Straightening Out Some Terminology

[davec2]

I have been watching and reading all sorts of posts about the pros and cons of "CNC" fabricated rifles.  I don't want to start any more discussion on the topic, but, having made a lot of aerospace components with CNC equipment, I wanted to make a comment.  There are some here who seem to believe that removing excess wood by shaping a stock from a plank with modern equipment is tantamount to having the entire rifle fabricated by a machine.  Modern barrels (mostly) are made on modern equipment and with modern steels.  Locks are (mostly) made by investment casting to near net dimensions and are prepared for assembly in modern fixtures on modern machines.  Furniture is (mostly) sand or investment cast using modern mold making and foundry equipment and requires more or less hand clean up by a builder.  There is no one, that I am aware of, putting out complete or nearly complete flintlock rifles that don't require a lot of hand work to finish....CNC or no CNC.

During the US Civil War, the Union alone produced over 1.5 million rifles in approximately 4 years....that's over a thousand completed rifles A DAY !  The stocks for those rifles were made on a machine like this....



This was a Civil War version of a CNC machine.....and those rifles took a lot of hand labor to complete as well.  The machine just took a lot of the drudgery out of producing a stock.  Similar machines were used to produce barrels and milling machines with form cutters made dozens of interchangeable lock parts all at the same time.  Making stocks and parts for guns on machines is not new technology.  Guns built using those parts are still hand made guns.

Moderators:  If this post creates another dust up, please just delete it.  Thanks

[Jeff Durnell]

Often, the old machines, tools, and methods are more interesting than what they produce.

[rich pierce]

And many people think Henry Ford invented mass production with interchangeable parts.  That machine looks fascinating and well beyond my knowledge of machining tools of the time.  I’d love to see machinery of that time used to make locomotives also.

[T*O*F]

And many people think Henry Ford invented mass production with interchangeable parts.

Read up on Eli Whitney.

That machine looks fascinating and well beyond my knowledge of machining tools of the time.

I may be wrong, but the name Blanchard comes to mind as the man who came  up with the stock profiling machine.

[Goo]

And many people think Henry Ford invented mass production with interchangeable parts.  That machine looks fascinating and well beyond my knowledge of machining tools of the time.  I’d love to see machinery of that time used to make locomotives also.

That being said perhaps we should support education a bit more. 

[Bob Roller]

And many people think Henry Ford invented mass production with interchangeable parts.

Read up on Eli Whitney.

That machine looks fascinating and well beyond my knowledge of machining tools of the time.

I may be wrong, but the name Blanchard comes to mind as the man who came  up with the stock profiling machine.

I have used a Blanchard grinder to finish brake discs when I was working in
a shop that catered to the coal mining industry and made a number of display
discs for industrial shows.

Bob Roller

[smart dog]

Hi,
Nice photo Dave.  Is it from the Springfield armory?  It is a Blanchard "lathe" and the cutter is a wheel with teeth that look like those on a chain saw. 

dave

[Craig Wilcox]

Personally, I love looking at these older machines!  With no electricity, these were generally powered by water, making them even more interesting.
Every time I see one, I mentally track out all the various gears and cams, and wonder how in the world did they think of this solution to their problem.
My first rifle had a stock carved by a Blanchard - 1863 Springfield.  And as mentioned above, I am sure that the lock, and other furniture, were also machined by similar methods.  I would enjoy spending a few days "playing mentally" with those wonderful machines.
Modern CNC machines hold none of this fascination for me.  I do like their products, but have no desire to "tinker" with them.

[Scota4570]

An interesting bit of very old tech was the Jacard loom.  it used punch cards to make the pattern.  Punch cards were used on early computers.  Computers made CNC possible.  So a key piece of the groundwork for CNC stocks was invented in 1804. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquard_loom

An old TV show called "Connections" explains how technology builds on the work of predecessors.  It worth the time to seek it out if that type of thing interests a person. 

[webradbury]

That looks heavy.

[davec2]

David,

I found the picture somewhere on the internet.....for the American Precision Museum    https://www.americanprecision.org/14-exhibits/current-exhibits      The museum is in Windsor Vermont.  I have seen a video of a Springfield stock being made on one of these lathes but I have not been able to find it yet.  I believe there is a gunstock lathe in the Springfield Armory as well.  Apparently the first such lathe went into service in 1822       

http://ww3.rediscov.com/spring/VFPCGI.exe?IDCFile=/spring/DETAILS.IDC,SPECIFIC=14195,DATABASE=48850399,

Scota4570,

Connections !!!!  One of my favorite programs of all time.....the original series that is.  Brilliantly done.  However, later on Burke went off the deep end of environmentalism...If I remember the predictions of Connections II and Connections III, we should all be dead and the planet as lifeless as the planet Mercury by now (and back then it was "global cooling" that was going to do us all in  )

Oh, and here is an inletting machine from the same place.......

[bob in the woods]

I have nothing against using modern or semi modern technology in the process of making these rifles. However, I prefer to approach things more from the side of the Colonial Williamsburg shop. That is the stuff that really interests me. It's the same reason that I go into the woods without modern equipment.   Like hand forging a barrel, or forging / filing out a lock, why would anyone do it today if not for the fun and experience of doing it ?   Few are willing to pay for it in the end product, but then this is a hobby for me, and ..yes...inletting a barrel by hand is fun   

[Buffaload]

The American Precision Museum is located in the original Robins And Lawrence Factory in Windsor. It’s worth the trip. Some beautifully made and lovingly restored machines in there that were made by America’s great machine tool makers.  Some fine examples of rifling machines and profiling equipment.  Fascinating stuff.
Ed

[Darkhorse]

An interesting bit of very old tech was the Jacard loom.  it used punch cards to make the pattern.  Punch cards were used on early computers.  Computers made CNC possible.  So a key piece of the groundwork for CNC stocks was invented in 1804. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquard_loom

An old TV show called "Connections" explains how technology builds on the work of predecessors.  It worth the time to seek it out if that type of thing interests a person.

When I first went to work for the AF some of the machine tools were still being ran by punched paper tapes. Punched Mylar came next as these older machines were phased out. Finally all our machines were  fed coordinates by being hard wired to the server. However they remained capable of being ran by Mylar. I retired after 34 1/2 years of being involved with fabricating structual components for aircraft, including stints in tool & die and engineering.
The main benefit I see to this precision is in cutting and shaping a riflestock. CNC technology should increase the types of stocks available. I originally thought that finally we would get  some lefthand rifle stocks of different schools besides Isaac Haines and SMR's, and more barrel profiles than "C", but I was mistaken. There seems to be plenty of interest in buying a LH stock but no interest in producing any.

[Acer Saccharum]

CNC stocks are a real challenge to produce. Thousands of dollars spent on equipment and tooling, not to mention the fixturing which YOU have to make. Thousands, probably $50 to $100 thousand.

That just gives you to machine tools and the setup.

You still need to develop the geometry that you will be using for your product. This may include some high resolution scanning process, tweaking scaling, testing. Then processing the parts to be inlet, and then programming the pockets in the stock, locating the holes accurately, yadda yadda. There are few people in this world with the gift and patience to bring this all together under one roof.

Then all of this has to come together at the end.

It's fine and all for us to wish for this style or that style, but know that each design comes at a huge cost to the producer of the kits. Each pattern may take 1000 hours to perfect?

The day of hitting "the buy it now button" for your style gun is still over the horizon.

[Darrin McDonal]

Eli Whitney was not the first person to make interchangable parts for guns. He actually failed miserably. It was John Hall who succeeded first.
I must disagree with the term "hand made guns" when using  machines to do any of the shaping or finishing. That can't be considered "hand made" when it's machine made. I don't believe anybody who's Machining barrels today commercially or making commercial parts are claiming them to be handmade.
It could be considered "hand finished".
Darrin

[davec2]

Darrin,

I understand, from your perspective as an apprentice at Williamsburg, that your view of a "hand made" rifle is different from most of us.  However, each of the following guns I have made in the last few years have barrels, locks, and some furniture commercially produced.  A couple of them even went out to Dave Rase for barrel and ramrod inletting on his machine.  Even with that kind of a head start, I have between 300 and 600 hours of my labor with hand tools invested in each of them. 

































So, I can't really consider these guns "machine made" as none of them came straight from a machine in finished form....or anything close to that.  If then, because I didn't make every part by hand, or because I used a band saw to saw out the stock profile from a plank I bought from a vendor instead of harvesting in the forrest (with an axe and not a chain saw), etc., they are not "hand made"...I'm not sure what I should call them.  Perhaps the ones made in the Williamsburg shop should be called "hand made squared" and the ones I (and most of the rest of us builders) make should be called "partially hand made".....or maybe you are correct...."hand finished"...but then I think that term is a little on the light side for 300 to 600 hours of hand work.  That's a little like saying the Brooklyn Bridge was "hand finished" by Roebling's crew because they bought all the iron and stone parts for it....

[Elnathan]

I suspect that some of the visceral dislike of CNC machining comes from that first "C" - computer numerical control. "computer" conjurers up a rather different picture than a belt driven cast-iron lathe or stock machine, and even those are a bit far from the romance of the Kentucky rifle as (I imagine) most picture it.

[davec2]

Elnathan,

Yes, I agree......However I find it mildly amusing that we are all hashing this discussion out via a computer screen...

Perhaps some would be more comfortable if the home computer still looked like this...and it was belt driven from a water wheel...

[fahnenschmied]

It was my impression that the Blanchard lathe produced almost fully finished stocks for Armory work - one 1860s description I read spoke of how few minutes it took to produce a stock from a plank, remarked that it was completely inletted and finished, save for sanding the exterior, which was about the only hand work on a '61 Springfield. 

[little joe]

Read our mission statement.

[Jim Kibler]

CNC stocks are a real challenge to produce. Thousands of dollars spent on equipment and tooling, not to mention the fixturing which YOU have to make. Thousands, probably $50 to $100 thousand.

That just gives you to machine tools and the setup.

You still need to develop the geometry that you will be using for your product. This may include some high resolution scanning process, tweaking scaling, testing. Then processing the parts to be inlet, and then programming the pockets in the stock, locating the holes accurately, yadda yadda. There are few people in this world with the gift and patience to bring this all together under one roof.

Then all of this has to come together at the end.

It's fine and all for us to wish for this style or that style, but know that each design comes at a huge cost to the producer of the kits. Each pattern may take 1000 hours to perfect?

The day of hitting "the buy it now button" for your style gun is still over the horizon.

Thanks Tom.  Your description is great.  Few understand what goes into these projects, but it’s clear you do.  I think your estimates of time and money aren’t too far off!

I guess it’s certainly a business for us, but also something done for the challenge and a labor of love.  I doubt many “sane” people would even consider such a venture.

Jim

[Jim Kibler]

Some value the finished product and aren’t concerned about how it was achieved while the process is much more important to others.  Nothing wrong with either.  As I said, I think there’s room for all of us.  Are some threatened in some way?  I really don’t understand the passionate opposition.

Jim

[T*O*F]

I doubt many “sane” people would even consider such a venture.

You sell yourself short, Jim.  An entrepreneur would have considered the venture and jumped straight in once he made up his mind. 

[Flint62Smoothie]

And many people think Henry Ford invented mass production with interchangeable parts.

Read up on Eli Whitney.

Not quite ... for the parts made by Whitney were only interchangeable within the SAME lot produced at the same time, using the same tooling and/or dies. When they wore out, new ones were made and were of differing dimensions that did not interchange with products from the previous manufacturing run(s).

It is actually John M. Hall of Portland, Maine, inventor of the famous Hall breech-loading rifles who is credited with not only designing the first workable micrometer of 1-in-40 thread pitch to obtain reliable readings to 1000ths of an inch, but he created the standardized thread forms we still use today. He is also credited with standardized gauging, adding counter-balances to water-powered drivewheels to eliminate chatter, designing horizontal millers and shapers, etc., etc., that paved the way for true interchangeabilty of parts.

His first 100 rifles off the line, once all passing the military acceptance tests, were taken apart and put into piles. Laborers, not gunsmiths, reassembled them by taking a part from each different pile ... and once again all 100 rifles passed all of the tests!

It is alleged, in the 2 books on Hall, the”at Whitney was ‘given the credit’ for interchangeable parts, as the industrialists and politicians of that day (sounds like today!) didn’t want the dreaded military industrial complex to be credited with such a historic achievement.

A machine bolt from one of his 1819 model flintlock passes a thread check of today, for that thread form. Mr. Hall was, to me, brilliant ... more amazing and creative in his machinery and gauging inventions than he was as the inventor of the visionary breech-loading  Hall rifle!