Why do we accept cost cutting measures?

[nun_hunter]

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

Maybe you should see them as a depreciating liability, unless you're buying a rifle where the value is held intrinsically and will potentially increase.

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

How much faster though? If a plastic magazine lasts the life of the rifle then does it matter that a metal magazine would last longer? I've seen plastic Tikka magazines still working flawlessly after thousands of 308 rounds loaded and shot on range days over the span of a few years. I've used H&K plastic magazines that are probably 20 years old and have had 10s of thousands of rounds through them and the feed lips are fine.

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.

This depends on the plastic, some is brittle but most have very good shock absorbing capabilities.

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.

I agree that pretty much everything today is made with the intention of only lasting a certain amount of time and requires replacing rather than repairing. But if the intended lifespan of the plastic parts is longer than the intended lifespan of the metal barrel then there isn't really an issue.

I do 100% agree that the metal magazine on my old Sako 75 was something that brought me a little joy every time I loaded it or handled it as it just felt solid, well made, functional etc but it works just as well as other plastic magazines I've used. On the flip side AI metal mags are very functional and work really well but aesthetically I don't like them at all and prefer the plastic MDT versions. None of this is based on a magazine being "better" from an engineering point of view but just what I like.

 

[timbrayford]

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”

Premium plastic doesn't discolour and go brittle in UV light

 

[Bavarianbrit]

Premium plastic doesn't discolour and go brittle in UV light

As in first use rather than being recycled granules where the molecules are weakened. For info the VW Touareg bumpers cost the supplier 3 Euros to make including the tooling write off cost which is about the same amount of plastic as is used in a stock.

 

[TheEngineer]

Just doing a quick search on this forum for Tikka magazines (not slating Tikka just using them as an example) turns up a number of results for issues with mags (some issues specific to the .223 cal it seems but also some results for other calibres) with regards to feed lips wearing out. Looking through these I think it would be fair to say that a plastic Tikka mag will wear out long before the barrel does? Would be interested to hear people's experiences with this! Anyone here with a T3 or T3x that shot out a barrel and have their mags still in working order?

A lot of ARs, HKs, AIs being used as examples. Obviously these are designed with hard military use in mind, so they are going to be trial tested by militaries with thousands of rounds to ensure performance in battlefield conditions. I can't imagine the Beretta group spending loads of money on high end materials for manufacturing a magazine that is ultimately a consumer product that is not designed with decades of hard service of mind?

How much faster though? If a plastic magazine lasts the life of the rifle then does it matter that a metal magazine would last longer? I've seen plastic Tikka magazines still working flawlessly after thousands of 308 rounds loaded and shot on range days over the span of a few years. I've used H&K plastic magazines that are probably 20 years old and have had 10s of thousands of rounds through them and the feed lips are fine.

 

[Rutland lad]

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

I found the weight of 17 x 9mm 120+ grain rounds made the weight low and in your hand. For the first few shots anyway ….

 

[nun_hunter]

Just doing a quick search on this forum for Tikka magazines (not slating Tikka just using them as an example) turns up a number of results for issues with mags (some issues specific to the .223 cal it seems but also some results for other calibres) with regards to feed lips wearing out. Looking through these I think it would be fair to say that a plastic Tikka mag will wear out long before the barrel does? Would be interested to hear people's experiences with this! Anyone here with a T3 or T3x that shot out a barrel and have their mags still in working order?

A lot of ARs, HKs, AIs being used as examples. Obviously these are designed with hard military use in mind, so they are going to be trial tested by militaries with thousands of rounds to ensure performance in battlefield conditions. I can't imagine the Beretta group spending loads of money on high end materials for manufacturing a magazine that is ultimately a consumer product that is not designed with decades of hard service of mind?

Sako have been making milspec rifles for decades and Beretta have had their hand in military and police guns for even longer. I'd be amazed if they didn't share their findings and developments from plastic production, testing and longevity between departments. After all that in itself would be a cost saving. The trigger mechanism of the BRX1 is from their military semi autos so they're definitely sharing tested designs.

I bet more people haven't posted on here about the lack of issues they've had with a magazine compared to those who posted because they had an issue. That's just the nature of complaints Vs good reviews.

 

[timbrayford]

As in first use rather than being recycled granules where the molecules are weakened. For info the VW Touareg bumpers cost the supplier 3 Euros to make including the tooling write off cost which is about the same amount of plastic as is used in a stock.

That's as may be, I don't doubt it but from my perspective I'm happy with plastic components if they are of sufficiently high quality spec. That said I hate cheap plastic stocks that are easily disfigured, I had that experience with a horrid Remington 597 , probably the worst gun that I've ever bought!

