Have Handgun Companies Bet on Mediocrity?

[GardoneVT]

Being a newcomer to guns, it's my uneducated observation that most people buy guns to collect.While there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, it seems like companies recently are betting on that as a business strategy.If a firm knows that 8 out of 10 buyers of their products will shoot 100 rounds a year toos, then why bother testing a gun to 20,000+ rounds ?Sure the other two customers who shoot a lot will have problems,but you can placate that by replacing the guns or parts as needed free of charge.That way, all the testing costs are kept as profit instead.

I came to this conclusion after owning a Kimber 1911 for a time.I wondered why it is they put a cheap stamped seven round mag in the box when they make perfectly good KimPro Tacmags .Well, it makes sense when one considers that maybe two 1911 shooters out of ten will shoot the pistol enough to wear out the cheap mag.So why bother ?


What are your thoughts, seeing students guns at classes and whatnot?

[DanH]

Sadly, in this country you rarely go wrong betting on mediocrity.

[Urban_Redneck]

It's not a culture of mediocrity within companies, but (IMHO) simply the result of building to stay at or below price point to preserve market share- something has to give somewhere. i.e. If a new Glock cost $750, I bet HK could sell more $900 pistols.

YMMV

[ST911]

Most folks are gun owners, not gun shooters, and don't know what they don't know. For many, mediocrity can be a goal to aspire to.

[Clyde from Carolina]

Todd addressed this very well some time back here:


http://pistol-training.com/articles/trust-no-one-an-insiders-perspective

[ScotchMan]

That was a good post.

I think a lot of it comes from upper and lower spec limits in the manufacturing process. The tighter the specs are, the more expensive the cost. The looser the specs are, the higher probability to get a combination of parts that has an issue. Someone at some point has to choose a number that is acceptable; 100% is an impossibility. 99.99966%, or 6 standard deviations from the mean, is the "grail" standard 6 sigma. That would be 3.4 defects per million. You can bet there are no firearm manufacturers, even custom shops, operating at that level. More likely they are operating around 3 sigma; 93.320% in spec, 66,800 defects per million. About 6-7% of the guns would have issues. Sounds about right. right?

Of course this information is highly proprietary so we can never know for sure. It is completely possible for a company to tighten the specs to reduce the defects, but would you pay more for that? It's all about the bottom line.

I hate to drop a brand name into the discussion, but I strongly suspect H&K looks at the above, and chooses to operate with tighter limits. This is why you pay $1,000 for a gun that doesn't look that much different than a $500 gun. People don't get why its so expensive, but it comes down to upper and lower spec limits. IMO.

[BLR]

Being a newcomer to guns, it's my uneducated observation that most people buy guns to collect.While there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, it seems like companies recently are betting on that as a business strategy.If a firm knows that 8 out of 10 buyers of their products will shoot 100 rounds a year toos, then why bother testing a gun to 20,000+ rounds ?Sure the other two customers who shoot a lot will have problems,but you can placate that by replacing the guns or parts as needed free of charge.That way, all the testing costs are kept as profit instead.

I came to this conclusion after owning a Kimber 1911 for a time.I wondered why it is they put a cheap stamped seven round mag in the box when they make perfectly good KimPro Tacmags .Well, it makes sense when one considers that maybe two 1911 shooters out of ten will shoot the pistol enough to wear out the cheap mag.So why bother ?


What are your thoughts, seeing students guns at classes and whatnot?

As a practitioner of forensic engineering (root cause failure analysis is my current bread and butter), I have to ask - what will actually be tested in a 20k endurance test from a reliability perspective?

I don't mean to sound arrogant here, but designing a honest to gosh real life test matrix worthy of the idea behind your question isn't trivial. And I'd suggest few people in the industry have the background to properly design the test and analyse the data. I've been part of one attempt at it, and the company was totally unprepared for it. I remember telling one of the techs he couldn't use the sand he purchased because he didn't know the size or size distribution. And forget the need for replicates. A 30k test turned into 150k instantly. No kidding. They were going to use a sample of one.

Then you get into the "we are Famous Company" therefore we know what we are doing.

And to give you an idea of cost, if our company did it, it would cost over $100k for the first go around.



Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 4

[DocGKR]

1911guy is correct. Most companies, let alone LE agencies do NOT know how, are not qualified or prepared, and do not have the resources to run an appropriate test protocol.

