This happens with anything which becomes too popular: eventually you become a victim of your own success.
I don't own an A-bolt, so I don't have a dog in this fight... but some of you need to put a little thought into what your saying, because it's pretty illogical, as well as ignorant of mass market and industrial forces.
Example: Many people in this thread have claimed they "see buck mark emblems everywhere" or that "around here, browning is the norm" and statements to that effect. If this is true, Then it follows logically that a large percentage of failures they see will be with Brownings, simply by virtue that is the rifle most often used. Using this as evidence against the Brownings design is flawed logic, because the statistics are so skewed: there isn't a substantial sample of other brands to compare it against.
This is the same problem Glocks have: they are so ubiquitous that simple percentages dictate they will have more malfunctions - there are machines after all, and all machines malfunction eventually.
In reality it is most likely the case that the A-bolt is not significantly better or worse than any other name brand hunting rifle in its class, just as a Glock is not significantly better or worse than any other pistol its class.
Many of us like to pretend that out pet brands are somehow better than the others. This is not usually true, unless comparing apples to oranges outside of like categories (IE Huglu to a Fausti double gun); It's also a little juvenile.
I'm probably not going to make many friends here with the tone of my first post. Even so, this is how I see it. A gun is a tool; some are artfully crafted tools, and others are utilitarian. Neither approach to manufacture is a strength or weakness of itself. Any claims for or against quality should be supported empirically, and any comparisons made between like kinds; otherwise we speak idly and without point.