 

[TheEngineer]

Sako have been making milspec rifles for decades and Beretta have had their hand in military and police guns for even longer. I'd be amazed if they didn't share their findings and developments from plastic production, testing and longevity between departments. After all that in itself would be a cost saving. The trigger mechanism of the BRX1 is from their military semi autos so they're definitely sharing tested designs.

I bet more people haven't posted on here about the lack of issues they've had with a magazine compared to those who posted because they had an issue. That's just the nature of complaints Vs good reviews.

I get that completely with regards bad reviews vs good reviews, my overall point of the this thread though is would those posts about magazine issues exist at all if Tikka were using steel mags instead of plastic ones!

 

[nun_hunter]

I get that completely with regards bad reviews vs good reviews, my overall point of the this thread though is would those posts about magazine issues exist at all if Tikka were using steel mags instead of plastic ones!

No, but they'd instead be the same threads as already exist about the Sako 75, 85 TRG and CTR in that they're really expensive and hard to come by

 

[RCS Deer Management]

Just as a side note, in the OP the author states that howa manage to produce a rifle with a metal bottom metal in a sub 1k rifle. Although he Implies that this is a positive the howa bottom metal is nowhere near as tough as the tikka bottom plastic. The howa bottom metals might as well be made out of chewing gum, absolutely crap!

 

[njc110381]

We, the purchasers, are the drivers of it. We want cheap and if we're forced to compromise, cheap is the priority over quality. If folk didn't buy them, they wouldn't exist.

As well trained consumers, most of us have a thing about buying new. My default setting for rifles now is to buy an old one and accept that it may need a new barrel. An old, high quality action and a new barrel often comes out at a price that will be similar to a newer mid range gun with cheap compromises.

My latest rifle was built on a Sako S491 action - it's probably as old as me!

 

[gixer1]

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 do you say metal is better? Plastic removes the concern of corrosion, it’s hard wearing and can take a knock, lighter. Can be made in any colour - I don’t see your point to be honest.

A recent Tikka I bought has a metal mag and it’s a pain in the ar*e to be honest - slight corrosion already and a heavy lump.

 

[Pedro]

Plastic has a bad rep, partly due to inferior far east toys and all those people wanting to save the world. Truth is, ever since WW2-ish, it's been a wonder material. It can be hard, soft, pliable, reliable, cheap and basically can be made in a way to fit so many purposes.

Anyway, manufacturers are always looking to cut costs. Look at Wagon Wheels!

 

[nun_hunter]

We, the purchasers, are the drivers of it. We want cheap and if we're forced to compromise, cheap is the priority over quality. If folk didn't buy them, they wouldn't exist.

As well trained consumers, most of us have a thing about buying new. My default setting for rifles now is to buy an old one and accept that it may need a new barrel. An old, high quality action and a new barrel often comes out at a price that will be similar to a newer mid range gun with cheap compromises.

My latest rifle was built on a Sako S491 action - it's probably as old as me!

Can you quantify why that's better than a new Tikka T3? Or why the old "high quality" action is better than that of a Tikka T3 or Howa 1500?

This is the crux of the issue, is it actually better in any quantifiable way or is it just that you personally feel that older rifles are better because of wood and metal rather than plastic?

 

[Heym SR20]

Plastics, whilst they take a very long time to decay, have a pretty finite life in use. With age and exposure to UV they get brittle and fail. Where you are using plastics - eg in a strap which has a strength rating it will also have an age limit.

With steel components they simply last. You can pick up a well made gun from the late 1800’s and provided its been maintained it will work as designed and intended. Wood also works and lasts well.

But take a modern gun - a Franchi Affinity, or Berretta BRX1 - both of which have many plastic components including major operating parts such as trrigger housings, I suspect in 20 years time they will be pretty much ready for the bin.

Most vehicles these days have large amounts of plastic. 20 year old car and the plastic components that are failing. Dashboards, vents etc etc.

In the old days most component parts of a gun started out as forgings. Metal grain would thus follow that shape of the part. These would then be machined using both machine and hand tools. Then fitted to each other. Then hardened and tempered and then final hand fitted back together. The difference between a cheap and a high value gun was pretty much the degree of that final fit. And a well put together gun has minimal stresses on individual parts and has minimal failure.

Modern guns - many of the parts are now injection moulded metal. This includes parts like sears, triggers and hammers. Injection moulding is cheap once you have the tooling set up. Some will then be machined, hardened and tempered. Parts will be fitted together, but with minimal amount of time.

Some work very well. Some just break at some point due to stresses that would be avoided by hand fitting.

