ExArmy11b

There are two way to look at it.......depending on how "old" we're talking.......no one can say that my S&W M&P .38 Special made in 1920 is "better" than my 2008 produced S&W Model 64-8...........the metallurgy and assembly process is miles ahead of what it used to be. Guns today are stronger, better made and more reliable than they were 80-90 years ago.

The recent QC issues from Ruger, S&W, Glock and others are due to these companies trying to crank out as many guns as they can to meet demand, which has skyrocketed. The more product a company makes, the more "lemons" there will be, it's a simple law of production.

Plus, with the internet, "problems" tend to get magnified. Back in "the day" if a guy bought a lemon S&W from the local hardware store in 1930, the shop owner would just give him a new one and send the bad one back to S&W and the problem was solved. Now, a guy gets an SP101 with a canted barrel and it's all over the internet.

jaxrider14

I'm not so sure that quality is better now.
My new Ruger Single Ten shows signs of wear after less than 800 rounds fired.
My 1982 Security Six appears to be a better-built gun by a long shot.
It isn't so much the fit and finish as it is the quality of steel being used to make parts, and how the parts are mass produced.

bearcatter

I think the engineering, materials, and machining have greatly improved. I don't like some of the polymer use, it seems to be only for reduced cost and higher profit in many cases.

I think during the mad rush of demand over the last few years, quality control has slipped, but companies are learning and bringing QC back to a priority. Repairs and replacements have to put a dent in their bottom line, and they know once they lose a customer, it's often for good.

For me, the percentages are odd. Since I got back into shooting in 2008, I've bought seven Rugers, and two had to go back. That's 28%. But I owned seven other Rugers in the 70s and 80s, and none had to go back. That cuts my lifetime percentage of "bad" Rugers to 14%.....

mndoggie

I think the issue is that "New Users" are not what they used to be.

I see many, many posts from people asking "Is this normal?" when their adjustable sights are off, people who are afraid of mold or machining marks on the non visible portions of their slides, etc. They don't like the trigger. Their firearm came dirty from the factory.... The list of issues goes on and on.

Many of the new users don't have any friends who have firearms so they don't know what to expect. A lot of "malfunctions" are lack of knowledge, i.e. (like limp wristing) incorrect mag loading or over/under lubrication.

Many of the new users have no mechanical abilites at all and assume that fireams need no maintenance, ever...

Then when things don't work perfectly, they turn to the Internet and start a firestorm as they blame everybody and their brother. The last thing they would ever think of is talking to a gunsmith about their firearm to get familiar with it and the care it needs.

rammerjammer

Much of the increase of repairs for firearms probably stems just from the internet and forums like these in which we read many reports. Most of the time people are more apt to report problems than they are to report a lack of problems.

However, in the last few years I have had to send the following back to Ruger for repair

LCP
LC9
LCR
MK III

I have never had to send in any of my Rugers produced prior to 2004.

moakes58

(Quote from OP) Are the more defective guns from the factory these days? Is quality control not what it used to be? Do we hear more about these problems because of the internet? Or are we just shooting more? And one last thought: The total number of defective firearms could be skewed because so many people buy a new gun and just put it away in case it’s needed not knowing if it’s defective.

Maybe there are more defective guns because there are more guns in general. In Ruger's case when you triple (or more) your sales, more guns equal more problems. Yes, you do hear about it more because of the internet. People in general will complain more than praise. I think Ruger & other manufacturers are doing a great job, overall! To your last ?, I do not personally know anyone who buys a gun & puts it away.

Sr40ken

Bullseye!!! great post!

Dozer02

A big part of the problem is the current demand. the "gun craze" if you will. Gun manufacturers are having a difficult time keeping up with the demand brought on by things like the "zombie apocalipse" and Obama's threats against our 2nd ammendment freedoms and also a rapid rise in violent crimes, home invasions and the like. There is also quite a boom in the shooting sports in general, in the last three years I've seen my gun clubs membership max out to full capacity and we now have a 700+ person waiting list for new members! I agree with the OP about quality control, especially with Ruger, Taurus, and even the Gen-4 Glocks. Rugers problems are quite obvious since they began making copies of all other successful firearm manufacturers designs, the quality of all their newer firearms suffered as they spread their resources too thin in an attempt to keep up with the demand. I have all Gen-3 Glocks and never had a single hiccup with any of them but as a range officer I do see plenty of shooters complaining about their Gen-4 Glocks reliability. Personally, I'll be staying away from Gen-4 Glocks as I have Gen-3's in every caliber they offer so the need for any more just isn't there. I miss the good old days when Ruger was here in my home state of Ct and they made durable, reliable high quality firearms. They now (in my opinion) have lowered their standards to meet demand rather than increase manpower to keep quality where it once was. I speak mainly of Rugers polymer line of firearms that (my opinion again) doesn't represent what Ruger's legendary quality should be.

andybothel

I am only a little under 2 years into the gun world, and all my guns (minus a Mosin Nagant) are new, so my only experience is with new guns.

