Taiwanese gunsmith tailors weapons for the military's most specialized units

Status
Not open for further replies.

gunsmith

member
Joined
May 8, 2003
Messages
5,906
Location
Reno, Nevada
doc45023372c2145467423599.jpg

'Concentration and patience'

Taiwanese gunsmith tailors weapons
for the military's most specialized units


By THOMAS BROWN, T&D Staff Writer
Saturday, September 09, 2006

He grew up in the shadow of China on the island of Taiwan. He remembers watching Chinese reconnaissance planes boldly fly over Taiwanese air space in search of any information or activity that might be construed as threatening.

Billy Chang knew at an early age that the military would, in some way, be a part of his experience.

Now in Orangeburg, Chang now outfits specialized personnel with weapons they can obtain only from him. He personalizes side arms, rifles and other weapons for the individual operator.

"Getting a gun from Billy lets you know the difference from going to a tailor and buying off-the-rack," one of his customers was heard to say.

Chang counts among his customer base special operations officers in all branches of the military, United States Marshals, FBI agents, SWAT teams from law enforcement agencies and Drug Enforcement Agency personnel.

"I used to build guns for civilians, but now I only serve military and law enforcement," Chang said. "I don't want to think that my guns are being used for something bad, so, this way, I know they're being put to good use."

A quiet, soft-spoken man, Chang, 39, developed his craft over many years. He was in the Taiwanese Army Airborne Unit for four years. He became a small arms technician, first for his unit, then for the several other units in that army.

Before his military service, Chang was a competitive shooter, winning more than 50 competitions and building a solid reputation among shooting enthusiasts in many Asian countries. After serving his country, Chang moved to the United States and attended Queens College in New York, where he majored in mechanical engineering.

As a result of his interest and reputation in competitive shooting, he was invited to visit several gun manufacturers to learn how to work on their weapons. He has since paid to attend classes offered by many weapons manufacturers -- including Colt and Smith & Wesson -- to hone his skills even more.

It was at one such session that Chang made a name for himself among special operations forces.

While attending a session at Colt, he met a SWAT team member from a major metropolitan police force. When Chang explained to him the ways that weapons could be improved and specialized, he asked for a demonstration. Chang produced his personal weapon and showed him how he altered the dimensions and features on the weapon in order that it comfortably fit only him.

One U.S. Army special operations sergeant major, who requested that his last name not be used, praises Chang's technical skill in specializing weapons.

"Billy fabricates guns from scratch," Jim said. "When he builds my firearms, he makes them like they're his. Special operations forces are a small, tight-knit group. When we find someone who does good work, we recommend him to other special operations personnel.

"I've carried Billy's guns all over the world. I've carried his weapons on details where I've protected VIPs on a protective services detail and I've carried them into battle situations. I trust them."

Having an in-depth understanding of weaponry, Jim appreciates Chang's efforts to ensure that his weapons fill the bill.

"When you buy a weapon from one of the major manufacturers, you know that they've cut corners to save money," Jim said. "But when you get a gun from Billy, you can be sure that it's made of the best components that can be found on the market. He's no different than a feudal swordmaster who painstakingly made the best weapons possible."

Before Chang builds a gun for a person, he gets to know the person. Goes shooting with him. Watches how he shoots, his level of skill. His accuracy. Watches how he stands. Notices his natural rhythm, how quickly he moves.

"All of that determines how a person will use a weapon and I have to take all of those things in consideration as I construct a gun for a particular operator," Chang said. "It's very exacting. When I was nine years old, I started studying martial arts -- judo and aikido. I learned concentration and patience and that's what I use in building guns.

"When I finish working on a gun, I go to the range with the operator and let him shoot 400 to 500 rounds, then I make the final adjustments to the scopes and sights. I want my guns to be the best that the person has used."

Chang became popular with law enforcement officers after 9-11, when he applied for and was accepted as an U.S. Air Marshal.

"After 9-11, I wanted to do something to contribute to the safety of the world," Chang said. "So I thought I would like to make planes safe so that would never happen again."

But his dreams were not to be realized. Shortly after learning that he was accepted as an Air Marshal, Chang was involved in an automobile accident that left him unable to walk for several months.

"Doctors said I wouldn't even survive," Chang said. "But that martial arts training again, determination, tenacity and willingness to work hard, brought me back."

During his recuperation, Chang made several friends among law enforcement officers and when they learned of his skill as a gunsmith, they sought him out to specialize weapons for them. When they learned of his popularity among special operations forces, they recommended him to members of their SWAT teams, gaining him another specialized customer base.

"When I work with a team, I work with the whole team," Chang said. "I spend a lot of range time with them, shooting. A weapon, once built, can't be erased. That's why you must take the time to do them right. And you must know who will be using the weapon, because in the hands of a person, it becomes only 20 percent weapon and 80 percent operator."

Chang came to Orangeburg from New York in 1990. His grandfather lived here. He has chosen to make the Garden City his home as well.

"I get the chance to go other places," Chang said. "But for me, Orangeburg is the best place in the world. Orangeburg is my home. Everything that's mine is right here."

And while he is here, the world beats a path to his door. Marshals, members of swat teams, special operations forces. All seeking the skill of the gunsmith. All seeking the skill of Billy Chang.

T&D Staff Writer Thomas Brown can be reached by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at 803-533-5532. Discuss this and other stories online at TheTandD.com.
 
Great, just what we need for our new police state. I love his assumption that if I were to own one of his products I'd probably be doing something illicit with it.
 
"I used to build guns for civilians, but now I only serve military and law enforcement," Chang said. "I don't want to think that my guns are being used for something bad, so, this way, I know they're being put to good use."

I respect him for his dedication to his craft, but dude, how come I didn't get the memo showing military and LE only do good? Sad really. Big difference between using it for good, and put to good use.
 
I have a real problem with his attitude...

He will only build weapons for military and LEO not civilians to prevent them from being misused. Someone needs to introduce this man to Randy Weaver and the survivors of Waco.
 
"I used to build guns for civilians, but now I only serve military and law enforcement," Chang said. "I don't want to think that my guns are being used for something bad, so, this way, I know they're being put to good use."

Yeah. Right. Only the military and police are qualified to have guns.
 
With all due respect to those of you who disagree with this gentleman's choice to only make guns for military/LE customers (for the record, I disagree with his reasoning, but not the overall decision); you seem to be getting stuck on that. There are plenty of good smiths out there who will do quality work such as this for any customer with the propper amount of money.
I personally enjoy knowing that someone cares about giving our military and law enforcement operators the best equipment to do their job. And with the number of people who can give this gentleman business, I think thats probably all he has time for anyhow.
 
Being a Taiwanese myself, I can understand why he thinks that way. He must feel personally accountable for each and every gun he makes, much like the swordsmiths of the past. Frankly, the story about how Mr. Chang gets to know his client reminds me of how a master swordsmith makes a sword specifically for a warrior.
 
... the story about how Mr. Chang gets to know his client reminds me of how a master swordsmith makes a sword specifically for a warrior.
He definitely sounds more like the master swordsmiths.

Got to respect someone that doesn't merely perform $75 "fluff and buff" procedures. Having a gun custom fitted and tuned for an owner is seriously expensive and time-consuming. These are firearms that will literally last a lifetime for the owner. Despite his statements about lack of control over the usage of his firearms, this gunsmith's choice could easily be a simple business decision based on reality: that 98% of civilians don't value the level of quality he's capable of providing, and they won't pay for it reliably anyway; but military and police agencies do and will.

Bad assumptions as to the social implications of his chosen clients aside, armorers always sought out gov't contracts as the "cream" of the crop. Probably, always will.
 
Last I heard, owning a firearm in Taiwan was a death sentance. This probably colors his thinking, being indoctrinated from a very young age into "guns are only for the knights and heros", and not for the peasants and serfs.
 
"I used to build guns for civilians, but now I only serve military and law enforcement," Chang said. "I don't want to think that my guns are being used for something bad, so, this way, I know they're being put to good use."


I stopped reading at that point ! :barf:
 
With all due respect to those of you who disagree with this gentleman's choice to only make guns for military/LE customers (for the record, I disagree with his reasoning, but not the overall decision); you seem to be getting stuck on that. There are plenty of good smiths out there who will do quality work such as this for any customer with the propper amount of money.
I personally enjoy knowing that someone cares about giving our military and law enforcement operators the best equipment to do their job. And with the number of people who can give this gentleman business, I think thats probably all he has time for anyhow.

If he said "I only do police and military work" and left it at that, I wouldn't think a thing about it.

After all, I only offer my professional services to civilians who aren't even law enforcement. However there are mitigating factors that make that my reality (such as the fact my customers are at most 16 years old...).

I could understand if the government contracts keep him busy enough and he doesn't need the extra business.

However that's not the case, the case is that this man does not support the right to keep and bear arms. There is no law tying his hands, he has no excuse.

"I don't do private sales because I'm too busy doing government work" is completely different from "I don't do private sales because civilians are just killers waiting to happen".
 
shucks

whats so hard about understanding his attitude? if i had his skills i could safely say there are some on this board that i would not feel comfortable equipping. and last time i checked i still had the freedom to make that choice.
 
Last I heard, owning a firearm in Taiwan was a death sentance.

It might have been so under martial law, but nowadays possession of illegal firearams in Taiwan is "merely" 5 years or longer in prison. Unauthorized manufacturing can get one in for mininum of 7 years to life, or even death penalty if you've really, really pissed off the government with what you did.

Our cultural background does regard weapons as instruments of evil. Ideally, a civilized society shouldn't need them. They are only kept around because bad guys an bad countries have them.

Suffice to say, gun enthusiasts aren't exactly mainstream in our society. :banghead:
 
whats so hard about understanding his attitude? if i had his skills i could safely say there are some on this board that i would not feel comfortable equipping. and last time i checked i still had the freedom to make that choice.

It's absolutely true he reserves the right to say "I will sell my product to you but not to him.", etc.

However the freedom to decide that does not excuse him from the negative consequences of doing so. I am perfectly free to call him whatever nasty things I want and to say exactly what I think about his attitude.

I imagine he's like so many others who enjoy firearms and a fine lifestyle, and do everything they can in their power to keep others from ever enjoying the same. I bet he sees no problem with his attitude because after all, he has access to guns, why worry about anyone else?

Hypothetically let's say you are a great gunsmith. So you decide not to sell guns to truck drivers, math teachers, or brain surgeons because they're not military or law enforcement on the simple reason that you know all of these people are universally evil.

How does this preclude you from intense criticism? It's no different than saying "I won't make guns for <insert ethnic group here> people because I just know they'll do something evil with them."

Anyone who can provide arms to a state and its citizens but chooses to provide only to the state has committed a deep moral affront unless they are bound by law. For instance I don't get angry at HK for not selling me a G36, they can't, it's illegal for them to do so because I'm a peasant.

I do however get royally pissed at gun companies which refuse to sell a civilian legal product to civilians. This guy is no exception.

I do understand he's just one guy and maybe he just prefers the government work. If that was his reasoning I'd be completely satisfied with it, but that's not the case. The last thing we need is a firearms provider whose attitude is "this group is good enough, but this group is not".
 
I guess I will just agree to disagree on this one. When I look at this man, I see someone who takes extreme pride in his craft and makes sure his clients get the very best. I feel no further need to respond to anyone else who claims that this man is anti-gun just because he won't sell to civilians.