That is why I always am amazed at an agency that states they have done "testing" to pick a new firearm or ammo--the majority of the time, the most they have done is a familiarization or preference assessment, not a true test.

[GardoneVT]

As a practitioner of forensic engineering (root cause failure analysis is my current bread and butter), I have to ask - what will actually be tested in a 20k endurance test from a reliability perspective?

I don't mean to sound arrogant here, but designing a honest to gosh real life test matrix worthy of the idea behind your question isn't trivial. And I'd suggest few people in the industry have the background to properly design the test and analyse the data. I've been part of one attempt at it, and the company was totally unprepared for it. I remember telling one of the techs he couldn't use the sand he purchased because he didn't know the size or size distribution. And forget the need for replicates. A 30k test turned into 150k instantly. No kidding. They were going to use a sample of one.

Then you get into the "we are Famous Company" therefore we know what we are doing.

And to give you an idea of cost, if our company did it, it would cost over $100k for the first go around.



Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 4

When it comes to products like computers,phones,TVs and the like, absolute reliability isn't a necessary requirement. Given that a firearm is a lifesaving instrument, absolute reliability IS a requirement.The stakes are just too high.

Think of it this way-if a parachute company has a 95% reliability rate, that on paper is an admirable achievement.That's cold comfort to the jumper who pulls the ripcord to no effect at altitude!


I've noticed that newer guns seem to have more problems across the board then before.Even newer versions of legacy firearms are having problems .The idea of a Gen 3 Glock stovepiping ten years ago would be well and truly unheard of.Not anymore.

Why? Well,most people don't shoot their guns.So companies can get away with cutting corners on QC.After all ,very few people actually have to shoot their guns in self defense ,and not many people attend classes or are in hobbies/professions where their guns are shot frequently.So, unless SOMEONE does run 20k through an example, we don't really know if Comany X is making good product.
If said tester runs 1000 rounds through the gun and the slide flies into the dirt,we know to buy somewhere else

[BLR]

There have been many documented cases of significant numbers of Glocks going belly up or having issues out of the gate.

Let's say the slide fell off. What would that mean on a sample of one? How would you go about finding the cause? How many would even go that far?

There was a thread here on 1911s, and the kimber warrior was called into question. Everyone agreed they were junk. No one, including "experts" who are the focus of much internet bromance, had any idea why some refused to function. Because no one sat down and actually measured the gun. The point being, firearms experts didn't bother to do it right before telling the world the guns junk. If they won't do it right, who is going too?





Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 4

[Tamara]

The idea of a Gen 3 Glock stovepiping ten years ago would be well and truly unheard of.

Not really, no (http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/phase3.html).


Everyone agreed they were junk.

Everyone agreed that Kimber has had serious QC issues, which certain 1911 fans who are the subject of much internet bromance took to be pissing on JMB's grave. There seems to be a certain amount of Rashomon effect going on here. ;)

[GardoneVT]

Not really, no (http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/phase3.html).



Everyone agreed that Kimber has had serious QC issues, which certain 1911 fans who are the subject of much internet bromance took to be pissing on JMB's grave. There seems to be a certain amount of Rashomon effect going on here. ;)

I stand corrected.

That being stated,I think were getting off topic a bit .The central question I wished to ask-and apparently ,settled by Todd long ago-is whether or not firms were cranking out product knowing full and well few customers would shoot enough to detect any problems .

[richiecotite]

I'd also bet that more people putting more rounds through their guns and the growth of online gun culture/forums add to the perceived problem of gun manufacturers quality going downhill (not saying quality is or isn't going down, but the internet makes people hyperaware of issues)

[Chuck Whitlock]

When it comes to products like computers,phones,TVs and the like, absolute reliability isn't a necessary requirement. Given that a firearm is a lifesaving instrument, absolute reliability IS a requirement.The stakes are just too high.

Think of it this way-if a parachute company has a 95% reliability rate, that on paper is an admirable achievement.That's cold comfort to the jumper who pulls the ripcord to no effect at altitude!

Jumpers have reserve chutes for a reason. Some folks carry BUGs for the same reason. Because Murphy.

[Tamara]

The central question I wished to ask-and apparently ,settled by Todd long ago-is whether or not firms were cranking out product knowing full and well few customers would shoot enough to detect any problems .

I believe there is evidence to support that, and the gamble seems to be working (http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2012/03/book-of-numbers.html).

