conditionyellow

I wonder if they’re not making firearms as good as they used to. It does seem to me that a larger percentage of guns made today have initial problems and have to get sent back to the manufacturer than in the old days. For a very long time it’s been known that Glocks cannot be beat for their reliability and dependability although many will say that there are a few guns that are as good as Glocks and I agree . But for awhile now I read and hear that there are some problems with Glocks here and there. I may be wrong but several years ago I don’t remember hearing about “common” problems with them or at least few problems compared to now-a-days.
I’ve bought 7 new Rugers in the last 5 years and had to send three of them back for repair. Most recently my Mini-14’s firing pin broke while shooting factory ammo. I only had to pay for shipping it up to them and the total turnaround time for the repair was only 9-days. While the Mini was there they replaced the complete bolt because it was factory defective as it had a hole in it (Silly me, thought the hole in the bolt which exposed the firing pin was for inspection and/or lubrication), the return spring and repaired the slide and safety which I didn’t know there were problems. Less than a year ago I had to send my SR9C to Ruger because of light primer hits. They fixed the problem for free and I’m grateful for that. About two years ago I had to send a new 10/22 back to Ruger because the paint was peeling off the receiver housing and again Ruger fixed that too for free. I won’t mention a Kahr PM-9 that I had and had to send back to Kahr six times before I gave up and got a Glock 26. I know many people with guns and if I ask around I hear more and more stories about people buying a new firearm and having to send it back to the manufacturer for repair. And it’s with many of the “classic” gun makers too that 6 or more years ago you hardly ever heard of “problem guns” with these companies. I can only surmise one reason why this is happening and it boils down to the tremendous amount of guns the manufacturers want to produce as fast as they can while the market is good and putting quality control on the back burner so they can accomplish their quotas and financial goals. I don’t want to start an argument here but I think this has been Taurus’ biggest problem. By far most of the complaints I hear are from new Taurus buyers. To their credit, Taurus has been coming up with allot of clever new ideas and concepts in firearms which has made and keeps them popular and people are buying them like hot cakes. And Taurus has been concentrating and focusing on mass production rather than quality and will let customer service take care of the problem guns because they are guaranteed for life. So what do you think? 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.

3482jl

I feel just the opposite (IMHO). Over 45 years of buying firearms, mostly handguns, I think the quality control, and factory service has improved ( of course some of the grand old factory customs like the Coly Python are no longer made). We don't see "Saturday night specials" any more, and competition among manufacturers has lead design and quality to a new level. Some of the gunsmiths on this forum may want to chime in, but that has been my observations.

James6591

I have bought ten new guns in the past three years, five have been Rugers.
I am still to see the first fault with any of them (all ten).
Maybe I'm just the lucky one.

Airdale

I have only had to send one back to the mfg. and that was a SA. All others have been fine. Just an opinon, but I think that the percentage of faulty guns from the factory has not changed, there are more of them that are faulty but I think the reason is the mfg. have increased production to meet demand so more guns are going out the door.

terry_p

Interesting. I have acquired 13 Rugers since the early 1980's and never had to return one for repairs but then again I haven't had to return any firearms. Guess I am lucky.

Wisconsinshooter

Of all my guns i own the only one that needed a gun smith was my Savage .300 Win Mag. The magazine had to be filed and polished as it had issues when being loaded. Also all of my firearms were purchased new, no issues.

punkinlobber

I think guns have progressed like computers and get amazingly better every year. CNC machining is amazing.

Amishman44

I agree with 3483jl...in that for the most part, over the past few years, gun manufacturers have had to step it up a notch and 'toe the line' with customers when it comes to quality, new designs, performance, etc.

I think Ruger's new SR 9 & .40 models have been great additions to their line-ups. Smith & Wesson's M&P line-up has also had great success! Other manufacturer's have expanded their line-ups as well...with Sig Sauer and H&K being 2 of the few other better known quality gun manufacturer's! Glock's rock...enough said!

When it comes to Rugers, specifically, the only issue I've ever had was the barrel on a GP100...it shot crazy left and had some sort of shim on the right side where the outer portion of the barrel drew up tight to the frame. I sent it to CS...and it came back with a new barrel and no shim! It was a 6" version and it shot absolutely great after that!

