Shooting Gallery Has Jumped The Shark

[Michael Bane]

Realistically, Tom, the whole "POS with poor workmanship" is mostly th  fevered fantasies of Internet fanboys...in this market and under current regulations, a real POS with shoddy workmanship would result in the company being sued into the Twilight Zone. Does anybody really believe that gun companies conspire to put out special guns that don't work, are inaccurate or made of failure prone materials?  When they do screw up, as Ruger did with the SR9, it costs them millions to make it right, which came right off their bottom line... And it's worth noting the company caught the problem long before it was an issue with end users.

The gigantic vast majority of Internet venom about POS guns comes down to, "I don't like it," "I have wildly unrealistic expectations," or "I'm too damn cheap to buy anything but crap ammunition and I'm puzzled why it doesn't work well." Cheap stuff doesn't have the fit or finish of expensive stuff...surprise. All guns are ammo-sensitive to some degree...surprise. If it's a new gun and there's a problem with it, the gun companies will stand behind their product..surprise.  All guns fail occasionally...as do all things made by human hands...surprise. 99% of the guns made today will shoot better than their owners can hold...surprise.

There are definitely individual POS guns...I've had my share. But when I got another example they worked as specified. I'm luckier than most because I get to shoot a larger sample of guns than most, and when you shoot more than one sample you have a very different view. And when I have a problem with a gun, I ask for an explanation from the company...how did this happen and what steps are you taking to make sure it doesn't happen again? I have walked into gun companies and asked to see their rework line, then counted the number of guns in for repair. I've sat in customer service departments and discussed customers and problems. I've taken issues I've heard on the Internet to manufacturers and asked whether the problems were true.

It frustrates me, to be sure. If I could find a freakin' toaster that worked half as well as the crummiest  gun I've ever bought, I'd be a happy man!

Michael B

[PegLeg45]

The gigantic vast majority of Internet venom about POS guns comes down to, "I don't like it," "I have wildly unrealistic expectations," or "I'm too damn cheap to buy anything but crap ammunition and I'm puzzled why it doesn't work well." Cheap stuff doesn't have the fit or finish of expensive stuff...surprise. All guns are ammo-sensitive to some degree...surprise. If it's a new gun and there's a problem with it, the gun companies will stand behind their product..surprise.  All guns fail occasionally...as do all things made by human hands...surprise. 99% of the guns made today will shoot better than their owners can hold...surprise.

Michael B

Pretty much brings the face of the hammer in contact with the head of the nail.......... IMHO, FWIW.

[tombogan03884]

Pretty much brings the face of the hammer in contact with the head of the nail.......... IMHO, FWIW.

Not really.
While I will agree that the threat of law suits coupled with the comparing of notes the internet allows limits the amount of true POS guns available MB's answer is not entirely true.
For example, the Ruger LCP, when that came out it was like revealed truth.
Crap, it's nothing more or less than a Kel Tec clone.
I could put a rail and Crimson Trace grips on a Dragoon Colt and there is not a person in the industry who would say "It's nothing but a dressed up obsolete abortion". No, they would brag about it's "tactical innovation".
Heard any of the "Professionals tell the truth about the  "tactical lever action" (Mossberg IIRC ) with the AR collapsible stock ?
The fact is that it is ugly and looks ridiculous .
Some one who actually called BS on stupidity like this, or the double 1911 cobbled together in a recent thread would be a much needed breath of fresh air.

[JLawson]

The fact is that it is ugly and looks ridiculous .

Some will agree... and some will disagree.  Appearance is in the eye of the beholder.  As with any other product, consumers base their purchasing decisions on many things... appearance, perceived value, brand, price, etc.  I think one's opinion of that gun is also determined, in part, by previous experience or ownership of traditional lever guns.  The more "mature" among us (and I can be counted here) may view this departure from the traditional lever gun as simply too extreme - and therefore "ugly."  We must remember, though, that consumers new to the gun culture will not have these same biases.  The marketplace will determine whether or not that particular firearm succeeds.

[Rastus]

I agree with the quote from Tom below:

Gun ownership among the general public seems to have exploded in the past few years.
the increase in "why competition shows are suddenly more popular" could be related to new shooters looking for a recreational purpose other than hunting and plinking.
Just a thought.

A separate mechanism for the popularity increase in competition shows, I believe, is that name recognition of the major players is "taking off".  Feeding this name recognition are the Outdoor Channel shows and other network shows who have been "name dropping" for years.  Viewers are getting to know the players and that makes it interesting.  I suppose you could say the shows have been promoting and developing their product and now people know about it....marketing of a sorts.

Some viewers, like myself, have/had an opportunity to compete and actually see the major players in action which clinches the deal in name recognition and interest.  Phil Strader's Pro-Am allowed me to compete on my beginning level next to and in squads with the major players.  I don't think my case is isolated and that situations like this grow interest steadily.  In the case of Mike (m58) he already had a thing for Julie and getting to shoot in her squad put him over the top....I'm just sayin'....  

MB, I wonder if "Wednesday Night On The Range" viewership number's over the last few years correlates with interest in competition?  An increase in viewership % may correlate with a corresponding % increase in competition interest.  I would expect, if my first paragraph statement has validitiy, that there would be a lag between increases in viewership and increases in competition interest.  I would also anticipate that once the lag period, if it exists, is over that the increase in competition interest would outstrip viewership increases for a while.  Whether the suppositions are true or not, something fueling a real increase in competition interest may be ongoing from the evidence you presented and perhaps last year enjoyed a tipping point for competition shows.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

Some will agree... and some will disagree.  Appearance is in the eye of the beholder.  As with any other product, consumers base their purchasing decisions on many things... appearance, perceived value, brand, price, etc.  I think one's opinion of that gun is also determined, in part, by previous experience or ownership of traditional lever guns.  The more "mature" among us (and I can be counted here) may view this departure from the traditional lever gun as simply too extreme - and therefore "ugly."  We must remember, though, that consumers new to the gun culture will not have these same biases.  The marketplace will determine whether or not that particular firearm succeeds.