Reader 2 is the typical American gun owner who gets to the range every three or six months, pops off a box or two of ammo from five yards into a ragged, two-foot pattern stringing low and left from the center of a B-27 target, and goes home. His Blastomatic Match Master might have been engineered to crumble into dust after 500 rounds, but he'll never find out, because by the time he's owned it for a year, it's been superseded in his affections by his new Blastomatic Match Master Plus in the likewise new .401Blasto caliber. (His dealer threw in a Blastomatic hat with that purchase.)

It's part of the reason I hate the internet (http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2008/07/because-it-made-me-chuckle-again.html).

[BWT]

I remember my great great grandfather at the turn of the century firing 10,000s of thousands of rounds in his Glock and having none of these issues.

Most people don't shoot that much, I don't think people have ever fired in the thousands a year as frequently as people suspect.

Nobody shot a Luger 50,000 rounds back during WW2.

People during the depression weren't shooting thousands of rounds through their 1911s.

In the old west they didn't shoot hundreds upon hundreds of rounds a month.

I don't necessarily give as much credit to the "they don't make them like they used to." These aren't Honda Accords that are driven daily for 15 years. Hitting 300,000+ miles.

They're guns that at I'd say high water mark are shot once a week. Maybe twice for a hundred or more rounds.

And the group that does that are less than 1% of shooters.

Id bet most people on this forum don't shoot every single week. I certainly can't.

[BLR]

Not really, no (http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/phase3.html).



Everyone agreed that Kimber has had serious QC issues, which certain 1911 fans who are the subject of much internet bromance took to be pissing on JMB's grave. There seems to be a certain amount of Rashomon effect going on here. ;)

I had to look up Rashomon effect.

But that is not my take on it. The people I am referring to didn't bother to do the work. They went straight to interpretation. Not acceptable for "subject matter experts" imo.

Reliability and durability has been the focus of argument since autos took over. And likely even before that.

Vendors change. Designs are tweaked. How many Gen 3 flocks broke their vestigial frame rails?

You really can't be ignorant about your chosen weapon. Our it's maintenance. You treat your carry gun like your lawn mower and you'll get what you deserve.



Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 4

[Tamara]

I remember my great great grandfather at the turn of the century firing 10,000s of thousands of rounds in his Glock and having none of these issues.

Weeelllll... except that QC and durability are separate issues.


How many Gen 3 flocks broke their vestigial frame rails?

Broke a single specific frame rail, left rear IIRC, and not because it was vestigial but because the machine that was stamping them out was doing so incorrectly. That plays to the QC issue but not the design issue.

Kimber, on the other hand, is a splendid example of this because they are an industry leader in extracting profit margin from an inherently low-profit-margin design in today's manufacturing environment. This has led to problems (everything from extractor woes to using 9mm slide stops in everything, presumably to cut down on SKUs...) but Kimber knows their market well. Most people buying the pistols from Yonkers are buying belt ornaments and safe queens.

[BWT]

Weeelllll... except that QC and durability are separate issues.

I was being sarcastic and I apologize. I meant it more as tongue in cheek.

[ToddG]

Of course this information is highly proprietary so we can never know for sure. It is completely possible for a company to tighten the specs to reduce the defects, but would you pay more for that? It's all about the bottom line.

This is it in a nutshell. Having worked for two major gun companies while they went through the process of "normalizing" pricing to compete better against Glock I can say without question that it is very easy to cheapen things without most customers ever realizing it. If the trigger bar is now only good for 10,000 rounds instead of 100,000 rounds who will notice? Probably not one-onehundredth of one percent of all their customers. So did they cheapen the product unacceptably or did they find a way to reduce price without impacting 99.99% of their customers?

The point you made about failure rate is often missed and very well put. You see this a lot, for example, with 1911 folks. There's a thread over at 1911forum.com right now about "snobs" who recommend expensive semi- and custom guns over $500 rack grade pistols. The guys who own rack grade pistols pop on and exclaim that theirs has gone hundreds (or in fairness sometimes thousands) of rounds without trouble. OK, right. And there are people who have Yugos that went tens of thousands of miles, too. The issue isn't simply one of "all are good, or all are bad." It's about the odds that your particular sample will be acceptable.

