1911Forum banner

How important is QC to firearm manufacturers?

2K views 31 replies 23 participants last post by  Busa Dave 
#1 ·
My feeling is that QC (namely final inspection for fit/finish/function) is probably not that important overall to the firearms industry, and that a "it's good enough, if the customer doesn't like it let them send it back and we will fix it" attitude prevails among many manufacturers. That attitude also probably comes with a thinking that only a small percentage will actually bother sending anything back for any issue other than something related to function and performance.

That statement I just made is based off of over a dozen firearm purchases made over the past two years. Of that dozen, there are either 4 or 5 that had issues that were either cosmetic in nature or had to do with the function of the firearm that required me to send it back for warranty issues. In one case there was an expensive AR (>2k) that had a lower that was machined so poorly it looked like a 3rd grader had taken a dremel to it.

Just to be clear, some cosmetic issues I can and do live with, but there are some things I've received that were so extreme one has to wonder how exactly they left the factory.

It could be that I just have bad luck, but when 30% of your new firearm purchases need to be returned for warranty work, somethings up.
 
See less See more
#4 ·
I hate to say it but it is one reason I like to look at them before I buy even when I pay more at a gun shop. I remember buying a new Camaro years ago and a friend who was a Chevy mechanic said take it home and check the tightness of all the bolts, fluid levels, etc. Years later my wife bought a Toyota and a friend who was a Toyota mechanic said the same thing. Kind of sad. I still bring a new to me gun even if brand new home and at least field strip, inspect and lube before I shoot it.
 
#5 ·
I would say it is very important. Many lower management and employee bonuses are based off of what's called first time through put. Meaning, how many guns were sold VS customer returns.

Any good firearms company should have a first time through put in the mid 90 % range.
 
#8 ·
Para was said to have had a poor fit / finish and function track record with some models, but others have reported a much higher track record.

Many customers with their newer models have sent them back to have problems corrected, while owners of older models have reported fewer problems.

QC can and does make a difference from a customer standpoint.
 
#9 ·
Quality is just one measure of the total design/engineering/manufacturing process.

Quality can't be inspected into the product, whether guns or cars. The designer has to have a clear vision of what the end product will be, and will it be something the end consumer wants, and on which will spend good money.

At each step, design has to insure that the product can be engineered, then manufactured; and each succeeding step or area has to buy in 100% And, you have to have management which not only moves the process along, but has a complete buy-in, and enthusiastically embraces each facet. It does no good to have a design that can't be realistically executed.

The auto industry found out the hard way some 35 years ago. At assembly plants there were hosts of "QC" inspectors and checkers, all passing judgement on what quality was. However, no one had given a lot of thought to how things had to be integrated. Total integration concepts have been around since W. Edward Demming published the ideas in the early 1950's, and the Japanese, who had good manufacturing, had produced crappy cars. He changed their mindset, and for the good. It took U.S. automakers another 25 years to start adopting Dr. Demming's principles.

A good example - In 1980, Ford was designing and tooling up for the then-new Ranger pickup. It was the first product in which hourly assembly workers had input to design, engineering, and manufacturing processes. Before, the engineers went to the plants, announced that their way was the only way, and make it work.

It also helped that the UAW and the company got away from the hostile relationship that had existed. They finally figured that the Japanese could, indeed, run them out of business. Amazing what self-preservation does to make allies.

Their have been books, courses, and degree programs developed just on the transformation of the auto industry.

Is it always executed properly? Sometimes not. The GM ignition switch fiasco is an example, but things are better.
 
#10 · (Edited)
The scary part is if their inspectors aren't paying attention to Final Inspection, how close are they looking at dimensional checks in between process operations?

You would think their system would require 100% inspection with dimensional sheets.

How close are they keeping up with material certs and heat treat reports?

I would think they would follow more of an AS9100 QC program instead of an ISO9001.
 
#21 · (Edited)
I think JW's is the most accurate (and pithy) answer...Expensive guns, in-expensive guns, I have experienced plenty of issues on my new firearms across a variety of manufacturers over the short 3 years I have been involved (I purchase 12 new pistols in this ~3 year interval). Most of these issues were relatively minor (like front sight coming loose, or an extractor tensioning issue), but I also had one major/catastrophic issue on one gun from one of the top Semi-Custom shops. One small manufacturer put the wrong height FS on one 1911 I have, which is amazing too...To me the fact is, any time I have to stick the gun in the mail to have it serviced for a warranty issue it is a big-deal... These issue were spread across both 1911 and Semi-poly manufacturers.

