I've been watching some u-tube videos. Trying to pic some topics I might like. U-Tube thinks I might like to look at John Deere Tractors and Wood Chippers. Odd. I sort of feel like "I'm" being ... Watched ...

Well, as time goes by ... we get farther away from the concepts of "handmade" and "complete artist". I have a unique perspective. I don't intend to get all preachy. My way isn't the only one. And, I won't get a bigger star on the sidewalk for slogging my way through phases others just easily bypass ... but I do it my way. (hat tip - Frank).

I saw an interesting thing the other day. Kelly is dangerous with her laptop. She now sees everything BEFORE I do. You might have seen this. It's neat. I applaud the young men who put it together as well. So; while I use it as an example - I have no intention to be rude. But - the example is too perfect. It's about a young man who (like tens of thousands today) could not apply his college education to a job opportunity. And so; tired of waiting around ... he decided to make a small business. His degree was in marketing, I believe. Somehow - he had the idea of making "Wooden Sunglass Frames". And, somehow; he got thru the red tape to have a small shop in San Francisco (he lives in the loft). At least he did until yahoo posted this video. Well; to keep the story short - he bought an $8,000 laser cutter - a ZING I think. And, they sourced some eyeglass company (might have been Swiss or German) who sold them lense blanks. The video showed the laser zapping out frames and an automatic machine profiling the lenses. The narrator went on and on about the HANDMADE nature of the product. I just recall - they even made a big deal about the sunglasses being "Made in the USA" (with German lenses and probably Chinese automated equipment). They DID show the guy scuffing the frame edge with a pc. of sandpaper - gingerly ... so; what do you want?

On a u-Tube video, regarding wood carving ... a company was pushing their "system" to do woodcarving. The video pitch goes into the fact that "if we'd need to be able to draw or lay out the scroll designs ... we'd all be sunk!" BUT ... they've gotten around needing any natural or learned talent. They have stencils and patterns. They went on time and again to say that any beginner can MASTER woodcarving with their system ... and QUICKLY.

I've wasted my life! Gosh - it's taken me a lifetime to learn to draw well and to look at an area and lay out scrollwork to fit and suit. I had thought the concept of one mind thinking of ... and then amassing the tools, practicing the skills, and honing the craft; thought that was the game. Well ... that's so ... "unrequired".

Here's what I've muddled through - all by myself.



The off side from the Orion Character. About 65% complete.



The original forestock carving. Blended to match the new background texture.



The pistol grip - carved fully in the round. This is the most awkward - especially on a long stock. You are rarely in the proper position to make the cut you wish to make.



The end cap. Another awkward postion to carve - since the entire stock is waving around out to the left, right, up, down ... and you are trying not to scar the completed parts on tools and the bench.

There is a bunch to do yet. But you can get the idea. It's going to be a well balanced rifle - both as a tool - and a visual treat. Handmade. Made in the USA.

Thanks for reading.

Gary



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2013 11:36AM by barnespneumatic.

Gary,

True story. Another trip to Nassau. You get off the ship, weave through all the people handing you free stuff for a donation and you MUST walk through the Straw Market. Old man surrounded by wooden masks and dolls, with a mask between his legs, a chisel in one hand and carver's mallet in the other. I stop to look, "How much?". "$40", he says. "$5", I say. "You got no conscience", he replies and I keep walking. Same stuff for sale at Wal-mart for a few dollars, all made in Indonesia and I "have no conscience" .

What do you want to bet he never put a nick on that mask he was pretending to carve. Handmade in Indonesia maybe?


Lon

Tell him you'll give him $50 to carve you a "fresh one" - while you watch.

A Post Script ....

Doesn't it sound all snooty to poke fun at the "handmade issue" and the "stencils" and "aids" that wipe out the need for talent? Well - think of it this way: what do you do well? Perhaps you play a violin? I understand it takes quite a bit of time and dedication to do so. But then, we don't all have that time ... do we? (yes - as much as anyone else ever did). So the company comes along and makes a faux violin and all you have to do is stand up in the hot lights, shake your head, and saw away at the air. The crowd goes wild! Anybody can be Charlie Daniels. I ask ... "WHY?" do we all have to be a musician? Aren't they the ones who put in the time? Oh ... don't get me started! hahaha. THAT is why I'll not have an apprentice. I can teach them what I know ... in about 50 years.

Bring it back to the carving, building, and design. Do we ALL have the equal right to be called designers? Craftsmen? Master Craftsmen? If I bought a zillion dollar tool that spit out completely automated product - and tossed a "handmade" airgun over onto a matteress ever ten minutes or so ... would I be an airgunsmith? In today's terms ... "yer dern tootin!" I would. And a better one for being all digital and such.

In a way, it's been an illustration of the unique product I'm turning out. It hasn't taken eight months of work to just haul one digital mega-machine down here and plug it in. And the knowledge of what to do with the stuff I did haul down here didn't bypass any of the steps along the path.

Call it a pet peeve. But I think we've given away a rich heritage when we decided that "everybody" had the right to be a star, to have a contract, to bypass the hard stuff - and just head right for the awards stage.

Gee ... what a grump!

Let us differentiate between two issues -- that of the replication process itself, and that of calling someone who uses such equipment an "artist."

I run a shop that digitizes and reproduces 2D artwork for a living. You know, oil paintings, watercolors, etc. Gary has seen what we can do; in fact, I use one of his paintings at our trade show booth to demonstrates the accuracy of the color match and detail rendition that we're able to achieve. Does that make me an artist? Of course not -- that's silly. I don't really think that any sane person would call me an artist either, though the technology does have a certain "wow" factor when you first see what it can do. Rather, we have helped to create a new business model for our professional artists customers. Before the adoption of this technology (and lithography before it), an artist spent perhaps 8 months working on a piece, and sold it. And that was it. End of the line in terms of monetizing that single piece. The "new" way still allows them to sell the original, for the same high price, and thereafter, a theoretically infinite number of high-quality copies of the same piece. Are they *exact* duplicates? No, but they're pretty good. Functionally identical. And the artist can still sign and number them individually, and they still yield high margins. And they can keep selling these repros *forever*, one at a time if they want, with no additional effort invested. In fact, most of our professional artist customers make *way* more money off of print sales than the sale of the original in the long term. Now, are *they* still artists? Absolutely, because they still have to create the original. The technology just allows them to monetize their work more efficiently so they can focus on the stuff that only they can do -- namely, painting the originals and selling new commissions. But the original is still needed, and being able to create *that* by definition is what makes someone an artist. And that will always be of value, regardless of the reproduction / replication that comes after (or doesn't).

Now, the 3D equivalent of this technology is coming. Its dawn is already upon us. CNC milling machines and 7-axis mills etc. have already been available for some time. They will continue to get better and cheaper -- it is inevitable. 3D print technology and ever cheaper, ever better 3D scanners will revolutionize how most everyday items are made over the course of the next decade. You guys have probably already seen that it's now possible to 3D print a working 30 round magazine for your favorite .223 semiautomatic rifle, using freely available CAD files from the Internet. So much for trying to tie legislation to physical items. Our society's concept of where physical items come from and what they (should) cost is going to change, and fairly quickly. It will potentially be very disruptive -- for the corporations that make money by making this stuff, for the workers they employ, and for the governments who regulate and tax the current process. E.g., why spend $350 to buy a new dashboard for a car you're restoring when you can 3D print one with a file freely available on the Internet (made by 3D scanning the original part) for an order of magnitude less?

In fact, you'll see hybrid artists who create in both the traditional way (manufacturing parts themselves by hand) and also via directly coding the machines to create new items which are literally impossible to fabricate using traditional machining technologies. The question then becomes, if they're using this new technology to create "born digital" originals -- not just copying things that already exist in the real world -- should we call them artists? And what kinds of cool things will they make that simply can't be built today?

-- Jim

Note to self: Don't forget Jim, and use the word "digital". hahahaha

Hi Jim!