Channeling hippydippy: Some companies put out fewer lemons than others. FACT


I don't mean to sound arrogant here, but designing a honest to gosh real life test matrix worthy of the idea behind your question isn't trivial. And I'd suggest few people in the industry have the background to properly design the test and analyse the data. I've been part of one attempt at it, and the company was totally unprepared for it. I remember telling one of the techs he couldn't use the sand he purchased because he didn't know the size or size distribution. And forget the need for replicates. A 30k test turned into 150k instantly. No kidding. They were going to use a sample of one.

Having been through this exact process with ATF I agree but there are also competing factors in terms of time, manpower, cost, facility availability, technical capability, etc. For example, ATF sent test guns to an independent lab to perform all the milspec environmental testing (heat, cold, sand, corrosion) because they realized it was more effective than trying to do it themselves.

The other issue with the "matrix" part is that, at least in the federal system, there is an encyclopedia-sized set of procurement regulations that have to be followed.


And to give you an idea of cost, if our company did it, it would cost over $100k for the first go around.

And that's why so few agencies perform decent testing. And that is why so many state & local agencies depend on big federal procurements to guide their choices. Because in all fairness, if the FBI tested gun XYZ and declared it good to go the odds are it will also work for your 12-man agency.


I've noticed that newer guns seem to have more problems across the board then before.Even newer versions of legacy firearms are having problems .The idea of a Gen 3 Glock stovepiping ten years ago would be well and truly unheard of.Not anymore.

Others have addressed the Glock issue specifically but even in general I'm not sure it's completely a new problem. Again looking at the 1911 it's easy to find folks who fondly remember Granddad "shooting a million rounds through his gun in The War and never having a problem." But that's not the same as gathering actual data, it's just a second-hand recounting of a vague memory.

People are shooting more now than they used to. Guys who shoot 2,500 rounds per year are nothing special whereas 30 years ago that would have been a professional gunman in many places.

People also track what they shoot better and they report it on the internet giving the world access to a pretty substantial database of guns and their functionality.

Do I think the general quality level of guns has decreased in the past 20 years? Yes I do. Do I think it's gone from awesome to horrible? No I don't. I think it's gone from "ok but not great" to "ok but not great v2."


I'd also bet that more people putting more rounds through their guns and the growth of online gun culture/forums add to the perceived problem of gun manufacturers quality going downhill (not saying quality is or isn't going down, but the internet makes people hyperaware of issues)

That. Instead of everything else I wrote, just that. Well put, richiecotite.

[Urban_Redneck]

You really can't be ignorant about your chosen weapon. Our it's maintenance. You treat your carry gun like your lawn mower and you'll get what you deserve.


Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 4

:cool:

[Chuck Haggard]

Agencies should do some testing though, otherwise these sorts of things WILL incur Murphy issues.

My agency's issues with G22s being an example, which only popped up because I insisted on testing our guns with duty ammo.


A friend in NorCal notes that his agency had zero issues with their G22s, until they shot some duty ammo through them......


Just because a model of gun has been working for a few years doesn't mean that same line of guns is still working when you go and buy 350 of them brand new.

[jkurtz7]

I just started a thread on another forum, one that it pretty big, and centers around CCW, about the very subject of manufacturers putting out inferior product these days. From the response I've seen so far, there just aren't that many who really understand the subject as a whole, are brand loyal to the point of being blind, or just totally ignore ongoing issues with currently produced guns.

The manufacturers betting on mediocrity are in fact winning the bet as far as I can tell. I've seen a poll on that same forum that asks how many malfunctions out of a gun do people deem acceptable for a carry gun. In that one, you get the feeling that people don't seem to mind that their gun bobbles once in awhile.

[Chuck Haggard]

I can't remember where I got the term from, but I have noted that "malfunction amnesia" is really common, and that people are often willing to put up with a level of malfs that is just ridiculous.

[GardoneVT]

I can't remember where I got the term from, but I have noted that "malfunction amnesia" is really common, and that people are often willing to put up with a level of malfs that is just ridiculous.

Product research in one of my business classes came to the conclusion that product performance was secondary to emotional satisfaction by the customer at time of purchase.

Is there a reason why that conclusion wouldn't apply to firearm purchases? Have the trainers here noticed students making excuses for a malfunctioning gun?

[Tamara]

I can't remember where I got the term from, but I have noted that "malfunction amnesia" is really common, and that people are often willing to put up with a level of malfs that is just ridiculous.

It's hilariously selective, too.