I've been very happy with the quality of the guns I have purchased (5 Ruger handguns, 1 Springfield, 1 Remington shotgun).

Granted I didn't buy the low end manufactures, but they weren't high end handmade custom guns either, just off the shelf current productions guns.

jon p

i have just re-entered the rimfire hobby after selling all my guns over 25 years ago. i am very surprised at the available quality and price point. nice S&W 22A at 250. new, outstanding! new ruger 22/45 LITE at 369. i think quality IS THERE, and even in the "economy" priced guns. i think we are aware of problems more now due to info available on the internet , which when i started shooting in the early 1960s of course wasnt available. you just didnt hear as much from people as you do now. talk about bargains, marlin 795 at 129. and mossberg 702 plinkster at 107. great little fun guns, very accurate and cost pocket change! no, they are not ultra high quality collector guns, they arent supposed to be but they shoot good and are fun. i dont buy em to collect anymore at 67 years old, i just want to plink and have fun. i CAN appreciate a 2,000 fine gun but usually they dont perform much better than my "cheap" guns. look at henry---lots of quality at a decent price. i have 2 henrys, 22mag lever and 22lr pump, both new at a hair over 400 new! WOW! climbing down off the soap box now.

leftofcentre67

I only own 3 firearms. Two Rugers, and one Mossberg. I have a S&W 629 on order and I figure I'll be lucky to get that by Christmas.

None so far have needed to go back to the factory. I'm the happiest with my GP-141, and it always puts a grin on my face. I've fired my friends Smith & Wesson Model 19 from the 70's and I was impressed by it's trigger. But my Ruger is heavier and tougher, and the trigger has smoothed out some with use.

I don't think the quality is really that different. I think you can get a lemon from any company. I think the only difference is on a Smith if you own an older one you avoid the internal lock.

Smithy

Not all gloom and doom on my end. Every "New" gun I have ever bought has been a winner with NO problems at all. And don't think that that's a small sample as I use to have an FFL and bought ever new item that came along only to sell it later to finance my next purchase. I've owned a large number of firearms and out of the box they did as advertised. Used guns now is a different story. I seem to be a magnet for other people's problems. They'd bugger their gun up and sell it at a loss to a dummy like me thinking that I was getting a good deal and just end up with their problems. This is true even of buying used guns from a dealer. That's why now I only buy a new gun period. Smithy.

James6591

Pretty much.....

Duane

I own several guns. Some were old guns that I inherited, and many that I have bought new.

Fortunately, I have never had to send a gun back to the manufacturer to have it repaired or replaced.

If I had a problem with a new gun that I'd bought back in 1975, I'd first try to figure it out myself, and if that didn't work, I'd take it back to the dealer, and he'd either fix it, or replace it. He might have to send it back to the manufacturer, but I wouldn't even know. The dealer took care of it.

Other than myself, the dealer, and possibly the manufacturer, no one would probably ever even hear about it.

Now days, it seems like the very first thing is to complain about it on a forum, before you've even tried to figure it out yourself.

Take it back to the dealer? Seems Rare.

Contact the manufacturer's customer service dept.? Maybe, AFTER you've vented to the world first.

Just an old fart's observation...

Duane

brimic

Out of around 50 or so firearms I've owned, I've had two problems- both related to Ruger.
1. A Ruger Bearcat that shot about 2' to the left and 6" high went back to the factory- came back perfectly zeroed with the ammo I specified and a nice triggerjob was done on it. Before anyone jumps on me about my shooting abilities, I shot bullseye pistol leagues for several years and can state with absolute certainty that the gun was at fault here.

2. When Remington first came out with the 597 around 1998 or so, I bought one instead of a Ruger 10/22 simply because the 597 was $20 cheaper at the time. Total piece of junk- the finish flaked off, it rusted no matter what I did to try to prevent rust, nearly every magazine full of ammo jammed at least once, and my Ruger MKII Target was actually more accurate than this rifle. I was incredibly happy when I found a guns shop that gave me $80 for it. I should have bought the Ruger instead.