On a separate note, I do enjoy the friendly bantering that this forum gives all of us the opportunity to engage in. Whether I agree with your opinions or not, at least we are a group of gun owners discussing firearms related topics in a rational manner.
 
How does this preclude you from intense criticism? It's no different than saying "I won't make guns for <insert ethnic group here> people because I just know they'll do something evil with them."
Just a bit over the top, eh? Big difference. Knowing Johnny or <some ethnic group> will do evil is a far cry from not knowing a group will do evil. Who's to say that this armorer's choice is because of misgivings over a known individual or group, or because of a basic concern over having no control over the use/misuse of his products? He hasn't said all people are criminals. He has essentially said he wouldn't have control over misuse. He's making a distinction between two groups: <military/LEO> and <everyone else>. He can do some level of research into the first group, whereas the second is simply the amorphous wad of humanity beyond the first group. Am not defending him. Am merely suggesting that the wording need not be taken to the logical extreme.

Think like an armorer with a conscience for a moment. You make tools of death. You'd love it if there could be some way to make those tools and still have some control over the usage of those tools.

If it were me ... Of all groups in the world, the one I can think of that's got some semblance of controls over safety, securty and usage is: the military/LEO group. Every other group is a crap shoot. Doesn't mean the military/LEO group doesn't have its share of individuals that deserve a small cell or the gas. Every group does. But with this group, there are at least some controls in place.

In advance of knowing, it seems a bit premature to consign this guy to the fires of our imagination, based on his choice to avoid selling to a group because he would have no control over the misuse of his products. (All he has to do is read the morning paper to get a really good dose of daily "feel good" as to how his products would be used.) Seems to me that picking one large, financially-viable community of organizations to be his clients makes good business sense and can help him sleep well at night, despite being an armorer. No crime in that.
 
Chang counts among his customer base special operations officers in all branches of the military, United States Marshals, FBI agents, SWAT teams from law enforcement agencies and Drug Enforcement Agency personnel.

"I used to build guns for civilians, but now I only serve military and law enforcement," Chang said. "I don't want to think that my guns are being used for something bad, so, this way, I know they're being put to good use."


Yeah, you never know when Lon Horiuchi might need his 7mm magnum fine-tuned to take out those difficult moving targets behind doors.
 
"Billy fabricates guns from scratch,"

Am I the only one wonder about the technical details of this article? He builds modern guns from scratch, without flaws that will kill the operators, which are accepted for use by l-a-r-g-e military orgs. without any known test programs?

OK, that might work for bolt guns that have a rate of fire directly connected to the shooter's arm, who are using tried and true receiver designs. But full-auto military or security weapons?

Bart Noir
Who can appreciate nicely made grips and rifle stocks etc.
 
Just a bit over the top, eh? Big difference.

Both are absolutely arbirtrary and baseless discriminations, neither being based on personal circumstances or finances but mere whimsy. It's a perfectly valid comparison.

Knowing Johnny or <some ethnic group> will do evil is a far cry from not knowing a group will do evil. Who's to say that this armorer's choice is because of misgivings over a known individual or group, or because of a basic concern over having no control over the use/misuse of his products?

If someone were to misuse one of his products, it's irrational for him to feel like he'd be somehow responsible.

What if I made wooden mallets for a living and someone beat somebody to death with a mallet I'd made. Am I at fault?

What if I were to teach someone the quadratic equation, and then one day they use it to launch a projectile that kills dozens of people? Am I at fault?

Basing our decisions about who gets to be armed and who does not on irrational feelings like "someone might take this gun I made and kill someone with it" is folly.

He hasn't said all people are criminals. He has essentially said he wouldn't have control over misuse.

He actually has, he has outright said I or anyone else not associated with his viewpoint of who is "good enough" is suspect. You don't deny arms to someone based on what they "might do" unless you believe they are going to misuse them. It's this kind of thinking that people or certain kinds of people are inherently good until exposed to some inanimate object which I so vehemently oppose in all its forms.