This relatively high failure rate across my many new purchases may have something to do with the "mini-buying-bubble" we experienced in firearms over the last few years and perhaps "rushing" product through production, I don't know as I haven't been involved in more quit times. But good news is, I haven't had to send any gun back to any manufacturer for the (same) issue twice!:)
C.A.
(And just for fun, as a side antidotal note, I have one Kimber, and it was (not) one of the guns I needed to send back. Who would have expected after all the bashing these guys get on the forum ;)).
 
#13 ·
Don't forget one thing: the final QC inspector is the consumer, and as a group we've been getting increasingly critical of even the slightest flaws. Yes I've seen plenty of defects that were sufficiently obvious that one had to wonder how the gun made it out of the plant. However as many of the posts on this forum have proven some folks freak out over the tiniest little things. One person in the Colt sub-forum was upset that his new Colt had a final inspection stamp that wasn't stamped clean and neat, but instead was struck at a slight angle and thus hard to make out. Did he have a right to be upset? That was up to him, as it was his pistol and either he was happy with it or he wasn't. But should Colt now take extra care to ensure that every single hand-stamped inspection mark is struck absolutely square and even? A manufacturer tries to please as many end users as they reasonably can. But they can't please everybody, especially when some complaints arise not from actual functioning issues but from slight variations in manufacture.
 
#14 ·
I kind of liked the one where the guy complained that his "semi-custom" came in with the trademark in the wrong font.

That sort of nitpicking is common on a board where so many threads are on pure cosmetics, especially in the upper price ranges, but I think we are entitled to guns that are checked out to actually shoot.
Of course that is exacerbated by The Bullet of the Month Club.
 
#16 ·
Cosmetics mean a lot to many people. If you can't get what you want, or ordered, why then bother with ordering it.

I understand a gun is made to shoot. That's what I want, a shooter. This being said, I don't see anything wrong with wanting it look as nice on the outside as it is on the inside.

I don't want an ugly woman with a good heart. Or an attractive woman with evil intentions. I want a gorgeous lady built using the finest parts and methods inside and out.
 
#18 ·
I just get tired of manufacturers using us as their QC. As long as they don't have too many coming back it's OK. What about the folks that fix their own or take it to a gunsmith? I don't put up with it. If there is a flaw that I can see or feel their professional inspectors should have caught it first. They will be making it right. I'm not their Beta tester.
 
#29 ·
I don't believe that manufacturers set out for the customer to be the "final acceptance inspector". Whatever the product, even if designed completely with the end user in mind, it has to be completely finished, ready for customer acceptance and usage at the retail point.

A manufacturer is not going to please everyone, even on subjective items. The physical tolerances can be manufactured as close as possible, but the customer may reject the product because of aesthetics. One of the classic examples is the Ford Edsel. Quality-wise, it was among the best cars produced by Ford at the time. Aesthetically, the car just didn't make it. The worst feature was the "horse collar" grille, which turned off a lot of customers. It had several features, e.g. the push-button transmission selector, which was superior to Chrysler's. However the technical advances, quality, and safety features just couldn't overcome the looks.

The same is true for a 1911. Manufacturers have tried front and rear serrations; not always popular. If the beaver tail safety gets to arty, a gun may sit on the shelf, unsold. Get too cute with the grips, and they get removed.

So, to an extent, the customer is the final arbiter of quality, although it should be in the realm of aesthetics, and not functionality.
 
#19 · (Edited)
Just a sampling of my personal experience with quality control in the recent past.

Over the last four or so years I have purchased 4 S&W "snubbies". They were: a BG38, 2 642-1s, and a 640-1 Pro Series. Of those 4 revolvers I had the following experiences...

- BG38 action locked up after 1 month. Returned twice before they said it was unrepairable and I elected to upgrade to a 642 as the replacement.

- The replacement 642 has been flawless. (WIN!!)

- I liked the first 642 so much I purchased a second 642. Six months later the trigger pivot pin sheared off. Returned. Unrepairable and I asked to upgrade to a 640 Pro Series as the replacement.

