The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Gunsmithing Quality in the Firearms IndustryGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Quality in the Firearms Industry | Login/Join |
| one of us |
On another thread, a couple of the guys rightfully vented their frustration with ISO... which leads me to post this. What is the state of quality in the firearms industry? Does the firearms industry "get" the "quality thing". Some industries do "get it". You can easily identify them. Prices go down a little every year. Defect levels go down every year. Product performance goes up every year. You can see that when you look at computer hard drives, and automobiles. So, guys, does the firearm industry "get it"? | ||
|
One of Us |
I think most of them try to "get it", but unfortunatley the beancounters have a firm grip on the throats of the major players. Its really quite sad what has happened with most American arms manufacturers. Something about reading "made in Japan" on a Browning rifle just aint right. :kringe:  I think Savage has made some steps in the right direction though, so at least they are listening, which is more than I can say for the likes of Remington and Winchester. Its interesting to see some of the european manufacturers Like CZ and EAI moving into the American market. Frankly Id like to see more of that, competition is healthy. All it will take is for one of them to "get it" and the others will have to follow or fail. | |||
|
| one of us |
If the value of the US dollar continues to fall as I have heard on the news lately, we will probably see made in USA on a lot more of our products, including firearms. | |||
|
| one of us |
ISO in my opinion is just a big stack of paper, the larger the stack, the higher the ISO certification. But thats just my dumb cowboy logic. I was involved with some of the ISO stuff with the company I work for years back when it first came about in this country, or at least my first exposure. Some of the the big boys use Six Sigma or simular process to fix manufacturing problems, but most don't do anything until sales drop. If I had to guess many of the larger firearms makers don't worry to much about a few guns getting sent back, thats noise level to them, I bet they only worry about recalls, failures etc. A gun that wont feed, scope holes wrong etc, may be a large problem to the buyer, but it doesnt seem to be a big deal to the manufacturer, if it did you would get told it was within spec or get one back that still won't feed. Sales and bottom line are the drivers in the current market, they over come saftey and customer satisfaction, until it makes it to the court room. | |||
|
| one of us |
I give it a mixed bag. The service received from optics companies such as Leupold and Swarovski is beyond anything I've experienced from almost any other types of products. I have friends that when they asked about accuracy problems in a Kimber pistol and a Kimber Rifle received new barrels no questions asked. I've also known of numerous examples of Remingtons and Winchesters with serious problems that went essentially unaddressed. It seems to me that the trend is that the smaller, closer to the originators who really cared about their products and reputations are most likely to be of higher quality and better service. The older larger companies that have been through what sometimes is one too many management changes stuggle quality and service wise..........DJ | |||
|
| one of us |
If you're an automotive components supplier, and you have more than 50 defective parts per 1,000,000 produced, the automotive companies will make it extremely painful for you, until you get below that number. | |||
|
one of us |
As a youth in the mid 60's, I remember the difficult transition to the "new" manufacturing methods the gun companies were going through. There was some real junk being produced. Some of the current computer controlled machinery of today actually produces some really good stuff! Lessons have been learned in accuracy too. But you got to be willing to pay for it! None of us are making $1.65 an hour any more, so we can't expect the gun companies to charge 1971 prices either. If there is a hidden cost that pisses me off through-out or our entire society, it's the price we pay for litigation, (read lawyers). We pay a big price for personal responsibility not being a priority. Wonder how much of a $600 gun price is for lawyers-lawsuits prevention? $50? $100? $250? | |||
|
one of us |
In large part consumers are to blame. First, we've become much more of a disposable society. Nobody seems to care if things are made to last anymore. Second, we tend to value quantity over quality. Most would rather have more toys of lesser quality than fewer of higher quality. Thirdly, we just keep buying the crap even though we know it is shoddy. If folks stopped buying this junk the companies would have to listen. But I think part of the reason people just keep coming back for more just goes back to point #2. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Matt brings up some good points. Our quality systems do have a lot of problems, and we're not seriously addressing them. It's the same with liability issues. They, like quality, are measured against the bottom line. That is the litmus test to see if action is necessary. If a defect, whether potentially hazardous or not, impacts the bottom line, through manufacturing process costs or litigation, then it gets the attention of the company and is addressed. That's part of the problem. Part and parcel of this problem is the tendancy of people to sue over everything instead of taking responsibility for our own stupidity. The other part is as Matt has stated so perfectly. WE have to be willing to pay for quality, or we can't expect it. Period. | |||
