Browning did most of the inventing for Winchester, so I'd not really include his name in that particular group. I based my statement on the number of patents held on firearms related products, not just firearms themselves. I also based that on a conversation I had, not on actual research so you may well be correct.Originally Posted by Bill Riehl
Perhaps I should have said "in current times".
Men freely believe that which they desire.
Julius Caesar
Car vs gun analogies are pointless. Also, I could point to many reasons why those domestic cars were lucky to make it too 100k without overhaul, and it has nothing to do with the direction you're thinking in.While I don't agree with the original premise of most of this discussion, wat you are proposing is technically feasible based on my experience.
A slide milled by a trained machinist on a manual mill would be more expensive than a stamped slide however a CNC machining center with a robot loaded tombstone would be cheaper than the slide milled by a trained Journeyman machinist as well. Depending on what type of technology was being used to stamp out the slides, mill the locking blocks and then assemble them it might actually have been cheaper to do it all on a CNC. Especially if you could do it with American non-union CNC operator labor vs German Union Machinists labor.
I still don't agree with the premise that manually machined components from pre-CNC era are better/more repeatable/higher quality than CNC controlled parts.
Just look at where automobiles are now versus the same time period. The tighter clearances and more repeatable (CNC with SPC) used today give us cars that will get well passed 100,000 miles before failure while a 1970's/80's/even early 90's cars were very lucky to make it TO 100k without an overhaul.
This same technology is being used on firearms as well.
Try, crappy components, poor quality control, and the fact that they were put together by union workers that didn't give a damn, and you're on the right track. Also interesting, given that the Japanese during that same time period, seemed to be able to put out very reliable vehicles (my 1983 Toyota wagon with 281,000 on it, the 1981 Toyota pickup with probably well over 200,000 on it, but I don't know for sure since the odometer didn't work, the '96 Honda with 220,000 on it, and the '96 Toyota with 225,000 on it) could beat the tar out of domestically produced stuff of the same time period.
The fact is that in that time period, the technology existed to manufacture stuff that *worked*. Since we're using jacked-up vehicle/gun analogies, I'll mention BMW. They knew how to manufacture motorcycles that could outlast anything else (still do, as a matter of fact, but that's another story entirely) routinely hitting 200,000 miles without major overhaul, with many samples going much further than that. I think it's safe to say that the ability to build long-lasting motorcycle engines predates CNC, meaning, your argument is invalid.
HK started churning out rifles in the 1950s. Those samples, within the limitations of the design, are just as good, quality wise, as anything produced TODAY. Now, designs may have progressed (they have) but the ability to manufacture high quality components, well, actually, we've passed that point in time. Same goes for the AR15, designed originally in....195_...something.
Last edited by Dan_S; 06-17-2014 at 12:33 AM.
Punch card controlled CNC forerunner mills were used to build the P210 in the late '40s. It really isn't a question of what could be done at different times to produce accurate, strong parts (or junk). It is a question of the relative cost to build them.
Machined steel forgings gave way to welded stamping and machined aluminum, which gave way to investment casting and CNC from billet, then injection molded plastic and MIM. Now: Zinc.
If you had a guaranteed order for 10,000,000 P210 quality pistols, you could use any of the above methods and probably get the price pretty darn low. But if you are only going to make small lots of different models, forging and stamping quickly get really expensive.
A similar principle applies to barrels. The roto-forged polygonal barrels are excellent, and cheap to make in huge quantities. Button rifled barrels are cheaper to make - if the quantity is low.
IMO your counter argument is invalid.
The key is quality control and tight tolerances/clearances. The Japanese autos were and are higher quality because they controlled their processes with SPC and they had lots of extra labor willing to do it and a mindset of "perfect quality". SPC which requires more labor to actually control the processes and make sure their parts are well within +/- 6 Sigma while designing their components to last while within those same +/- 6 Sigma tolerance bands. I have produced OEM components for all the major auto companies and you can tell based on their prints how long their products will last. There is a reason that Chrysler products had such a poor reputation and a reason why it got better after Diamler bought a stake in them.
CNC equipment is MUCH more repeatable meaning that you can get the same +/- 6 Sigma tolerancing without the increased labor for SPC. IF you are doing your correct TPMs then you know that your machine will not be "jumping around" between part number 1 and part number 100 versus a manual machine which needs significantly higher sampling rate (near 100%) to assure the same level of precision.
This allows companies that produce in the US, where wages are MUCH higher than in post war Japan, to produce parts competitively.
I am not saying that it is impossible to make repeatable parts without CNCs. Far from it. But it is MUCH MUCH MUCH more labor intensive and not cost effective to try and make a profit selling any product to a price point with master craftsmen having to do all the machining and final fitting.
There is way more to it than what I am listing here involving culture, available labor, raw materials, etc. but suffice it to say that reliable and repeatable CN controlled equipment make it MUCH easier and cheaper to make high quality parts than a shop filled with manual lathes and machinists.
Maybe I am wrong. I have been working in Japanese and German OEM automotive suppliers since 1997 and I have seen the difference between "old school" and "new school" manufacturing methods and there is no way I would setup a new process using the "old school" method to make high quality repeatable parts for anything. But you may have more knowledge than I do so I will just let that part go.
But that is besides the point. There are more higher quality handguns available now than at any time in the history of the US.
IMHO it is because there are much cheaper and easier ways to get repeatable high quality components at a low cost. (Injection molding, MIM, CNC machining, Tennifer/Melonite/Nitrocarburizing, etc)
If designed properly even die cast Zinc is an appropriate engineering material the problem come in from trying to do something with a material that it isn't suitable for.
Thanks for posting that. Looks like my memory of the title was a little off. The next time I'm at my parents's house, I'll see if that magazine is still around.
Reply With Quote
