![]() ![]() How could a major manufacturer such as Remington allow a weapon (or any other product) such as your test R51 pistol out of the factory in that condition? A malfunction of any type should earn an automatic F and public embarrassment for the manufacturer. The very first article in that issue concerning the Remington R51 pistol demonstrates Larry’s point. You have the most honest and complete reviews of weapons among the firearms-related magazines, but you seem to have a blind spot about the poor workmanship in many of the weapons you review. The letter from Larry in your August 2017 issue was one of the best I have seen in 10 years of reading your publication. As a consumer, it is certainly helpful to get the information on problems that your testers encounter, but I agree with Larry that anything less than an “A-” grade is not going to be a firearm that I would consider adding to my collection. ![]() ![]() But it never should have left the factory in the first place, much less the Performance Center, in anything less than A+ working order. Smith & Wesson, as you might expect, repaired the gun under warranty, and when I got it back, it worked fine. Inserted loaded magazine, released slide to chamber round, put sights on target, pulled trigger, and NOTHING! Just a very frustrating “click.” There was apparently a problem with the firing-pin channel that was stopping the pin from contacting the primer when released by the trigger pull. In theory, this should have been a cut above the “standard factory” product, but, much to my dismay, it completely failed to fire, right out of the box. I had an experience recently with a brand-new Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm, from their Performance Center no less. I agree with him regarding A and F grades, particularly with respect to giving an F to any new gun that is not fit for purpose right out of the box. I just received my August 2017 copy of Gun Tests and read the letter from Larry, the quality engineer. I’ve found giving each gun a second chance to be a worthwhile practice. I was pleased to see your A rating on this gun years later. But after CZ sent it back, the gun has been 100% reliable and has become a favorite because it perfectly fits my old, extra-large, and arthritic hands, and provides excellent accuracy with modest recoil. You would have rated this particular pistol an F because of constant Failure to Fire and Failure to Eject problems. Your reader asks who would want to buy a gun rated at C? About 12 years ago, I bought a new CZ 83 pistol. I’ve bought three new guns requiring factory repairs because of obvious faults, but in the first case, the honorable dealer sent it back at his expense, and twice the manufacturers issued UPS pick-up paperwork, so there was initial disappointment, but all cases were resolved without any cost to me. I like your present rating methods, as you thoroughly explain the reasons for your downgrades-and I can accept or disregard your reasons as they apply to my individual needs. With GT’s help, enthusiasts soon learn which manufacturers offer premium quality as opposed to bargain guns. I agree that many gun manufacturers should have higher quality standards, but the market offers us a variety of quality and prices. A couple of comments regarding your reader’s proposed revised rating method in the August issue. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |