Reliability

[WDW]

Does anyone feel that the perception of increased lack of QC and general decrease of reliability could be due to the shooting community's ability to disseminate information quicker, and that maybe the problem isn't as bad as it seems or maybe it has been here all along and no one knew. I mean, 20 or 30 years ago, if a shooter had a problem with a gun, where could he go or what could he do to tell someone. Call or write a letter? Now info can be shared with millions of people instantly @ any time of day. I was just thinking about this today. I mean, if my takedown lever on my P226 went down today, I could get on here, post it, and then recieve input and accounts of similar breakages from anyone in the world and if the conditions are right, before you know it, all P226's have weak takedown levers. Just thought this would be a good discusion and a chance for some "experienced" shooters (I mean old:)) to share how it was back in the day.

[VolGrad]

I suspect you are at least partially correct. There was probably always issues that no one ever heard of. However, I also suspect the increase in issues has grown exponentially over the past decade or two. Demand has grown. Companies are fighting for market share. Companies are also having to answer to their BOD or whatever entity controls them ... thus, they have to keep it all on the cheap. This generally means they want to crank out as much product as they can, as fast as they can, with whatever level of suck they feel is acceptable.

[jslaker]

I'd also suspect differing expectations are part of it.

The XM9 project in the early 80s had a contract service life of 5000 rounds.

These days, I'm not even interested in a gun as a defensive weapon unless it can make it through of 2,000 round challenge. I'd be livid if a modern gun was at the end of its service life at 5000; not all that long ago that was good enough for the US.gov, though.

(Granted, M9s have shown themselves to be able to stand up to far more than 5k rounds, but that's what the military was asking for at the time).

[WDW]

I'd also suspect differing expectations are part of it.

The XM9 project in the early 80s had a contract service life of 5000 rounds.

These days, I'm not even interested in a gun as a defensive weapon unless it can make it through of 2,000 round challenge. I'd be livid if a modern gun was at the end of its service life at 5000; not all that long ago that was good enough for the US.gov, though.

(Granted, M9s have shown themselves to be able to stand up to far more than 5k rounds, but that's what the military was asking for at the time).
+1. 5,000rds is just a warm up. I am only interested in service pistols (G17, G19, G22, P226, etc.) that have extensive track records and have been shown to fire tens of thousands of rounds without catastrophic failure, assuming manufacturer recommended maintenance, parts replacement schedule is followed. All these little niche pocket guns and other things advertised as "great carry guns" disgust me. I feel that if you choose to sacrifice performance for size and weight, you aren't really serious about choosing a platform that may actually save your life. I also think the niche mentality is causing an overall decline in firearm quality. Why would manufacturers spend big $$$ on research and QC when they can pump out Judges and Sigmas at $100 a pop and make money.