Some manufacturers are now using CNC machining. This does require significant investment in these technologies. But not all manufacturers are using such. CNC is only as good as it’s operators. Tolerances can be much be better and this hand labour is reduced. But not necessarily so. Again depends.

 

[sillbeam]

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 do you think metal is superior to some of the synthetic materials? Unless you're particularly rough with your rifle , or are in the habit of dropping it often, metal magazines, bolt shrouds, etc don't have any advantages.
My 20 year old T3 has fired thousands or rounds and is still perfect.

 

[sillbeam]

Why do you think metal is superior to some of the synthetic materials? Unless you're particularly rough with your rifle , or are in the habit of dropping it often, metal magazines, bolt shrouds, etc don't have any advantages.
My 20 year old T3 has fired thousands or rounds and is still perfect.

Ps, to get picky, "plastic" is a property of material, not a material itself, as such there are synthetic materials with superb uv, abrasion and impact resistant quantities.....what are kinetic hammers made from ??

 

[nun_hunter]

Plastics, whilst they take a very long time to decay, have a pretty finite life in use. With age and exposure to UV they get brittle and fail. Where you are using plastics - eg in a strap which has a strength rating it will also have an age limit.

Plenty of modern plastic materials are UV resistant, and how long is a rifle out in the direct sun in its life? 99.9% of a 20 year life is spent in a safe/cupboard.

With steel components they simply last. You can pick up a well made gun from the late 1800’s and provided its been maintained it will work as designed and intended. Wood also works and lasts well.

But take a modern gun - a Franchi Affinity, or Berretta BRX1 - both of which have many plastic components including major operating parts such as trrigger housings, I suspect in 20 years time they will be pretty much ready for the bin.

Most vehicles these days have large amounts of plastic. 20 year old car and the plastic components that are failing. Dashboards, vents etc etc.

So materials haven't developed in 20 years? As I previously said I've use plastic magazines that are well over 20 years old and have fired 10s of thousands of rounds and work fine. I once sweated on a new CTR metal magazine in the height of summer and it had rust spots almost immediately that I couldn't get rid of!

In the old days most component parts of a gun started out as forgings. Metal grain would thus follow that shape of the part. These would then be machined using both machine and hand tools. Then fitted to each other. Then hardened and tempered and then final hand fitted back together. The difference between a cheap and a high value gun was pretty much the degree of that final fit. And a well put together gun has minimal stresses on individual parts and has minimal failure.

Modern guns - many of the parts are now injection moulded metal. This includes parts like sears, triggers and hammers. Injection moulding is cheap once you have the tooling set up. Some will then be machined, hardened and tempered. Parts will be fitted together, but with minimal amount of time.

Some work very well. Some just break at some point due to stresses that would be avoided by hand fitting.

Some manufacturers are now using CNC machining. This does require significant investment in these technologies. But not all manufacturers are using such. CNC is only as good as it’s operators. Tolerances can be much be better and this hand labour is reduced. But not necessarily so. Again depends.

 

[njc110381]

Can you quantify why that's better than a new Tikka T3? Or why the old "high quality" action is better than that of a Tikka T3 or Howa 1500?

This is the crux of the issue, is it actually better in any quantifiable way or is it just that you personally feel that older rifles are better because of wood and metal rather than plastic?

Well, if you must get me started...

Composite materials - they're not there because they're better. They're cheaper. Yes, technology has come a long way since 20 years ago where we're seeing car components turn to dust, but it ain't proven and I don't trust it. I fired an 18something Snider Enfield a few years ago and it worked. I can't see your T3 being serviceable in 22something.

My mates Blasers are already crumbling their butt pads. There are numerous complaints about the finish on synthetic stocks going gummy and peeling off. Now, My Sako 75's are synthetic and I can accept that a stock may need replacing at some point, but a bolt shroud, magazine, trigger? Jog on! I've never worn out a steel magazine, I've known several plastic ones refuse to feed after they've had a tough life.

Besides that, why do I need a 30-06 sized action for a .17 Fireball? The T3 action is massive. I really liked my T3 6.5x55, and my T3 .243 was ok, but a T3 .222 is a lot of bulk for not a lot of case. Oh, and the 6.5x55 broke a bolt shroud. I've never done that with a CZ because it's not... Wait for it... Plastic!

We live in an age where technology can print a circuit board and give it a pretty accurate lifespan. The materials cost is in the pennies but they are made to fail. When they fail we need to buy a new one, and that's what companies want. You can believe that plastic is put on your gun to save weight, or not rust, or whatever you like really. Just don't expect me to believe it too.

 

[Dunwaters]

We accept it because we’re not asked.
Every penny pinched off the cost of production is another penny to go to the shareholders as an increased bonus and the shareholder is king, users just don’t matter.