testtest

Bad Luck with New Guns

Bassbob said:
Wouldn't have been that one Anni. I am not a fan of the 2-tone.

So we're straight, I love the way Glocks look. I went specifically to buy one because I think they are great looking and bombproof. They just didn't feel right in my hand. Instead I ended up buying an XD Mod 2 4" .45. Which if that wouldn't have happened I would not be here on this forum right now. So if I had bonded with a Glock you guys would never have met me. :)
Click to expand...
Sorry about the two tone Glock, I may have got you and @BET7 mixed up, thought you both liked bling…….ok, I’ll shut up now and leave……🤪🤪🤪🤪
 
Annihilator said:
The SDVE series pistol took place of the ill fated Sigma series, the SD pistols are supposed to be an improvement over the Sigma, incorporating design from both the Sigma and M&P pistols, S&W got sued by Glock for patent infringement even though if you look closely at a Glock and compare it to the SD pistols, there are still a good bit of similarities between them
Click to expand...
As I understand it, the suit was settled out of court. S&W agreed to pay a royalty for each Sigma sold - so I heard - but I didn’t hear if they had to change anything design-wise. Later the Sigma was dropped, of course…
Maybe the M&Ps are not close enough to be challenged?
 
wmg1299 said:
My recent experience with new guns is making want to switch to a "used-only" policy. I already posted about my new SA-35 needing to go back to the factory due to extraction issues. When Smith & Wesson advertised their Shield Plus "Bug-Out Bundle", which includes an optics ready Shield Plus with night sights, a 1st aid kit, a sling bag, and 5 magazines for $500, I went ahead and made the purchase. I don't usually purchase new guns so close together, but I thought that the Shield Plus was too good a deal to pass up.

Right out of the box, there was a scratch in the finish and the front tritium sight was dead. I inherited my Uncle's Model 10, which was made sometime in the early 1960's, and the finish on that gun looks better than on the brand new Shield. I keep my carry guns meticulously clean and maintained, but I don't baby them, so little scratches don't bother me too much. S&W mailed me a new sight within a week, so I wasn't too mad.

I've been swapping sights for years without any problems, but the front sight on the Shield Plus was a beast. By the time I had the old one off I'd bent part of the metal on my sight tool. I'd been seriously considering buying a second Shield Plus as a truck gun before my experience with this one. I remember when S&W were considered to be high-end guns and it seemed like the company took pride in their products.

Am I just having a run of bad luck, or have the big manufacturers thrown quality control out the window in order to meet demand? Are any of you having similar experiences with new guns?
Click to expand...
wmg: may I ask - did u buy your Shield bundle from your LGS or was it a big box store (like Sportsman’s Outdoor) order that was shipped to your dealer?
 
TidalWave said:
As I understand it, the suit was settled out of court. S&W agreed to pay a royalty for each Sigma sold - so I heard - but I didn’t hear if they had to change anything design-wise. Later the Sigma was dropped, of course…
Maybe the M&Ps are not close enough to be challenged?
Click to expand...
The M&P line is totally different then the Glock no similarities between the two, the SD did make a few internal changes after the suit, I like mine and have complete faith in it
 
My long first post on this thread wasn't meant to demean or criticize any company or model. I like to try new things but keep the collection relatively small. Guns come and they go and as I got older my preferences changed. When you buy lots of guns you're probably going to get a few more problems than most LUCKIER people.
I have no luck. I have as much good luck as Rodney Dangerfield got respect. ;)
I like to tinker with them and look for reasons to get in there, too.
Anyway, the SD40 made the cut. I like it fine now.
 
conax said:
My long first post on this thread wasn't meant to demean or criticize any company or model. I like to try new things but keep the collection relatively small. Guns come and they go and as I got older my preferences changed. When you buy lots of guns you're probably going to get a few more problems than most LUCKIER people.
I have no luck. I have as much good luck as Rodney Dangerfield got respect. ;)
I like to tinker with them and look for reasons to get in there, too.
Anyway, the SD40 made the cut. I like it fine now.
Click to expand...
Hey, no problem, I knew what you meant, I don’t think anyone thought different
 
SimonRL said:
On a more positive note, I took my 9mm SS Range Officer Target to the range today and it ran flawlessly - as it always does. It went shot-for-shot with my 226 Legion RXP. Great looking, great shooting. Thanks Springfield Armory for a fantastic product!
Click to expand...
Did @KillerFord1977 shoot it or did you leave him behind……I like my RO in 9mm also, especially when I switched out the 9lb recoil spring for the 12lb, made one big difference
 
Annihilator said:
Did @KillerFord1977 shoot it or did you leave him behind……I like my RO in 9mm also, especially when I switched out the 9lb recoil spring for the 12lb, made one big difference
Click to expand...
I like to let Killer think I don’t shoot iron sights. I gotta give him some hope, right?

