29aholic
Member
This ought to be a sticky
Raw Steel to Smith & Wesson (Pic HEAVY)
- Thread starter handejector
- Start date
OP
handejector
Staff member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 26,131
- Reaction score
- 47,017
I'll get around to an Expert Commentary one day. I actually have a couple of ideas to share.....
I suspect many of the people in the pics knew the photog was coming, and dressed accordingly. Some of the ladies look a bit overdressed for their jobs, but maybe not.How many machinist do you see nowadays working in 3 piece suits and wearing bowties?
This is a very neat thread. It shows us inside something, I dare say, we will never see again. Real craftsmen at work. People who take pride in, and care about, what they produce. Lots of folks were dressed up, and they may have known that the cameras were going to be there, but I prefer to believe that they dressed like this all the time.
My grandmother who died in 1998, at the age of 96, dressed that way every day. Whether she was cleaning the house, "getting her hair done", or whatever, she was well dressed.
I think people of that time cared.
Lee, thanks for sharing.
My grandmother who died in 1998, at the age of 96, dressed that way every day. Whether she was cleaning the house, "getting her hair done", or whatever, she was well dressed.
I think people of that time cared.
Lee, thanks for sharing.
flash60601
US Veteran
Nice article, beautiful pics, BTW. Dedicated craftsmanship on manual machines, in addition to dedicated tooling and drill-jigs, has produced so much of value - it is a shame that those skille have all but vanished.
About the "overdressed": Some places, a qualified MAYBE. But my wife's grandfather was a JANITOR in the 1920-30's (he stoked the furnaces and stoves that heated the office building of a large foundry/manufacturing outfit which I retired out of in 2001).
He always went to work in jacket and tie. The machine-operators generally wore BOW-ties. The only ones who wore rougher clothing were the foundry-guys. They wore clothes which could get burned and patched, though in the old pictures, even some of them had ties. They left their leather aprons at work, but wore jackets on the walk to and from work, even in summer. Some would stop at the first taproom on the way home, but many would walk a good bit further before stopping.
"Appearance" was important. The word "quqlity" was not only applied to products.
Funny thing about those neckties. When my Dad was just a young machinist, he said his boss's being a cheap son of a gun saved his life. Boss liked silk ties, but would not spring for quality ones, he always bought cheap. One day, while leaning over the lathe next to my Dad's, the boss's tie got caught on the burr on the casting being turned, and it started to haul the boss into the machine, but the operator who was VERY quick witted grabbed the tie and won the tug-of-war with the SouthBend by tearing the tie in shereds out of the machine. Next week, boss started wearing bow-ties again.
Flash
Dave T
Member
A few months back I posted some comments on the manufacturing methods of S&W back in the 1950s by a good friend of over 30 years who is a engineering physicist and works in (as he calls it) the military/industrial complex. I thought he would be interested in these photos so I forwarded the link to this thread. Here is his response, which I share with his permission. I hope you will find his background information on manufacturing of additional interest.
"The S&W factory looked pretty much the same when I visited it in the mid-1970s. Since then it has apparently changed substantially.
You might appreciate a few comments about the manufacturing process. This article shows that S&W is a textbook example of what is now known as the American system of manufacturing. This system uses dedicated, single-purpose tools operated by semi-skilled labor to make high quality, interchangeable parts. Quality is determined by design, careful selection of material, repeatable processes, and continual checking of production against standard gauges. In contrast, the European system (also called the English system) uses general purpose tools operated by skilled craftsmen. There is considerably more variation in quality using the European system, and considerable hand fitting is usually necessary. The initial capital cost to start production is usually lower with the European system, but labor costs are higher. Examples of the two systems are the M-14 and FN FAL rifles. There are fewer, more complex parts in the M-14 than in the FN FAL. Further, a higher level of metallurgy and quality control is required to make the M-14 over the FAL. The FAL was an easier design to make using general purpose tools, and was made literally all over the world. On the other hand, even US manufacturers had trouble making the M-14. The European system may lead to lower manufacturing costs if labor is cheap, as it is in a lot of Third World countries - or China. The European system is also easier to change if the design must be modified.
The S&W revolver frame at the time of the article was made as a closed die forging. This process makes a forging that is close to near net shape, with excellent metallurgical properties. Also shown are a variety of single purpose machine tools used for various operations. One of the most important processes, used to make the rectangular opening in the frame for the cylinder, is broaching. This process is almost unheard of today. When the enormous capital cost of the tooling is considered, it is easy to understand why companies using the American system changed designs with great reluctance. On the other hand, once set up the American system produces a tremendous volume of high quality product.
Today manufacturing is moving back to a modified form of the European system, in that parts are often made on computer controlled machine tools (CNC). Dimensions are spot checked rather than measured against dedicated gauges. General purpose computer controlled machining centers are not as stiff as the single purpose tools shown in the article. The additional flexibility leads to looser manufacturing tolerances (some will argue this, but the statistical studies done by my company are very clear; sometimes the computer controlled machines cannot even get within a factor of two or three of the tolerances produced by single purpose tools). In addition, the lack of stiffness means that keeping up production rates requires softer metals, which cut more rapidly than harder forged metals. So quality today is much more variable than in the past, and durability also suffers since the quality of the metals is lower. Compare your older S&W revolvers with a current production Ruger LCR, for example! In support of this, note that gunsmithing is often necessary today for fitting parts to a 1911 - and this design was originally intended for complete interchangeability of parts by troops in the field."
My friend is a student of history and a military veteran. While in the Army he was assigned to the Test & Evaluation Center at Ft. Benning, GA. Over the years I have never found him to be factually incorrect in anything he's told me.
Dave
"The S&W factory looked pretty much the same when I visited it in the mid-1970s. Since then it has apparently changed substantially.
You might appreciate a few comments about the manufacturing process. This article shows that S&W is a textbook example of what is now known as the American system of manufacturing. This system uses dedicated, single-purpose tools operated by semi-skilled labor to make high quality, interchangeable parts. Quality is determined by design, careful selection of material, repeatable processes, and continual checking of production against standard gauges. In contrast, the European system (also called the English system) uses general purpose tools operated by skilled craftsmen. There is considerably more variation in quality using the European system, and considerable hand fitting is usually necessary. The initial capital cost to start production is usually lower with the European system, but labor costs are higher. Examples of the two systems are the M-14 and FN FAL rifles. There are fewer, more complex parts in the M-14 than in the FN FAL. Further, a higher level of metallurgy and quality control is required to make the M-14 over the FAL. The FAL was an easier design to make using general purpose tools, and was made literally all over the world. On the other hand, even US manufacturers had trouble making the M-14. The European system may lead to lower manufacturing costs if labor is cheap, as it is in a lot of Third World countries - or China. The European system is also easier to change if the design must be modified.
The S&W revolver frame at the time of the article was made as a closed die forging. This process makes a forging that is close to near net shape, with excellent metallurgical properties. Also shown are a variety of single purpose machine tools used for various operations. One of the most important processes, used to make the rectangular opening in the frame for the cylinder, is broaching. This process is almost unheard of today. When the enormous capital cost of the tooling is considered, it is easy to understand why companies using the American system changed designs with great reluctance. On the other hand, once set up the American system produces a tremendous volume of high quality product.
Today manufacturing is moving back to a modified form of the European system, in that parts are often made on computer controlled machine tools (CNC). Dimensions are spot checked rather than measured against dedicated gauges. General purpose computer controlled machining centers are not as stiff as the single purpose tools shown in the article. The additional flexibility leads to looser manufacturing tolerances (some will argue this, but the statistical studies done by my company are very clear; sometimes the computer controlled machines cannot even get within a factor of two or three of the tolerances produced by single purpose tools). In addition, the lack of stiffness means that keeping up production rates requires softer metals, which cut more rapidly than harder forged metals. So quality today is much more variable than in the past, and durability also suffers since the quality of the metals is lower. Compare your older S&W revolvers with a current production Ruger LCR, for example! In support of this, note that gunsmithing is often necessary today for fitting parts to a 1911 - and this design was originally intended for complete interchangeability of parts by troops in the field."
My friend is a student of history and a military veteran. While in the Army he was assigned to the Test & Evaluation Center at Ft. Benning, GA. Over the years I have never found him to be factually incorrect in anything he's told me.
Dave
gaucho1
Member
Dave
I always really enjoy the information and understanding you are sharing.
I have looked at the machinery and am starting to understand how features like integral ribs were produced. Very interesting thread.
I always really enjoy the information and understanding you are sharing.
I have looked at the machinery and am starting to understand how features like integral ribs were produced. Very interesting thread.
Last edited:
au2183
Member
That's some wonderful history! Thanks for sharing with us!
MAG-NUM
Member
Thanks for showing us the way it was. A very interesting article giving much explanation of the manufacturing processes involved.
It's hard to imagine with the amount of labor and materials going into each gun, how they could sell them at such low prices.
Lots to learn on the Forum. Bob
It's hard to imagine with the amount of labor and materials going into each gun, how they could sell them at such low prices.
Lots to learn on the Forum. Bob
Andy W
Member
That is very interesting. Thanks for posting!
twaits
Member
I'll second that. This is very interesting and useful history.
Dakota Iron
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2009
- Messages
- 129
- Reaction score
- 3
Raw Steel
That was pretty cool
That was pretty cool
Fascinating thread! My thanks to Lee for reposting the article. I don't remember seeing it before, which means it may have slipped into the archives even before I joined the forum a couple of years back.
It had never occurred to me that heat treating steel might be accomplished by electrical resistance rather than baking pieces in a furnace. That is the big take-away from this article for me. Recently someone posted a thread about manufacturing the S&W X-frame, and I was surprised to learn that the initial frame forging is done by hammering resistance-heated steel.
Dang! The stuff I don't know...
It had never occurred to me that heat treating steel might be accomplished by electrical resistance rather than baking pieces in a furnace. That is the big take-away from this article for me. Recently someone posted a thread about manufacturing the S&W X-frame, and I was surprised to learn that the initial frame forging is done by hammering resistance-heated steel.
Dang! The stuff I don't know...
Yes, it is the 1954, 8th Edition of Gun Digest. Also has info on the newly released Centennial Model, holster info featuring Berns & Martin an three-persons by Myers as well as the catalog pages with models and prices.
With a 1954 vintage .357 Magnum.
To take this thread sideways for just a moment, it is interesting to me that the .22./32 Target Revolver was still in the catalog in the early to mid 1950s. That looks like what we would call the transitional model, and the transitional kit gun is right beside it. I guess info about the Model of 1953 had not yet made it to the marketing deparment when this catalog was pasted up.
Sure wish I could find one of those postwar transitional .22/32 target guns at a reasonable price. Or find one at all, for that matter.
Anton Dee
Member
Thank You!
Thank you very much for this wonderful set of scans!
A great insight in how S&W worked in my year of birth, really appreciated.
Wish the time of honest, skilled handfitting was stil here...
Thank you very much for this wonderful set of scans!
A great insight in how S&W worked in my year of birth, really appreciated.
Wish the time of honest, skilled handfitting was stil here...
Anton Dee
Member
Sure wish I could find one of those postwar transitional .22/32 target guns at a reasonable price. Or find one at all, for that matter.
I hope (need?) to find one of those 22/32 target guns as well!
OP
handejector
Staff member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 26,131
- Reaction score
- 47,017
Yes, it is the 1954, 8th Edition of Gun Digest. Also has info on the newly released Centennial Model, holster info featuring Berns & Martin an three-persons by Myers as well as the catalog pages with models and prices.
With a 1954 vintage .357 Magnum.
To take this thread sideways for just a moment, it is interesting to me that the .22./32 Target Revolver was still in the catalog in the early to mid 1950s. That looks like what we would call the transitional model, and the transitional kit gun is right beside it. I guess info about the Model of 1953 had not yet made it to the marketing deparment when this catalog was pasted up.
Sure wish I could find one of those postwar transitional .22/32 target guns at a reasonable price. Or find one at all, for that matter.
Actually, they were not still in the S&W catalog.
The Gun Digest was notorious for not updating catalog sections for manufacturers and showing outdated data years after it was obsolete.
The Kit Gun and 22/32 Target were only updated in 53, and the lead time for publishing simply precluded showing the latest forms for those guns.
bmcgilvray
Member
I think I saw one of my revolvers in some of the photos.
Thanks for the journey through the manufacturing process "back in the day."
Thanks for the journey through the manufacturing process "back in the day."
1911ES
Member
Good pics, and very informative look back.
Similar threads