Here's my thinking specifically on that lever action .
We have had several discussions on here about the lever gun for "tactical" ( I have come to hate that word ) uses.
The upshot is that it is 150 year old technology, however it's association with cowboys , and historic connotations make it acceptable to the mainstream public in places where "evil black rifles" are not, or are regulated or prohibited.
By adding all that tacticool crap you lose that advantage turning the rifle into a poor imitation of something it isn't.
If you want to sell me a modern carbine do that, don't dress up an antique and try to tell me it's something else.
Putting a tutu on a hippo doesn't make it a ballerina, but you have never heard that from the "gun media".

[Timothy]

The tacticool Mossberg lever action, while being a bit silly, is completely illegal to buy here in MA!

Kinda makes Toms point...I can buy any lever action rifle made with the exception of that one!

[PegLeg45]

Not really.
While I will agree that the threat of law suits coupled with the comparing of notes the internet allows limits the amount of true POS guns available MB's answer is not entirely true.
For example, the Ruger LCP, when that came out it was like revealed truth.
Crap, it's nothing more or less than a Kel Tec clone.
I could put a rail and Crimson Trace grips on a Dragoon Colt and there is not a person in the industry who would say "It's nothing but a dressed up obsolete abortion". No, they would brag about it's "tactical innovation".
Heard any of the "Professionals tell the truth about the  "tactical lever action" (Mossberg IIRC ) with the AR collapsible stock ?
The fact is that it is ugly and looks ridiculous .
Some one who actually called BS on stupidity like this, or the double 1911 cobbled together in a recent thread would be a much needed breath of fresh air.

I don't disagree with you, but it still all boils down to OPINION.

Which why I was agreeing 100% with the excerpted part of what MB says.
Like it or not, industry standards pretty much mean that for the most part, guns work out of the box and folks can take them or leave them as they see fit. How many gun makers out there are making 'clones' of other guns and/or their design? The 1911? Glock? Basically all the plastic fantastic guns are a derivative (with some design mods of the Big G).

You ain't gonna get too many folks in the industry to sh!t where they eat, and I agree with you 100% that it would be refreshing to actually see it, but by and large it ain't gonna happen.


Public opinion and sales cause the ebb and flow.

Some will agree... and some will disagree.  Appearance is in the eye of the beholder.  As with any other product, consumers base their purchasing decisions on many things... appearance, perceived value, brand, price, etc.  I think one's opinion of that gun is also determined, in part, by previous experience or ownership of traditional lever guns.  The more "mature" among us (and I can be counted here) may view this departure from the traditional lever gun as simply too extreme - and therefore "ugly."  We must remember, though, that consumers new to the gun culture will not have these same biases.  The marketplace will determine whether or not that particular firearm succeeds.

Take the Hi-Point for example......ugly as a train wreck....clunky.....heavy for caliber......but I've shot several and like the Glock, they go BANG every time you press the go-lever.......and for 1/4 the price of "big name' pistols. That is why they are still around and why they sell.

[tombogan03884]

There are still guns out there that fall in to the category of crap, take the Sig Mosquito for example,
Based on owner, (and former owner) comments posted on here, 8 out of 10 DON'T "go bang when the trigger is pulled".
Wasn't there a thread a couple years ago about the Rorbaugh pistol maker saying their pistol would be good for around 5000 rounds, it was not designed for high volume use ?
A $1000+ .380 with a limited life span is a POS I don't care who you are.

[Michael Bane]

Tom...I do need to correct one point here...the lever action rifle is an efficient self-defense tool in and of itself, not simply because it's more PC in certain jurisdictions. The tool works, and works well. You may not like the looks of the Mossberg product, but that's your opinion. But looks have nothing to do with the gun's efficiency as a self-defense tool. In fact, adjustable stocks actually are pretty useful accessories if you have students. Because you don't like the look, color, ergonomics, tail fins, brand name of ANYTHING doesn't mean that thing is "bad," only that you don't like it.

The Boberg @ 5000 rounds working life? I believe when te military adopted the Beretta 92, 5000 rounds was the specified working life for a military pistol. I'd rather know what the manufacturer was thinking when the gun was designed. Also, I seriously doubt an ultralight small framed .357 revolver would survive 5000 rounds of 125-gr JHPs. Another one of my touchstones is that ALL tools have both specific uses and specific limitations. If I wanted to shoot hot .357s every day of my life, I would choose the appropriate tool to let me accomplish that goal...and it wouldn't be an aluminum/scandium/polymer frame snub.

And BTW, why do you suppose Kel-Tec didn't sue Ruger, Taurus, et omnes for patent violations?  Hmmmmmmm...maybe because there weren't any patents, because the Kel-Tec .32s and .380s were nothing more than the logical extension of a pocket pistol line that goes all the way back to John Browning? Exactly the same reason everybody and his dog Fred makes 1911s...guns are old, old technology, and there's very little "stunning innovation" involved. To use a music analogy, it's more a question of how well your orchestra interprets Beethoven than the ability to write brand new forms of symphonies.

The Ruger LCP is one of the best-selling handguns of modern times; the Kel-Tec is a footnote. Why might that be? The free market is indeed heartless, but it remains the very best way for large groups of people to relate to each other on an economic landscape. I believe in the market.

Michael B