What sort of impact did the 12 pound spring have. Even less recoil? I have a spare 12 pounder, I’ll have to try it out.
 
Keystone19250 said:
No disrespect but $500 for the gun and all that gear? You got what you paid for.
Click to expand...
I would have to disagree about getting what I paid for. When someone pays the advertised price for any consumer product, they have a reasonable expectation that the product will function properly and will be free from defects. The legal term in Texas is the Implied Warranty of Merchantability, but it is codified legal doctrine in virtually all states under several other names. The general public has slowly stopped insisting that the products they buy actually work, and have just accepted that many products will simply arrive broken.

While you may think of $500 as a cheap gun, I have purchased dozens of other firearms for significantly less money that have functioned fine (I don't think I have ever paid more than $500 for any Ruger product). Someone who pays $150 for a Hi-Point still has a right to expect that the gun will perform in the usual and customary manner. Everyone knows that a $12,000 Kia will not be as nice as a $100,000 Mercedes, but Kia owners still have a reasonable expectation that their engines will run for a reasonable amount of time (hence why almost all states have "Lemon Laws").

If we accept "you get what you pay for" as a defense, then it becomes nearly impossible to draw a concrete line for expected levels of service. My $700 SA-35 had a faulty extractor, like several others. Should sellers and manufacturers be able to say, "The FN version of the Hi-Power costs $1300, so you get what you pay for"? If we allow this excuse, then no one would ever have a justifiable complaint about any product so long as there was a more expensive version of a similar product on the market.

I have no problem accepting the word of people who have had positive experiences with S&W, or those who just think its a run of bad luck. I could also handle expecting problems if I had bought the gun out of some guy's truck for $100. That being said, I believe that when someone pays the advertised price for a good that has travelled through the normal routes of commerce (i.e. reputable manufacturer to reputable warehouses to licensed dealers) they have a right to expect that the item will be functional and free from defects.
 
Annihilator said:
I also don’t think it left S&W like that, my guess would be from the distributor or the dealer, I hardly ever buy used unless I know the person, I buy new
Click to expand...
I fully agree with only buying used from individuals or dealers you trust. I want to believe S&W wouldn't ship a flawed item, but my experiences with them during a previous shortage keep me from fully trusting their quality control.

I was working as a LEO at a mid-size PD (about 400 officers) in 2008 when there was another mad rush for guns because people feared that the Obama administration was going to outlaw everything they could get away with. For generations, the S&W J-Frame had been the trusted backup for officers (at that time a Glock 26 was considered "small"). When officers purchased S&W 642's that year, a couple of them had noticeably crooked barrels. We allowed several smaller departments to use our range for qualifications, and heard of others experiencing similar issues. The problem got even more attention when S&W claimed that one of the guns was, "within acceptable specifications".

This is my only negative experience with S&W, and I have purchased several of their products since. Unfortunately, the issue still lingers in my mind when I see quality control issues during a raging market.
 
wmg1299 said:
I fully agree with only buying used from individuals or dealers you trust. I want to believe S&W wouldn't ship a flawed item, but my experiences with them during a previous shortage keep me from fully trusting their quality control.

I was working as a LEO at a mid-size PD (about 400 officers) in 2008 when there was another mad rush for guns because people feared that the Obama administration was going to outlaw everything they could get away with. For generations, the S&W J-Frame had been the trusted backup for officers (at that time a Glock 26 was considered "small"). When officers purchased S&W 642's that year, a couple of them had noticeably crooked barrels. We allowed several smaller departments to use our range for qualifications, and heard of others experiencing similar issues. The problem got even more attention when S&W claimed that one of the guns was, "within acceptable specifications".

This is my only negative experience with S&W, and I have purchased several of their products since. Unfortunately, the issue still lingers in my mind when I see quality control issues during a raging market.
Click to expand...
I sometimes wonder to what degree the relocation of manufacturers from their traditional /original “homes” to “2A friendly states” or regions impacts the quality ? I mean, we seem to cheer these moves from the sidelines (with at least some justification) and presumably the ‘patriotic applause’ (for lack of a better way to say it) that seems to follow also helps their sales….
Wonder too if there’s any warranty or CS data openly available that would help the buyer do a little informed bewaring ??
 
wmg1299 said:
I would have to disagree about getting what I paid for. When someone pays the advertised price for any consumer product, they have a reasonable expectation that the product will function properly and will be free from defects. The legal term in Texas is the Implied Warranty of Merchantability, but it is codified legal doctrine in virtually all states under several other names. The general public has slowly stopped insisting that the products they buy actually work, and have just accepted that many products will simply arrive broken.