My Glock had three light strikes because of hard primers and/or some dirt in the striker channel, plus the trigger return spring broke on that one string, but that's a known issue.

Your 1911 had four malfs because it's an obsolete design from the days of the Model T. :D

[BLR]

It's hilariously selective, too.

My Glock had three light strikes because of hard primers and/or some dirt in the striker channel, plus the trigger return spring broke on that one string, but that's a known issue.

Your 1911 had four malfs because it's an obsolete design from the days of the Model T. :D

You saying I should switch to something more modern? Maybe a Python?

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 4

[jkurtz7]

Product research in one of my business classes came to the conclusion that product performance was secondary to emotional satisfaction by the customer at time of purchase.

Is there a reason why that conclusion wouldn't apply to firearm purchases? Have the trainers here noticed students making excuses for a malfunctioning gun?

I'm sure that emotional satisfaction has a lot to do with it, and your response got me thinking. I'm big into fly fishing and I tend to buy too many rods in the search for the holy grail, until this year actually, when I decided that there was no holy grail of fly rods. But the initial purchase always felt good emotionally, then I would realize after a bit that my purchase didn't really suit my needs. At least I admit that, but how many people aren't willing to admit it?

As for fighting pistols, I've been through a number of them over the last 18 years, but my main concern when buying a pistol is usually reliability, although I have made compromises in the past due to price, and got bit in the butt for it.

[GardoneVT]

I'm sure that emotional satisfaction has a lot to do with it, and your response got me thinking. I'm big into fly fishing and I tend to buy too many rods in the search for the holy grail, until this year actually, when I decided that there was no holy grail of fly rods. But the initial purchase always felt good emotionally, then I would realize after a bit that my purchase didn't really suit my needs. At least I admit that, but how many people aren't willing to admit it?

As for fighting pistols, I've been through a number of them over the last 18 years, but my main concern when buying a pistol is usually reliability, although I have made compromises in the past due to price, and got bit in the butt for it.

Another fascinating tidbit from the class ,is that post purchase emotional satisfaction with a product ties in heavily with social approval.The more socially accepted a product is, the more likely a buyer will be satisfied post sale,even if the product physically doesn't perform as the consumer expected. The example we evaluated were electronics firms.It's no coincidence that many of those companies pitch their wares as social enhancement tools,rather then as cell phones, computers etc.

[jkurtz7]

Another fascinating tidbit from the class ,is that post purchase emotional satisfaction with a product ties in heavily with social approval.The more socially accepted a product is, the more likely a buyer will be satisfied post sale,even if the product physically doesn't perform as the consumer expected. The example we evaluated were electronics firms.It's no coincidence that many of those companies pitch their wares as social enhancement tools,rather then as cell phones, computers etc.

So this is where all the Glock lust comes from, and why we have massive hoards of Glock apologists. My EDC right now is a G26, and I freely admit I don't like it much, and that I'm not a Glock Kool-Aid drinker, but then again I've never been one to want or need social approval from anyone. I actually like being one of the "lunatic fringe", and will on occasion carry my EG Makarov, or my Beretta 92 Vertec (carried it today actually).

[TGS]

So this is where all the Glock lust comes from, and why we have massive hoards of Glock apologists. My EDC right now is a G26, and I freely admit I don't like it much, and that I'm not a Glock Kool-Aid drinker, but then again I've never been one to want or need social approval from anyone. I actually like being one of the "lunatic fringe", and will on occasion carry my EG Makarov, or my Beretta 92 Vertec (carried it today actually).

Que meme of hipster makarov kitty..... ;)

[Tamara]

So this is where all the Glock lust comes from...

"Glock" lust? That's where all the "Whatever" lust comes from.

A person invests a nontrivial amount of time and money into the gun in their holster. This means that there is a certain amount of ego invested in there as well. When they encounter someone who has a different gun in their holster, this raises a disturbing possibility for Joe Carrier: "Maybe I was Wrong!"

Immediately Joe Carrier is thrown into defensive mode to prove that the other guy's choice was wrong, and Joe Carrier was right all along.

It can be a freeing thing to get your ego out of your holster. ;)

[Drang]

"Glock" lust? That's where all the "Whatever" lust comes from.

A person invests a nontrivial amount of time and money into the gun in their holster. This means that there is a certain amount of ego invested in there as well. When they encounter someone who has a different gun in their holster, this raises a disturbing possibility for Joe Carrier: "Maybe I was Wrong!"

