Tag Archives: Failures

The history of Soviet and, subsequently, Russian small arms development over the past century is often dominated by the towering success of the Kalashnikov platform. However, to fully comprehend the reasons for the AK’s enduring dominance, one must study not only its triumphs but also the numerous ambitious, innovative, and sometimes bizarre projects that failed to supplant it. These failures, far from being mere historical footnotes, are crucial for understanding the foundational philosophy that has guided Soviet and Russian weapons procurement for generations. This philosophy can be best described as the “Doctrine of Sufficient Excellence.”

Forged in the crucible of the Second World War and solidified during the Cold War, this doctrine is not a formal written mandate but an ingrained institutional mindset. It prioritizes a specific hierarchy of characteristics for a general-issue infantry weapon. At the apex is absolute reliability under the most adverse conditions imaginable—mud, sand, ice, and neglect.¹ Following closely are simplicity of operation, enabling a vast, conscript-based army to achieve basic proficiency with minimal training, and ease of mass production, allowing for rapid armament and replacement during a large-scale conflict.¹ Ergonomic refinement, modularity, and even exceptional accuracy, while desirable, are considered secondary attributes. A weapon is deemed “sufficiently excellent” when it perfectly fulfills these primary requirements, even if it is surpassed by competitors in other metrics.

This report will analyze a selection of key Soviet and Russian small arms projects that are considered failures. A project is categorized as a “failure” not necessarily because it was a technically deficient weapon in isolation, but because it violated one or more of the core tenets of this doctrine without offering a sufficiently compelling, game-changing advantage to justify the deviation. Through an examination of these case studies, we will explore projects that were too complex for their time, too radical for their military culture, too expensive for their economy, or doctrinally misaligned with the realities of the Soviet and Russian way of war.

Part I: The Pre-Kalashnikov Era – Forging a Doctrine in Steel and Fire

Before the Kalashnikov became the defining symbol of Soviet military might, the Red Army’s small arms development was characterized by ambitious experimentation. This period produced some of the world’s first examples of modern weapon concepts, but it also provided harsh, formative lessons that would directly shape the stringent requirements for all future infantry arms.

Case Study: The AVS-36 Automatic Rifle

The Avtomaticheskaya Vintovka Simonova obraztsa 1936 goda (AVS-36) stands as a landmark of firearms history, being one of the world’s first select-fire infantry rifles to be formally adopted for military service.³ Designed by Sergei Simonov, it represented a technologically bold leap for the Red Army in the 1930s, promising to equip the individual soldier with the firepower of a machine gun in the form of a standard rifle. However, its service life would prove to be a brief and cautionary tale.

Technical Flaws

The AVS-36 was a gas-operated rifle chambered in the powerful 7.62x54mmR cartridge. Its ambition was matched only by its mechanical complexity. The operating mechanism was intricate, utilizing a short piston stroke and a vertically sliding locking block that was highly susceptible to fouling.3 The very construction of the rifle, with its numerous openings and moving parts, was an invitation for dirt and debris to enter the action, a critical flaw for a weapon intended for frontline infantry use.3 Russian sources note that the rifle suffered from a fragile receiver and a problematic bolt group, further compromising its field-worthiness.4 It was also notoriously “fickle” regarding ammunition quality, a significant liability for an army that prioritized logistical simplicity.3

Operational Failure (The Winter War)

The AVS-36’s baptism by fire came during the Soviet-Japanese border conflicts and, most significantly, the 1939-1940 Winter War against Finland. It was in the brutal, sub-zero conditions of the Karelian Isthmus that the rifle’s design deficiencies became catastrophically apparent. Many rifles were shipped to the front still coated in their thick, cosmoline-like storage grease. In the extreme cold, this grease “froze” solid, rendering the complex actions of the rifles completely inoperable.3 This single issue, born of a combination of poor logistical preparation and a design intolerant of such neglect, crippled the weapon’s effectiveness.

Furthermore, while the rifle’s large muzzle brake was quite effective at mitigating muzzle climb, the sheer, intense recoil impulse of the full-power 7.62x54mmR cartridge made automatic fire wildly impractical.³ The weapon was virtually uncontrollable in full-auto, negating its primary conceptual advantage over bolt-action and semi-automatic rifles. The intended doctrine of using automatic fire to repulse sudden attacks was largely a fantasy, as soldiers could not keep their sights on target.⁵

Political and Logistical Demise

The AVS-36’s poor performance did not go unnoticed. A competing design by Fedor Tokarev, the SVT-38, was also adopted and, while not without its own initial flaws, was considered a sturdier and more reliable weapon.3 A politicized dispute arose within the Soviet elite, and Simonov’s design, seen as lighter but more fragile, lost out.3 Production of the AVS-36 was terminated in 1940 after a run of approximately 35,000 to 65,000 units, and the rifle was rapidly withdrawn from service, with many captured examples being used by Finnish forces.3

The failure of the AVS-36 was a pivotal moment in the formation of Soviet small arms doctrine. It was a brutal, real-world lesson that advanced features and theoretical advantages are utterly worthless if they come at the expense of fundamental reliability in the hands of a conscript soldier under the worst possible conditions. The Red Army’s experience in Finland, where the simple, crude, but utterly dependable PPSh-41 submachine gun proved devastatingly effective, stood in stark contrast to the failure of the complex AVS-36. The Soviet command learned that the ideal infantry weapon was not the one with the most features, but the one that always worked. This experience directly shaped the non-negotiable requirements for simplicity and reliability in the post-war trials that would ultimately produce the AK-47. The AVS-36 had to fail so the Kalashnikov could succeed.

Part II: The Shadow of the AK – Challenging an Icon

Following the adoption of the AK-47, Soviet small arms design entered a new era. The Kalashnikov was not just a rifle; it was the physical embodiment of the Doctrine of Sufficient Excellence. It became the benchmark against which all future designs would be judged. Any potential replacement would not only have to be better, but so overwhelmingly superior that it could justify the monumental cost of replacing an entire, established ecosystem.

Case Study: The TKB-517 – The Technically Superior Contender

In the mid-1950s, the Soviet military initiated a competition to find a replacement for the original milled-receiver AK-47. The primary objectives were to develop a weapon that was cheaper and faster to produce using modern stamped-steel manufacturing techniques, and to improve upon the AK-47’s notoriously poor controllability during automatic fire.⁶ The two main finalists in this contest were Mikhail Kalashnikov’s modernized prototype, which would become the AKM, and a highly refined rifle from the Tula design bureau, the TKB-517, designed by the brilliant German A. Korobov.⁶

Technical Analysis

Externally, the TKB-517 bore a strong resemblance to the Kalashnikov, featuring a similar layout and construction from stamped steel with wood furniture.7 Internally, however, it was a completely different machine. Instead of the AK’s robust and simple long-stroke gas piston and rotating bolt, Korobov employed a sophisticated lever-delayed blowback mechanism based on the principles pioneered by Pál Király.7 This system used mechanical leverage to delay the rearward motion of the bolt, allowing chamber pressure to drop to safe levels before extraction. This method of operation offered several potential advantages, including a smoother recoil impulse and the elimination of the violent impacts characteristic of the AK’s gas system.

Performance in Trials

During extensive competitive trials, the TKB-517 demonstrated clear superiority over the Kalashnikov prototype in several key performance areas. Multiple sources, including Russian-language publications, confirm that Korobov’s rifle was significantly more accurate and controllable, especially during full-automatic fire.7 One report from the 1955 trials explicitly states that even poorly trained soldiers, firing in bursts from a supported position, achieved better results with the TKB-517 than with the proto-AKM.10 Furthermore, the TKB-517 was found to be more reliable, particularly in fine sand conditions where the AK’s open gas system was more vulnerable, and was also lighter and simpler (and therefore cheaper) to manufacture.7 By most objective metrics of the competition, the TKB-517 was the better rifle. One Russian source bluntly states that the AKM was “losing the competition”.10

Reasons for Rejection

Despite its demonstrated superiority, the TKB-517 was not selected. The decision was not based on a failure of the weapon itself, but on powerful institutional and logistical factors. The official justification cited the Soviet military’s existing familiarity and “greater proficiency” with the Kalashnikov’s manual of arms and operating system.7 The selection committee, faced with a choice between a superior but novel design and an evolutionary improvement of a known and trusted system, chose the latter.10 While a potential technical concern may have been the higher extraction pressure common to lever-delayed actions, the primary driver was institutional conservatism and logistical pragmatism.7

The rejection of the TKB-517 is the quintessential example of “procurement inertia.” The failure was not one of engineering, but of the rifle’s inability to overcome the immense industrial, training, and logistical ecosystem already built around the Kalashnikov. The Soviet Union had already invested heavily in the AK platform. Millions of soldiers were trained on its operation and maintenance. Armorers across the armed forces were experts in its service. Factories were tooled for its specific manufacturing processes. Adopting the TKB-517 would have necessitated a complete and costly overhaul of this entire system: new factory tooling, new training manuals and curricula for every soldier and armorer, and a completely separate supply chain for spare parts. The performance advantages offered by Korobov’s rifle, while real, were simply not great enough to justify the astronomical economic and logistical cost of replacing the entire, entrenched Kalashnikov ecosystem. The Soviet system chose the “good enough” evolutionary step (the AKM) over the “better” revolutionary one because the former was exponentially cheaper, faster, and less disruptive to implement on a national scale. This decision cemented the Kalashnikov’s dominance for decades to come.

Table 1: Comparative Performance Metrics: AKM vs. TKB-517 (c. 1955 Trials)

Feature	TKB-517 (Korobov)	AKM (Kalashnikov Prototype)
Action Type	Lever-Delayed Blowback	Gas-Operated, Rotating Bolt
Caliber	7.62×39mm	7.62×39mm
Weight (Unloaded)	3.18 kg ⁷	Heavier than TKB-517
Length	910 mm ⁷	Similar to TKB-517
Barrel Length	415 mm ⁷	415 mm
Rate of Fire	560 rounds/min ⁷	~600 rounds/min
Accuracy (Trials)	Superior to AKM, especially in full-auto ⁷	Inferior to TKB-517 ¹⁰
Reliability (Trials)	Superior to AKM, especially in sand ⁷	Met requirements, but less reliable than TKB-517 ¹²
Production Method	Stamped Steel	Stamped Steel
Production Cost	Lower than AKM ⁹	Higher than TKB-517 ⁹

Part III: The Avant-Garde – When Innovation Outpaces Doctrine

While the mainstream of Soviet arms development flowed conservatively down the path of the Kalashnikov, there were powerful undercurrents of radical innovation. Designers, often working in the relative obscurity of state design bureaus, explored concepts that were decades ahead of their time. These projects, while engineering marvels, almost invariably failed to gain traction, crashing against the rigid wall of Soviet military doctrine and technological readiness.

Case Study: German Korobov and the Bullpup Heresy (TKB-022PM)

German A. Korobov was perhaps the most prolific and visionary of the Soviet Union’s “unknown” weapons designers.¹⁴ While none of his designs were ever adopted for mass production, his work consistently pushed the boundaries of conventional firearm engineering.¹¹ His TKB-022PM series of assault rifles, developed in the 1960s as a potential competitor to the AKM, was his most radical and perhaps most brilliant creation.¹⁸

Radical Design

The TKB-022PM was a bullpup rifle, a configuration that places the action and magazine behind the trigger group to achieve a shorter overall weapon length without sacrificing barrel length.19 This was already a novel concept for the time, but Korobov’s design went much further. It utilized a vertically moving breechblock and an annular gas piston that encircled the barrel, allowing for an incredibly compact receiver group.18

Its most revolutionary feature, however, was its forward ejection system. A U-shaped rammer/extractor would chamber a round, and after firing, would pull the spent casing back and then push it forward and up into an ejection tube running parallel to and above the barrel. The casing would then exit from a port near the muzzle.¹⁸ This ingenious solution completely solved the primary drawback of most bullpup designs—the ejection of hot brass into the face of a left-handed shooter—making the TKB-022PM truly and effortlessly ambidextrous.¹⁸ This design gave the TKB-022PM the best barrel-length-to-overall-length ratio of any assault rifle of its era.¹⁸

Performance

The rifle’s performance in trials was exceptional. Firing from unstable positions, it demonstrated three times better accuracy than the standard-issue AKM.18 It was also remarkably light, with some variants weighing as little as

2.34 kg, thanks to its extensive use of Bakelite, an early polymer, for its housing.¹⁸

Reasons for Rejection

Despite its stellar performance, the TKB-022PM was rejected by the Soviet army for being “too radical”.18 The military establishment, deeply conservative in its approach to infantry weapons, was unwilling to embrace such a dramatic departure from the conventional layout of the Kalashnikov. Specific concerns were raised about the unfamiliar rearward balance of the bullpup design, and, critically, the long-term durability of the plastic housing under the harsh conditions of Soviet military service or during decades of strategic storage.18 One Russian source also suggests a more pragmatic reason for its rejection: at the time, small arms were considered an auxiliary component of the Soviet war machine, and the leadership decided that development funds were better spent on higher-priority systems like missiles and tanks.25

Case Study: The VAG-73 Caseless Pistol – A Technological Mirage

In 1973, a self-taught engineer named Vladimir Gerasimenko presented the authorities with a unique and ambitious project: the VAG-73, a select-fire machine pistol that used caseless ammunition.²⁶ This was not a state-sponsored program but a personal initiative, a testament to the innovative spirit present even within the rigid Soviet system.