While you may think of $500 as a cheap gun, I have purchased dozens of other firearms for significantly less money that have functioned fine (I don't think I have ever paid more than $500 for any Ruger product). Someone who pays $150 for a Hi-Point still has a right to expect that the gun will perform in the usual and customary manner. Everyone knows that a $12,000 Kia will not be as nice as a $100,000 Mercedes, but Kia owners still have a reasonable expectation that their engines will run for a reasonable amount of time (hence why almost all states have "Lemon Laws").

If we accept "you get what you pay for" as a defense, then it becomes nearly impossible to draw a concrete line for expected levels of service. My $700 SA-35 had a faulty extractor, like several others. Should sellers and manufacturers be able to say, "The FN version of the Hi-Power costs $1300, so you get what you pay for"? If we allow this excuse, then no one would ever have a justifiable complaint about any product so long as there was a more expensive version of a similar product on the market.

I have no problem accepting the word of people who have had positive experiences with S&W, or those who just think its a run of bad luck. I could also handle expecting problems if I had bought the gun out of some guy's truck for $100. That being said, I believe that when someone pays the advertised price for a good that has travelled through the normal routes of commerce (i.e. reputable manufacturer to reputable warehouses to licensed dealers) they have a right to expect that the item will be functional and free from defects.
Click to expand...
wmg: your post is dead right. As an aside, I’ll add that two contributing factors play a very strong and subtle role: 1) we began adopting disposable products on a wide scale in the 1970s, and 2) our wealth has increased dramatically in the post WW2 decades (never mind what you see in the media, what social studies academics tell us, and occasional downturns- the upward graph is distinct). Point is, consumers have subconsciously adopted a “throw it away and get another” mentality. [gun: shelve it or sell at a loss].

I was once looking at a Walmart sales flyer that had a Remington rifle & scope package and a buddy of mine pointed out that it “wasn’t a real Remington”. He said they were “made specifically for Walmart”. I said I don’t doubt it, but it’s the exact same model number and advertised as such. He said Yeah, but the SKU is different (or something like that). I said Yeah, well… it’s still supposed to be a blankety-blank, and it’s supposed to work right, same as a blankety-blank*….
What’s your opinion on all that?

* I did not, never have and never will buy a gun from Walmart - but I have bought from Academy, and considered Outdoorsman Supply - but does OS operate like WM?
 
Last edited:
TidalWave said:
wmg: your post is dead right. As an aside, I’ll add that two contributing factors play a very strong and subtle role: we began adopting disposable products on a wide scale in the 1970s, and our wealth has increased dramatically in the post WW2 decades (never mind what you see in the media, what social studies academics tell us, and occasional downturns- the upward graph is distinct).

I was once looking at a Walmart sales flyer that had a Remington rifle & scope package and a buddy of mine pointed out that it “wasn’t a real Remington”. He said they were “made specifically for Walmart”. I said I don’t doubt it, but it’s the exact same model number and advertised as such. He said Yeah, but the SKU is different (or something like that). I said Yeah, well… it’s still supposed to be a blankety-blank, and it’s supposed to work right, same as a blankety-blank*….
What’s your opinion on all that?

* I did not, never have and never will buy a gun from Walmart - but I have bought from Academy, and considered Outdoorsman Supply…
Click to expand...
During my time working for Marlin Firearms we made two models of the Model 60 Semi Auto 22 one was for Walmart which had a different cut in the butt of the stock otherwise both were identical.
 
Keystone19250 said:
During my time working for Marlin Firearms we made two models of the Model 60 Semi Auto 22 one was for Walmart which had a different cut in the butt of the stock otherwise both were identical.
Click to expand...
Ok…but as you state it, they were two models, right ??
I, Mr Consumer, interpret that to mean like 123A versus 123B - and I know exactly what’s advertised….


(ps - I do know what your getting at, Lol. I personally think anything made specifically for WM oughta require a “W” added to the model or product #/name. Not just a one digit difference in the sku… or is that happening already somehow and I just don’t know it ?? )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top