Shot 2018
Black guns are out, brown guns are in.
No, that’s not true, we have sort of reached a watershed moment where all guns matter. What is true is that people are being more likely to buy what they want than what the market drives them to buy. So there are a lot of companies making nice sporting arms that run the gamut from cheap and cheerful to miniature giraffe opulence.
The standout thing for me, because I am in the thick of the manufacturing process all the time, is QC. I am often stunned by the quality of the stuff I see at SHOT, because why the hell are you not bringing your best work to display? The whole show is populated by things that are hammered together at the very last minute. Yes, I also understand that sometimes tradeshows are a special case, and they often are loaded with things done at the last minute. I’m talking about manufacturing processes that are loaded with hand work. Don’t get me wrong, nothing pleases me like a well and carefully handmade object, many of which are works of art in their own right. No, I’m talking about manufacturing processes that should be, but aren’t, foolproof.
If you are making a product using modern manufacturing techniques, and that product requires more than the most minimal hand finishing, you don’t know what you are doing, and you should probably stop doing it. Granted, I have a jaundiced eye, but I have been in manufacturing for so long I tend to be extremely critical of what passes for modern manufacturing.
Most, if not all, of the major manufacturers of firearms and accessories, and this applies to nothing more than AR’s and AR parts, are loaded with hand operations, and the QC is, to put it mildly, not as good as it could be.
Gauging is the simplest part of this. And most people have no idea how to use a gauge. Here’s an example.
I have been to a round dozen manufacturers of AR parts, and some of them are the big names in the new hotness, and many of them do not even have a go/no go for the upper threads on an AR.
What this means is that their stuff all works together, but if you want to use someone else’s barrel shroud, it may not fit. Now the brilliance of Stoners design lies at least in part in the ability to make some allowance for under or oversize, but dramatic changes aren’t going to be tolerated.
When Whitney did his “Interchangeable parts” demo for Congress, everyone could immediately see the value, but the actual production of interchangeable parts didn’t happen quickly or readily. And it still doesn’t today; mostly because different companies use different manufacturing methods and gauging standards. Within a company, you will get all the parts to the same spec and they will work together, but decide that you want to put a caspian slide on that old Ithaca 1911? You will either have lots of hand fitting, or it will be so loose as to be useless. Almost nothing comes out of the box and still works.
And the more the manufacturing process wanders off the reservation, the worse this is going to get. Right now almost everything for Glocks is basically bolt on, but that won’t last long as other companies begin to aftermarket parts.
Apple tried to head off a lot of this QC drift by retaining control over what got certified and what did not. Hardware and software for Apple products had to be “approved”. This kept the system stable and for users this was a very good thing, the platform started and stayed reliable. The open architecture of the PC made for an anything goes no holds barred PC deathmatch even within it’s own OS, and this had it’s own set of advantages, and frankly, disadvantages. There isn’t anything stopping anyone from building anything for any gun, and this has meant some real innovation, and a powerful lot of freaky crap.
A lot of the freaky crap has been as a direct result of market forces. People want their stuff to be cooler than other people’s stuff. Accessorizing is a way to make that happen. Most of those accessories are crap.
But they’re not always crap because of the way they’re made. They’re crap because of design and implementation, or maybe even the actual concept. (Manley Innovations, anyone?) if you buy a chinese made product to bolt onto your AR, you will probably find that it fits a little loosely. That’s because they build it to fit on even the most out of tolerance mating part they can find. They know Bubba will just put a bigger wrench on it to get it tight and apply loctite to keep it from wobbling. A good armorer will discard it out of hand, but it isn’t bad because it’s quality control is bad, it’s quality control is very nearly flawless, it is doing just exactly what it’s makers intend for it to do; fit, no matter what.
That high end AR you paid dearly for is a very good piece of equipment. And because all the parts came from one place they made sure they fit together well, and they made sure that the accessories you wanted would bolt on easily as well. But until all those companies are using the exact same methods of QC on their parts, until they all refine their manufacturing processes until they require NO hand work to make anything fit, the idea of “interchangeable parts”, while strictly true, does not mean that you can, as Whitney did, throw all the parts onto a table and make ten guns that are all as good as the ten guns you began with. And unless you have the skills and equipment to do these QC checks yourself, this is all still best left to a good smith.
12 comments Og | Uncategorized
This just amazes me.
When Dad was Manager of Engineering at a local factory that did quite a bit of MilSpec work for the Air Force, the AF required the company to purchase (well, I think “fabricate”, since the company had its own tool room and tool makers) and keep within spec a set of go/no-go standards for the interchangeable items they built. These ranged from little go/no-go standards like the one in the video, to full-up test stands where you’d “install” the finished product to ensure that it would, in fact, fit into the aircraft when they took it out of the package for replacement. And the AF maintained an office in the plant to run and sign off all the inspections with their own people, who did not work for the company. That was some serious shit. I’m glad I didn’t work in that code when I worked there.
It sort of amazes me that something like (say) the AR-15 doesn’t have some basic set of standards like that for interchangeability. You’d think the manufacturers would club up to set that up just out of self-defense. Or maybe I’m just naive and old-fashioned :)
Nathan, there ARE basic standards for AR-15 interchangeability. That’s what Og is describing. They’ll go together, but may not be the “best” fit (and in fact, that’s not the way to bet).
I spent 9 years working in the USAF jet engine repair “complex” (flightline to backshop, including test cells and the secondary power sections). Parts “fit”, but sometimes it was a real challenge getting them to “work”. And the places it was critical that they did, there was often some tuning/trim required.
Yep, QC is becoming a lost art, and the lack of commonality is especially true in the AR world…
This is amazing news to me. When I worked in Aerospace Edwards Deming and his quality control methods were seen as the sal action of the company and the way of the future. Japan had taken his methods to heart which gave us the story of the five automobile transmission parts that were so identical the technician thought his micrometer was broken.
Has this philosophy been lost in America since Deming’s death?
What you describe was mocked by Dr. Deming as, “You burn the toast and I’ll scrape it.â€
And this, Og, is why I keep coming back here.
Your summary is right on the mark. Modern manufacturing is better than we see in firearms, in general. It’s considered normal that you buy a new pistol and find what ammo will or won’t run in it. Isn’t that like buying a car and finding some brands tires don’t work well on it?
I bought a Taurus TCP and struggled for weeks to find a JHP that would run in it. I then bought a few hundred rounds and my wife bought a TCP. Hers wouldn’t run on that, but ran on one my gun wouldn’t run on. What other world would think that’s acceptable (I didn’t – I got rid of them).
The push for JIT has led to really complex things like assembling a Boeing 737 (or Airbus A320) at a line rate approaching 2/day, by putting completed subassemblies together. In my (former) world, the entire avionics package is expected to plug into one of these planes and work perfectly the first time it’s turned on.
This is why elon musk has still not cornered the electric car market. I hear hand work has to go into each car. Lots of it.
I worked in Maintenance management software for a time. Honda had our software in the plant. I remember when they went from 11 to 10 seconds a car rolled of the end of the line. Now that is a good example of QC.
Have off the shelf components you can add to your shooter is not something we want to lose.
Just order one of the Mossberg Patriot series bolties. Have to see how good a job the did on it.
I’m a calibration tech for a living, which means I’m the one QC looks to for assets that prove their QC checks are good. You wouldn’t believe–no, I’ll bet Og would easily believe–some of the things folks have asked me to pass, knowing the gear isn’t right, and knowing as well that that means everything they check with it is questionable.
Bingo! Anderson Maufacturing’s grip screw hole is poster child for this nonsense. Yes, I went there.
Too many manufacturing decisions are now made by marketing departments.
One part of this that I find infuriating is the role the ISO9001 is supposed to play. I can’t speak to the other ISO standards, but 9001 is a damned joke, quality-wise. The old saw is that “you can make crap, so long as you document that you’re making crap”.
One would think that centuries after Whitney and with global experience in making everything from nails to rocket engines, humanity would have a much better understanding of just what “standardization” means. Sadly, it means “we’re standardized within our own company”… and often only “our own site”.
It has become a crowded business. We
note even the big boys got problems.
BTW, I retired from the ammo business
15 years go, having managed the operation that made the stuff that
went in primers, 35-40 billion by my count. MILSPEC-wise about 2 billion.
You might be surprised that the commercial stuff also met MILSPEC,
not because it was required, but that is the way the operation was set up.
Windy, I am sorry I didn’t see your comment was trapped. Yes, the Deming approach has gotten lost. And yes, while some people do practice it, the painful fact is, they only manufacture to their own tolerances, and notn a “Standardised” set, at least, not one that is sane. The “Standardized” tolerances are so loose as to be ridiculous. A few makers tighten them up internally, but then they don’t match the internal standards of other manufacturers of mating parts. Just take ten bone stock 1911’s from different manufacturers and try to swap parts.
It is common to see old SAA colts with mismatched serial numbers. Had a smith once who called those “Campfire guns”, cowboys sitting around a campfire and cleaning guns, just picking up the pieces from a pile and putting them back together. This was possible because all of those colts were made to the same set of gauges. Not so much anymore.
Well got the Mossberg and have an issue. the front scope mount won’t accept a Burris scope ring. back mount has no problem but the front is a little big.
Got it on with the use of a hammer but it looks like someones gauges are out of spec.