Ambitious Technology

The VAG-73 was designed around a revolutionary ammunition concept. It fired a 7.62mm projectile that had no traditional brass or steel cartridge case. Instead, the propellant charge was pressed directly into a recess in the base of the steel bullet itself.26 Upon firing, the propellant was consumed entirely, eliminating the need for an extraction and ejection cycle. This technology is sometimes referred to as a “gyrojet” type, as the projectile is essentially a self-propelled rocket.28 To feed this unique ammunition, Gerasimenko designed a massive tandem magazine system, effectively two double-stack magazines welded together, giving the pistol an unheard-of 48-round capacity.26

Catastrophic Failure

The project was an unmitigated disaster. While conceptually brilliant, the underlying technology was simply not mature enough for a practical weapon. The VAG-73 was plagued with problems. It was extremely unreliable, overly complicated, and excessively heavy, weighing 1.2 kg—one and a half times more than the standard Makarov pistol it was intended to compete against.26 The caseless ammunition itself was the core of the problem. It was prohibitively expensive to manufacture and suffered from all the classic issues of early caseless designs: poor accuracy due to inconsistent propellant burn, low muzzle velocity, and a dangerous propensity for “cook-offs,” where residual heat in the chamber could prematurely ignite the exposed propellant of the next round.26 The weapon comprehensively failed what one analyst called the “Russia test”: it was finicky, demanded constant care, was difficult to disassemble and clean, and proved utterly non-durable.26 Only a single prototype was ever made, and the project led to no further developments.28

These two case studies perfectly illustrate the dual prerequisites for successful innovation within a conservative military structure: a clear doctrinal need and sufficient technological maturity. Korobov’s TKB-022PM was a brilliant solution to a problem—the need for a more compact infantry rifle—that the Soviet army, with its doctrine of massed infantry combat in open terrain, did not believe it had. There was no “doctrinal pull” to justify the risk of adopting a radical new layout. Furthermore, its reliance on polymers, while forward-thinking, was perceived as a liability by a military that trusted only steel and wood.¹⁸ The VAG-73, on the other hand, pursued the “holy grail” of caseless ammunition, but the fundamental science was not ready. The resulting weapon was a collection of unworkable compromises that failed to meet even the most basic requirements of a service firearm. Visionary engineering, in isolation, is not enough. Without a clear military requirement to justify the risk and cost of change, and without a mature industrial and material science base to reliably support the new design, even the most brilliant concepts are destined to remain museum pieces. German Korobov was ahead of his time; Vladimir Gerasimenko was ahead of his technology.

Part IV: Project “Abakan” – The Perilous Pursuit of Perfection

By the late 1970s, the Soviet military had adopted the AK-74 and its new 5.45x39mm cartridge. While the new rifle was an effective evolution of the Kalashnikov design, there was a growing concern that the accuracy of the average conscript soldier was insufficient for the modern battlefield. In 1978, the Ministry of Defense launched an ambitious research and development competition, codenamed “Abakan,” with a single, highly specific goal: to develop a new assault rifle with a combat effectiveness—primarily defined as hit probability—1.5 to 2 times greater than the AK-74, especially when firing in bursts from unstable positions.³² This narrow and demanding requirement spurred a wave of some of the most complex and mechanically ingenious rifle designs ever created.

Table 2: Key Finalists of the “Abakan” Competition

Feature	AN-94 (Nikonov)	AO-63 (Simonov & Tkachev)	TKB-0146 (Stechkin)
Core Technical Approach	Blowback Shifted Pulse (BBSP) with recoiling receiver, pulley, and cable ³⁶	Double-barreled, dual gas systems ³⁵	Recoil Impulse Displacement (carriage-mounted system) ³²
Burst Rate of Fire	1,800 rounds/min (2-round) ³⁶	6,000 rounds/min (2-round) ³⁷	High (unspecified, similar principle to AN-94) ³³
Key Strengths (Trials)	Excellent accuracy in 2-round burst, met core requirement ³⁸	Highly accurate, simple, and reliable according to reports ³⁷	Excellent accuracy, very low felt recoil ³³
Key Weaknesses	Extreme mechanical complexity, poor ergonomics, high cost ⁴⁰	Prohibitive production cost and complexity due to dual components ³⁵	High complexity, sensitivity to dirt ³⁴

Case Study: The AO-63 Double-Barreled Rifle

Of all the entries in the Abakan trials, the AO-63, designed by Sergei Simonov and Peter Tkachev, was perhaps the most direct and audacious solution to the accuracy problem.³⁷ Rather than attempting to manage the recoil of a single barrel, the designers simply added a second one.

A Brute-Force Solution

The AO-63 was a twin-barreled assault rifle, with two barrels mounted side-by-side in a single receiver.35 To function, this required a complete duplication of the core operating mechanism: two gas pistons, two rotating bolts, and two hammers, all working in concert.35 Its signature feature was a two-round burst mode that fired the barrels sequentially with a minuscule delay of just 0.01 seconds. This translated to a theoretical rate of fire of an astonishing 6,000 rounds per minute.37 The design philosophy was brutally simple: to land two projectiles on the target in such rapid succession that the shooter’s aim would not be disturbed by the recoil impulse of the first shot. The rifle also featured a unique full-automatic mode that fired the initial hyperburst from both barrels before continuing sustained fire from only the primary (right) barrel at a more conventional 850 RPM.35

Performance and Rejection

According to official reports from the trials, the AO-63 performed remarkably well. It was described as being highly accurate, as well as simple and reliable in its operation—a surprising assessment given its internal complexity.37 Despite this positive evaluation, the rifle was eventually dropped from the competition. While the official records state the reasons are “unknown,” the cause is almost certainly rooted in the practical realities of production.37 The sheer complexity of manufacturing a service rifle with two of every core component would have been an industrial and logistical nightmare, leading to prohibitively high production and maintenance costs.35

Case Study: The AN-94 – Victory in Trials, Failure in Service

The eventual winner of the Abakan competition was Gennadiy Nikonov’s design, which would be formally adopted in 1994 as the AN-94.³⁸ It was a weapon of breathtaking mechanical complexity, often compared to a Swiss watch for its intricate internal workings.

A Watchmaker’s Solution

The AN-94 achieved its accuracy through a system Nikonov called “blowback shifted pulse” (BBSP).36 The entire firing mechanism—barrel, receiver, and bolt group—was a single unit capable of recoiling back and forth within an external polymer housing that the soldier held. This unit was connected to the bolt carrier via a pulley and a short steel cable.36 When fired, this system allowed the rifle to fire two rounds at a rate of 1,800 RPM. The first round fired as normal. As the internal unit recoiled, a mechanism would feed and fire the second round

before the recoiling mass had completed its rearward travel and impacted the housing. The result was that the felt recoil impulse from both shots reached the shooter’s shoulder at roughly the same time, after both bullets had already left the barrel.⁴³ This system worked as advertised, allowing for two rounds to be placed on a target with incredible precision, thus fulfilling the core Abakan requirement.³⁶

Operational Failure

While the AN-94 was a triumph of engineering that won the competition, it was a catastrophic failure as a service rifle. In the hands of ordinary soldiers, its complexity became its downfall.

Ergonomics: The rifle was poorly balanced and noticeably front-heavy, weighing almost 9.5 pounds loaded.⁴⁰ Its controls were awkward, with a separate safety and fire selector that was difficult to manipulate.⁴⁰ Most bizarrely, the magazine had to be inserted at a slight angle to the right to accommodate the recoiling mechanism, which made reloading awkward and prevented the use of the magazine as a monopod when firing from the prone position.⁴⁰
Complexity and Maintenance: The AN-94 was a maintenance nightmare. Its intricate pulley-and-cable system and complex trigger group were far too complicated for a conscript army accustomed to the AK-74’s elegant simplicity. Clearing common malfunctions was an exceedingly difficult and time-consuming process.⁴⁰
Cost: The rifle was exorbitantly expensive to manufacture, with a level of machining and complexity that far exceeded the simple stampings of the AK-74.

Due to these profound and insurmountable flaws, the AN-94 was never produced in large numbers. It saw very limited service, primarily with special forces and internal ministry troops, but it completely failed in its stated goal of replacing the AK-74 as the standard-issue rifle of the Russian military.³⁵ It was a weapon that won a competition but lost the war of practicality.

The entire Abakan program, culminating in the flawed victory of the AN-94, represents a massive strategic miscalculation and a profound departure from the proven Soviet arms doctrine. It was an attempt to solve a human factors problem—the marksmanship limitations of the average conscript—with an extremely complex and expensive mechanical solution. This occurred at the very time when Western militaries were beginning to address the same problem with far more practical and effective solutions, such as universal adoption of optical sights and improved training regimens. The designers in the Abakan program created mechanically brilliant but baroque and costly weapons to meet a very narrow metric. The AN-94 “won” because it was the best at solving this isolated technical puzzle. In doing so, however, it failed every other practical test of a service rifle: cost, simplicity, ergonomics, and ease of maintenance. It sacrificed the holistic “Sufficient Excellence” of the Kalashnikov for “Perfection” in a single, narrow parameter. The failure of the AN-94 taught the Russian military a costly but vital lesson: over-optimizing for one performance metric at the expense of all others results in an unbalanced and ultimately useless design for a general-issue weapon. Its failure led the Russian military to abandon the pursuit of a “hyperburst” rifle and eventually return to the proven Kalashnikov platform with the modernized AK-12, a tacit admission that the entire Abakan detour was a dead end.

Conclusion: A Century of Lessons Learned

The history of failed Soviet and Russian small arms projects is not a story of engineering incompetence. On the contrary, it is filled with visionary designers and mechanically brilliant concepts. The failures were rarely technical in the purest sense; rather, they stemmed from a fundamental disconnect between engineering possibility and military reality. The road not taken was, in most cases, a road that led away from the fundamental truths of what makes a successful military weapon for a massive land army.

A century of development reveals a recurring conflict between the allure of radical innovation and the powerful inertia of doctrinal conservatism and logistical pragmatism. The AVS-36, with its complex and fragile mechanism, taught the Red Army the brutal lesson that reliability is the paramount virtue of an infantry rifle. The TKB-517, a technically superior weapon, demonstrated that even a better rifle cannot overcome the immense institutional and industrial ecosystem built around an established platform like the Kalashnikov. The avant-garde designs of Korobov and Gerasimenko showed that innovation cannot succeed without a clear doctrinal need and a mature technological base to support it. Finally, the entire Abakan program and its flawed champion, the AN-94, served as the ultimate cautionary tale against the perilous pursuit of perfection in a single metric at the expense of the holistic qualities that define a practical tool of war.

These historical precedents cast a long shadow that directly informs contemporary Russian weapons development. The troubled, iterative design process of the modern AK-12 rifle, with its focus on evolutionary rather than revolutionary improvements, is a direct reflection of the lessons learned from the Abakan fiasco. The ghosts of the AN-94 and TKB-022PM still haunt Russian procurement offices, serving as powerful reminders of the dangers of excessive complexity and radical change. The enduring legacy of these failed projects is the continuous reaffirmation of the Doctrine of Sufficient Excellence—a philosophy that, for better or worse, has kept the simple, rugged, and reliable Kalashnikov at the heart of Russian military power for over seventy years.

