
Originally Posted by
ToddG
A few thoughts for my first post:
[*] While I appreciate the sentiment some people put forth about "waiting for a gun to be out a while before I trust it," your thought process is misguided. While you wait five years for the M&P to become seasoned, Glock, SIG, Beretta, and HK are all making changes to their guns (materials, dimensional specifications, subvendors, quality control processes, etc.) that you don't even know about. People see a problem with an M&P and they immediately think, "It's that new car smell ... and I don't like it." See a problem with a Glock and they blame something else. But in both cases, it was either a design, material, or QC problem.
Thanks for posting, Todd, and welcome. Good to see you here.
I agree with the bulk of your list, but less so the above. I count myself as one disinclined to be a guinea pig (beyond T&E, beta testing, etc) with new designs.
It's true that manufacturers make tweaks to a design throughout it's existence. Most are undisclosed by the manufacturer and unknown by the consumer (until performance anomaly). However, they tend to be less frequent, less substantial in form, and less dramatic in effect than those made to a new offering early in its life.
This is by necessity, of course, as an issues early in a design life must be corrected quickly, else sales and reputation suffer.
An established design is indeed "seasoned", and will bear an anomalous result of a tweak to material, dims, process, or QC much better.
It's that seasoning that makes the existing design more worthy of trust, than the newcomer.
I'm glad for new and innovating things, and the refinement of the existing. I just marvel at the willingness some have to sign on to some so early, and the things at stake when they do.
(No reference to, or swipe at, a specific brand or model expressed or implied.)
2012 National Zumba Endurance Champion
الدهون القاع الفتيات لك جعل العالم هزاز جولة الذهاب
Bookmarks