Quote:
Originally Posted by Smith357
Bean counters and their cost cutting have destroyed many firearms icons throughout the years, Winchester models like the 70, 94 and the 12 are but just a few. Other examples that come to mind are the Colt DA revolvers, the Remington 870 and I'm not even going to touch on S&Ws cost cutting exploits. But on the other side of the coin if you can't keep pace with the times and keep your costs under control you will go belly up. If Winchester had not gone to cheaper more profitable manufacturing processes I highly doubt they would have lasted much past the 1970s.
|
Quote:
|
But on the other side of the coin if you can't keep pace with the times and keep your costs under control you will go belly up.
|
This is a statement that needs emphacis. Try and find a NEW DA Colt revolver today, it aint gonna happen.
As for S&W's cost cutting, IMO that "cost cutting" has resulted in Improved Quality in their revolvers. BTW, if you study Deming and Staistical Process Control you'll find the most effective method of reducing costs is by IMPROVING Quality. As for why, rework costs plummet as well as the mass of scrap material in the disposal bins.
As an example of the improvement in Quality of the new "cost cutting" guns, I cite my model 620 produced in 2008. If accuracy is a measure of Quality, my 620 is a Standout in this area. I've personally managed to put 3 rounds into a 1/2 inch cloverleaf at 50 yards, or 150 feet. Now I'll admit that I can't manage to run a full cylinder into a 1/2 inch at 50 yards but that's simply because I'm just not good enough. So, that "cost cutting" tensioned barrel actually did result in a more accurate revolver, which I consider to actually be an improvement.
Then there is the matter of the use of MIM parts, another "cost cutting" measure. Yeah it does reduce the cost of having someone hand fitting parts together. It also eliminates all the mistakes that people make when they are doing a repetitive process. BTW, I expect that back in the "hand fitted" days everyone fawns over that the reject rate at the end of the line for S&W was between 10 and 20 out of 100 revolvers produced. In addition, I'll bet that 2 out of 100 revolvers produced hit the dealers shelves in a non functional condition.
Finally, having tuned both forged and MIM lockworks, I'll tell you that the MIM guns require about 1/2 the work of the earlier Forged guns. As for why, it's because the MIM parts fit together and within the frame recess so much more consistently that they don't require any re-sizing or additional fitting.
I have a feeling that if John Browning had access to the processes available today he would be FULLY implementing those processes. In fact he'd problaby come up with some designs that he rejected due to the lack of ability to reliably manufacture those design concepts.
Frankly, I find it a bit amuzing that people will complain bitterly about improvments in techniques to manufacture firearms but when they take their classics to the range they do it in fuel injected air conditioned comfort. I'll also bet that not ONE of them has ever busted a thumb trying to start a Model T.