Summary of Failed Projects

Project/Weapon	Era/Competition	Primary Reason for Failure	Key Lesson Learned
AVS-36	Pre-WWII (1930s)	Overly complex, unreliable in harsh conditions, uncontrollable in full-auto ³	Absolute reliability and simplicity are paramount over advanced features.
TKB-517	Post-WWII (1950s AKM Trials)	Institutional inertia; military familiarity with the AK platform and high cost of re-tooling outweighed superior performance ⁷	A “better” weapon is not enough to displace an entrenched, “good enough” system without a game-changing advantage.
TKB-022PM	Cold War (1960s)	“Too radical” design (bullpup), concerns over durability of new materials (polymers), lack of doctrinal need ¹⁸	Innovation requires both doctrinal “pull” and technological maturity to be accepted by a conservative military.
VAG-73	Cold War (1970s)	Immature technology (caseless ammo), unreliable, heavy, complex, expensive ²⁶	Technological ambition must be supported by a mature scientific and industrial base to be viable.
AO-63	Late Cold War (Project Abakan, 1980s)	Prohibitive complexity and production cost due to its double-barreled design ³⁵	A brute-force solution, even if effective, can be logistically and economically impractical for mass issue.
AN-94	Post-Cold War (Project Abakan winner)	Extreme mechanical complexity, poor ergonomics, high cost, and difficult maintenance made it unsuitable for general issue ³⁵	Over-optimizing for a single performance metric at the expense of holistic practicality results in a failed service weapon.

If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something. If you’d like to directly donate to help fund our continued report, please visit our donations page.

Sources Used

The Soviet Union’s Philosophy Of Weapons Design – Quintus Curtius, accessed August 15, 2025, https://qcurtius.com/2016/09/15/the-soviet-unions-philosophy-of-weapons-design/
Developmental History of the AK with Max Popenker – Forgotten Weapons, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.forgottenweapons.com/developmental-history-of-the-ak-with-max-popenker/
AVS-36 – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVS-36
Из-за каких недостатков АВС-36 так и не прижилась в Красной армии | – Novate.ru, accessed August 15, 2025, https://novate.ru/blogs/260623/66759/
Автоматическая винтовка Симонова (АВС-36) – Беларусь сегодня, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.sb.by/articles/avtomaticheskaya-vintovka-simonova-avs-36.html
7,62-мм опытный автомат ТКБ-517 – Статьи об оружии и …, accessed August 15, 2025, https://weaponland.ru/publ/7_62_mm_opytnyj_avtomat_tkb_517/5-1-0-1493
TKB-517 – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TKB-517
Experimental: TKB-517 by German Korobov – Kalashnikov Group, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.kalashnikovgroup.ru/media/panoptikum/panoptikum-tkb-517-germana-korobova
My 10th favorite – Imgur, accessed August 15, 2025, https://imgur.com/gallery/10th-favorite-wGiWAdJ
Автомат ТКБ-09 (СССР) | DogsWar.ru – Всё о стрелковом оружии …, accessed August 15, 2025, http://www.dogswar.ru/oryjeinaia-ekzotika/strelkovoe-oryjie/3506-avtomat-tkb-09-ross.html
Korobov’s Guns: Strange Soviet weapon prototypes – Imgur, accessed August 15, 2025, https://imgur.com/gallery/korobovs-guns-strange-soviet-weapon-prototypes-lKl1x
Автомат Коробова ТКБ-517 был одним из основных конкурентов АКМ на конкурсе в 1950-х годах. Несмотря на то, что по ряду.. 2025 | ВКонтакте, accessed August 15, 2025, https://m.vk.com/wall-58907206_131072
Indeed! By accounts Korobov’s 1946 rival ( the TKB-408 ) was technically more so… | Hacker News, accessed August 15, 2025, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6955455
Korobov’s Guns: Strange Soviet weapon prototypes – Imgur, accessed August 15, 2025, https://imgur.com/gallery/lKl1x/comment/566596113
Коробов Герман Александрович (16.06.1913 – 27.12.2006) – Тульский государственный музей оружия, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.museum-arms.ru/about/tula-armory/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=4682
автомат ТКБ-03, ТКБ-09 2020 – Оружие Коробова – ВКонтакте, accessed August 15, 2025, https://vk.com/@modernfirearms-oruzhie-korobova-avtomat-tkb-03-tkb-09
Korobov and his firearm designs : r/ForgottenWeapons – Reddit, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/ForgottenWeapons/comments/95g3cw/korobov_and_his_firearm_designs/
TKB-022PM – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TKB-022PM
Bullpup – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullpup
TKB-022PM: full disassembly & assembly – YouTube, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U163InEeDVo
TKB-022: Keeping with the theme of weird Russian prototype bullpup rifles, this was a forward ejecting 7.62×39 assault rifle. It used a vertically sliding breechblock with a U-shaped ejector/extractor. It ejected the spend casing out from the tube under the front sight assembly. : r/ForgottenWeapons – Reddit, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/ForgottenWeapons/comments/fi0cdd/tkb022_keeping_with_the_theme_of_weird_russian/
Экспериментальный автомат ТКБ-022ПМ: masterok — LiveJournal, accessed August 15, 2025, https://masterok.livejournal.com/7302522.html
TKB-022PM experimental Soviet bullpup rifle and its variants. : r/WeirdWeapons – Reddit, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdWeapons/comments/aca55g/tkb022pm_experimental_soviet_bullpup_rifle_and/
Picture: TKB-022PM Korobov assault rifle : r/LessCredibleDefence – Reddit, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/24xow9/picture_tkb022pm_korobov_assault_rifle/
Экспериментальный автомат ТКБ-022ПМ – Мастерок.жж.рф – LiveJournal, accessed August 15, 2025, https://masterok.livejournal.com/10970140.html’
The most unusual Soviet pistol – Irish Sun, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.irishsun.com/news/258370693/the-most-unusual-soviet-pistol
Caseless ammunition – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caseless_ammunition
This PISTOL holds more ammo than an M4! #shorts – YouTube, accessed August 15, 2025, https://m.youtube.com/shorts/ILkaYz-tT2w
VAG-73 caseless 48 round pistol with Tandem magazine #history #war #firepower #future #tech – YouTube, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NJUDg05m_AI
Exploring the VAG 73 Russian Caseless Gyrojet Weapon – TikTok, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.tiktok.com/@scifiandswords/video/7526576786860182797
AK-47’s Underrated Rival Ahead of Its Time: Korobov Rifle – YouTube, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37ZjwxCiqsk
Абакан (конкурс) — Википедия, accessed August 15, 2025, https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD_(%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D1%81)
Simonov & Tkachev AO-63 assault rifle | Secret Projects Forum, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/simonov-tkachev-ao-63-assault-rifle.5611/
Simonov & Tkachev AO-63 assault rifle – Indians For Guns, accessed August 15, 2025, https://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?t=6030
Avtomat AO-63: The Assault Rifle that Never Was – Small Arms Review, accessed August 15, 2025, https://smallarmsreview.com/avtomat-ao-63-the-assault-rifle-that-never-was/
The Secret Story of The AN-94 “Abakan” Assault Rifle – Small Arms Review, accessed August 15, 2025, https://smallarmsreview.com/the-secret-story-of-the-an-94-abakan-assault-rifle/
AO-63 assault rifle – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AO-63_assault_rifle
Project Abakan – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Abakan
The Abakan assault rifle trials – Military and Aviation – DCS World Forums, accessed August 15, 2025, https://forum.dcs.world/topic/29203-the-abakan-assault-rifle-trials/
Russian 5.45x39mm AN-94 Nikonov Rifle: Better Than the AK-74 …, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/russian-545x39mm-an94-nikonov-review/383282
AO-63: The Soviet Rifle That Fired 6,000 Rounds Per Minute #shorts – YouTube, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qS6noZ93WA
AO-63 – ArtStation, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.artstation.com/artwork/8Bllqx
Why does AN-94 have higher burst fire than its cyclic rate? – Engineering Stack Exchange, accessed August 15, 2025, https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/2285/why-does-an-94-have-higher-burst-fire-than-its-cyclic-rate
Битва за новый автомат – Военное обозрение, accessed August 15, 2025, https://topwar.ru/64203-bitva-za-novyy-avtomat.html

Analytics and Reports, Small Arms Industry Analytics, US Small Arms Market Analytics

An Analysis of Prominent Firearm Failures: Q3 2024 – Q3 2025

September 4, 2025 RoninsGrips

This report provides a comprehensive technical and strategic analysis of the 20 most discussed firearm and accessory failures observed in public forums between Q3 2024 and Q3 2025. The modern firearms market, characterized by intense competition, accelerated product development cycles, and the pervasive influence of online communities, has created an environment where product reliability and corporate response strategies are under unprecedented scrutiny. This analysis performs a root cause analysis for each prominent failure—categorizing it as a flaw in design, material, or manufacturing—evaluates the efficacy of the manufacturer’s corrective actions, and distills critical, actionable lessons for the industry.

The findings reveal several systemic trends. First, supply chain vulnerabilities remain a critical point of failure, as evidenced by issues stemming from third-party suppliers in the Smith & Wesson M&P Shield EZ (cracked hammers) and Steyr AUG (polymer stock degradation) cases. Second, latent design flaws, particularly those related to fire control systems, pose significant legal and reputational risks that can persist for years. Third, maintaining stringent quality control during high-volume production of both new and established platforms presents a persistent challenge, with notable issues affecting new releases like the Canik METE MC9 and legacy platforms like the Remington 870. Finally, the analysis underscores the importance of aligning product design with established market expectations, as seen in the case of the Savage Arms Stance, where key feature choices led to a negative market reception.

The following table summarizes the key findings of this report, offering a high-level dashboard for senior decision-makers to assess the current landscape of industry risks, competitor vulnerabilities, and benchmark strategic responses to product failures.

Table 1: Overview of Top 20 Firearm Failures and Root Cause Analysis

#	Firearm/Product	Manufacturer	Failure Description	Primary Root Cause	Date First Discovered	Date Acknowledged/Fixed	Manufacturer Corrective Action	Analyst’s Assessment of Action
1	M&P Shield EZ Pistol	Smith & Wesson	Cracked hammers leading to potential for multiple discharges.	Manufacturing/Material (Supplier)	November 2020	November 23, 2020	Voluntary recall for inspection and hammer replacement.	Effective and Transparent; a model for handling supplier defects.
2	Henry H015 &.45-70 Rifles	Henry Repeating Arms	Potential for discharge if hammer is dropped from cocked position.	Design	Mid-2020 (H015) & Early 2023 (.45-70)	Mid-2020 (H015) & March 2023 (.45-70)	Voluntary recall for fire control system/firing pin replacement.	Effective and Transparent; strong customer-centric communication.
3	CZ Scorpion EVO	CZ	Risk of out-of-battery detonation, causing catastrophic failure.	Design	Circa 2022	Not formally acknowledged	No formal recall; addressed on a case-by-case basis via warranty.	Insufficient; fails to address a critical safety design flaw publicly.
4	Walther PDP	Walther	“Dead trigger” if trigger is pulled while slide is slightly out of battery.	Design	Late 2021	Not formally acknowledged	Addressed via running production changes and warranty service.	Reactive; a critical flaw for a duty-use firearm.
5	FN 509	FN Herstal	Striker tip breaking, rendering the pistol inoperable.	Material/Manufacturing	Circa 2018	Not formally acknowledged	Addressed through warranty repair; aftermarket has produced robust solutions.	Reactive; MIM component choice for high-stress part is questionable.
6	Taurus GX4	Taurus	Firing pins breaking at low round counts (~1,500).	Material/Manufacturing	Ongoing since 2022	Not formally acknowledged	Handled on a case-by-case basis through warranty repair.	Insufficient; does not address apparent systemic component issue.
7	Canik METE MC9	Canik	Failure to return to battery, particularly with lower-power ammunition.	Design/Manufacturing	Early 2025	Ongoing 2025	Provided lighter recoil springs to customers upon request; running changes.	Reactive; places diagnostic burden on the consumer.
8	Springfield Armory Echelon	Springfield Armory	Magazine base plates failing; slide locking open mid-magazine.	Material/Design	Q3 2023	Not formally acknowledged	Addressed via running production changes with no formal announcement.	Opaque; lacks transparency and public accountability.
9	Mossberg 940 Pro	Mossberg	Failure to cycle and feed reliably, especially with light loads.	Manufacturing/Design	Late 2022 – Early 2023	Not formally acknowledged	Handled through warranty service; issues vary by production batch.	Inconsistent; reflects potential lapses in assembly QC.
10	Beretta A300 Ultima Patrol	Beretta	Trigger pack failures and cycling issues with light loads.	Manufacturing	Early 2024	Not formally acknowledged	Handled through warranty service; requires return to factory.	Standard, but slow; points to potential QC issues at US facility.
11	Remington 870	Remington / RemArms	Systemic QC decline (rust, rough chambers, MIM extractor failures).	Manufacturing	Circa 2007	2021 (by RemArms)	Addressed by new ownership (RemArms) via improved models (Fieldmaster).	Proactive (by new owner); a case study in brand rehabilitation.
12	Colt Python (New)	Colt	Action timing issues, cylinder misalignment, and light primer strikes.	Manufacturing	January 2020	February 21, 2020	Addressed issues with mainspring changes and thread-locker on side plates.	Proactive Response to Early Issues; demonstrates complexity of reviving a classic design.
13	Steyr AUG	Steyr Arms	Polymer stocks developing cracks near the takedown block.	Material (Supplier)	Circa 2021-2022	Ongoing	Stock replacement program for affected date codes.	Effective and Transparent; acknowledged a supplier material issue.
14	AR-15 Platform	Systemic	Gas system/recoil buffer mismatches causing cycling failures.	Design (System Integration)	N/A (Ongoing)	N/A	N/A (Platform issue)	N/A; highlights challenge of non-standardized aftermarket.
15	Glock 43X	Glock	Failures to feed with certain hollow-point ammunition profiles.	Design	Ongoing since release	Not formally acknowledged	No formal action; considered a tolerance/ammo compatibility issue.	Standard for Platform; users must test and select reliable ammunition.
16	Ruger Precision Rifle	Ruger	Inconsistent accuracy and loose buttstock/chassis components.	Manufacturing	Ongoing since 2016	2017 (Gen 1 Recall)	Gen 1 bolt shroud recall; other issues handled through warranty service.	Inconsistent; reflects QC challenges in mass-market precision rifles.
17	Kel-Tec KSG	Kel-Tec	Feeding malfunctions, often attributed to “short-stroking” the action.	Design/User Interface	Circa 2012	Not formally acknowledged	No formal action; considered part of the manual of arms.	Debatable; design is sensitive to user technique.
18	H&K VP9	Heckler & Koch	“False” trigger reset point, where trigger clicks but is not reset.	Design	Circa 2015	Not formally acknowledged	Addressed via running production changes and warranty service.	Reactive; a subtle but critical flaw in the fire control group.
19	CZ P-10 C	CZ	Stiff magazine release and slide stop, requiring excessive force.	Design/Manufacturing	2017 (on release)	Not formally acknowledged	No formal action; considered a break-in characteristic.	Acceptable; components loosen with use, but initial impression is poor.
20	Savage Arms Stance	Savage Arms	Uncompetitive design choices (low capacity, small controls, long reset).	Design	Late 2021	2025 (XR Model Release)	Released updated Stance XR model with some changes.	Reactive and Incomplete; fails to address core market disadvantages.

