Why do we accept cost cutting measures?

[TheEngineer]

"They don't make them like they used to" is a phrase that we've all heard many times when it comes to rifles.
But there's nothing stopping them from making them like they used to is there?

Magazines, bottom "metals", bolt shrouds, etc., all seem to be made of plastic on not just entry level rifles, but mid level (Tikka, CZ), and also higher end rifles (Blaser, Steyr).

The likes of Howa are putting out sub-£1000 rifles with metal floorplates, Winchester and Ruger are still putting out £1200 and £1500 rifles with all metal components (stocks aside), while Sako and Shultz & Larsen show that you can still get a sub £2000 rifle with detachable steel magazines without having to resort to plastic components.

So why are so many rifles sold where build quality has obviously been sacrificed to increase profit margins?

Is it marketing?
Is it "reviewers" (paid promoters really) pushing these types of rifles at the behest of the industry?

Just interested to get peoples thoughts!

 

[nun_hunter]

People assume plastic is worse than metal when for the purpose it is intended for it works just fine.

To break a tikka plastic trigger guard you'd still damage a metal guard, maybe just bend it or dent it but still damage it. But the plastic guard is cheaper to produce and replace too.

Also plastic tooling for manufacturing can be more expensive to initially produce and set up. A CNC machine for milling aluminium or wood can churn out anything (within reason) with just programming, whereas designing and making tooling for injection moulding is very expensive initially but saves time later. GRS did a good video on this while developing the Berserk and Bifrost stocks.

So what seems cheap or a backward step is often inovation using methods not previously viable.

 

[75]

I suspect if you look at the accounts over the last 20 years for the companies you've listed then they will be making very much the same profit margin they were back then. Folk want cheap kit so as the cost of labour and materials goes up, they have to minimise cost where they can to stay in business. I don't think there's any conspiracy theory about escalating profit margins in the industry, just simple market economics.

 

[Acm]

I’ve a couple of plastic rifles I use for work and my last new tikka (2022) was £880 ex vat to me. At that price point I have no issue with plastic parts if they’re fit for purpose, which they are.
What gets me is blaser etc marketing rifles with “premium Plastic” in all honesty I suspect the raw materials are worth about 2% of the cost of these rifles, the majority of cost going to aggressive marketing etc
I’ve always thought “premium plastic” to make about as much sense as a “nice headache”

 

[KimE]

So why are so many rifles sold where build quality has obviously been sacrificed to increase profit margins

Quality are better but the materials are cheaper. In the 1990 you could buy cheap rifles made by wood and steel and it was the build quality what was sacrifised, now its a standard plastic stock and mechanised manufacture.

 

[User00040]

"They don't make them like they used to" is a phrase that we've all heard many times when it comes to rifles.

Look up the prices of rifles in the 1960's, then add inflation.

In general, bolt action rifles are cheaper to buy now vs. then.

But there's nothing stopping them from making them like they used to is there?

Yes, price.

The market for a USD 2-4k+ rifle is much smaller than the USD500 and under market.



The 'Big 5'/London Best lot are still doing the wood and blued rubbish with pointless engraving if you have the coin.

 

[TheEngineer]

Look up the prices of rifles in the 1960's, then add inflation.

In general, bolt action rifles are cheaper to buy now vs. then.



Yes, price.

The market for a USD 2-4k+ rifle is much smaller than the USD500 and under market.

View attachment 332291

The 'Big 5'/London Best lot are still doing the wood and blued rubbish with pointless engraving if you have the coin.

So in my above post I have called out some manufacturers that still use all steel or at least metal for their magazines and other components at different price points.
I guess what I'm trying to say is why would someone choose a rifle with plastic componants when there are rifles with metal componants available at the same price point?
Sub-£1000, £1000-£2000, £2000+?

I know the plastic mags etc., work "well enough" but why not just take advantage of the better material and get better longevity and strength when there is no or little extra cost?

 

[palo]

So in my above post I have called out some manufacturers that still use all steel or at least metal for their magazines and other components at different price points.
I guess what I'm trying to say is why would someone choose a rifle with plastic componants when there are rifles with metal componants available at the same price point?
Sub-£1000, £1000-£2000, £2000+?

I know the plastic mags etc., work "well enough" but why not just take advantage of the better material and get better longevity and strength when there is no or little extra cost?

In my case I bought tikka rifles because they have very good actions, barrels and triggers . The plastic bits I didn't like I replaced with aftermarket metal ones.

 

[Bowland blades]

They use plastic and make long actions for 223 rifles blocking them up with plastic simply because folks still buy them . not me but plenty do ! They will continue in this vein till folks leave the rifles on the shelf . Its massively more expensive to make metal mags and bottom metal wild guess 3 times + the cost of the plastic
I dont buy them personally

 

[Eddie P]

Regarding magazines, glock mags are plastic, AR15 magpul p-mags are plastic, both are combat and top level competition proven. They wouldn't be if there was an issue.