|
| one of us |
I'm out in the open on this ISO 9001=documented process to build garbage. Nowhere in the ISO process does it care about the quality of your product against any competetion except your own. For example I can make a cheap miserly crappy gidget. I sell this low quality POS of $.05, when compared to my competitors who sell for a dollar each my gidget is junk. But I document the process to build my gidget, and every one of my gidgets are all built the same, using the same process. My junk gidget process can be ISO certified, I consistantly build crappy gidgets, the same every time. No where is quality brought into this equation. Nowhere is there a guy like Kenny Jarrett who cut up a rifle he was building in his shop. It didn't shoot, his reposnse is I don't deleiver crap, and this cut up POS on the wall is how you won't build rifles. Thats quality, commitment to your product. Hard to do in bigger companies, thats what ISO supposed to bring to the table. Personally I think its just another bad European idea taken to the extreme, it seems to be the buzzword in corporate America now days, suits and accountants love it. Gives them a sheild and a buzzword to hide behind when they haven't got a clue whats coming off the prodcution floor of their plant. Don't mistake it for quality it isn't!!!!!!!!!! A last thought is the cost of guns in real dollars. Compare the cost of an automobile in the 1960's to today they are 10 times as expensive. Now compare gun prices 2-3 times on most model five times on the real special stuff. SInce the mid 80's the prices have been flat. The prices have just not kept up, if the car industry was capped at 1980 prices your quality would be the pits and you would be putting motors on your roller skates. I am not saying guns haven't increased in price just not much, I am looking at Remington, Winchester and Savage rifles in my 1985 Gun Digest, the prices listed for a Model 700 Remington I can buy today for very close to that amount( I realise one is MSRP and the other is street price ) Winchesters are a little more dear as are the Savages, but not double, which is what cars have done. The above only complicates the QA issue, in the quest to hold down prices, and produce a same or similar product cheaper year after year. | |||
|
| one of us |
I got a brand new winchester model 70 "stealth" (heavy target barrel) no iron sights(duh) but the reciever was machined so much off that i couldnt site the gun in. 12 feet low at 100 yards, after scope ran outa adjustment. KWALLATEEE?!?!?!? Are children from Cuba building these rifles????? | |||
|
| One of Us |
Quote: An astute observation, and I agree wholeheartedly. As these large companies grow farther from their roots they definatley loose the edge that made them great. I just read that Bill Ruger died two years ago, people like him are mighty tough to replace. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: You are obviously the victim of ISO done horribly wrong. The old standard, with heavy emphasis on documentation, went away four years ago. The new standard does require ongoing improvement. You can make junk, but you do have to show that it is less junky than what you made last year. I'm not saying that your complaints about ISO are not justified. I'm sure that they are. I'm also sure that what you're experiencing is a very bad brand of ISO. If it's done right, it makes people's jobs easier, creates a better workplace, and does not create more total work for people to do. Quote: All too often true. And totally contrary to the basic idea of ISO. | |||
|
One of Us |
Without getting into the reasons why, either way, I'd say materials (except for stock wood) have definitely improved in the last 60 years and that fit and finish of both stocks and metalwork have definitely gone in the toilet. I was a gun dealer in the late 1950's and I think the fitting on most of the guns of those days was light years greater in both amount and quality than in those of today. One of the factors accelerating that trend away from quality, I think, is that few of our kids today see much of anything that is hand fitted...thus don't even know what to look for, let alone what quality fitting really looks like. That's not their fault. Perhaps we are just too busy to take them aside and show them the differences between crap and gems. And we accept having junk shoved out as the only stuff available, "take it or leave it". Personally, for about the last 15 years I have just begun leaving it. Sure, I'd like the newest ultraboomersmacker cartridge, but I won't accept it in a thrown together rifle. I'll either build it myself, modify an older, well-made rifle to take the new cartridge, or if neither of those is possible, do without until I can afford to have one custom made that IS a quality piece of goods. I might add to that that I really do think a lot of the custom stuff today is little more than crap too...more hype than good workmanship. Just because something is hand-made does not assure that it will automatically be WELL-made. There are a lot of really good 'smiths out there, but there are a lot of phonies too. I currently eat out about 5 times a year. Instead I have put the money which would have gone for restaurant cookin' into a lathe and tooling to make my own guns. In the end, it's all about priorities...our's and the big corporations', which seldom match it seems.... Alberta Canuck | |||
|
| one of us |
Read htis carefully: Current factory rifles quality levels are right where they are supposed to be! EVRYTHING on the face of the earth is built to some price point. That point, in a very few cases, is "whatever it takes to be the best". But 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999% of eveyrthing else is built to a certain price point. We currently have options in this world to buy a firearm with th e quality level that we demand. This ranges from stamped AK 47's and the lower Remington and other products up through the best customs that can be made. At more sane rpice levels, something like a Dakota provides very good quality at prices that are very reasonable in relation to gun prices in "the good old days". Personally, I am tired of hearing grown men whine because they can't pay for the cheapest firearm and get the quality level of the more expensive guns. THis is rediculous. We are very fortunate today to be able to pick guns in an incredibly wide range of prices and accompanying quality. neever before have we been in such a position. The very fact that you can go down to WalMart and buy a perfectly functional rifle for $350 and head to the field with in almost every case (of course there will be some that need tweaking, especially at that price range) should make us all stand up and clap for the manufactureres. They make guns to put money at their company's bottom line. Period. And thank god they do | |||
|
One of Us |
as I look at the products available today and compare them to what I bought 40 years ago, I ask if they are truly different.....or is it the eyes through which I see them? Finding truth can be just as difficult as defining quality but if there's anything I have learned it's that the problem isn't always "over there". Further the solution to it isn't "over there" either.....usually it's all about "right here". | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: My old 1985 Corvette cost $25,000 when new. Compare it to a 2005 Corvette and you'll see a bigger difference than just the price. 20 years worth of technology and advancements are readily apparent. When comparing firearms pricing to the auto industry, consider that automakers actually put money into R&D and come out with completely new products every couple of years. The Rem 700 you bought in 1985 (or even 1975) is the exact same product you're buying today. Only difference being the machine tooling they use has gotten 20 additional years worth of wear.  | |||
|
| one of us |
It's been over a couple of decades since modern quality control impacted the auto market. The Japanese were the first to adopt the teachings of Dr. Demming and they proved to the customers and other manufacturers that superior quality ment profits along with a better product. For some reason this has missed the firearms industry so far. Perhaps the product is so simple that statistics do not apply? I don't think Sako/Tikka feel that way this morning however. Kimber did capture or create a market for the old Colt 1911 with a better product but I don't think they are ISO either. Other similar products such as hand tools have had the modern QC touch here to some extent but the major shift is just to make it in China for $0.60 an hour. I leave it to Denton and others to connect these thoughts. | |||
|
| one of us |
To some extent the firearms manufacturers see themselves as sunset industries. Hence they are less likely to invest. Raising capital for a firearms company might be problematic in todays environment. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: A little tangent to the thread, but this attitude towards firearms has puzzled me for a while. That is, you can buy one helluva nice rifle, I mean really nice way-sub-MOA accuracy with excellent function semi-production custom rifles from Bansner, Brown, Sisk, HCR, any number of well known companies for from $2000 to about the mid $3000 range. Top, top, super duper none better in the world rifles from D�Arcy Echols run about $8000. But who except some rich guy with money to burn or an ego to feed would spend that much on a tool that will last him the rest of his life and probably his grandkid�s as well? WAY too much money for a mere rifle. Yet I see $40,000 pickups with trailers hauling $15,000 worth of ATV�s going up into the hills every year, with a box-stock factory M700 and Bushnell scope in the window rack. Bass boats costing upwards of $20,000 are being pulled by these same trucks in the summer. Let�s say the factories start putting a little hand fitting into their rifles, maybe testing them for proper function and accuracy. Let�s say Winchester makes a Super Grade that not only looks nice but has a trued action, actually glass bedded with epoxy and not hot glue, a crown cut with a piloted reamer and so forth. Let�s say they have to charge $1000 for it. Why do folks willingly shell out $5,000 for an ATV that will last maybe 8-10 years when they are completely unwilling to spend one fifth of that amount on their core hunting tool that will last generations? Actually, what the factories produce now isn't too bad but it still needs work. I have a couple of rifles, Remingtons and Winchesters, that needed about $100 worth of work to turn them into real shootin' machines - bedding and cutting an actual concentric crown as all it took. If I have to spend that money after the fact, why not just build that into the rifle and I'll spend that money at the gun counter. Rhetorical questions, mostly, but �we� complain and complain about quality but are totally unwilling to pay for it. | |||
|
one of us |
To me, there are two enemies of the (firearm) manufacturer. First, is the "marketing fad" generation of managers that came out of the business schools in the '70s. Essentially, we have a cohort of MBA's in their fifties who believe that you can market your way out of a problem, without fixing the underlying issus. This is the cohort of managers that use ISO and similar processes as a marketing tool, rather than the management/construction tool that it is. If you work for an outfit like that, good luck. The second major problem is market segmenting. The inability of the Marketing Manager to pick a niche, and excel within it. The logic is that you get 20% of this niche, and if you enter another one, your "brand name" will get you 20% of that one, too. GM went broke doing this. They managed to get, and promptly forever lose, the 20% of the economy niche they entered with a frivolous or pathethic product. Remington comes to mind as following each of these strategies. Browning seems to at least stick with what they do: build decent, above average hunting rifles. Sako is now emulating Remington: the battle of the Corporate Irrelevants. Someone like Savage gets it: focus on the niches you can satisfy very well (starter guns and accurate varmint guns), and kick everyone's heiny all the way to the bank. Remington's answer? The 710. Can anyone say, lose another 20% forever? FWIW, Dutch. | |||
|
one of us |
Quote: I work for a company that is ISO certified, I`ve seen the system from both worker and floor managment sides. I`m now assigned to a supplier plant that uses Sigma Six. Both IMO are tools and nothing more. If managment uses them quality might rise, then again it may not but just be well documented. ISO may be changing but it`s still all about process not product. The companies put a ISO banner on their goods as if it implies a quaility standard when all it does is state "how" the product was built. The gun companies seem to have improved in some respects, tolerances are tighter in some cases, although they don`t put the polish on them use to. But they don`t seem to follow it up with any kind of inspection. The idea seems to be to rely on "the system" to insure good parts. - The cutter is good for 10000 cycles so we change them every 10000. It`s in our ISO statement so it has to produce good parts - Modern materials have been introduced which in some cases is a good thing (weather resistant stocks, lens coatings)and in others, well plastic followers, trigger guards, ect, don`t speak high quaility to many of us. Questions.........if the law suits stopped today would the gun prices come down? Would we start getting "real" bottom metal? What kind of fit and finish would we find in relation to todays? | |||
|
| one of us |
A lot of people assume that having good quality costs the consumer more. That's not so. If you have a good quality system, your costs go DOWN, and you can actually charge less, if you choose to. Ol' Joe is right about ISO and six sigma being tools. Good managers can use those tools to do better, and bad managers can use them as bad managers do. | |||
|
| one of us |
I half seriously look at ISO as a mafioso extortion You must pay me to come to your plant every year and certify you, then you can clame certification. Without certification, you will not be able to conduct business as easily because I have brainwashed the world into expecting my certification.  We need to send this latest quality fad packing back to to the european scholars where it began. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Quote: In fact that's a lot closer to the truth than one might imagine. It's the European common market's way of saying that "here's the test you must pass to trade here"!! Quote: Welll.......actually.....It began here....right here in the United states.....it's the standard that the U S Military used for purchasing during WWII......and (I believe) still uses. I did gage inspection with a fairly big midwest company in the 60s for the sole purpose of being in compliance to that requirement so that the company could attract Government contracts. | |||
|
| one of us |