II. Introduction: The Modern Landscape of Firearm Reliability

The contemporary firearms industry operates within a strategic landscape fundamentally reshaped by economic pressures and digital technology. The confluence of a saturated consumer market, intense competition for innovation, and the rise of social media has established a new paradigm for product reliability, quality control, and brand reputation management. A firearm’s performance is no longer judged solely by gunsmiths and print journalists but is subjected to continuous, public, and often unforgiving evaluation by a global community of end-users.

The Digital Proving Ground

Online platforms have evolved into a de facto global testing and evaluation apparatus for every new product that enters the market. High-traffic forums dedicated to specific firearm types or shooting disciplines, such as Accurate Shooter for precision rifle smithing ¹ and Rokslide for hunting applications ³, along with broad communities on Reddit ⁴ and influential YouTube channels ⁵, function as a real-time, crowd-sourced database of performance and failure data. A single, well-documented video demonstrating a critical failure or a viral forum thread detailing a recurring malfunction can inflict more immediate and widespread reputational damage than a negative review in a traditional publication. This digital ecosystem accelerates the discovery of flaws and amplifies their impact, compressing the timeline in which a manufacturer must identify, acknowledge, and rectify a problem before it becomes a brand crisis.

Economic Pressures and Quality Implications

Simultaneously, the market dynamics of recent years have incentivized rapid product development. With fear-based buying subsiding from the peaks seen earlier in the decade, manufacturers now compete for discretionary spending by launching new models and creating new product categories.⁸ This pressure to innovate and release products quickly can, in some cases, lead to the truncation of long-term durability and validation testing. The result is often a wave of “teething issues” that emerge only after a product is in the hands of thousands of consumers, who then document these failures on the digital proving ground. This dynamic places a premium on post-launch surveillance and agile response capabilities.

This environment has also revealed a critical distinction between a true design flaw and a design’s lack of resilience to common user behavior. Many online discussions, particularly concerning highly modular platforms like the AR-15 ¹² and the Springfield Echelon ¹⁴, highlight this gray area. For instance, a user might install an aftermarket spring kit in their Echelon, inadvertently lose or misalign a small, critical component like the slide lock spring during the process, and subsequently experience malfunctions.¹⁴ The immediate conclusion is user error. However, a deeper analysis questions whether the firearm’s design is robust enough. A truly resilient design should anticipate common, manufacturer-encouraged modifications and be engineered to minimize the likelihood of such user-induced failures. This principle, known in manufacturing as

poka-yoke (mistake-proofing), suggests that if a common user action leads to a predictable failure, the design itself may bear a portion of the responsibility. This represents a significant challenge and a crucial lesson for engineers developing the next generation of modular firearms.

III. In-Depth Analysis of Firearm Failures

This section provides a detailed case-study analysis for each of the 20 identified failures. Each case is examined to determine its technical root cause, the manufacturer’s response, and the strategic lessons that can be derived for the broader industry.

A. Handgun Platform Failures

1. Smith & Wesson M&P Shield EZ: Cracked Hammer & Multiple Discharge Potential

Failure Description: Smith & Wesson issued a safety recall for a specific production run of M&P Shield EZ pistols manufactured between March and October 2020. The defect involved cracked hammers that could fail to fully engage the sear. This could cause the firearm to discharge upon slide closure or fire in a multi-round burst, with the critical caveat that the grip safety had to be depressed for the malfunction to occur.¹⁵
Root Cause Analysis (Manufacturing/Material): The failure was unequivocally traced back to a specific batch of hammers provided by an outside supplier.¹⁶ This points directly to a failure in either the material science (e.g., an improper steel alloy, impurities, or inclusions) or the manufacturing process (e.g., improper heat treatment leading to hydrogen embrittlement, or poor forging/casting) at the supplier’s facility. It represents a classic supply chain failure where a critical component did not meet design specifications.
Manufacturer’s Corrective Action: Smith & Wesson executed a model response. They issued a clear, unambiguous safety recall notice for a well-defined range of serial numbers and manufacturing dates. The company established a dedicated website and toll-free number for consumers to check if their pistol was affected and arranged for prepaid shipping labels for the return of affected firearms. The corrective action was a full inspection and, if necessary, replacement of the hammer at no cost to the consumer.¹⁵
Assessment of Action: Effective and Transparent. This is a textbook example of a well-managed recall for a manufacturing-based defect. The communication was direct and transparent, the scope of the problem was clearly defined, and the remedy was comprehensive and placed no financial burden on the customer. This approach effectively contained the problem and mitigated long-term brand damage.
Lessons Learned: The Shield EZ recall is a critical case study in supply chain vulnerability. Even a premier manufacturer with robust internal processes is only as strong as its weakest supplier. This failure underscores the absolute necessity of rigorous incoming quality control (IQC) and supplier auditing for critical, single-point-of-failure components like hammers, sears, and extractors. The cost of a comprehensive recall and the associated reputational damage far outweighs the investment in stringent supplier management and component validation.

2. Henry Repeating Arms H015 &.45-70: Unintentional Discharge from Hammer/Sear Interface

Failure Description: Henry Repeating Arms issued two separate but related safety recalls. The first was for the H015 Single Shot rifles and shotguns, which could potentially discharge without a trigger pull if the hammer was partially cocked and then released.²⁰ The second was for certain.45-70 lever-action rifles, which could discharge if the hammer was dropped from the fully cocked position without pulling the trigger.²³
Root Cause Analysis (Design/Manufacturing): Both recalls point to issues in the fire control group. The H015 issue was a flaw in the geometry of the hammer/sear engagement, allowing the hammer to slip under certain conditions. The.45-70 issue was traced to firing pins that did not meet specification, which could allow an inertial discharge. These are fundamental failures in the design and manufacturing of the components responsible for preventing the gun from firing until the trigger is pulled.
Manufacturer’s Corrective Action: In both cases, Henry issued prompt, voluntary recalls. The company provided clear instructions, a searchable serial number database on its website, and prepaid shipping labels for customers to return their firearms for repair. For the H015, they also included a complimentary trigger system upgrade. For the.45-70, they offered a $50 gift card for the inconvenience.²¹
Assessment of Action: Effective and Transparent. Henry’s response is a model for the industry. The communication was direct, honest, and customer-focused. The remedy was comprehensive, free of charge, and included gestures of goodwill. This approach builds significant brand loyalty and trust, even in the face of a safety-critical defect.
Lessons Learned: A company’s response to a crisis is as important as the quality of its products. Proactive, transparent, and generous handling of a safety recall can not only mitigate legal and financial damage but can actually enhance a brand’s reputation for customer service and integrity.

3. CZ Scorpion EVO: Out-of-Battery Detonation Risk

Failure Description: A serious and dangerous failure mode has been documented with the CZ Scorpion EVO platform: out-of-battery (OOB) detonation. This occurs when a round ignites before the bolt is fully closed and locked into battery, resulting in a catastrophic failure where the high-pressure gas vents into the receiver, often destroying the firearm and posing a severe injury risk to the shooter.²⁴
Root Cause Analysis (Design): The failure is attributed to a design flaw in the Scorpion’s simple blowback bolt and fire control mechanism. Analysis by users and gunsmiths suggests that the striker block safety can be disengaged prematurely, allowing the striker to fall while the bolt is still slightly out of battery. This condition can be exacerbated by factors that increase the bolt’s bounce or cycling speed, such as the use of aftermarket binary triggers or certain ammunition types, but the fundamental vulnerability exists in the stock design.²⁴
Manufacturer’s Corrective Action: CZ has not issued a formal recall or publicly acknowledged a design flaw. The company has handled OOB incidents on a case-by-case basis through its warranty department, typically replacing the destroyed firearm.
Assessment of Action: Insufficient. A failure mode that involves the catastrophic destruction of the firearm and a high risk of serious injury warrants a more proactive and transparent response than individual warranty replacements. The lack of a formal recall or safety bulletin for a known OOB detonation risk is a significant lapse in product stewardship.
Lessons Learned: For any firearm, but especially for simple blowback designs which lack a positive locking mechanism, the out-of-battery safety is the single most critical safety feature. This safety mechanism must be robustly designed to prevent firing under all conceivable conditions of bolt bounce and cycling speed. Ignoring a known, catastrophic failure mode, no matter how rare, creates immense legal liability and irreparably damages consumer trust.

4. Walther PDP: “Dead Trigger” Out-of-Battery Failure

Failure Description: Early production models of the Walther PDP exhibited a critical design flaw related to out-of-battery safety. If the slide was pushed slightly to the rear (e.g., during a contact shot or administrative handling) and the trigger was pulled, the trigger would become “dead” even after the slide returned to battery. To reset the trigger and make the pistol functional again, the user would have to manually rack the slide, a potentially catastrophic delay in a defensive scenario.²⁶
Root Cause Analysis (Design): The failure is a design flaw in the timing and interaction of the trigger disconnect and the firing pin block. In the affected pistols, if the slide is moved slightly out of battery (approximately 1/4 inch), the firing pin block engages, but the trigger has not yet disconnected from the sear. This allows the user to pull the trigger, causing the striker to fall but be caught by the block. However, this action does not reset the trigger mechanism properly, resulting in a dead trigger once the slide is back in battery.²⁷ This is a critical failure in the fire control system’s logic.
Manufacturer’s Corrective Action: Walther did not issue a formal recall but acknowledged the issue and implemented a running production change to correct the flaw in newer models. The issue was reportedly fixed on the “F” series models and subsequently addressed on the standard PDP line. Customers with affected early models could have the issue resolved through warranty service.²⁶
Assessment of Action: Reactive. While Walther did correct the design flaw in later production, addressing the issue through a silent running change and warranty service placed the burden on early adopters to identify a subtle but dangerous failure mode. For a firearm marketed for duty and defensive use, a more proactive and transparent notification to owners of early models would have been appropriate.
Lessons Learned: This case demonstrates that a firearm’s safety and function must be robust against all foreseeable use cases, including high-stress, close-quarters encounters that could force a slide out of battery. The interaction between all components of a fire control group must be perfectly synchronized to ensure the system “fails safe” under all conditions.

5. FN 509: Striker Breakage and Material Durability

Failure Description: A recurring issue discussed among FN 509 owners is the breakage of the striker tip. This catastrophic failure renders the pistol completely inoperable. The failure often occurs without warning during live or dry fire. The issue has been prevalent enough to spawn a robust aftermarket of more durable, machined tool-steel strikers from companies like Apex Tactical and M*CARBO.³⁰
Root Cause Analysis (Material/Manufacturing): The factory FN 509 striker is a Metal Injection Molded (MIM) component. While MIM is a cost-effective manufacturing process suitable for many parts, its application for a high-impact, high-fatigue component like a striker tip is debatable. MIM parts can have lower fatigue strength and be more susceptible to fracture from internal voids or improper sintering compared to parts machined from solid bar stock or forged steel. The pattern of breakage at the tip points to a material and process choice that may not be sufficiently robust for the intended application.³²
Manufacturer’s Corrective Action: FN has addressed this issue through its standard warranty process, replacing broken strikers for customers who send their pistols in for repair. The company has not issued a recall or changed the material specification of the factory striker.
Assessment of Action: Reactive. Providing warranty replacement is the minimum required response. However, the persistence of the issue and the thriving aftermarket for a solution suggest that the root cause—the choice of MIM for this critical component—has not been addressed at the production level. This allows a known potential failure point to remain in a duty-grade firearm.
Lessons Learned: This case is a central exhibit in the ongoing industry debate about the appropriate use of MIM components. While MIM technology has advanced significantly, this failure demonstrates the risk of using it for parts subjected to high-frequency, high-impact stress cycles. For critical components where failure is not an option, the higher upfront cost of machined or forged parts can be a prudent investment in long-term reliability and brand reputation.

6. Taurus GX4: Firing Pin and Extractor Breakages

Failure Description: A significant pattern of user reports emerged for the Taurus GX4 pistol concerning the catastrophic failure of the firing pin. Owners documented the firing pin breaking after a relatively low round count, often cited as being around the 1,500-round mark, rendering the firearm completely inoperable. Additional widespread complaints included failures to extract spent casings and premature rusting on the slide’s finish.³³
Root Cause Analysis (Material/Manufacturing): A component breaking at a consistent, low round count is a classic indicator of metal fatigue failure. This strongly suggests a systemic issue with either the material specification of the firing pin (e.g., an incorrect steel alloy lacking the necessary toughness) or a flaw in the manufacturing process. Potential manufacturing flaws include improper heat treatment, which can create a brittle part, or the presence of microscopic tool marks or sharp internal corners that act as stress risers, initiating a fatigue crack. The concurrent issues with extractors and finish quality point to broader lapses in quality control and materials management.
Manufacturer’s Corrective Action: Taurus has addressed these failures on an individual, case-by-case basis through its warranty repair service. The company has not issued a formal recall or publicly acknowledged a systemic issue with the firing pins or other components.
Assessment of Action: Insufficient. While providing warranty service resolves the problem for an individual customer, it fails to address what appears to be a systemic manufacturing or material defect in a critical safety and functional component. This approach can erode long-term brand credibility, as the online community quickly identifies the pattern of failures, leading to a perception of poor quality and reliability.
Lessons Learned: This type of failure highlights the critical importance of stringent material science and process controls for small, high-stress components. The cost savings achieved by using a lower-grade material or a less-controlled manufacturing process for a part like a firing pin are minuscule compared to the downstream costs of warranty repairs, reputational damage, and potential liability. This serves as a powerful reminder that robust engineering requires specifying not just the dimensions of a part, but the exact material, heat treatment, and surface finish required for its intended service life.

7. Canik METE MC9: Recoil Assembly & Return-to-Battery Failures

Failure Description: Early production models of the Canik METE MC9, a highly anticipated micro-compact pistol, exhibited a significant rate of failures to return to battery (FTRTB). Users widely reported that after firing, the slide would stop just short of being fully closed, requiring a manual push or tap to seat the slide and enable the next shot. The issue was particularly prevalent with lower-pressure, 115-grain range ammunition.³⁴
Root Cause Analysis (Design/Manufacturing): The root cause is a recoil spring assembly that was not optimally tuned for the wide spectrum of 9mm ammunition pressures in a miniaturized, lightweight slide platform. The operational window for the spring’s weight and tension was too narrow. A spring stiff enough to reliably strip and chamber powerful +P defensive rounds proved too resistant for the lower energy impulse of common training ammunition to overcome, leading to the FTRTB malfunctions. This is a common and difficult engineering challenge in the micro-compact category, where slide mass and recoil spring length are minimal.³⁵
Manufacturer’s Corrective Action: Canik’s response was primarily reactive. Customers who contacted customer service to complain about the issue were sent a new, lighter-weight recoil spring assembly free of charge. Forum discussions indicate that this replacement spring resolved the issue for most users, particularly with 115-grain ammunition. Later production runs of the MC9 appear to incorporate this revised spring design from the factory.³⁵
Assessment of Action: Reactive. While providing a functional fix to customers who seek it out is a positive step, this approach places the burden of diagnosis and initiation on the consumer. It suggests that the pre-launch testing and evaluation (T&E) phase was not sufficiently exhaustive to identify this issue across the full range of ammunition available in the consumer market.
Lessons Learned: The micro-compact pistol segment is one of the most competitive in the industry. The temptation to rush a product to market to compete with established models like the SIG P365 and Glock 43X is immense. This case illustrates the peril of doing so without exhaustive ammunition compatibility and endurance testing. The initial negative buzz generated by early adopters can severely damage the launch momentum of an otherwise well-designed and promising platform.

8. Springfield Armory Echelon: Magazine Integrity and Slide Lock Malfunctions

Failure Description: The launch of the highly modular Springfield Armory Echelon was accompanied by early user reports of two distinct issues. The first was a failure of the magazine base plate, where it would spontaneously detach, causing the magazine spring and cartridges to be forcefully ejected, a failure colloquially termed “exploding”.³⁶ The second issue involved the slide locking to the rear with rounds still remaining in the magazine.¹⁴
Root Cause Analysis (Material/Design & User Interface): The magazine base plate failure points to a defect in either the polymer material used or the manufacturing process of the plate and its retention tabs, leading to insufficient strength to contain the compressed magazine spring. The slide lock issue is more complex. A significant portion of these malfunctions can be attributed to user interface, where a modern high, thumbs-forward grip causes the shooter’s support-hand thumb to inadvertently press the slide lock lever upward during recoil. However, at least one documented case traced the problem to a missing slide lock lever spring, which the user had lost during aftermarket parts installation, highlighting a potential vulnerability in the design’s serviceability.¹⁴
Manufacturer’s Corrective Action: Springfield Armory has not issued a formal recall or public statement regarding either of these issues. The prevalence of reports concerning the magazine base plates has decreased over time, which strongly suggests that the company addressed the problem with a running change in materials or manufacturing on the production line.
Assessment of Action: Opaque. Addressing known issues through silent, running production changes is a common industry practice aimed at avoiding the cost and negative publicity of a formal recall. While effective from a production standpoint, it lacks transparency and leaves early adopters to seek solutions through warranty service without public acknowledgment of the problem. For the slide lock, the design’s susceptibility to user-induced error raises questions about the thoroughness of human factors testing during development.
Lessons Learned: First, ergonomics are a critical component of mechanical reliability. The design of control surfaces must be robust against unintentional activation from the wide variety of modern shooting grips and hand sizes. Second, even seemingly non-critical components like magazine base plates are integral to the system’s function and can cause a total failure. They must be subjected to the same rigorous stress and durability testing as the firearm’s main components.

9. Glock 43X: Feed Reliability with Defensive Ammunition

Failure Description: While generally reliable, the Glock 43X has generated a notable volume of online discussion regarding failures to feed (FTF) specifically when using certain types of hollow-point defensive ammunition. The malfunction typically involves the nose of the cartridge getting stuck on the feed ramp, preventing it from entering the chamber. The issue appears less frequently, or not at all, with round-nose full metal jacket (FMJ) training ammunition.³⁷
Root Cause Analysis (Design): This is a classic case of tolerance stacking and geometry incompatibility. The feed ramp angle, chamber dimensions, magazine feed lip geometry, and the specific ogive (bullet nose shape) of certain hollow-point rounds can combine to create a feeding issue. In subcompact pistols like the 43X, the cycling speed is faster and the geometry is more compressed, making them inherently less forgiving of ammunition variations than their full-size counterparts. The problem is not a “broken” part but a design whose tolerances are not universally compatible with all ammunition designs.³⁷
Manufacturer’s Corrective Action: Glock has not issued a recall or made any public statement, as the platform is generally considered reliable and meets internal performance standards. The issue is handled as an ammunition compatibility matter, which is standard practice for most firearm manufacturers.
Assessment of Action: Standard for Platform. This is not considered a defect in the traditional sense. The onus is placed on the end-user to test and validate their chosen defensive ammunition to ensure it functions reliably in their specific firearm, a widely accepted principle of responsible firearm ownership.
Lessons Learned: As pistols become smaller and lighter, the engineering tolerances for reliable function become tighter. This case highlights that for a concealed carry firearm, reliability cannot be assumed; it must be proven by the end-user with their specific carry load. It also serves as a reminder for ammunition manufacturers of the importance of designing bullet profiles that feed reliably across a wide range of popular firearm platforms, not just in SAAMI-spec test barrels.

10. CZ P-10 C: Control Component Stiffness and Break-In Issues

Failure Description: A common complaint from new owners of the CZ P-10 C, particularly early models, centers on the stiffness of the controls. The magazine release and the slide stop lever are often reported as being extremely difficult to actuate, requiring excessive force. This can make reloads and administrative handling frustrating for the user.³⁹
Root Cause Analysis (Design/Manufacturing): The issue stems from a combination of strong spring tensions and tight manufacturing tolerances, intended to create a durable and robust firearm. The slide stop is particularly affected because, on a new and unloaded pistol, the user is fighting the full force of the recoil spring without the upward assistance of a magazine follower. The magazine release stiffness is similarly due to a strong catch spring. These are not defects but rather design choices that prioritize component longevity over out-of-the-box ease of use.⁴⁰
Manufacturer’s Corrective Action: CZ has not implemented a formal correction program. The company and the user community consider this a characteristic of the firearm that improves with a “break-in” period. Through repeated use, the contact surfaces of the controls wear in, and the springs take a slight set, making the controls easier to operate over time.
Assessment of Action: Acceptable. While the initial user experience can be negative, the issue is not a functional or safety-critical failure and typically resolves itself with normal use. It is a trade-off between initial ergonomics and long-term durability.
Lessons Learned: The out-of-the-box experience is a critical part of a customer’s perception of quality. While a design choice may be technically sound from an engineering perspective (e.g., using strong springs for longevity), if it creates a negative first impression for a large number of users, it can harm the product’s reputation. Manufacturers should consider how to balance long-term durability with a more positive initial user experience, perhaps through pre-polishing certain contact surfaces or using slightly lighter initial springs.

11. H&K VP9: False Trigger Reset Phenomenon

Failure Description: Some users of the H&K VP9 have reported a “false trigger reset.” During the firing cycle, as the trigger is released forward, a distinct audible and tactile “click” is perceived, which normally signals the sear has reset. However, in these instances, pulling the trigger after this first click results in no action (a “dead” trigger). The trigger must be released further forward to a second, true reset point before the pistol can be fired again. This can be disorienting and dangerous in a defensive situation.⁴¹
Root Cause Analysis (Design): This is a subtle but critical flaw in the design of the trigger mechanism’s fire control group. It indicates an issue with the interaction between the trigger bar, disconnector, and sear, where a component provides a false reset indication before the system is actually ready to fire. This is not a breakage but a geometric and timing issue within the action’s design.⁴²
Manufacturer’s Corrective Action: H&K has not issued a formal recall but has reportedly addressed the issue for customers through its warranty service. Later production models of the VP9 appear to have incorporated a revised trigger design that eliminates this false reset, indicating a running production change was implemented.⁴² Aftermarket solutions, such as triggers from Grayguns, also address this by providing a cleaner, more positive reset.⁴³
Assessment of Action: Reactive. Similar to other manufacturers, H&K chose to address a known design flaw through running changes and individual warranty repairs rather than a public announcement. While this eventually resolves the issue for new buyers, it leaves owners of earlier models unaware of a potential issue with their firearm’s trigger system.
Lessons Learned: The trigger is the primary user interface of a firearm, and its performance is critical to both accuracy and user confidence. Subtle flaws like a false reset, while not as dramatic as a catastrophic failure, can completely undermine a shooter’s trust in their equipment. This underscores the importance of exhaustive human factors testing to ensure the trigger’s feel and function are not just safe, but also intuitive and unambiguous.

12. Savage Arms Stance: Uncompetitive Design Choices

Failure Description: Upon its release, the Savage Stance was met with criticism for several design choices that were seen as uncompetitive in the crowded micro-compact market. The primary complaints centered on its low magazine capacity (7 or 8 rounds) when competitors offered 10-13 rounds in similar-sized pistols, an undersized slide stop lever that was difficult to operate with one hand, a long and indistinct trigger reset, and an uncaptured recoil spring that made reassembly challenging.⁸⁰
Root Cause Analysis (Design): These issues are not manufacturing defects but deliberate design choices. The decision to use a single-stack magazine directly resulted in the lower capacity. The small controls were likely a trade-off for a snag-free profile for concealed carry, but this came at the cost of usability. These choices suggest a failure to accurately assess the established feature set and ergonomic expectations of the modern micro-compact pistol market.
Manufacturer’s Corrective Action: Savage has not issued a recall. For 2025, the company released the updated Stance XR model, which adds a three-slot accessory rail to the dustcover and uses new magazines, but does not address the core complaints regarding capacity, the slide stop, or the trigger reset.⁸²
Assessment of Action: Reactive and Incomplete. The Stance XR is an incremental update that adds a feature (an accessory rail) but fails to address the fundamental design characteristics that made the original model a poor performer in group comparisons and reviews. The response shows an awareness of the product’s shortcomings but not a commitment to a full redesign to meet market standards.
Lessons Learned: In a highly saturated and competitive market segment, a new product must meet or exceed the established benchmarks for key features, particularly magazine capacity and user-friendly ergonomics. A reputable brand name is not enough to overcome significant design disadvantages when consumers have numerous well-vetted alternatives.

13. Colt Python (New Production): Action Timing and Light Primer Strikes

Failure Description: The highly anticipated re-release of the Colt Python was met with early reports of several quality control issues. The most common functional complaints were light primer strikes, resulting in failures to fire, and cylinder timing/rotation problems, where the cylinder would fail to lock up properly or would skip a chamber. Cosmetic issues, such as damaged muzzle crowns, were also noted.⁴⁴
Root Cause Analysis (Manufacturing): These issues are indicative of the immense challenges in replicating a complex, hand-fitted design like the original Python using modern, high-volume manufacturing techniques. Light primer strikes were attributed to a combination of a mainspring weight chosen for a smooth trigger pull and the use of hard primers found in some imported ammunition. The cylinder rotation issues were traced to loose side plate screws, which allowed the cylinder hand to misalign with the ratchet, a critical tolerance issue.⁴⁶ These are classic manufacturing and assembly tolerance problems.
Manufacturer’s Corrective Action: Colt was proactive in addressing the initial wave of complaints. The company announced it would use a slightly stronger mainspring to ensure more reliable ignition with a wider variety of ammunition. To fix the cylinder rotation issue, they began applying a thread-locking compound to the side plate screws during assembly. They also offered to repair any affected firearms, including those with cosmetic blemishes, through their warranty service.⁴⁶
Assessment of Action: Proactive and Appropriate. Colt’s response to the early issues was commendable. They quickly identified the root causes, implemented straightforward manufacturing process changes, and communicated these changes to the public. This demonstrated a commitment to the product’s quality and helped restore consumer confidence after a rocky launch.
Lessons Learned: Resurrecting a legendary and complex firearm design is a significant engineering and manufacturing undertaking. The “tribal knowledge” and hand-fitting expertise that defined the original production may not be easily replicated. This case shows that a successful launch requires not only modern manufacturing but also an agile post-launch monitoring and response system to quickly identify and correct the inevitable “bugs” that arise when a complex design hits mass production.

B. Long Gun Platform Failures (Rifles & PCCs)

14. Steyr AUG: Polymer Stock Material Failure

Failure Description: A notable number of Steyr AUG owners reported cracks developing in the polymer stock (chassis) of their rifles. The cracks typically originate around the central takedown block area, a high-stress point in the design. The issue was primarily associated with rifles produced between 2019 and 2023.⁴⁸
Root Cause Analysis (Material): This failure is attributed to a change in the polymer blend used for the stocks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Supply chain disruptions reportedly forced a deviation from the original, proven polymer formulation. The new blend was evidently not as resilient or resistant to stress and fatigue, leading to the cracking under normal use. This is a clear material specification failure.⁴⁸
Manufacturer’s Corrective Action: Steyr Arms acknowledged the issue and has been very proactive in resolving it. The company will replace any cracked stock from the affected production years free of charge. They have since reverted to the original, more durable polymer blend for all new production rifles.⁴⁸
Assessment of Action: Effective and Transparent. Steyr’s handling of this issue is a positive example. They acknowledged a problem rooted in a supplier/material change, defined the scope of the affected products, and offered a straightforward and complete remedy to their customers.
Lessons Learned: This case, much like the S&W Shield EZ issue, highlights the critical risks inherent in the supply chain. Any change to a material specification, especially for a primary structural component like a rifle stock, must be followed by a complete re-validation and testing cycle. It demonstrates that even a temporary deviation to overcome a supply shortage can have long-lasting consequences if the new material is not rigorously vetted.

15. AR-15 Platform (Systemic): Gas System and Recoil System Mismatches

Failure Description: The most common set of failures discussed across all AR-15 forums are cycling issues, including failure to feed (FTF), failure to eject/extract (FTE), and bolt short-stroking (failure to lock back on an empty magazine). These are not specific to one brand but are a systemic issue across the platform, especially with home-built rifles.¹²
Root Cause Analysis (Design – System Integration): The AR-15’s direct impingement gas system is a finely balanced mechanism. Reliability depends on the precise interplay of gas port size, gas system length (carbine, mid-length, rifle), gas block alignment, buffer weight, and action spring strength. The explosion of the aftermarket parts industry has led to a vast number of non-standardized components. Users often combine a barrel with a specific gas port size with a buffer and spring combination that is not properly matched, leading to an “over-gassed” (violent cycling) or “under-gassed” (sluggish cycling) condition, both of which cause malfunctions.¹²
Manufacturer’s Corrective Action: Not applicable, as this is a platform-wide issue rather than a single manufacturer’s defect. Reputable manufacturers design their complete rifles as balanced systems. The problems arise primarily from the mix-and-match nature of the consumer market.
Assessment of Action: N/A.
Lessons Learned: The AR-15’s greatest strength—its modularity—is also its greatest weakness in terms of user-induced reliability problems. This highlights a significant market opportunity for education and for manufacturers to sell “tuned” component kits (e.g., a barrel paired with the correct buffer and spring). For the industry, it serves as a powerful case study in the importance of designing systems, not just individual parts, and communicating the critical relationships between those parts to the end-user.

16. Ruger Precision Rifle: Accuracy Inconsistencies and Ergonomic Component Failures

Failure Description: While the Ruger Precision Rifle (RPR) was a market disruptor, it has been the subject of ongoing discussions about inconsistent accuracy and quality control. Users report a “luck of the draw” scenario, with some rifles shooting sub-MOA groups and others struggling to perform. Specific complaints include heavy bolt lift, loose-fitting buttstocks that are difficult to adjust, and misaligned scope base mounting holes.⁵²
Root Cause Analysis (Manufacturing): These issues are characteristic of quality control challenges in a high-volume, mass-market product that is intended to compete in the precision space. Inconsistent accuracy can stem from variations in barrel chambering and rifling. Heavy bolt lift and tooling marks point to rushed machining processes. The loose stock and misaligned holes are clear assembly and QC inspection failures.⁵²
Manufacturer’s Corrective Action: Ruger addresses these issues on an individual basis through its well-regarded customer service and warranty program. There has been no formal recall, as the issues are related to performance and fit-and-finish rather than a universal safety defect.
Assessment of Action: Standard. Handling performance-related QC issues through warranty repair is the industry standard. However, the volume and persistence of these complaints over several generations of the RPR suggest that the root manufacturing and assembly processes have not been sufficiently improved to eliminate these common faults.
Lessons Learned: Entering the “precision” market segment, even at a budget price point, raises customer expectations for accuracy and build quality. A manufacturer cannot rely solely on a good warranty program to fix systemic manufacturing inconsistencies. To maintain a reputation for precision, the manufacturing and QC processes must be capable of consistently delivering the advertised performance out of the box.

C. Shotgun Platform Failures

17. Mossberg 940 Pro: Cycling and Feeding Reliability

Failure Description: The Mossberg 940 Pro, designed as an improvement over the 930 series, has been plagued by user reports of inconsistent cycling and feeding reliability. Malfunctions include failure to feed a round from the magazine tube onto the lifter and failures to fully cycle, particularly with light birdshot loads. Some users have also reported out-of-the-box issues like kinked magazine springs and gritty actions.⁵⁴
Root Cause Analysis (Manufacturing/Design): The pattern of failures suggests lapses in manufacturing and assembly quality control rather than a single, universal design flaw. Issues like kinked springs, loose forends, and gritty actions are direct results of the assembly process. The cycling issues with light loads point to a design that may have a narrow operating window, where variations in gas system components or friction from rough internal finishes can push the gun outside of its reliable performance envelope.⁵⁶
Manufacturer’s Corrective Action: Mossberg handles these issues through its warranty service. There is no formal recall. The wide variation in user experiences—with many reporting flawless performance and others reporting constant malfunctions—further supports the conclusion that the problem lies in manufacturing consistency rather than a fundamental design defect.
Assessment of Action: Inconsistent. While Mossberg will repair a malfunctioning firearm, the fact that a significant number of units are leaving the factory with these issues indicates a problem at the production level. This damages the reputation of a platform intended for defensive and competition use, where reliability is paramount.
Lessons Learned: For a semi-automatic shotgun, reliability is the single most important attribute. A design that is sensitive to minor variations in assembly quality or ammunition power is not a robust design. This case highlights the need for stringent QC checks at multiple points in the assembly process and a design that is engineered with a wide tolerance for ammunition and environmental conditions.

18. Beretta A300 Ultima Patrol: Component Failure and Cycling with Light Loads

Failure Description: The Beretta A300 Ultima Patrol, a popular budget-friendly tactical shotgun, has seen a number of user complaints regarding reliability. These include cycling failures with light target loads, similar to the Mossberg 940, and more concerning reports of trigger pack failures, where the trigger mechanism breaks or fails to reset, rendering the gun inoperable.⁵⁸
Root Cause Analysis (Manufacturing): The issues with the A300 Patrol, particularly the trigger pack failures, point toward manufacturing or component quality control problems at Beretta’s U.S. production facility in Tennessee. A broken trigger pack component is a clear manufacturing or material defect. The cycling issues with light loads suggest that the gas system, while reliable with full-power ammunition, may lack the refinement or wide operating window of its more expensive sibling, the 1301 Tactical.⁵⁸
Manufacturer’s Corrective Action: Beretta addresses these failures through its warranty service, which typically requires the owner to ship the entire firearm back to the factory for repair. The reported turnaround time can be lengthy, often six to eight weeks.⁶⁰
Assessment of Action: Standard, but Slow. Factory repair is the correct course of action for a component failure like a broken trigger pack. However, the long wait times are a significant negative for the customer. The prevalence of these issues suggests that the effort to bring the A300 to a lower price point may have resulted in compromises in component quality or QC oversight.
Lessons Learned: When introducing a lower-cost version of a premium product, a manufacturer must be careful not to compromise on the core reliability that the brand is known for. Quality control issues on a value-priced model can tarnish the reputation of the entire brand. Furthermore, an efficient and timely warranty service is a critical part of the customer experience, especially when dealing with a new product that has early production issues.

19. Remington 870: Systemic Quality Control Decline and Rehabilitation

Failure Description: For over a decade, particularly during the period from roughly 2007 until the company’s 2020 bankruptcy, the Remington 870 platform was the subject of widespread and persistent complaints regarding a severe decline in quality control. The most common issues cited were rough or poorly machined chambers that caused failures to extract, particularly with steel-headed or low-brass shells; the use of a Metal Injection Molded (MIM) extractor that was prone to breaking; and a poor-quality matte finish on Express models that was notoriously susceptible to premature and excessive rusting.⁸⁴
Root Cause Analysis (Manufacturing): The decline is a textbook case of manufacturing quality being sacrificed for cost reduction. The issues were not a flaw in the 870’s legendary design, but in its execution. The use of a less-durable MIM extractor instead of a milled steel part, rushed chamber machining that left burrs and rough surfaces, and an inadequate finishing process were all direct results of cost-cutting measures implemented under the “Remlin” era of ownership.⁸⁴
Manufacturer’s Corrective Action: Under previous ownership, there was no formal recall; issues were handled through warranty service, with many users resorting to aftermarket parts (like the Volquartsen extractor) and gunsmithing (chamber polishing) to make their shotguns reliable.⁸⁴ The true corrective action came after the 2020 bankruptcy, when the new company, RemArms, took over production. RemArms discontinued the problematic Express line and introduced the 870 Fieldmaster, which features a much-improved finish, smoother action bars, and better overall fit and finish, directly addressing the primary complaints of the previous era.⁹⁷
Assessment of Action: Proactive and Effective (by RemArms). The new ownership’s decision to overhaul the production process and replace the budget-grade model with a higher-quality offering is a strong and effective response to years of consumer complaints. It represents a significant investment in rehabilitating the brand’s tarnished reputation.
Lessons Learned: This long-running saga demonstrates that a sterling, decades-long reputation for reliability can be systematically destroyed in less than a decade by prioritizing cost-cutting over quality control. It also serves as a powerful lesson in brand restoration, showing that a new management team can win back consumer trust by acknowledging past failures and making a tangible, public commitment to improved manufacturing quality.

Failure Description: The Kel-Tec KSG bullpup shotgun is known for a specific type of malfunction where a shell fails to be lifted from the magazine tube onto the carrier. This is almost universally attributed by experienced users to “short-stroking” the pump action—failing to rack the slide fully and forcefully to the rear.⁶²
Root Cause Analysis (Design/User Interface): This is a classic example of a failure at the intersection of design and user interface. The KSG’s design requires a very positive and complete stroke of the action to function reliably. Unlike many conventional pump-action shotguns that are more forgiving, the KSG’s mechanism is sensitive to a weak or incomplete pump. While technically a user error, the design’s propensity to induce this error is a design characteristic.⁶³
Manufacturer’s Corrective Action: Kel-Tec has not “fixed” this issue because it is considered an integral part of the firearm’s manual of arms. The company’s position is that the user must be trained to operate the shotgun forcefully.
Assessment of Action: Debatable. From a purely mechanical standpoint, the gun works as designed. However, from a human factors perspective, a design that is not robust to common variations in user technique could be considered a flawed design, especially for a firearm intended for high-stress defensive use.
Lessons Learned: A firearm’s design does not end at its mechanical function; it includes the interface with the user. A design that requires a specific, non-intuitive, or forceful technique to be reliable may be mechanically sound but ergonomically and practically deficient. This is a critical consideration for designers of unconventional firearm layouts like bullpups, where the manual of arms differs significantly from what users are accustomed to.

IV. Cross-Cutting Themes and Industry-Wide Lessons

The analysis of these 20 distinct failures reveals several overarching themes that carry significant strategic implications for the entire firearms industry. These cross-cutting trends highlight systemic vulnerabilities in material science, supply chain management, product development, and crisis communication.

A. The “MIM” Debate and Material Science

Several of the analyzed failures, most notably the broken strikers in the FN 509 ³² and the cracked hammers in the S&W Shield EZ, are linked to Metal Injection Molded (MIM) parts or other cost-effective manufacturing methods. The industry debate often devolves into a simplistic “MIM is bad” argument, but the reality is more nuanced. MIM is a mature and effective process for producing complex, non-critical parts at a low cost. However, these failures highlight the risks of applying this technology to components subjected to extreme, high-frequency impact and fatigue stress, such as strikers and hammers. The lesson for engineers and product managers is not to abandon MIM, but to conduct a more rigorous failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) to determine where the superior fatigue resistance and toughness of forged or machined bar-stock steel is a non-negotiable requirement, despite the higher cost. The choice is a critical balance between cost-engineering and robust, fail-safe design.

B. Supply Chain Integrity and Supplier QC

The failures of the S&W Shield EZ hammer ¹⁸ and the Steyr AUG polymer stock ⁴⁸ share a common root: a failure originating with an external supplier. This underscores a fundamental vulnerability in the modern, globalized manufacturing ecosystem. This reality demands a strategic shift toward greater supply chain diversification, more stringent supplier auditing, and a potential re-shoring of the manufacturing of safety-critical components.

C. The Perils of Accelerated Development

The intense competition in popular market segments, such as the micro-compact pistol category, creates immense pressure on manufacturers to accelerate their product development timelines. The early issues with the Canik METE MC9 ³⁴ serve as a prime example of the potential consequences. When a product is rushed to market, the long-term testing and evaluation (T&E) cycle is often the first casualty. Insufficient testing across a wide variety of ammunition, environmental conditions, and high round counts means that the first thousand customers effectively become the final, unpaid phase of the beta test. The resulting wave of negative online feedback can permanently tarnish a product’s launch, forcing the manufacturer to fix problems “in the wild” through reactive warranty service, a far more costly and reputationally damaging process than conducting thorough T&E before launch.

D. Crisis Management and Corporate Communications

The contrast between how different companies handled their respective product failures provides a clear lesson in modern crisis management. Henry Repeating Arms, faced with a critical safety defect in its fire control groups, responded with a model of transparency and customer care. Their communication was direct, they took immediate ownership of the problem, and they offered a comprehensive, no-cost solution with gestures of goodwill.²⁰ This approach preserved, and in many cases enhanced, their brand’s reputation for integrity. In the age of social media, transparency, speed, and ownership of a problem are often more effective tools for preserving long-term brand equity than a strategy of denial and legal attrition.

V. Conclusion and Strategic Recommendations

The analysis of the past year’s most prominent firearm failures offers a clear and challenging picture of the modern firearms industry. While innovation continues at a rapid pace, it is often accompanied by risks in manufacturing consistency, supply chain integrity, and design robustness. The digital landscape has empowered consumers to act as a global, real-time quality control network, fundamentally altering the calculus of risk and reputation management for manufacturers. To navigate this new environment successfully, industry stakeholders must adopt more rigorous, proactive, and transparent practices.

Based on the findings of this report, the following strategic recommendations are offered:

For Manufacturers:

Implement Rigorous, Multi-Stage Supplier Auditing: Do not trust, but verify. Implement protocols for auditing not only a supplier’s quality control processes but also their material sourcing and sub-supplier networks. Mandate stringent, batch-level incoming quality control (IQC) for all safety-critical and high-stress components, including metallurgical analysis and non-destructive testing where appropriate.
Extend and Broaden Product T&E Cycles: Resist the pressure for accelerated launches. Mandate that all new product T&E protocols include testing with a wide variety of ammunition types and brands, especially low-power training loads and common defensive rounds. Increase the minimum round count for durability testing to identify potential fatigue failures before a product reaches the market.
Develop Pre-Planned Crisis Communication Strategies: Do not wait for a crisis to decide how to respond. Develop pre-planned communication strategies that prioritize transparency and customer safety. In the event of a safety-critical failure, the default posture should be to take ownership, communicate clearly and quickly, and provide a comprehensive, no-cost remedy.

For Investors and Analysts:

Scrutinize Supply Chain and Recall History: When evaluating a company’s operational risk, move beyond financial statements to scrutinize its supply chain diversification, its reliance on single-source suppliers for critical components, and its historical handling of product recalls. A history of transparent and effective recalls can be an indicator of a resilient and well-managed company.
Monitor Early-Adopter Feedback as a Leading Indicator: Treat a high volume of consistent complaints on social media and forums immediately following a new product launch as a leading indicator of potential systemic quality control issues. This can foreshadow future warranty costs, potential recalls, and damage to brand equity.
Track Product Liability Litigation: Monitor ongoing legal proceedings as they can set new legal precedents for industry-wide liability and establish new standards of care for product design and safety, impacting the risk profile for the entire sector.

VI. Appendix: Methodology

The findings in this report were derived from a structured, multi-stage research and analysis process designed to identify and evaluate the most significant firearm failures discussed in the public domain over the past year.

1. Data Collection and Source Selection

The initial data collection phase involved the systematic monitoring of high-traffic, influential online sources from September 2024 to August 2025. Source selection was based on audience size, technical depth of discussion, and relevance to the firearms consumer and professional communities. Key sources included:

Online Forums: Broad-spectrum forums (e.g., AR15.com, GlockTalk) and specialized communities (e.g., Accurate Shooter, SnipersHide) were monitored for recurring threads detailing specific malfunctions.¹
Social Media Platforms: Relevant communities on Reddit (e.g., r/guns, r/firearms, and numerous model-specific subreddits like r/Danieldefense and r/canik) were scraped for trends in user-reported problems.⁴
Video Platforms: Influential YouTube channels known for firearm reviews and technical analysis were monitored for videos detailing failures in new or popular firearms.⁵
Official Sources: Enthusiast discussions were cross-referenced and validated against official manufacturer safety notices and recall announcements ¹⁵ and government agency alerts, particularly from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
Industry Publications: Trade and consumer publications such as Shooting Industry, American Rifleman, and RECOIL were reviewed for news on new products and reported issues.⁸

2. Failure Identification and Ranking

A hybrid qualitative and quantitative methodology was employed to filter and rank the dozens of potential failures identified during data collection. Each potential failure was scored and ranked based on a weighted average of the following criteria:

Volume of Discussion (40% Weighting): The number of distinct threads, posts, videos, and comments related to the specific failure.
Severity of Failure (40% Weighting): A tiered score was assigned based on the failure’s nature. Safety-critical failures (e.g., uncommanded discharge, out-of-battery detonation) received the highest score. Catastrophic functional failures (e.g., broken striker) received a medium score. Minor functional or ergonomic issues (e.g., stiff controls) received a lower score.
Official Action (20% Weighting): Failures that resulted in a formal manufacturer recall or a CPSC safety alert were automatically given the highest score in this category, prioritizing officially acknowledged problems.

The top 20 highest-scoring failures from this process were selected for in-depth analysis in this report.

3. Root Cause Analysis Framework

To ensure a consistent and objective analysis for each of the 20 case studies, a standardized engineering root cause analysis framework was applied. Each failure was systematically evaluated to determine if its primary origin was a flaw in:

Design: The failure occurred because the product’s specifications, geometry, or fundamental operating principles were inherently flawed or lacked sufficient safety margins.
Material: The failure occurred because the material specified for a component was inadequate for the stresses of its intended application, or a change in material was not properly validated.
Manufacturing: The failure occurred because the execution of the design and material selection was flawed. This includes errors in machining, heat treatment, assembly, or a lack of quality control to detect non-conforming parts.

This structured framework allows for a clear and defensible categorization of each failure’s root cause, which forms the basis for the lessons learned and strategic recommendations presented in this report.

Works cited

Gun Project Questions & Gunsmithing | Shooters’ Forum, accessed August 31, 2025, https://forum.accurateshooter.com/forums/gun-project-questions-gunsmithing.12/
Advanced Gunsmithing & Engineering | Shooters’ Forum, accessed August 31, 2025, https://forum.accurateshooter.com/forums/advanced-gunsmithing-engineering.13/
Gunsmithing Forum – Rokslide, accessed August 31, 2025, https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/gunsmithing-forum.413188/
Who have I left out of this Gun Subreddit Masterlist? : r/VAGuns, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/VAGuns/comments/hmimy2/who_have_i_left_out_of_this_gun_subreddit/
16 Best Gun YouTube Channels [2025]: A Shot Above the Rest, accessed August 31, 2025, https://gununiversity.com/best-gun-youtube-channels/
Honest Outlaw – YouTube, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/@HonestOutlawReviews
100 Gun YouTubers You Must Follow in 2025, accessed August 31, 2025, https://videos.feedspot.com/gun_youtube_channels/
U.S. Firearms Industry Today Report 2025, accessed August 31, 2025, https://shootingindustry.com/discover/u-s-firearms-industry-today-report-2025/
10 Insane New Guns That JUST Dropped for 2025! – You’ll Want Them All! – YouTube, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8rfmE9jMl4
New For 2025 | An Official Journal Of The NRA – American Rifleman, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.americanrifleman.org/news/new-for-2025/
2025 Gun Releases: 10 Insane New Firearms That Just Hit the Market – YouTube, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqIZmDZRlP4
Quick Tip: Top 3 Causes of AR-15 Malfunctions – YouTube, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r_IOkJ_L7g
Troubleshooting the AR-15 Pistol platform: Problems and fixes – YouTube, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1KCWQd9b2Q
First Time Firing Echelon Issues : r/SpringfieldEchelon – Reddit, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/SpringfieldEchelon/comments/1mn4ltb/first_time_firing_echelon_issues/
Safety Recall Notice on M&P Shield EZ pistols – Buccaneer Gun Club, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.buccaneergunclub.org/safety-recall-notice-on-mp-shield-ez-pistols/
M&P® SHIELD™ EZ™ RECALL NOTICE FOR PISTOLS | Smith & Wesson, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.smith-wesson.com/safety/recall/recall-notice-for-pistols
20-025 QA PRODUCT RECALL – M&P SHIELD® EZ® PISTOL DUE TO HAMMER MALFUNCTION, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.aafes.com/Images/ExchangeStores/recalls-alerts/20-025.pdf
IMPORTANT PRODUCT SAFETY RECALL NOTICE, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www11.davidsonsinc.com/WebRes/ManufRecalls/sw1.pdf
Safety recall notice for Smith & Wesson M&P Shield EZ pistols – All4Shooters.com, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.all4shooters.com/en/shooting/pistols/safety-recall-notice-for-smith-wesson-mp-shield-ez/
Henry Rifle and Shotgun Safety Recall notice – Buccaneer Gun Club, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.buccaneergunclub.org/henry-rifle-and-shotgun-safety-recall-notice/
Henry H015 Single Shot Rifle & Shotgun Safety Recall and Upgrade, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.henryusa.com/h015-recall/
Henry single shot rifles | Canadian Gun Nutz, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/threads/henry-single-shot-rifles.2103883/
Henry .45-70 Lever Action Rifle Safety Recall – Henry Repeating Arms, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.henryusa.com/recall/
RIP scorpion : r/czscorpion – Reddit, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/czscorpion/comments/1ix9bqn/rip_scorpion/
I just had the OOB on 10 days old Scorpion 3+ after ~150 rounds, while shooting slowly. Fiocchi ammo, perfectly clean gun, well lubed, striker blocker moves freely, NOT a binary trigger. The upper receiver cracked, and the magazine lips were damaged. More photos in the comments : r/czscorpion – Reddit, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/czscorpion/comments/197nflv/i_just_had_the_oob_on_10_days_old_scorpion_3/
Out of battery issue? : r/Walther – Reddit, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Walther/comments/16i5pq1/out_of_battery_issue/
Disappointed that Walther never really fixed the PDPs trigger issue. – Reddit, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Walther/comments/1kky7hp/disappointed_that_walther_never_really_fixed_the/
Houston. We have a problem. | Primary & Secondary Forum, accessed August 31, 2025, https://primaryandsecondary.com/forum/index.php?threads/houston-we-have-a-problem.6946/
HUGE flaw with Walther PDP – did they fix it? – YouTube, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ji-uMV0jUE
FN 509 Problems: How to fix major FN 509 issues? – Craft Holsters, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.craftholsters.com/fn-509-problems
The FN 509C TACTICAL is so DISAPPOINTING – YouTube, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WtrT4hs7FE
FN 509 Titanium Performance Striker – Eliminate Light Strikes & Primer Drag | M*CARBO, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.mcarbo.com/FN-509-Titanium-Performance-Striker.aspx
Taurus GX4 Problems: Why It Might Not Be Your Best Choice | Craft …, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.craftholsters.com/taurus-gx4-problems-5-reasons-not-to-buy
How to fix major Canik Mete MC9 issues? | Craft Holsters, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.craftholsters.com/canik/guides/mete-mc9-problems
Were Mete MC9 Issues Ever Resolved? : r/canik – Reddit, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/canik/comments/1g9pifk/were_mete_mc9_issues_ever_resolved/
Springfield Echelon Magazine Issues RESOLVED! – YouTube, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Rs_ogu6A_AM
Glock 43 feeding issues – Reddit, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Glocks/comments/1kpv3jd/glock_43_feeding_issues/
Got my first gun: Glock 43x MOS Advice Needed! – Reddit, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Glocks/comments/1huc2hb/got_my_first_gun_glock_43x_mos_advice_needed/
CZ P10C Review: 2025 Hands On Testing – Gun University, accessed August 31, 2025, https://gununiversity.com/cz-p10c-review/
CZ P10c Problems: How to fix major CZ P10c issues? – Craft Holsters, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.craftholsters.com/cz/guides/p10c-problems
HK VP9A1K vs. Springfield Echelon 4.0c : r/CCW – Reddit, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/1n4a7bt/hk_vp9a1k_vs_springfield_echelon_40c/
VP9 Trigger Reset question : r/guns – Reddit, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/4h4z9z/vp9_trigger_reset_question/
HK VP9 & VP40 Adjustable Straight Trigger – Grayguns, accessed August 31, 2025, https://grayguns.com/product/hk-vp9-vp40-adjustable-straight-trigger/
Colt Python Problems: How to fix major Colt Python issues? – Craft Holsters, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.craftholsters.com/colt/guides/python-problems
Problems with Python : r/Colt – Reddit, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Colt/comments/1l6r8gg/problems_with_python/
Colt Issues Update on Questions with the New Python Revolver – Guns.com, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.guns.com/news/2020/02/24/colt-issues-update-on-questions-with-the-new-python-revolver
Colt Addresses Python Issues in New Video | An Official Journal Of The NRA, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/colt-addresses-python-issues-in-new-video/
Aug cracking problem : r/AUG – Reddit, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AUG/comments/1mpjw81/aug_cracking_problem/
8 Most Common AR-15 Failures & How To Fix Them, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.pewpewtactical.com/ar15-failures/
Avoid These 10 Common Ar 15 Mistakes! – YouTube, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zbz5GicuYc
Correcting Common AR-15 Problems – The Shooter’s Log, accessed August 31, 2025, https://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/correcting-common-ar-15-problems/
Ruger Precision Rifle | Shooters’ Forum, accessed August 31, 2025, https://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/ruger-precision-rifle.3957394/
How does the community feel about the Ruger precision rifle? : r/longrange – Reddit, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/longrange/comments/1e0e78s/how_does_the_community_feel_about_the_ruger/
Mossberg 940 Pro Tactical issues – YouTube, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUXgsQ04hdk
Mossberg 940 Pro Tactical Review 2025: Is It Duty Ready? – Gun University, accessed August 31, 2025, https://gununiversity.com/mossberg-940-pro-tactical-review/
I’m eating my words… the Mossberg 940 Pro was a BAD buy : r/CAguns – Reddit, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/CAguns/comments/1fx75dq/im_eating_my_words_the_mossberg_940_pro_was_a_bad/
Mossberg 940 PRO Tactical issues : r/Shotguns – Reddit, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Shotguns/comments/yzsmyv/mossberg_940_pro_tactical_issues/
A300 Ultima not cycling : r/Shotguns – Reddit, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Shotguns/comments/15o7o80/a300_ultima_not_cycling/
Help with Beretta A300 Ultima Patrol…loading issues. : r/Tacticalshotguns – Reddit, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Tacticalshotguns/comments/17wstcg/help_with_beretta_a300_ultima_patrolloading_issues/
Beretta a300 Ultima patrol trigger pack failure – YouTube, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_KLlDLVg5c
Beretta A300 Ultima Patrol: This Is My Boomstick [Hands-On Review] – Recoil Magazine, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.recoilweb.com/beretta-a300-ultima-patrol-review-179743.html
The weirdest (and possibly worst) shotgun I own. The Kel Tec KSG. Quality control issues?, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8_V5fDLg0s
Kel Tec Shotgun (KSG) Review – FGG Media, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.fggmedia.com/kel-tec-shotgun-ksg-review/
The Controversial KSG – The Shooter’s Log – Cheaper Than Dirt, accessed August 31, 2025, https://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/controversial-ksg/
Gunsmithing | Nosler Reloading Forum, accessed August 31, 2025, https://forum.nosler.com/forums/gunsmithing.78/
Long Range & ELR GunSmithing, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.longrangeonly.com/forum/forums/long-range-elr-gunsmithing.12/
GUNSMITHING & FIREARMS – The Hobby-Machinist, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.hobby-machinist.com/forums/gunsmithing-firearms.31/
Official Politics Thread 2025-08-29 : r/guns – Reddit, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/1n356i9/official_politics_thread_20250829/
Gun Talk Tuesday – 11 March 2025 : r/guns – Reddit, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/1j8i970/gun_talk_tuesday_11_march_2025/
Gun Talk Tuesday – 13 May 2025 : r/guns – Reddit, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/1kle36p/gun_talk_tuesday_13_may_2025/
Recent Bad Gun Takes & Misinformation : r/liberalgunowners – Reddit, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/liberalgunowners/comments/1idm0q9/recent_bad_gun_takes_misinformation/
What’s a reasonable level of reliability to expect from a semiautomatic pistol? : r/liberalgunowners – Reddit, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/liberalgunowners/comments/1hcwvnf/whats_a_reasonable_level_of_reliability_to_expect/
TheFirearmGuy – YouTube, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/user/TheFireArmGuy
My Favorite YouTube Gun Channels [2023] – Primer Peak, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.primerpeak.com/my-favorite-youtube-gun-channels-2023/
Springfield Armory – 3.3 XD-S™ SAFETY RECALL | Oklahoma City – H&H Shooting Sports, accessed August 31, 2025, https://hhshootingsports.com/springfield-armory-3-3-xd-s-safety-recall/
Shooting Industry Magazine, accessed August 31, 2025, https://shootingindustry.com/
RECOIL – Firearm Lifestyle Magazine, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.recoilweb.com/
Firearms News: Gun Articles, Reviews, Laws & Legislature, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.firearmsnews.com/
New Guns for 2025 | An Official Journal Of The NRA – Shooting Illustrated, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/new-guns-for-2025/
Savage Stance: How Does It Match Up in the Concealed World? | CrossBreed Blog, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.crossbreedholsters.com/blog/savage-stance-how-does-it-match-up-in-the-concealed-world/
Review: Savage Stance Pistol | Gun Talk Media, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.guntalk.com/post/review-savage-stance
Savage Stance XR 9mm: Full Review – Guns and Ammo, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/savage-stance-xr-review/529125
Review: Savage Stance XR | An Official Journal Of The NRA – Shooting Illustrated, accessed August 31, 2025, https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/review-savage-stance-xr/
Remington 870 Police Magnum extraction issues : r/Shotguns – Reddit, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Shotguns/comments/epanw3/remington_870_police_magnum_extraction_issues/
3 Ways to Polish the Rough Remington 870 Chamber, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.rem870.com/2017/07/21/3-ways-to-polish-the-rough-remington-870-chamber/
Remington 870 issues? : r/Shotguns – Reddit, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Shotguns/comments/urdwp8/remington_870_issues/
Remington 870 won’t pump after firing | Ultimate Pheasant Hunting Forums, accessed September 1, 2025, https://forum.ultimatepheasanthunting.com/threads/remington-870-wont-pump-after-firing.19077/
New 870 barrel causing extraction issues : r/Shotguns – Reddit, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Shotguns/comments/4xpnm9/new_870_barrel_causing_extraction_issues/
The all too common complaint-870 Express and rust – Remington 870 Forum – Rem870.com/Forum, accessed September 1, 2025, http://rem870.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3975
Rust Problems – Remington 870 Forum – Rem870.com/Forum, accessed September 1, 2025, https://rem870.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=324
Got my first rusting ton experience on my 870. It’s been in the safe for a couple months was completely dry when it went in atleast I thought. : r/Shotguns – Reddit, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Shotguns/comments/zpbhby/got_my_first_rusting_ton_experience_on_my_870_its/
Remington 870 woes… | Canadian Gun Nutz, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/threads/remington-870-woes.778888/
What Happened to Remington? – AllOutdoor.com, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.alloutdoor.com/2020/10/01/what-happened-to-remington/
Last year for good quality Remington 870? : r/Shotguns – Reddit, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Shotguns/comments/1aco83g/last_year_for_good_quality_remington_870/
What year did the Remington 870 degrade in quality? : r/Shotguns – Reddit, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Shotguns/comments/9iv0h3/what_year_did_the_remington_870_degrade_in_quality/
The Best Remington 870 Shotgun Upgrades in 2025 (In stock!), accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.rem870.com/2025/04/10/the-best-remington-870-shotgun-upgrades-in-2025-in-stock/
The Remington 870: America’s Best Selling Pump Shotgun – Free Range American, accessed September 1, 2025, https://freerangeamerican.us/remington-870/
Shotgun Review: Remington 870 Fieldmaster | Outdoor Life, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.outdoorlife.com/guns/remington-870-fieldmaster/
NEW Remington 870 ‘FIELDMASTER’ – YouTube, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt0hEAhilSk
New Remington 870 Fieldmaster 2022 Shotgun, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.rem870.com/2022/07/17/new-remington-870-fieldmaster-2022-shotgun/