Father (thinks he) Knows Best
Ah… No. I’m not doing anything that’s either false or malicious. I simply ask a question.
Today’s firearms makers seldom assemble guns made entirely in-house, but that wasn’t always the case. At Colt during the late 1930’s they advertised that everything in one of they’re guns was made at the factory, including stocks and grips, small pins, screws, springs, - you name it, they made it. Smith & Wesson was much the same.
But now that’s changed. Even the larger factories outsource a lot of parts. Some of the smaller companies assemble guns out of parts that are entirely outsourced. The reason is simple. The cost of tooling to make everything would be prohibitive – put bluntly; they couldn’t make a profit and keep in business if they tooled up to make absolutely everything.
Sturm-Ruger for example, not only makes parts for their own guns, but also for many others. Why do the others buy from Ruger – who might be a competitor? Because Ruger has the facilities and expertise to make the parts better then they would, and for less money.
I have no doubt that USFA is actually manufacturing some parts. Barrels, cylinders, ejector rods and possibly heads, and smaller lockwork come to mind. They could machine trigger guards and backstraps from raw stock, but it would be an extremely expensive way too go. Machining a gate from solid stock would be very expensive, but the higher cost could be easily avoided by doing what Ruger does and make it from an investment casting. Another possibility might be ejector tubes.
So couldn’t USFA make they’re own investment castings, or forgings if they use them? Sure, if the had a foundry like Ruger does, but I don’t believe they do. Well couldn’t they outsource these castings or forgings? Sure they could, and likely do. But to whom? That was what I was asking.
When it comes to parts that make up a gun, the question shouldn’t be, “ was it made entirely in the good ol’ US of A? A more intelligent one would be, “how good is the part? Or “how well is it made?
Aldo Uberti has always made a quality product, and now with Beretta’s name and money behind the company what was good quality is getting even better. USFA may (or may not) be getting parts elsewhere, but if so are they necessarily better? And if so, why? If the parts came from Uberti one would have a known standard to compare to. If they are coming from unknown and unspecified sources one has no benchmark and comparisons cannot be made.
What USFA has undeniably done is add a considerable amount of handwork and finishing to put out a superior product, at least in the higher priced segment of their line. But in doing so they have understandably had to raise their prices above those of they’re competitors except possibly Colt. I am not knocking either the company or the guns they make. Both are excellent. But I am inquiring about just what this “made entirely in the USA” slogan really means when it comes to the basic quality of USFA revolvers.
Ah… No. I’m not doing anything that’s either false or malicious. I simply ask a question.
Today’s firearms makers seldom assemble guns made entirely in-house, but that wasn’t always the case. At Colt during the late 1930’s they advertised that everything in one of they’re guns was made at the factory, including stocks and grips, small pins, screws, springs, - you name it, they made it. Smith & Wesson was much the same.
But now that’s changed. Even the larger factories outsource a lot of parts. Some of the smaller companies assemble guns out of parts that are entirely outsourced. The reason is simple. The cost of tooling to make everything would be prohibitive – put bluntly; they couldn’t make a profit and keep in business if they tooled up to make absolutely everything.
Sturm-Ruger for example, not only makes parts for their own guns, but also for many others. Why do the others buy from Ruger – who might be a competitor? Because Ruger has the facilities and expertise to make the parts better then they would, and for less money.
I have no doubt that USFA is actually manufacturing some parts. Barrels, cylinders, ejector rods and possibly heads, and smaller lockwork come to mind. They could machine trigger guards and backstraps from raw stock, but it would be an extremely expensive way too go. Machining a gate from solid stock would be very expensive, but the higher cost could be easily avoided by doing what Ruger does and make it from an investment casting. Another possibility might be ejector tubes.
So couldn’t USFA make they’re own investment castings, or forgings if they use them? Sure, if the had a foundry like Ruger does, but I don’t believe they do. Well couldn’t they outsource these castings or forgings? Sure they could, and likely do. But to whom? That was what I was asking.
When it comes to parts that make up a gun, the question shouldn’t be, “ was it made entirely in the good ol’ US of A? A more intelligent one would be, “how good is the part? Or “how well is it made?
Aldo Uberti has always made a quality product, and now with Beretta’s name and money behind the company what was good quality is getting even better. USFA may (or may not) be getting parts elsewhere, but if so are they necessarily better? And if so, why? If the parts came from Uberti one would have a known standard to compare to. If they are coming from unknown and unspecified sources one has no benchmark and comparisons cannot be made.
What USFA has undeniably done is add a considerable amount of handwork and finishing to put out a superior product, at least in the higher priced segment of their line. But in doing so they have understandably had to raise their prices above those of they’re competitors except possibly Colt. I am not knocking either the company or the guns they make. Both are excellent. But I am inquiring about just what this “made entirely in the USA” slogan really means when it comes to the basic quality of USFA revolvers.