I'm a Remington man, have been for years. Yet, my last 4 Remingtons have all required glass bedding, barrel floating and trigger adjustments to get them to shoot up to their potential. These kind of things are better done at the factory when the gun is manufactured. It seems the industry is driven by lawyers and bean counters. There's a price to be paid for that. We're apt to lose most of the gun manufacturing just as we lost it with the automobiles. We flat refuse to listen. Look at firms like Howa, CZ, Sako and Tikka. They're all producing decent rifles and selling quite well. When they have the lions share of the market we'll do our usual whining and gnashing of teeth. Concentrating on the bottom line is one thing but if you're not going to offer me quality products I'm not even looking at your bottom line. Sorry it's reached this stage. Best wishes. Cal - Montreal | |||
|
| one of us |
The 'prime directive' (if I can quote an old Star Trek episode) of any company is to remain profitable. If a company is not profitable, quality matters little because they won't be around. I would love to see what's left of the US companies produce higher quality firearms and charge more but I am probably in the minority. In fact, if you take everyone who has ever responded to this forum and compare it to the number of hunters who buy deer rifles from Walmart...well, you get the picture, we are a small portion of the whole market. I think Remington might be moving a little in the right direction with the 710 (yes, I know everyone hates them). Hopefully they will phase out the low end 700's and produce the 710 for Walmart (and similar buyers) and higher quality 700's for everyone else. Its my understanding that the Police/Sendero/VSSF models go through an extra quality check. If you look at the complaints about Remingtons they are usually not any of these models. Unfortunately, don't expect any quick changes. I don't see Win/Rem/Savage/Ruger suddenly producing better guns and raising their prices. While that might work in the long run, none of them would run the risk of a big hit right now that would drive them out of business. It worked for the Japanse car companies in the 60's-70's when they made a commitment to build better cars, but of course they had the Japanese government in back of them and it took them years to get a foothold. The other issue is that the 'bean counters' have convinved corporate America that it is cheaper to 'fix it in the field' rather than to make it right the first time. | |||
|
| one of us |
I don't get many new guns, but I got a few guns this year I can rember from this hotel room: NEW GUNS 1) Ruger blackhawk, fit a finish so poor is not shootable, needs hammer, frame, and grips to get edges sanded off. Does not lock up tight. $325 2)Marlin 17 HMR, supplied scope mounts required elaborate alignment proceedure to install, magazine loading is a pain. Not Walnut, a lighter wood with stain. $200 3) Kel-Tec P3AT, rough edges had to be sanded off. Gun was not a new design but a P32[32acp] bored out to 380. Extruded annodized Alluminum frame, CNC barrel, injection molded grip. Thinnest chamber walls and deepest feed ramp intrusion I have ever seen. $250 4) Winchester 94 Ranger, silly safety on the backstrap, wood is not Walnut, but some stained lighter wood. $300 Some USED guns this year: 1) 1917 Savage pistol ~1920, build like a watch.$120 2) Savage 99 ~1917, no complaints. $175 3) 1894 Swedish Mauser ~1901, nicely made, $80 4) FN pistol made in Spain ~1920, roughly made, but shoots, $30 5) Uberti Cattleman 1874 Colt clone, ~1972, locks up tight, Great design, nicely made, it is a joy to shoot. $255 6) 1895 Nagant revolver, ~1941, ok workmanship, but poor design. $110 | |||
|
| one of us |
Here's a thought experiment: You can buy a Tasco scope for around $80. It's not the world's greatest, but it does work. The store has to make a profit, so wholesale on the Tasco has to be around $60. That means that the manufacturing cost can't be much more than about $35-40. Doing everything in the scope absolutely first class couldn't any more than double the cost of the scope. So I think it follows that the better quality scopes couldn't cost more than $70-80 to manufacture. If the retail price is $300, then the wholesale is around $225, and the manufacturer has a gross margin of something around $150. At that rate, he can afford to give the user two replacement warranty scopes before he has used up his margin on the sale. So the manufacturer doesn't worry much about percent defective. If it is only running 1-2% (which would get you summarily fired in a real quality organization!), they can afford to have a very liberal warranty replacement policy. Everybody raves about their customer service, and forgets the fact that the real percent defective is 10-100X what is being commonly done elsewhere. Would we call that scope manufacturer a "quality company"? | |||
|
| one of us |
Denton, I was into any gun I could get in 1961-1967, but when I returned to the sport in 1994 [as an adult with money] I started reading rec.guns on line. The knowledgeable gun nuts kept saying, "Buy Leupold", but I ignored them thinking they were to expensive. Now, after wasted money, time, and enthusiasm, I will not put a cheap scope on a gun. I mostly get used Leupolds and new Burris now. Experience is the teacher of fools. | |||
