Every manufacturer has a weak spot

Ruger handguns.......attention to details. A coworker had a 22-45 with an adjustable rear sight. The sight wasnt centered enough to get the windage zeroed. A revolver in which one of chambers in the cylinder was tight. Once you shot a few rounds and a little soot got into the chamber.....it got really tight to insert a round.
 
SC380 said:
Worst suggestion ever.

Those plastic sights add a dollar or less to the cost of the gun. With all of the sights available and the fact that some people like really junky but expensive sights...I'd prefer to waste a dollar on plastic sights and remove and put on what I want as opposed to paying 20-100 more per gun and still have to replace the sights.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Glock could add basic, steel sights for next to nothing, like every other manufacturer does. Then people wouldn’t have to add “really junky but expensive sights” (whatever that even means) unless they really wanted to.
 
Derek8404 said:
Bullshit. Glock could add basic, steel sights for next to nothing, like every other manufacturer does. Then people wouldn’t have to add “really junky but expensive sights” (whatever that even means) unless they really wanted to.
Click to expand...

You might be right, basic steel sights are all the rage with the LEOs, concealed carriers, and competition shooters. Glock should probably throw away those extra millions in profits to give the market what it demands. All those other manufacturers with slumping sales and in and out of bankruptcy can probably teach Glock a thing or two.
 
SC380 said:
You might be right, basic steel sights are all the rage with the LEOs, concealed carriers, and competition shooters. Glock should probably throw away those extra millions in profits to give the market what it demands. All those other manufacturers with slumping sales and in and out of bankruptcy can probably teach Glock a thing or two.
Click to expand...

No, maybe you’re right..all manufactures should take a clue from Glock and add trash plastic sights to their guns because all the CCW, LEO and competition shooters are gonna add “really junky but expensive sights” anyway. That’s brilliant, you should contact the companies that keep almost going bankrupt and save them.....

Welcome to the forum by the way.
 
Last edited:
I could have worded it better but what I was saying is that in addition to the those who want basic steel sights, there are people who think Glock should come with big dots, all sorts of trijicon/amerglo copies, and a wide assortment of garbage fiber optic 3 dot things. None of them particularly cheap. As soon as they add basic steel sights to make one whiner happy there will be another whiner one not far behind with his brilliant suggestion about what sight nobody wants that Glock should put on their guns.

The placeholder sights are great because they work, they reduce the inventory/sourcing complexity for Glock, and they save most of us a bit of money. There is always some simpleton that will bitch about the dumbest things...they don't matter.
 
Last edited:
SC380 said:
I could have worded it better but what I was saying is that in addition to the those who want basic steel sights, there are people who think Glock should come with big dots, all sorts of trijicon/amerglo copies, and a wide assortment of garbage fiber optic 3 dot things. None of them particularly cheap. As soon as they add basic steel sights to make one whiner happy there will be another whiner one not far behind with his brilliant suggestion about what sight nobody wants that Glock should put on their guns.

The placeholder sights are great because they work, they reduce the inventory/sourcing complexity for Glock, and they save most of us a bit of money. There is always some simpleton that will bitch about the dumbest things...they don't matter.
Click to expand...

You act like this is a crazy thing to ask for; that Glock have their guns come STANDARD with steel sights. It’s not going to drive their cost way up, it’s a very simple improvement that they should do. I’m certainly not saying that they should make Trijicon HDs standard and not charge any more, that would be retarded to think that. I am saying that they need to ditch this POS plastic sights and make steel sights the standard, you know....like dang near every...single....other manufacturer does. But what do I know? This is just anothe “whiner’s” opinion....
 
Wow...reading through this thread and hearing both complaints AND praise for various customer services makes me realize that I might be the luckiest man on the planet.

At one time or another, I have owned something from Sig, HK, S&W, Walther, Ruger, Kahr, Springfield, CZ, Canik, Bersa, Magnum Research, Glock, Beretta, FN, and maybe something Im forgetting...I have NEVER needed customers service from any of them.
Not once.
I'm gonna go knock on wood now and contemplate the crappy factory sights on the Glocks and CZs...
 
Geezer said:
Has anyone actually had a problem with the Glock factory plastic sights? I have a 1991 G19 that still has the original sights. It is in rotation with my G43 as a daily carry and has been carried a lot. I have changed sights on Glocks before but never because the original sights wouldn't work.
Click to expand...


I had a problem. I pulled one of my Glocks out of the safe & the rear sight hit the corner of the safe & tore half of the right side off. My fault, but hey... I did the same thing with the Ameriglo Pro I-Dot & it just flattened the corner of the rear sight a little bit. Still usable. lol! :D
 
Last edited:
draco88 said:
Wow...reading through this thread and hearing both complaints AND praise for various customer services makes me realize that I might be the luckiest man on the planet.

At one time or another, I have owned something from Sig, HK, S&W, Walther, Ruger, Kahr, Springfield, CZ, Canik, Bersa, Magnum Research, Glock, Beretta, FN, and maybe something Im forgetting...I have NEVER needed customers service from any of them.
Not once.
I'm gonna go knock on wood now and contemplate the crappy factory sights on the Glocks and CZs...
Click to expand...
If those were such good guns, how come you didn't keep 'em? :p
 
SC380 said:
I could have worded it better but what I was saying is that in addition to the those who want basic steel sights, there are people who think Glock should come with big dots, all sorts of trijicon/amerglo copies, and a wide assortment of garbage fiber optic 3 dot things. None of them particularly cheap. As soon as they add basic steel sights to make one whiner happy there will be another whiner one not far behind with his brilliant suggestion about what sight nobody wants that Glock should put on their guns.

The placeholder sights are great because they work, they reduce the inventory/sourcing complexity for Glock, and they save most of us a bit of money. There is always some simpleton that will bitch about the dumbest things...they don't matter.
Click to expand...

Man, I've been shooting Glock handguns since the Gen 2 days & those plastic sights have always been the weakest link. I've broken one set & chopped the corners off too many to count. Nowadays the first thing I do is replace the plastic sights with steel & I have a weapon I can fully trust. I can understand being a Glock fan (because I am one) but don't justify those crappy sights. Just don't do it.

If Larry Vickers says the first thing to do to a Glock is change the sights then you need to listen. He's put more rounds through Glocks than me. you & half the guys on this forum combined. Of course you probably think he's a simpleton & a whiner too. LOL!
 
Last edited:
I have had 5 Tauri. Two went back twice. I now have 2 Tauri. I have sent one S&W back. It was a gift and had been used as a parts gun. When it came back it was as New! I have never sent any other of the hundreds I have owned back to their mfg. 1911s do what 1911s do. I can work around their flaws. I have Colts, a Les Baer, a Kimber. a Fusion, a Sig, and a few hand made ones. They all do the same things. Again, I can live with them. The worst out of the box guns I have seen here [a lot] have been Sigs.
 
Teacher said:
Man, I've been shooting Glock handguns since the Gen 2 days & those plastic sights have always been the weakest link. I've broken one set & chopped the corners off too many to count. Nowadays the first thing I do is replace the plastic sights with steel & I have a weapon I can fully trust. I can understand being a Glock fan (because I am one) but don't justify those crappy sights. Just don't do it.

If Larry Vickers says the first thing to do to a Glock is change the sights then you need to listen. He's put more rounds through Glocks than me. you & half the guys on this forum combined. Of course you probably think he's a simpleton & a whiner too. LOL!
Click to expand...

LAV also says for most right handed shooters to drift the sight to the right. ;)
 
Over the years I have owned Sigs, Colts, Bersas, CZs, Sphinx, Dan Wesson, Steyr, Guncrafter, Wilson, HK, Walther, S&W, Norinco, FN, FN/Browning, Remington, Beretta, Ruger, Les Baer, etc.... Of these guns I have sent a few back to the factory for one reason or another.

Sig P220 ST would not extract because of a defective extractor design. Went back twice and sold with full disclosure.
Sig GSR the extractor pin walked out on the external extractor factory replacement only. Fixed it then I sold it.
Sig P320 because I couldn't drop it anymore.
CZ Shadow 2 for a finish issue. They Urban Gray stripped right off due to poor prep. CZs metal prep on these guns is terrible. They replaced the pistol.
S&W 642 stainless like finish does not like my sweat. Sent it back for a refinish within a year finish wear was back.
Colt WWI Reproduction Carbonia Blue had a recoil tunnel which was off center. They replaced the pistol.
Sphinx Sub Compact had extractor issues and the chamber was too tight. They replaced the extractor, barrel and did a trigger job for me. 100% now.
Steyr S40 suffered frame damage and had to be replaced too 12 months and I sold it unfired.

In the past decade I think Sig has had the most out of the box problems with their guns. They don't IMHO finish their R&D. They get a pistol 85%-90% of the way done and let the first adopters be beta testers. They tweak the design during the first year of production and generally by year 2 they have a functioning pistol. Friends don't let friends buy Gen 1 Sigs. Ruger has also had these types of teething issues but like Sig generally after the shake out ends up with a solid reliable gun.

In todays mass market it is a race to the bottom. Except for the high end 1911 and custom gun market no one is making a gun to the best spec they can and then pricing it. They are either responding to a contract which drives the cost down but gains economy of scale or they see a "need" and look to fill it at a price point. In both scenarios the designers are told I need a gun with this spec, made out of these materials, with this capacity and I need it for X $$$ production cost so I can sell it at Y. They therefore cut corners. They trim pennies. The quality across the board suffers but we as the consumer want $350-$500 do all wonder 9mms and the vast amount of gun owners in this country are not willing or looking to pay more. So yes every manufacturer has a weakness but it is moving target. It does not stay the same it changes as the lineup changes.
 
CZfool68 said:
The look nice, but for me they are missing a key component. I like my hammers.
Click to expand...
I've got plenty of those too..

in the garage. :p

Seriously, I've also got 2 or 3 older hammer-fired Smiths. :(
 
Jeppo said:
I've got plenty of those too..

in the garage. :p

Seriously, I've also got 2 or 3 older hammer-fired Smiths. :(
Click to expand...

I have owned and shot striker fired guns, they just aren't my favorites. I'll add one or more at some point so I don't confuse any low IQ shooters I may take to the range with that funny looking hammer thingy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom