modern manufacturing technologies -- who does it "best?"

There is a bit more to firearms for me than cold hard data. I do want sub MOA groups but for the money I want a very nice looking gun. A supercharged Prius isn't going the work for me.

Cooper makes nice guns. I can't afford one. But I am happy they are there for others.

All guns are a compromise of the manufacturing methods that were available at the time and you can watch the evolution of how the designs evolved to make them more economical to produce based on current technology. If we start with a mauser 98 action you see that compared to mid 1900's designs it is fairy complex. They were forged into shape with the bottom of the receiver machined flat. Note the recoil lug machined into the bottom, the extended tang on the back, the machining cuts for the fixed extractor in the side. This was an expensive and time consuming part to make. Forging was used because at the time forging a part into near net shape was a lot more cost effective than machining. These types of designs are dominant up through WW2.



In the post war consumer era the technology changed and we saw an evolution toward machined billet parts as a result of massive improvements in machining and cutting tools from ww2. The next evolution of bolt action rifles are designs like the remington 721 and 700 and savage 110. These reciever designs are basically tubes machined out of bar stock because it was cheaper to just machine them out of a chunk of steel on a lathe than to forge them. To make it simpler and faster to produce the ejector is now just a spring loaded plunger in the bolt head and the recoil lug is a separate piece that sandwiches between the barrel and receiver to save machining time. Another thing is now you have guns that did not come with any sights on them but they didn't put any optics mounting on them either other than drilling the holes for mounts to screw on because its a lot cheaper to make the mounts separately. There was no CNC or automated tool changes in this era so every machining operation would be done on a different machine. Because of this there is an effort to reduce the number of machining cuts that have to be made to a minimum. The howa that you mentioned is definitely part of this era of guns designed between WW2 and like the 1990's.



Next you have guns that were specifically designed to be made on a CNC machine. Once you are producing the receiver on a 4 or 5 axis CNC machine with an automated tool changer, now you can make 10, 20, 30, or more machining cuts in the same fixture. Previously if you wanted to add another 4 machining cuts to a design you had to add 4 more milling machines to the production line. Now its just a programming change and adding another tool to the tool holder. Now you can just mill the scope mounting rail and recoil lugs integral to the receiver and it just takes an extra 3 minutes of machine time. Since you are starting with a block of metal and milling it in a vertical mill rather than a lathe it doesn't need to be round anymore either so you can do flat tops and sides or add scallop cuts or whatever. Good examples of this would be the Tikka T3, or an accuracy international receiver. These are still following the paradigm of a barreled action sitting on top of a stock, but they were designed from the start to be cnc machined instead of just using cnc machines to make a 1950's design.




The next evolution is rifles like the sig cross where the receiver, is no longer bolted on top of the chassis, but the receiver itself is the chassis. In the case of the sig, they use a barrel extension and barrel nut similar to an AR15, so the locking lugs are in the barrel rather than the receiver meaning you can make the receiver out of aluminum or magnesium or polymer. In this type of design the head space is set by whoever made the barrel, so just like an AR15 you could have a platform where any untrained person could order all the parts online and assemble them all together without any gun smithing knowledge into a functional and accurate rifle.

Ruger is the epitome of manufacturing efficiency and manufacturing technology development. Folks can point to cute designs or elite semi-custom firearms as well manufactured, but when it comes to actual manufacturing prowess, expertise, and application development, Ruger is the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world for the last several decades.

Varminterror said:

Ruger is the epitome of manufacturing efficiency and manufacturing technology development. Folks can point to cute designs or elite semi-custom firearms as well manufactured, but when it comes to actual manufacturing prowess, expertise, and application development, Ruger is the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world for the last several decades.

Click to expand...

I'm waiting for Rugers version of the Sig Cross (or Q Fix, depending on who you prefer).

Entirely modular, adjustable, light and (if Ruger is making them) affordable and on shelves.

gotboostvr said:

I'm waiting for Rugers version of the Sig Cross (or Q Fix, depending on who you prefer).

Entirely modular, adjustable, light and (if Ruger is making them) affordable and on shelves.

Click to expand...

That’s an advanced product design, not an advanced manufacturing process.

Varminterror said:

That’s an advanced product design, not an advanced manufacturing process.

Click to expand...

Very true.

But Ruger has a pretty long history of following others' leads design wise and bringing a better and/or cheaper version to market.

I am not a machinist nor a manufacturing engineer. I am rather impressed by CZ products in terms of manufacturing.
I used to be impressed by Colt semi-automatic pistols (the short lived "2000" being an exception) and Smith & Wesson revolvers. Currently, Colt seems to be producing very few handguns and S&W revolvers have devolved to being cheap copies of S&W revolvers. I think Ruger does a pretty good job of everything they make.

gotboostvr said:

Ruger has a pretty long history of following others' leads design wise and bringing a better and/or cheaper version to market.

Click to expand...

Doing so by applying advanced and automated manufacturing processes... which seems to be the intended focus of this thread.

Producing refined products or cutely designing products has little to do with the automation or efficiency involved with a modern manufacturing process. To the contrary, most refined products have incredibly inefficient manufacturing processes, as they require considerable manual labor in the process, as opposed to modern manufacturing techniques which cut out hand moving - and typically the high prices of refined products reflect that labor investment.

Ruger. Period.

Do you mean advanced production or higher quality. I would pick SAKO/TIKKA over Ruger in quality.

One can draw parallels with Tikka and the Rem 700. Both have or leverage a ton of experience with quality CHF barrels. Both have simplistic receivers, Tikka taking it one step further with the slotted recoil lug. Ti vs Al was a touted improvement. It's still bed-able. Include Tikka's use of plastics (trigger guard, mag, bolt cap) vs pot metal. Remington having its own profit margin and litigation issues with some limited respect in the relative volume and primary place of market. Tikka is of quality manufacture with a lower common denominator that should come into the equation. Especially with Tikka's market price increases since inception. I'm not trying to bash or single out Tikka or prop up Rem. Having both (Ruger +even a old Sako), I have to give props to the M77. Solid rifle.

AI rifles do not have a beautiful history of downrange performance per my perspective. The brand has gone through its own evolution, the AI's of 20 years ago did not compete well with limited customs even using a Rem 700 as a base rcvr. Another topic in-itself for process, management, ownership and barrels.

To the OP and topic, I think the largest gain in modern manufacturing technologies is the larger access to multi axis machines, EDM, etc. muzzle to butt. Consider top-tier aftermarket components in the last 20years vs 40. It's not just the branded, complete rifles nor is this a budgeted rifle comparison, our options have increased tremendously. The price difference was/is also closing. Cheers to that.

someguy2800 said:

Good examples of this would be the Tikka T3, or an accuracy international receiver. These are still following the paradigm of a barreled action sitting on top of a stock, but they were designed from the start to be cnc machined instead of just using cnc machines to make a 1950's design.

Click to expand...

That's not quite the case with Accuracy International. They've been bonding the steel receiver to the aluminum chassis for almost 40 years producing a quasi one-piece receiver/chassis. They use four bolts and a proprietary epoxy to permanently bond the receiver to the chassis and then apply "skins" to conceal the chassis and provide an ergonomic package.

This showed up in my youtube feed today

upptick said:

That's a great video and thanks for posting! Is there any production gun better than a Sako? And I wonder how Tikkas are different, given that it looks like they are made in the same facility.

Click to expand...

i couldn’t tell you if there is an better, I can only say the Tikka that I own is a nice rifle and an excellent shooter. Tikka and Sako rifles are basically 2 different price points for the sako brand. The sako’s are a little more complicated design, and are offered with very nice walnut stocks. Tikkas are a more simplistic design with a 2 lug, 2 piece bolt, more plastic parts, and most models have polymer stocks or somewhat cheaper looking straight grain hardwood stocks. There is some overlap in models between them.

MCMXI said:

That's not quite the case with Accuracy International. They've been bonding the steel receiver to the aluminum chassis for almost 40 years producing a quasi one-piece receiver/chassis. They use four bolts and a proprietary epoxy to permanently bond the receiver to the chassis and then apply "skins" to conceal the chassis and provide an ergonomic package.

Click to expand...

thanks for the correction I didn’t know that

Dale Alan said:

Ruger

Click to expand...

I am certain there could be another firearms company the incorporates a higher level of technology across a broader range of products.

I’m sure a firearms production industry consultant could shed more light on this. Someone that works with firearms companies to get their product from paper to the box. A human that works in this field right now might have the most updated information about these things.
Someone like…

I don’t know exactly how modern firearms are made. I know how houses, high rises and steel buildings, and strangely enough, hiking, cowboy and combat boots and dress shoes are made. Being as I am unfamiliar with it could you name another company as well?

I could hazard a guess at Kimber, but do they apply their CNC’ing to more than their god awful ugly/ stunningly beautiful pistols?
I’d wager they went backwards to the eighties with the injection molded Mako.

Has anyone ever taken a tour or seen what the M77 or ruger American production line looks like? There are some videos on YouTube of the gp100 machining process and I remember seeing one a few years ago of the mini 14 CNC line, which looked to be a long gang of 3 axis machines with a lot of part handling if I remember correctly. In the GP100 video there is an awful lot of drill presses and hand finishing with belt sanders and such.

This was the only thing I could find showing an M77 receiver being cast and straightened

As far as machining, it doesn’t take long to see why CNC machines improve things from the old days. That said, you still have to have an operator that is checking the output, changing offsets, replacing tooling, etc. and a QC department that doesn’t let out of spec parts out of the building.

Even the least expensive firearms today like Savages, Mossberg are not too shabby in the accuracy department and that’s in large part due to machines, not just the accuracy but the price as well.

Demi-human said:

I am certain there could be another firearms company the incorporates a higher level of technology across a broader range of products.

Click to expand...

Name them and correct my statement - otherwise “I’m certain” isn’t very compelling.

Investment casting, CNC, gang machining, hammer forging, MIM... their production manufacturing technology is incredibly advanced - including the acknowledgement that advanced manufacturing process technology isn’t always automated (capital efficiency). We can be certain, more advanced processes are used (example - comparing what Sako/Tikka does for receiver tolerance checking with a multi axis as opposed to the same process by Ruger with less capital investment to accomplish the same goal), but also be certain they are not more efficient, as reflected in the end product refinement and product costs.

I suppose PSA also deserves a tip of the hat in this discussion, acknowledging a much narrower product offering.

Varminterror said:

Name them and correct my statement - otherwise “I’m certain” isn’t very compelling.

Click to expand...

That’s what I’m saying.

Just telling someone who has extensive experience in the field of the firearms production industry, that I know you have, they live under a rock won’t cut it.
Why is Ruger not the answer?
What is the great “thing” that is implied you have missed whilst under the rock?

But I agree. Like you say, name another one. I thought Kimber, but imagine they make still their rifles in the old way. Pfft, I have no idea.
Palmetto state is a good one. They don’t sell rifles so inexpensively by employing a ton of skilled hand fitters. Yet their products stand among among others just as well.

I thought I would get more out of Dale than he just disagreed with you.

Being I’m just a carpenter, and knowing even less of foreign firearms, I’m here to learn.
I wonder if Sako, FN or Taurus have much for multi axis machines?

I would like to see what ruger's new production lines for the American and their semi auto handguns looks like. From what I've seen of the M77, the revolvers, and mini 14 productions lines I would say they are not a good example of modern machining, automation, handling, and quality control at all. They do an excellent job of it and I am a big fan of ruger products, but this thread is asking about replacing traditional gunsmithing with automation a modern machining. Just looking at those products is not fair though because those are lower volume legacy products that started production several decades ago, so its understandable that they are using a lot of dated equipment and lots of human touching and moving and finishing in those product lines. I do know that the higher volume stuff like the handguns uses a lot of sourced components because I have done some prototype work for Ruger myself and I know some people that do injection molding of frames for them and some of their MIM parts.

While I’m a big Ruger fan, I believe Howa does it better. The Japanese see quality as an end in itself. Not necessarily a means to profits or a better reputation. Even so, when they export manufacturing to other countries that mindset doesn’t transfer well. Things like Lean Manufacturing, Kaizen, etc work well in Japan, but more often than not just creates a mess in places like the US. As an engineer I’ve seen it all my career. Lots of extra overhead to measure and collect data points with no actual beneficial results.
Ruger has unequivocally gone downhill in the past decade. I like my new(er) Security 9, the 57 is “meh”. Neither of them compare to my 1976 vintage Blackhawk or even SR9.