If you note, in my post; my gripe was not in recording music - in copying music - in digitizing music - in iPod-ing music ..... ... it was in recognizing the resulting product as "equal to" Charlie Daniels.

There is a complete disconnect in media and marketing between the real thing and what can be generated a split second AFTER Charlie does his magic and the sounds exit his violin. I deal in the realm of generating the first copy. Slow - cumbersome - imperfect. I just attempt to preserve a bit of dignity for the few seconds it takes for the copy/mimic process to begin. The copy is a worthy product. It might be 100% the equal of the first. It might be 110% the equal of the first. But it is not the first. And, I know you are not saying it is ... but I'm saying that you won't hear that from media and marketing.

If your knowledge of cutting edge technology tells us that soon there will be an affordable unit that will make 110% copies of Bisons, then I can guarantee you that it will not benefit my market. It might - if I stop what I am doing now - and run a company building, marketing, selling, shipping, servicing Bison copies. But - then I do not have the time to think. Until I arrive at the scale of "Iron Man" and I can spend 84 hours a day at whatever task I desire. Oh ... and I'd have to undersell ALL of the other guys who are selling 110% copies of the Bison ... unless I get creative and bring back an element of originality by means of signature, or otherwise. But - with the nearly complete portrayal of the copy as the original in our society .... where are collectors to develop this sence of the original which I represent? There is a certain type of personality which sees the difference. We sometimes use the term "who GET it". I know that Jim gets it. He collects my work. But hey - Jim only calls and tells me how wonderful I am a few times a year .. . With media and marketing promoting everybody with a ZING laser copier as a national treasure ... and our society so busy tearing down any idea of being special - rounding all the corners of everything until we are all just a bag of marbles ... then the only really special examples will remain the tabloid stars.

After you've spent 40 years developing a bag of tricks; you'll never like reading about how any "newcomer can simply MASTER" your craft with the latest new set of stencils and gizmos. Right - your good customers WILL know the difference. They will MAKE a distinction. They "GET" it. But - you will spend waaaaaaay too much time explaining the difference to those who write and want a "copy" of your work. And by copy - they generally think that if you've already made the first one ... you can now just run off a batch. I got a nice mail from someone who had recently run across an article that included the Hoss Pistol. He would be willing to spend a considerable sum to have one of those. I respectfully explained that I could not accept an order. I send some links with pictures. I told him I'd get back to those when I could. And I told him the cost of the Hoss and HAWG pistols. I got back a nice note full of belly laughs ... and a comment that he'd take a plain one for $2k.

For the reader. Jim runs Creekside Digital. [www.creeksidedigital.com] If you need conversion of any format of material into searchable digital format - he's your man. For artists - he can reproduce copies of your canvas that you cannot tell from the original at 18". And, God only knows what else he can do. Perhaps he makes Bison copies in the back room with a converted mimeograph machine. He might!

Good chatting with ya Jim.
Gary



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2013 05:04PM by barnespneumatic.

Well Gary . . . if you do make a "plain" Hoss, I'll give you $2k for it as well. I do seem to remember it wasn't so long ago that the "Field Justice" was available for that price . . . sure wish I would have jumped on that.

I find it fascinating that we're living thru a time that is seeing more technological innovation happening faster than at any other time in human history. Literally every day, I read about some new (and potentially useful) tech that's come out. Like with any other tools, this has two effects: 99% of the population will use it to create, well, absolute garbage. E.g., the advent of cheap, digital home recording gear hasn't made a bunch of Charlie Daniels -- it's just made it easier for anyone to make a quality recording of terrible, terrible music. Cell phone cameras are another ubiquitous example.

However, there *is* 1% (or whatever the percentage is) out there -- the real artists and musicians, the creative people who see the world differently -- who will use these new tools to create things never before possible, or imagined. They will be the ones who push the envelope and come out with things that are really new. And you can still use the new tech to fab completely unique, one-of-a-kind components. It's not just for mass-producing copies.

I wonder what circa-1975 Gary Barnes would do if he'd had access to a lathe *and* a 3D printer?

-- Jim

Hi Gary,

Been home with a severe flu for four days and been googling and reading airgun related articles. I came across the following article on quality by Tom Gaylord. Included the URL so someone can read the entire article. It might not be the best example of what you are saying but I think it can explain why one off and quality are desired. It is something that cannot be reproduced with machinery.

Daystate came out with the Wolverine .303 recently (just found out) apparently they spent 6 years in development. I am sure their quality is fine but the price for development has been calculated in.

Anyway, here is the article:

The difficulty of selling quality
January 13, 2012 | Author B.B. Pelletier

[airgun-academy.pyramydair.com]

I made a remark in a comment this week that surprised me. Blog reader /Dave asked me to approach Crosman about resurrecting the Sterling rifle and I told him the following:
I doubt anyone will ever make this airgun again. As well-made as it is, this would be a $500-600 air rifle.

It’s sad that it’s just too nice to be made today, but that’s probably why Crosman decided to drop it when they took over. After the initial 300 sold to enthusiasts, they would sell maybe 50 a year. They need numbers of a thousand or more.

I made that comment rather quickly after reading his request; but after I read what I had said, I thought about it for a long time. Is quality really that difficult to sell today?

You might argue that it isn’t and use any one of a number of products to support your point. Rolex has long been a name used to connote quality among watches, though there are other makers like Audemars Piguet and Patek Phillippe whose products are made just as well if not better. And in the world of automobiles, Rolls Royce is the name everyone thinks of when they think of the best.
I could go on, but I’m sure you see my point. So, why do I say it’s difficult to sell quality?
Because it can be.
It’s particularly difficult to sell quality when the brand name is either not known or when the name has been used to brand similar products of a lower quality to benefit from the marketing cachet of the original good name.

What’s in a name?
Take the name Luger. The name Luger was never officially applied to the handgun we all call the German Luger. Lugers weren’t called Lugers — they were the model P08. But the Stoeger Corporation purchased the rights to the Luger name in 1923 and has used it ever since. Ask any gun collector whether a Stoeger Luger is a real Luger, and you’ll get a laugh. Yes, the guns they sell are legally Lugers, but no firearms collector categorizes them that way.

Here is another example. In the 1960s and ’70s, Daisy was very interested in getting into formal target shooting in a big way. One thing they did, and it’s a mistake that a lot of companies make, was to import FWB target rifles with the Daisy name imprinted on them. Those guns sold — not because they said Daisy on the outside, but in spite of it. The Feinwerkbau name was so well-known in the world of target shooting that it negated the Daisy name on the gun. To American shooters, the name Daisy is forever connected to inexpensive BB guns. Hence, the reason Daisy created their Avanti line — to distance their own name from target guns.

Back to quality
But this report isn’t about brand names — it’s about quality and how difficult marketing it can be. Let me illustrate the problem with a couple hypotheticals.
Let’s say Crosman decides to remake the Benjamin Sterling. This time, they’ll “do it right.” They won’t just use a Lothar Walther barrel — it will be a match-grade Lothar Walther barrel. And yes, there is a difference. They have the Sterling drawings, and they decide that much of the gun can be made on a CNC machine — lowering production costs in the end. 

They currently own several CNC machines, but all of them are operating at full capacity, so this project requires the purchase of a new six-axis, dual-spindle machine that can handle all the machining operations. It will cost them $330,000.
They’ll make the trigger on an EDM machine that they are using only 75 percent of the time, so figure $5,000/month for that. They calculate that the special dies they will need for various small parts like the sights will cost $115,000. The time spent inputting the drawings into the CAD software and debugging each routine will cost another $50,000. And so on. Let’s say that after the miscellaneous tooling gets added in, the cost is up to $600,000. That’s just for startup.
Now, let’s build the gun. The barrels will cost $71 each, unfinished. That’s the price when you buy 1,000 at a time and guarantee at least 5,000 per year. Finishing adds about $8.50.  The other raw materials for the action will cost $86, and the additional processing costs on all of them will add $157. The walnut stock blanks will cost $27 each, and the processing costs for shaping, inletting, checkering, sanding, sealing, staining and finishing will bump that up to $49. Add all the material costs together and the labor required to assemble, test and package each rifle and the number comes out at $401 delivered to the loading dock. Crosman adds their markup on top of that, and their top-tier distributors are able to purchase the rifle for $512 (I’m being extremely conservative — they would want to make a lot more than that for an expense this large!). So the lowest street price you will ever see for this new model is $635.
But this new rifle is wonderful! It’s easy to cock, smooth-shooting and has a delightful trigger. On top of that, the finish is flawless and the woodwork is stunning. It compares visually to the TX200, which is a simpler design because of not having the Sterling’s bolt. But the new Sterling is also 11.5 foot-pounds, at best. Think of an 8-grain .177 pellet traveling 800 f.p.s.
Why did they do that? Why would they build a marvelous air rifle like this and leave it anemic? Well, they tried to boost the power, but it required either a larger-diameter piston or a longer stroke. Either modification added hundreds of thousands of dollars to the development costs. You and I look at an extra inch of spring tube and figure five dollars, and maybe that’s all it costs to buy the raw materials, but the cost to redesign all the powerplant parts that have to be changed to accommodate the extra inch is what the manufacturer has to think of. The piston, piston rod, cocking lever link and perhaps other parts all have to be changed just to accommodate the extra inch. And they need a new longer stock blank to hold the longer action, so all that work must be redone, as well. And all those parts have to be entered into CAD software and input into various CNC routines and then debugged, etc.
Now Crosman tries to market this beautiful new air rifle and what happens? They’re met with a hailstorm of criticism on airgun forums all over, telling them what they should have done. And people are leaving snide remarks that say, “If only they built it this way, I would buy two!”
TWO? With over half a million dollars of development costs and a large part of their engineering time invested, they really need to sell more than just two. Or two hundred, or even two thousand.
Before you manufacturing guys jump down my throat, I’m aware that the whole purchase cost of the new CNC machine doesn’t have to be paid off the first year, and yes, they will probably schedule the machine to support other product lines at some point. But when you’re standing before the CEO pitching your “great idea,” these are the kinds of things he’s going to want to know.

Quality lesson two
There’s a better path to quality, however. Let’s say you have a company called Mendoza building airguns for you, and let’s say their guns have some important features. They have accurate barrels and wonderful triggers. One day they send you a rifle that looks like it was designed by Pablo Picasso on an acid trip. But take the barreled action out of the stock, and you have a nice youth-level rifle for a very affordable price.

You get a custom stockmaker to build you one custom western-looking stock for the rifle that you then send back to Mendoza and say, “Make them like this.” You also ask them to leave out the fiberoptic sight elements and eliminate the oil hole on the side of the spring tube. You keep the name Bronco, and add a bucking horse to the spring tube. A new model is born.
This “development” cost only a couple thousand dollars (because of a consulting trip for the designer and several iterations with the manufacturer sending samples back and forth), and you’ve got a spring rifle for older youth and adults that can sell at an extremely competitive price. Why was this so easy?

Mendoza was already making good barrels. They already had a wonderful, if somewhat quirky, trigger reminiscent of the Savage Accu-Trigger. They had superior metal finishing on their existing guns, so nothing had to change. The modifications you made didn’t disrupt their business in a major way. The biggest thing that changed was the stock, but you worked with them to accommodate their existing plant, tooling and personnel. So, after getting a commitment to purchase X-hundred rifles per year from Pyramyd Air, they began production of the new Bronco.

The lesson?
The lesson is that you don’t ask Rolls Royce to make shopping carts and don’t ask McDonalds to cater the Oscars. Quality is hard to sell, but not impossible. If you spend the time and money to build and promote a high-quality product, people will buy your Rolexes. But if Rolex starts making pastel plastic fashion watches tomorrow, or if they outsource their main watch models to China, I give them one year before their name is utterly destroyed.

Excellent article Pedro, thanks for re-posting it. It points out very well some of the considerations in manufacturing the complex precision machines that are airguns. It also makes the point that that out of all the things that a craftsman can work on, the most difficult of all is to make is a good reputation.