- 640 Pro showed up at my local gun shop and out of box the barrel was clocked, caliber etchings on the barrel looked like a second grader was running the machine, the front sight was damaged, and while still at the gun shop the rear sight fell off the gun. OFF!! Just to review, this gun was new-in-the-box FedEx'd straight from the factory. Returned... Everything fixed except the barrel was almost straight. Eight months later the barrel had slow twisted back to the original clocked position. Returned a second time and now the barrel is almost straight again. Currently shooting it to see if the barrel is solid. Remember, this is a "Pro Series" gun. Good thing I didn't compromise and go with the non-Pro Series line.

So to review, out of 4 revolvers 3 had to be returned, 2 had to go back twice, and 2 were deemed unrepairable. The only good thing to say is they have attempted to fix everything and have paid all shipping costs. The CS representatives have all been somewhat helpful and understanding of my aggravation.

Will I ever buy another new S&W gun? Nope... Classic revolvers maybe, but nothing current production.

Edmo
 
#20 ·
thats ridiculous. I was just looking at new production S&W revolvers the other week actually. A nice blued revolver had caught my eye (forget the model #) and I had asked to take a look at it. First thing that stuck out to me was the poor wood to metal fit of the grips. Basically the grips were not flush with the frame and there was also an obvious gap between the grips and frame. At that point I just handed it back..if they can't get that right who knows what else is wrong.

Just to be clear, there are some things I can live with..not happy about them but I'll live with them just because it's so damn inconvenient to return them and than receive them back for me. It's only the extreme examples that get returned.
 
#22 ·
Time = money above all else. Production almost always trumps quality except in the rare event of a total dud. Cust. Service is viewed as a necessary evil by companies and no one wants to do it as most calls are "911" variety. After all, that is why S&W went to MIM in order to save money in the long run and not to please customers. I often wonder what their revolvers would cost today if all forged and if people would still buy them at + $1K. I doubt it. People today say the same BS about the Colt Python, but in the end no one was buying them right before they quit making them. Same BS with the Pre-'64 Win.
 
#24 ·
Mass produced products will have occasional failures, and most companies put some effort into making things right. As has been mentioned, they have to balance the cost of more stringent QA/QC with the cost of warrantee work. This shouldn't excuse outright failure of a new product, or the failure to perform a simple task correctly. Occasionally, a manufacturer gets a batch of bad parts that make their way into produce.

On the other side of the coin, some consumers expect 100% perfection on lower end, mass produced products. Personally, I wouldn't complain about tool marks or less than perfect fit on a $450 RIA. I WOULD blow a gasket if a $4k Wilson wasn't perfect in every way.....

"Quality" is a variable concept, it means different things to different people.
 
#25 ·
Design a manufacturable product.

Implement a bullet-proof manufacturing process.

Make the machinist/operator inspect his own work.

Then you all can quit blaming inspectors for shoddy parts.
 
#27 ·
Last 3 S&W all had defects, Kimber, Browning, 3 Ruger handguns, Taurus, Some were returned, I repaired some. Not counting cosmetics or I could add more to the list. The 3 S&W and 1 Ruger would fire every time the trigger was pulled, the others NOT. If we don't like it bad enough we can cross out fingers and return it on warranty and some of the problems will be repaired.
 
#30 ·
If the issue is not resolved after the first trip back, it gets traded in. I won't sell it personally to someone either in person or through the internet, but I have no problem trading it in at a gun shop. I just don't have time to be driving all over the place shipping firearms and than picking them up at the UPS/Fed-Ex hub since I work during the day. Also, to be honest even having to send it back once kind of spoils the whole experience with that firearm for me for whatever reason. I've just found that firearms I've had to send back for work I shoot less and end up getting rid of eventually.

geez...I feel myself getting irritated about this topic even as I write this as I think back on the guns I've had to send back and the hassle it was for me. Just had to go through this the other day with a firearm and it was sort of a big deal for me as it required me leaving work an hour early, and driving out of my way to find a place that deals with fed-ex.

I just hope when it gets sent back fed-ex does not hassle me. The last I did this they flat out refused to give me the firearm that was being sent back from the manufacturer claiming that I had to be an FFL holder to receive it. I sat at the fed-ex hub for an hour while the dealt with their internal security on the issue. To say I was pissed was understatement.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top