 

[ejg]

Although T3 has a long action only it is lighter and stiffer than most other short actions. My guess, all other rifle manufacturers are envious of the T3 design. I'd choose the T3 over any other Sako or Tikka action. My Sako is sitting in the corner. Not all perfect with the T3 but closer than most others.
Edi

 

[User00040]

So in my above post I have called out some manufacturers that still use all steel or at least metal for their magazines and other components at different price points.
I guess what I'm trying to say is why would someone choose a rifle with plastic componants when there are rifles with metal componants available at the same price point?
Sub-£1000, £1000-£2000, £2000+?

I know the plastic mags etc., work "well enough" but why not just take advantage of the better material and get better longevity and strength when there is no or little extra cost?

By your username, you should recognise MIM (metal injection moulding), which makes up most of these 'metal' parts.

In some cases, the correct type of polymer is superior to metal

 

[ejg]

I notice MIM has a very bad reputation in the firearms trade. Maybe because rifle designers spec MIM materials / post process on the cheaper side to save a bit however MIM is not automatically bad or low quality. Often one can blend special purpose materials that are not available as stock bar or too expensive. MIM process has many fantastic options especially when it comes to shaping. It is very similar to polymer.... choose the wrong material for the job and lifespan is short.
edi

 

[wildfowler.250]

Plastic lighter weight ? Certainly folk seem to be going for lighter and lighter rifles/builds these days

 

[jall55]

I’ve a couple of plastic rifles I use for work and my last new tikka (2022) was £880 ex vat to me. At that price point I have no issue with plastic parts if they’re fit for purpose, which they are.
What gets me is blaser etc marketing rifles with “premium Plastic” in all honesty I suspect the raw materials are worth about 2% of the cost of these rifles, the majority of cost going to aggressive marketing etc
I’ve always thought “premium plastic” to make about as much sense as a “nice headache”

I think the thing with some of these bigger - more expensive companies - is you do pay for what you get
That might not be just in the product - but with the aftersales / warranty
Blaser has been pretty good
And Swaro - well we all pay but know how good they are

 

[Kalahari]

We probably accept cost cutting because we are all "after a bargain" or we "know the price of everything and the value of nothing" take your pick.

David.

 

[nun_hunter]

So in my above post I have called out some manufacturers that still use all steel or at least metal for their magazines and other components at different price points.
I guess what I'm trying to say is why would someone choose a rifle with plastic componants when there are rifles with metal componants available at the same price point?
Sub-£1000, £1000-£2000, £2000+?

I know the plastic mags etc., work "well enough" but why not just take advantage of the better material and get better longevity and strength when there is no or little extra cost?

Why better? If a plastic alternative does the same job but is possibly lighter and cheaper in both materials and labour why is metal still better? In cold environments plastic is less heat conductive so nicer to handle for magazines, trigger guards, stocks etc. Plastic is potentially more likely to absorb impact and not dent and be unusable compared to metal. Plastic can be made in any colour and with a slight adjustment to the formula it's properties can be altered and yet still use the same machine to produce it.

You can keep saying that metal is better but if metal and plastic both do the same job and potentially plastic does it better then just because metal feels sturdy or has a history of being quality doesn't mean it is.

 

[TheEngineer]

Why better? If a plastic alternative does the same job but is possibly lighter and cheaper in both materials and labour why is metal still better? In cold environments plastic is less heat conductive so nicer to handle for magazines, trigger guards, stocks etc. Plastic is potentially more likely to absorb impact and not dent and be unusable compared to metal. Plastic can be made in any colour and with a slight adjustment to the formula it's properties can be altered and yet still use the same machine to produce it.

You can keep saying that metal is better but if metal and plastic both do the same job and potentially plastic does it better then just because metal feels sturdy or has a history of being quality doesn't mean it is.

I guess I see rifles as a capital investment, something that I want to last me a long time.

Plastic feed lips wear much faster than steel or even aluminium.

Drop a loaded steel mag and you might ding it but you'll not bend it out of shape beyond use. Aluminium might bend but aluminium can be easily bent back into shape. Drop a loaded polymer mag the wrong way on a rock or a road while getting out of the car and it will shatter rather than get dented or bent.

I'll concede your point about temperature and comfort of use but being able to change your mag colour during the manufacturing process is hardly a real world advantage over steel or other metals.

I guess it's more so down to personal preference, but in my head I can't shake the feeling that plastic mags are manufactured with a planned obsolescence in mind. It just kind of rubs me the wrong way but I can appreciate that plenty of people use plastic mags etc. with no complaints.

 

[Ade8mm]

A different but valid perspective;
(Though personally I much prefer walnut and blued steel for my firearms)

 

[cjm1066]

The Glock frame has steel lugs that the slide runs on.

Commercially very successful with lots of similar designs available.

However it's upside down, a heavy frame and a light slide would be far nicer to shoot