The only issues I've ever had that required sending a gun back to the manufacturer for repairs was with Taurus's...I've had three (3) of them and every one of them had an issue!

The one, a Model 850 revolver, had an issue that never resolved itself even after 2 visits to Taurus...and they couldn't find any problems with it. However, as a DAO revolver, after the 1st shot...the cylinder continued to lock up and would not rotate. I had it apart several times and cleaned all the manufacturing metal shavings out myself, searching for 'hang-ups'...all for naught! I finally traded it in...the couple who bought it had to send it in and, wa-la...received a brand new revolver as a replacement!

Everyone I know, who has owned a Taurus...has had to send it in for repairs or service! I had one friend who, after sending 2 of her new Taurus's in for repairs, right after purchasing them, finally grasped the fact that 'you get what you pay for' and within 30 days had sold all of four (4) of her Taurus's and replaced them with Ruger's...2 used SP101's in .22lr and .38+P and a new one in .327 mag! She's been forever happy!

I'm very satisfied with Ruger revolvers...and would like to have an SR1911 and an SR9c someday!

Mayor Al

I have trouble free Ruger's... I even have several trouble free Taurus's. The only gun I have ever had a 'need-outside help' to fix was my Winchester Model 100 Carbine. My rifle of that model had been thru the factory recall years ago and works fine. I got the Carbine this summer and it was suffering a lot of FTFire issues, when I checked with Winchester they told me it had NOT been thru the firing pin change (the recall), so I sent them the old pin, they sent me a new one and a $30 VISA Gift Card. I stuck the new pin in and the gun works fine...so far ( 30 rounds of mil-surplus 308 to test it.).

The VISA is the cash credit they give you for not sending the whole gun back to them !!

So I have no gripe about quality. BUT I do not care much for the synthetic stocks being used by a lot of longun makers. Wood and Laminates are ok but the black 'plastic' just doesn't add to the appearance in my opinion.

Warbird1

I have bought and traded more firearms in the last year than I would want to say. Only problems have been with a Kahr PM9 for light primer strikes (They replaced the barrel and slide) and a Magnum Research 1911 (roll pin securing front sight broke). Customer service in both cases was outstanding. I have 6 Ruger firearms and all have been flawless.

BuckJM53

None of my Rugers have ever required a trip back to factory for service . In the larger picture with other manufacturers over the years:
1. Smith & Wesson - none
2. CZ - 1 trip (major issue / gun replaced)
3. Springfield - 1 trip (minor cosmetic issue)
4. ATI/GSG - 1 trip (minor mechanical issue)
5. Chiappa - 2 trips (minor mechanical issues)
6. Kimber - 3 trips (major reliability issues)

Sr40ken

Over the last ten years I purchased a Ruger P345, SR40, Taurus 66, Rossi R92, Rock Island 1911 Compact and a Mini 14. Not a problem with any of 'em. 3000 rounds thru both the P345 and SR40 Probably 2000+ through the 66 and maybe a thousand through the Mini and '92 and 1911. Love 'em all. No complaint other than not enough ammo and time to shoot.

North country gal

+1 on the CNC machining. Materials technology has also greatly advanced.

We all love to drool over those old masterpieces that required a lot of hand fitting and some of us, myself included, will pay more to get one of the old classics, but my experience with new Rugers, Springfields, Savages and so on has all been positive. Can't say my old Rugers shoot any better or work any better than all the new Rugers I've bought the last couple of years. From the standpoint of a shooter, I'd say the new stuff is better than ever.

conditionyellow

I don't know about that. At our guns shows you can buy brand new 9MM autos for less that $125.00. Hi-Point and Jimenez come to mind.

RMHoward

Every time i look at my recently acquired Ruger BH and SBH, i am amazed at what fine looking hunks of metal they are. I am pretty finicky about fit and finish. For a mass produced SA, I can't complain one bit. My Bond Arms derringer is suberb as well as my 4 year old Marlin 30-30s. No complaints here.