And at present, he has absolutely no control over misuse at all. None. He may "feel" like he does, but the fact is he doesn't. None of us can see into the soul of every man or foretell the future.

He's making a distinction between two groups: <military/LEO> and <everyone else>. He can do some level of research into the first group, whereas the second is simply the amorphous wad of humanity beyond the first group. Am not defending him. Am merely suggesting that the wording need not be taken to the logical extreme.

I disagree with that approach because implicit here is the idea that military/law enforcement is inherently morally superior to everyone who is not based on occupation.

I believe we should treat all occupations as equals with regards to the RKBA.

Think like an armorer with a conscience for a moment. You make tools of death. You'd love it if there could be some way to make those tools and still have some control over the usage of those tools.

Not only has he absolutely no guarantees his products will not be misused, he only makes mere machines which throw lead projectiles. It is a person who decides what it will be used for. That's what he apparently does not understand, his production of a mere object no matter how marvelous does not equate to his assisting the transgressions of others even if irrational feelings say otherwise.

If he makes "tools of death" then so does everyone who works on an automobile assembly line. I made a shelf once, you could easily bash somebody's skull in with it. I won't feel guilty for having made the shelf if someone is killed with it.

If it were me ... Of all groups in the world, the one I can think of that's got some semblance of controls over safety, securty and usage is: the military/LEO group. Every other group is a crap shoot. Doesn't mean the military/LEO group doesn't have its share of individuals that deserve a small cell or the gas. Every group does. But with this group, there are at least some controls in place.

What controls? How much of the genocide of the 20th century was facilitated by civilians, I wonder? Would he feel good knowing his weapons were used in one of the several cases we have of law enforcement killing people who probably shouldn't have been killed?

Safety? CCW license holders have a higher hit %age than uniformed officers.

Security? Crap shoot. As long as humans are involved with the storage of any weapon, it's not secure.

In advance of knowing, it seems a bit premature to consign this guy to the fires of our imagination, based on his choice to avoid selling to a group because he would have no control over the misuse of his products. (All he has to do is read the morning paper to get a really good dose of daily "feel good" as to how his products would be used.) Seems to me that picking one large, financially-viable community of organizations to be his clients makes good business sense and can help him sleep well at night, despite being an armorer. No crime in that.

No man should feel guilty merely for being an armorer. That's ludicrous.

He has no control over misuse as it is. He may have the illusion of it or an emotional feeling he does, but he does not. We can "what if" that to death rather easily.

If his reasons were purely circumstantial or financial, I'd think nothing of it at all.
 
Am I the only one wonder about the technical details of this article? He builds modern guns from scratch, without flaws that will kill the operators, which are accepted for use by l-a-r-g-e military orgs. without any known test programs?
My thoughts exactly. It sounds like the writer is taking a LOT of liberties with this guys job description. I'd really like to hear what some more well-known gunsmiths think of this cat (I'd never heard of him before now.)

Aside from the whole only-the-police-and-military-are-worthy-of-my-craft thing, which automatically makes Mr. Chang unworthy of respect.

- Chris
 
I disagree with that approach because implicit here is the idea that military/law enforcement is inherently morally superior to everyone who is not based on occupation.
Nope. It's that one group can be analyzed. The other cannot. The wad has no characteristics as a group, per se. The <military/LEO> group does ... and moderate controls over safety, security and usage are one of them. Folks can think many things are implicit, but moral superiority has nothing to do with that simple characteristic.
 
I had many Chinese friends

When I lived in China Town in San Francisco, I helped a few with the test to become American Citizens, but I could never get them interested in shooting and guns.
I have found Mongolians and Koreans to be far more interested in guns.
Many Asian cultures consider fido to be food, they can say our not eating them is as irrational as their attidude toward gun ownership.
I think showing newcomers to our country the joy of owning and shooting guns
is in our own best interest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top