Immediately Joe Carrier is thrown into defensive mode to prove that the other guy's choice was wrong, and Joe Carrier was right all along.

It can be a freeing thing to get your ego out of your holster. ;)

I am reminded of my Psych 101 prof who noted that research indicated that folks pay more attention to automotive advertising after they buy a new car, than before. They also tend to notice others driving the same model car as they do. In both cases, it was said to be an effort to (subconsciously?) validate spending a kitten load of money.

I tend to notice when someone shows the excellent taste to carry a 1911. :)
I will also note (again, I'm sure :rolleyes: ) that the only malfs I've had with my Combat Commander were ammo-related. (I might accept no-name reloads in a baggie, if they're offered for free, but don't bet on it.)

Being a Gun Crank, of course, I'm interested in guns in general, and will borrow or rent other models of gun to see what they're like. If my discretionary income is high enough I may buy guns "just because." (Rare occurrence since getting married...) But that won't necessarily change what I carry on a daily basis.
(Of course, if I come away from the FONRA Banquet next month with the P226 Mk 25...)

[Chuck Haggard]

I only started noting other people driving the same car as me when I had to find my car in a large parking lot.

[Chuck Whitlock]

"Glock" lust? That's where all the "Whatever" lust comes from.

A person invests a nontrivial amount of time and money into the gun in their holster. This means that there is a certain amount of ego invested in there as well. When they encounter someone who has a different gun in their holster, this raises a disturbing possibility for Joe Carrier: "Maybe I was Wrong!"

Immediately Joe Carrier is thrown into defensive mode to prove that the other guy's choice was wrong, and Joe Carrier was right all along.

It can be a freeing thing to get your ego out of your holster. ;)

I suppose I was a gun pseudo hipster...... I rather liked my .40 BHP and OD/BUG .40 Firestar......right up until I chipped the extractor in the Star, pre-internet. I then realized that having something a little more common might not be a bad thing, after all.

[jkurtz7]

So, my thread on the other forum that I mentioned pretty much confirmed to me why I like Pistol Forum more now than any other. 99% of other forums are pretty much full of casual plinkers who like to pontificate from a lazyboy, and like an ostrich, keep their head in the sand.

[Casual Friday]

I think mediocre is where 90% of gun owners can be found. So it makes sense from a business perspective to appeal to the masses. For example, in it's stock configuration, my S&W SD9 is a very mediocre gun. Mediocre sights and a mediocre trigger. I worked in a gun store for a while and we sold a ton of them. Every single one of them that I helped I told them of the Apex trigger kit to lighten up and smooth out the trigger pull, and that night sights for the M&P fit the SD series. Most looked at me like I was speaking a foreign language. "Why would I want night sights, I'm not a cop?" "Why would I want to mess with the trigger, it's perfect just the way it is?" Some people are fine with mediocrity. They're comfortable there with everyone else.

As for myself, I'm always looking at ways to make small improvements. Right after I bought the SD9, I ran the gun stock to make sure it would run reliably with several different ammo types then I installed the Apex spring kit. Big improvement. Later when they released an AET trigger similar to the M&P AEK trigger, I jumped on it, again an improvement. Most people who I know or have seen purchase the SD9 have did so because of the $340 price tag. When I bought mine, I did so because if fit the criteria that I have come to understand that works the best for me. Price was the last consideration I made in purchasing it.

[Casual Friday]

So, my thread on the other forum that I mentioned pretty much confirmed to me why I like Pistol Forum more now than any other. 99% of other forums are pretty much full of casual plinkers who like to pontificate from a lazyboy, and like an ostrich, keep their head in the sand.

I just read that thread. Confirmed to me as well. We have SME's with verified credentials that we can pick their brain about things. Not sure why I didn't find this forum sooner.

[GardoneVT]

Most people who I know or have seen purchase the SD9 have did so because of the $340 price tag. When I bought mine, I did so because if fit the criteria that I have come to understand that works the best for me. Price was the last consideration I made in purchasing it.

Here is the million dollar quote,because market research says this is exactly how most people DON'T buy things.

The average person, if the business stats are correct, THINKS they're making a logical choice when they buy a product.Yet according to the studies, what's really happening is their emotions decide what to buy and the logical brain finds reasons to back up the purchase. The consumer who actually sits down, collects facts,and makes a buy decision based on research is actually very rare, something like ten percent of shoppers .