|
| one of us |
clark... Best made rifle in my cabinet: M96 Swedish Mauser, $150. It's a rifle that is DANG hard to beat. With iron sights, it will routinely do 1 3/4" five-shot groups at 100. As you said about one of yours, it's a joy to shoot. | |||
|
one of us |
Denton, in between the manufacturer and the retailer are the distibutor, the jobber and the wholesaler. That $80 scope cost about $12 to produce, if that much. | |||
|
| one of us |
I think that the Walmart factor may be an underlooked driver in a lot of markets including firearms. They are notorious for squeezing their suppliers on price. They will buy your product in large #'s and as soon as you are dependant upon selling to them they have a strong lever to force you to reduce price. Quality is what suffers. I notice that my new Fruit of the Looms have thinner waist bands than before, Walmart Oreo's seem a little thinner, The guns they sell are the cheaper finished ones, the list goes on and on. Look at the same products you buy at Walmart compared with somewhere else, there are more differences that you might think. The Walmart factor is of course tied into the price point driving quality arguement but is maybe the largest contributer towards it. They are the largest employer in America. And yes I do still buy stuff there, but not guns.........DJ | |||
|
one of us |
What it would really take for the major manufacturers to "get it" in terms of quality, is that it doesn't necessarily mean that you must spend more time or money to achieve better results, it takes an education of what is available today in regards to machine tools and tooling for them. What they would find is that their parts can be produced faster, better, with less rejection, and reduced labor than they could 20 years ago. All the technology is there, it's just a matter of them opening their minds up to the idea. The gun industry is very set in their ways, and not likely to change anytime soon from what I've seen so far. Until this mindset is done away with, we may never see anything that impresses us on the quality scale like that of the automotive industry. There are machines that are capable of machining the entire Remington, or Winchester receivers for their bolt actions in a single setup from solid barstock or forgings. In other words, this means that the receiver would lack the inherent problems of missaligned scope bases holes, bad locking abutment contact, poor surface finishes, and bad bolt timing. The equipment is expensive, but far less expensive than the overwhelming number of bad or scrapped parts that are produced every year. Not to say you can't make bad parts on these machines, but the number of them would be greatly reduced. One man could run 3-4 of these machines by himself producing thousands of actions a day. Instead, they use a high volume of labor with antique equipment running with the most basic of fixturing, requiring multiple setups and increases the tolearance stack until you receive a part out of the box that is good for nothing but a basic building block, rather than a finished firearm. | |||
|
| <eldeguello> |
Some do and some don't! You cannot tar them all with the same brush. For example, compare a new Sauer or Schultz & Larsen bolt-action to a Remington 700! See what I mean?  One USUALLY get what one pays for, but if things are TOO reasonable, you might not!! Oats are always cheaper after they've been through the horse once!  | ||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Once reason Experience is such a hard teacher is that she gives the test first, and the lesson afterward. | |||
|
| <JOHAN> |
Gentlemen I wonder what Winchester pre 64, Mannlicher or a commercial Mauser would cost in today's dollars One problem with the companies is that they hire people who are not rifle nuts, hunters or shooters. MBA at the board, marketing or accounting thinks it's the same thing to sell guns, garden equipment or office supplies  I think it would be much different if there was some dedicated shooters and hunters working in these companies, on all levels. The product lifecycle for guns is very different to many other products  Price is not always the best way to compete Personally, I would rather own a few quality guns than a cabinet filled with wally world rifles  Cheers / JOHAN | ||
|
| one of us |
Johann, The answer to the third part of your question is $9,900. http://www.impactguns.com/store/M98-375HH.html The SIG is a beautiful modern Mauser 98, but somehow I don't think they are going to get rich selling them. As others have pointed out most people aren't actually willing to pay for the quality the wish for. As nice as it is I'm quite sure that it wouldn't shoot 10 times as well as a $990 Winchester.......But it might have 100 times as much class.........DJ | |||
|
| <JOHAN> |
dj I was thinking of dollar index, how much the 1950 price for Winchester pre 64 would be in today's dollar Agree, this is a nice one I would rather had a 416 Rigby Now, where is my wishing list Cheers / JOHAN | ||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Gunsmithing Quality in the Firearms Industry
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |