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

Status
Not open for further replies.
twarr1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That sucks for you. I wish you’d have worked with more skilled companies at implementing these principles. Sounds like you had the wrong engineers designing the CI projects if you were chasing data without gains.
 
someguy2800 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Remember that the complexity isn't always anti-modern. For a lot of Ruger's designs they were able to simplify the manufacturing by using parts that were mostly cast with just a little finish-machining to clean up important areas. This is far cheaper than machining from a billet or even forging. That's also why everyone yells "Space gat!" every time a new polymer frame gun comes out because they can mold in incredibly complex patterns that once would have cost a fortune to machine.

The Mini-14 in particular was created to simplify, scale down, and make cheaper the design of the M-14 service rifle, which it did quite well.

Also, what is easy and modern changes over time. For a while in the mid 1900's stampings were heavily used as a simple and cost effective manufacturing method. In modern times however stampings are mostly being abandoned in favor of various types of cast parts and CNC machining. Additive manufacturing (eg, 3d printing) is quickly becoming another technology used to make things cheaper too (not your average home plastic 3d printer but industrial metal 3d printers - SIG is already 3d printing metal suppressors for example).
 
mgmorden said:
Remember that the complexity isn't always anti-modern. For a lot of Ruger's designs they were able to simplify the manufacturing by using parts that were mostly cast with just a little finish-machining to clean up important areas. This is far cheaper than machining from a billet or even forging. That's also why everyone yells "Space gat!" every time a new polymer frame gun comes out because they can mold in incredibly complex patterns that once would have cost a fortune to machine.

The Mini-14 in particular was created to simplify, scale down, and make cheaper the design of the M-14 service rifle, which it did quite well.

Also, what is easy and modern changes over time. For a while in the mid 1900's stampings were heavily used as a simple and cost effective manufacturing method. In modern times however stampings are mostly being abandoned in favor of various types of cast parts and CNC machining. Additive manufacturing (eg, 3d printing) is quickly becoming another technology used to make things cheaper too (not your average home plastic 3d printer but industrial metal 3d printers - SIG is already 3d printing metal suppressors for example).
Click to expand...

The company I work for was selling fully functional 3d printed 1911's for a couple years. I don't really see investment cast parts as being an example of modern technology any longer. In the 1960's and 70's that was a big innovation and certainly cheaper for a lot of parts compared to machining, but that's less and less true today. Rugers doesn't even cast the receivers on the American or the slides on their handguns. They are cut from billet. If anyone in the world could do it cheaper by casting them it would be ruger because they own the foundry, but they don't because its not cost effective anymore. Too much tooling and labor and touching and finishing and stress releveling, and then you have to machine it anyway.
 
BCM uses modern CNC machines to cut and check dimensions of parts. I believe they also use automated systems for such tasks as torquing the barrel nut.
 
someguy2800 said:
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.

View attachment 1028020

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.

View attachment 1028021

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.

View attachment 1028022
View attachment 1028025

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.

View attachment 1028023

View attachment 1028024
Click to expand...
Way to break it down for us. Thanks.
 
For reference purposes, here's state-of-the-art manufacturing as of 1917:



Back then, when just about every gun part was wood or milled steel, efficient firearm production involved a huge number of separate machine tools set up for quick, single operations, rather than a relative few sophisticated CNC machines.
 
When people wax poetic about the old days of hand fitting, it often seems to be forgotten that it was done because it was necessary. Machines couldn't produce finished parts. They HAD to be fitted by a skilled hand. Now, it's true that the best made firearms today have the most skilled hand work involved, not all hand fitted firearms are of such quality as a Westley Richards or Purdey.

Some things have drastically improved over the last 100yrs, some have not. It's easier and cheaper to produce a more precisely built firearm with modern machinery. STI produced its Texican SAA replica with as-machined parts (EDM). However, such high levels of fit and finish as we typically measure it was lost in the goal of rapid manufacturing. A Ruger American will outshoot virtually any high grade rifle from 100yrs ago but accuracy is not the only measure of a rifle.


twarr1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with this at all. I have bought 78 Rugers from the earliest to the latest. Why would a Security 9 even be compared to a Blackhawk?
 
Loaded question, OP.

CNC machines, lasers engraving, CHF barrel machines have not only greatly sped up manufacturing but have increased the longevity of many parts.

Depends what you are looking for.
 
Varminterror said:
That sucks for you. I wish you’d have worked with more skilled companies at implementing these principles. Sounds like you had the wrong engineers designing the CI projects if you were chasing data without gains.
Click to expand...

I'm only a lowly SixSigma Greenbelt, but even then I've made some big impacts on improving quality and through put at the places I've worked that let me utilize that experience.

Some companies do like to talk a big game, get people certified, and then do nothing with it just to add buzzwords to their resumes though.
 
CraigC said:
They HAD to be fitted by a skilled hand.
Click to expand...

A lot of them were ASSEMBLED by practiced workers.
Smith and Wesson were known for "selective assembly." An assembler started out with a rack of barreled actions and an oversupply of parts. Put in a set of parts and check. If it does not operate well, try other parts. I am sure they had a rework line for frames that just wouldn't accommodate run of the mill internals, but I bet it was small.
 
gotboostvr said:
I'm only a lowly SixSigma Greenbelt, but even then I've made some big impacts on improving quality and through put at the places I've worked that let me utilize that experience.

Some companies do like to talk a big game, get people certified, and then do nothing with it just to add buzzwords to their resumes though.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Admittedly, when I got my Yellow and Green, it was only 1) to pad my resume and 2) satisfy a headcount on a continuous improvement focused corporate initiative, but in the end completing my black, I had opportunities to work with really great people and processes which drove significant improvements in processes and manufacturing technology. Largely out of my focus these days, and maybe never aligned with my primary passion in technology development, but there are a lot of great things happening around the world in the scope of Manufacturing Tech built on the back of CI principles like Lean and SS.
 
Some things have drastically improved over the last 100yrs said:
Do you think a modern Winchester Model 70 is technically "better" than a pre-64 M70? (I think the answer is likely "yes" but don't really know...). And even if the modern gun is "better," it's doesn't have near the soul and panache of the classic, which is your point I think. This is the same reason that I have Glocks, and older S&W revolvers. The former is highly utilitarian and the latter is just so much more fun to caress....
Click to expand...
 
Jim Watson said:
Scenes from US&S building 1911A1.
Especially note about the 2 minute mark the forging for a pistol receiver.
Click to expand...

My father had an aunt that worked at US&S, machining the frame. He told me he remembers her complaining "I hate cutting trigger guards!"
 
Rule3 said:
From years ago!



How Savage makes rifles (not saying the best) most companies today have modern machines. People still make a difference!

Click to expand...


Thanks for posting these. I found them very interesting, although the Remington piece is obviously dated and likely totally obsolete given the bankruptcies / change of ownership / change of location.

I found everyone's perspective on this very informative -- thanks for posting your replies to my original post. I started off thinking that Howa probably had the best C&C / modern machine shop processes. My conclusion now, still tentative but a bit better informed, is that Howa is number 2 and Tikka (or Sako) is probably number 1. Thoughts?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

NoirFan
  • Locked
Maintaining modern firearms with old-world technology?
Replies
13
Views
683
NoirFan
NoirFan
S
  • Locked
Modern equivalent of the "Liberator" pistol (or rifle)?
2 3
Replies
66
Views
6K
Palehorseman
P
M
  • Locked
Traditions revolver manufacturer
Replies
15
Views
1K
unknwn
U
D
  • Locked
Looking for Advice on New Rifle Design
2 3
Replies
54
Views
4K
BSA1
BSA1
T
  • Locked
FN PS-90 Review
Replies
20
Views
5K
Clerihew
C
Back
Top