Note that collecting research alone doesn't make someone a logical shopper, as most people acquire information to prop up an emotionally motivated purchase.Facts are only relevant in defending from criticism or reinforcing their emotional stance .

[Tamara]

Heck, mediocrity? It's almost like manufacturers bet on Battered Wife Syndrome: "My Kel Tec isn't malfunctioning; I walked into a door. Honest! (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?825-Lousy-QC-and-rewarding-failure-A-rant)"

[Casual Friday]

The consumer who actually sits down, collects facts,and makes a buy decision based on research is actually very rare, something like ten percent of shoppers.

That's actually the way I make purchase decisions for most things. Drives Mrs. Casual Friday crazy, but we usually make pretty good purchases as a result.

[NETim]

That's actually the way I make purchase decisions for most things. Drives Mrs. Casual Friday crazy, but we usually make pretty good purchases as a result.

When our 20+ year old washer got to the point where I couldn't keep it operating (due to lack of parts availability), we were all fired up to buy an environmentally conscious super front loading whiz bang hot rod model.

However, our research painted a picture of temperamental operation, cracked/leaking seals, strange odors and very slow wash times from actual users.

So, we bought a made in by-God USA Speed Queen commercial grade top loader that works great. Consumer reports didn't like it ('cause it uses too much water) but everybody on Amazon seemed to rave about it. :)

[TR675]

Agencies should do some testing though, otherwise these sorts of things WILL incur Murphy issues.

My agency's issues with G22s being an example, which only popped up because I insisted on testing our guns with duty ammo.

100%. Everyone needs to do this.

When I was younger and dumber I thought my M&P was aces after thousands of 115gr rounds down range with no problems.

Imagine how surprised I was when it started re-loading fired gold dot cases back into the chamber, base first. These were the same gold dots I'd been carrying without testing them for at least 3 months...

[Chuck Haggard]

100%. Everyone needs to do this.

When I was younger and dumber I thought my M&P was aces after thousands of 115gr rounds down range with no problems.

Imagine how surprised I was when it started re-loading fired gold dot cases back into the chamber, base first. These were the same gold dots I'd been carrying without testing them for at least 3 months...

^See^

Told ya so.

[Tamara]

When I was younger and dumber I thought my M&P was aces...

How can you have been "younger and dumber" with an M&P? Those things only came out, like, fifteen minutes ago! ;)

[Rich]

I only started noting other people driving the same car as me when I had to find my car in a large parking lot.

amen

[psalms144.1]

That's actually the way I make purchase decisions for most things. Drives Mrs. Casual Friday crazy, but we usually make pretty good purchases as a result.
Mrs. Psalms knows that anytime a major purchase is in order (car, major appliance, house, etc), I'm making a spreadsheet.

Our last car purchase started with a list of over 20 vehicles to look at/test drive/try to cram the kiddies (then two of them in car seats) into the back, etc. This helped rule out a bunch; then it was down to reviews, and an OBJECTIVE examination of the pro's and con's of each model. Which one "looked" nice wasn't even on the list...

Now, if I could only hold myself to this standard when it comes to getting the newest and bestest holster or flashlight, I'd have a lot more money in my bank, and a lot fewer boxes of "not quite it" stuff in the basement...

Regards,

Kevin

[TR675]

How can you have been "younger and dumber" with an M&P? Those things only came out, like, fifteen minutes ago! ;)

It's all relative. I'm pretty young and dumb to start with.

[justintime]

It's all relative. I'm pretty young and dumb to start with.

Every year I look back and think such things... I need a disclaimer tattooed on my forehead stating opinion is likely to change.

[ToddG]

Have the trainers here noticed students making excuses for a malfunctioning gun?

Every time someone tells me he has a gun with umpteen thousand rounds through it that has never had any kind of stoppage I have to assume either:


he's the single luckiest person on earth having dramatically exceeded any manufacturer's expectations or any experience I've ever had with any of the dozens of guns I've shot to high round counts or any of the hundreds of guns I've seen tested by companies, agencies, and the military, or
he's simply not remembering details because he doesn't pay attention to details in terms of his gun's performance, or
he's full of crap.


I've come to the conclusion that it's 60% #2 and 40% #3 and never really #1.

[justintime]

I just want a gun to pass the 2k challenge for once lol.