Glock Talk banner
1 - 3 of 3 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
39,707 Posts
It's not like this is another R51 ... :p

The enhanced version of the P365 will probably contain any needed revisions and QC process refinements.

Probably keeping them busy, though, coming on the heels of the P320 refinements for all the previously sold guns. :eek:uttahere:

Just kidding. It's hardly a shock that a completely new gun design (and a really diminutive one, at that) might experience some teething problems with its first rollout.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
39,707 Posts
Man...I don't know. I manage a team of product managers. If they rolled out product that had teething problems, they'd be looking for another job. Those issues cost companies significant revenue. The maximum failure rate I'll accept is 3%....and people are staking their life on the product we make.
I'd be surprised if the maximum failure rate on the guns already produced was as high as 3%, but has SIG even released production numbers so far?

One of the things with guns is that the manufacturer can really only test using their people and good quality factory ammunition before they release a new gun into the wild. Then, an unsuspected manufacturing QC issue might come along and surprise everyone.

It's not uncommon to hear it said that gun companies have no actual control over some pretty critical influences, such as the shooter (knowledge, experience and the way the gun is used); the ammunition (QC, over/under-powered); the owner maintenance (cleaning, lubrication, products used, etc); and the environmental conditions (in which the gun is used).

This can make for a pretty big Venn Diagram of critical influences for a diminutive mechanical device that is expected, in normal conditions, to operate violently (being fired). Now, toss in any unexpected, and likely unrecognized (at the time), manufacturing or materials issues (whether involving gun maker or vendor parts/assemblies).

Did we mention that it's a really diminutive pistol, and smaller pistols are often observed to be less tolerant of all the major influences that may be at work (shooter, ammo, cleaning & lubrication, shooting conditions)?

Helluva time for the engineers to now realize they could revise or refine something regarding some aspect of the design specs, of their manufacturing, or something with any vendor supplied parts, too.

Another potential "ah hell" moment might be involved regarding the number of guns already produced. If they borrowed a page from S&W's recent way to bring a new little gun to market (Shield 9), they may have quietly produced many ten's of thousands of the new guns before even announcing them, so they could immediately pump them into the market place as soon as the official announcement was being made. Now, they've not only got to deal with any minor design revisions and/or manufacturing changes for new guns going to be being produced, but they may have a respectable number of already-produced/shipped guns that may end up having to be corrected to satisfy the first customers.

I've listened to at least a couple of gun companies discuss their experiences with ongoing revisions and refinements in this regard, in armorer classes, preparing armorers to be able to identify and resolve any issues that have been identified with earlier production guns, parts, assemblies, etc. Of course, they've also cleared up some rumors and allayed some concerns about publicly rumored "problems" that were eventually determined to involve an issue with a specific type/line of ammunition (which might've been an ammo spec or QC problem), or misapplication of some other product (solvents, lubes, etc), and even some subsequently identified owner modification or changes. Playing "catch up" can be hell.

Guess we'll see what this involves, but I'd be surprised if the company's engineers weren't able to quickly get on top of whatever they've identified that needs to be addressed, revised, etc. It wouldn't be surprising if the "PR" issue were to last longer than whatever actual issues were involved, in the first place. The public can be suspicious and touchy.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
39,707 Posts
Funny. Whenever I am involved in training and the whole class must stop because someone's gun quit running, it's always the guy with the 1911.
The last couple of outside classes where I was a student, and not a trainer, the stoppages that required some pause of the shooting lines were experienced by 2 guys shooting issued Glocks (.40's) and a guy shooting an issued USP 45. The last patrol rifle class I was helping teach in-house (but for an outside agency) had a couple guys using Glocks experience some feeding issues. The agency's armorer was one of them.

You teach enough classes, and attend enough classes as a student, and sooner or later you get to see everyone's guns (meaning manufacturers) occasionally having a hiccup, or a choking fit. ;)

Now, 1911's that have been "improved" & "modified" by private owners? All bets are off. That's like all the people who improve and modify their Glocks, and then post online asking how to correct feeding & other functioning issues. :p
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
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