And I have enough experience to
compensate for this sight misalignment if I had to.
What if this is someones first and only
handgun? What if they need it immediately
as there was a potential threat? Do they
have the time to return it for warranty work?
Can they live without their firearm for several weeks while it is
repaired? Do they have enough skill and
experience to compensate for the canted front sight? I see this as a potential life threatening
quality defect. This handgun should not
have left the factory. Especially with
an obvious and blatant defect.
Ruger:
I recently picked up a Ruger 10/22. A fun little .22 rifle. But when I stripped it to clean it, the
recoil spring came off the op rod. The
spring should be a captive spring. The
spring should not fly off. The factory
did not put enough crimp on it. A minor
defect and easily fixed by those of us who are mechanically inclined. Not everyone is mechanically inclined. Now they have a useless rifle that requires
repair.
Next up in the Ruger line is a model
SP101. A .357 snubby revolver. I found 2 items on this one firearm. First, there was a large burr on the frame
that was not removed during the assembly process. It did not affect function, but should have
been removed by the factory. A few quick
strokes of a file and the problem disappeared.
Again, not everyone can do this.
Next, when I pulled it apart to replace the
mainspring (poor mans trigger job), I noticed the machining of the internal
frame and trigger assembly was rougher than on older Rugers I own. This explains why the trigger pull was a bit
crunchy.
Again, functionality was not affected. But, my perception of Ruger has gone down a
bit.
I have another SP101, an older model. And when compared side by side, the older
model has a nicer fit and finish.
Definitely, quality is going down, but has not
yet affected functionality.
Volquartsen:
Yes, the all mighty Volquartsen. Maker of high quality parts for your Ruger
10/22 and MK3 and MK22/45 handguns has sent me some real lemons. And serious ones that require the parts to be
sent back to the factory for replacement.
I purchased 2 trigger assemblies for my 10/22
rifles. These were advertised as match
grade triggers with a 2½ pound trigger pull.
Both have serious issues.
The first one had the following problems:
· Safety does not work. It will not engage.
· The mounting holes were not
machined correctly. When mounted into
the receiver, the
fit was too tight and caused the bolt to drag.
The second assembly had the following problem:
· The mounting holes are
machined incorrectly and the assembly cannot be installed.
You can even see the poor machining in the
rear mounting hole.
These defects come from a company that has a
reputation for quality and precision.
Not only are these functional defects, but my perception of Volquartsen
has dropped considerably. Has
Volquartsen gone the route of Kimber?
Lowered the quality level to accommodate mass manufacture and then rely
on quality of their name to keep business coming in? I hope not.
Especially when this trigger assembly costs more than the rifle it will
be installed on.
As a Manufacturing Engineer, if I saw this, I
would start pulling samples to see if I have a systemic problem. It is very rare to get 2 assemblies, in a
row, that have such serious problems unless there is a deeper systemic
issue.
Conclusion:
Am I saying not to buy from these manufacturers
ever again? No! Any manufacturer can produce defects. It happens. I would by these products again. Do carefully examine your firearm before you
purchase. And make sure they work
correctly before you bet anything on them, especially your life.
What I am seeing is an industry wide drop in
overall quality. Everyone is cutting
costs and it is showing in the end product.
What you are buying today is not as nice as a few years ago.
In my opinion it is almost impossible to get
this many defects across multiple products and manufacturers. Except for the TAVOR, all items listed above
have been purchased within the last six weeks from multiple gun shops and
online retailers.
Final comments on quality:
Why quality matters? Because in todays world, everyone and their
brother makes and AR-15, or a 1911 or a precision bolt action rifle. So whom do you buy from? One factor is who provides the features you
want. But more importantly, who produces
what you want, with the best quality for the best price. I think quality is the more important of the
two. This also extends to customer
service as well. I will pay more for the
same product if I get superior customer service.
And on the flip side, you may have the greatest
product ever, but if your customer service sucks, I will not buy from you
unless I absolutely need what you are selling and there is no one else.
Quality matters!
By: Mez
04/08/2014
Great post! Quality does matter for sure.
ReplyDeleteExcellent analysis. QC is more about the little details and trends than anything else. Taurus has a reputation for poor quality for a reason. I've had two Tauri that functioned fine during the time I owned them; however, in hindsight, there is no comparison between them and the upper tier manufacture products that I've owned since. Having said that, even those "top name" brands have their issues. My first Glock had a strange "hiccup" in its recoil cycle that I could never figure out. Several shooters had the same result. So, I'm fairly sure it was not "just me" limp wristing it or something. Probably should have sent it to Glock to have them look it over, but I sold it at a time when I needed the cash.
ReplyDelete