It seems that I read about individuals who have had smith work performed of questionable quality on fairly regular interval.

Question I have do you think it would be benefical to have the equivilant of the "Gunsmiths seal of approval " or some such.

Broken down into functional areas of expertise, such as metal and stockwork.

I am aware of the guild, this would be slightly different. My concept would be that the profeesional working gunsmiths worked on a skill level exam of some sorts, somehow wieghted with a custom service rating. End goal would be some standard that the consumer, would recogonise, and would have a reasonably high level of confidence that he was going to get the quality work he expected.

I would think this would need to a governing body comprised of actual smiths, and that they would issue something equivilant of the Good Housekeeping Seal. Probably would need to be a a rigamoroll on getting on the list but should not be a PIA for the members to yearly renew. I also suppose that it would need some application fee and a small yearly maintenance fee.

So my questions is to two groups here what do the consumers think about it, and from the other side of the isle what do the proffesional gunsmiths think.

Good idea, or just another layer of bureaucracy? Gunsmiths: I am talking about people of your rank and file, standards developed by you and your peers, and governed by a board or something of your contemporaries. I am not suggesting a all knowing and stupid organisation you have zero influence in.

In my world of Engineering we have the American Society of Engineers, broken down into functional areas such as civil, mechanical etc. This has served to elevate engineering to a higher level acrross the board. It works well for us would something similar work for gunsmiths?

One last thought, What I am suggesting is not a end around the guild play. I can not think of a better single source of knowledge collected into a single list. Possibly a expansion of their current role. I don't have the exact recipe worked out, just the concept at high level.

And who makes the decisions on these?

1. The qualifications/requirements?
2. The governing board?
3. Who pays for this organization?
4. Who handles and investigates complaints?
5. Who decides who is a “good guy†and who is a “bad guyâ€...and what do they base their decision on?

Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me...but that’s just my opinion.

I'm totally surprised we don't have some governmental body controlling gunsmithing. The things that have been done by back yard hacksaws who call themselves gunsmiths is unbelievable. Trigger jobs that are dangerous, heated until blue actions, ....things that are actually dangerous!!!!!

The most common bitch is that of poor quality.....and that's nearly impossible to control.....Do we want Alan Day on the quality committee?...In that case there would only be five or six smiths in the USA...(no discredit to AD meant here)

In the end all I can say is that:
1. I DON'T WANT GOV'T INTERVENTION OF ANY KIND

2. Word of mouth advertizing still works in many cases.

3. While I think the current system is pretty crumby, and I'd like to see it improved, I still haven't found a way to do it.

I’m still trying to get a handle on what the intended purpose of such an organization would be.

Basically, what is it that you are trying to “fix†and how would this organization “fix†it?

quote:

I DON'T WANT GOV'T INTERVENTION OF ANY KIND

Absolutly, that is the frankenstien scenario.

But no effort to improve means the crummy system that is currently in place is all that is going to happen.

I still think the Guild is the best resource to get this moving, and the quality smiths only benefit, basically a gold star, that consumers can identify.

I'm a toolmaker that does quality metalwork on rifles, mainly for myself and a couple of friends. Some of the crappy work that I see from "real" gunsmiths is cause for alarm. I turn down most requests for work and refer folks to a quality gunsmith in Kalispell, MT. Quality work usually leads to a good reputation.
The Bozos that do crappy work on brakes, steering, and other important systems on vehicles are a lot more of a threat to public safety. And they make a lot more money that most good gunsmiths.
But I don't want to see the gum't involved in any of this.

Rick,

I am not trying to get into the details of this, way too much grey area at this level. Lets roll back to basic concept.

How about: The American Society of Gunsmiths as a start. The charter is to improve and provide standards to the industry.

A really relevant example is there is a gunsmith operating in my neck of the woods. An arrogant prick with ears, first words out of his mouth are I am a master gunsmith ( implying you the customer are not) So one day I got on the Guild list guess what, He is not even a guild member. So my first question is who the hell made you a master, and what standard was applied to earn the title? My opinion is he a master pud pounder after I found out he wasn't a Guild member. Kinda like me saying I am King of the Universe, fair response from your side of the aisle is: Yeah, says Who?

Guys quit thinking government here, that is not at all what I am proposing. That makes me puke just thinking about Ted Kennedy sitting on a Senate Gunsmithing Commitee.

Another item is I am not talking about creating a universe here either.

To the machinists in the audience. If I come to you with a print package on xyz part. My print/fabrication drawings are technically correct and comply to ASME standards. Tolerances, details, views all done right, what is the issue if this predefined engineering standard is applied? Welding same issue, nobody needs to reinvent the wheel, the applicable standards are all there.

This has more to do with recogonising and implementing established practices.

How many of us would like to know when we buy a new action, it was tested to XXX PSI pressure measured under these adopted methods?

And I reiterate this is an inside the industry issue, smart people ( and trust me I think there are a lot of these guys out in the gun world ) getting together establishing a level and defined playing field.

The process to get there would be pure hell knowing the independent nature of gunsmiths, but it also allows the small to influence the big. Guys like D Arcy and his peers could influence changes that big guys like Remington, Winchester and Beretta would have to get on baord with. This isn't solely targeted at the small one man shop, INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT is the goal.

quote:

Originally posted by schromf:
thinking about Ted Kennedy sitting on a Senate Gunsmithing Commitee.

Schromf.....I had to go to the restroom after that post.....

In a way we have a type of what you're looking for on this forum. I've read many excellent reports of smiths and some of less than excellence....In a few PMs I've given honest reviews of individuals to others that have asked for it. We do hang gold stars and castrate a few smiths here......Maybe unreasonably but this forum works for me.

I'm 100% behind any system that allows better selection of smiths.....I'm all behind the idea.

I too woul dnever want to see government regulation, they already invade too many areas of our lives and dealings.

The problems are multitude, some of the key ones though are:

1. If it isn't a legally controlled situation, meaning illegal to do gunsmithing without this boards approval, then how can they penalize a person that doesn't make scratch?

2. getting the word out to the hunting public, gun consumers, who sadly to say are mostly grossly lacking in firearms knowledge and have a huge variance in their ideas of "good work"

3. making any of the process more difficult is going to get rid of some of the best craftsman. I know the gunsmith I use doesn't bother with joining the guild, although his work is in my opinion more than good enough. I don't think D'Arcy is in the guild either, and as mentioned, he is right up there at the top.

4. to be able to judge the work of the people applying it would have to be experienced gunsmiths who look at the work, not just those of us who love it but don't know what it takes to really do it and the tiny things to look at. That means taking away from their time, and the time of each smith that applys, every year.

The guild is a good deal, you know if you go to somebody in the guild that they have passed the judgement of 3 of their peers and were deemed worthy, you can't really go wrong. Not enough people know it exists though, and the people that are in it probably don't want to be flooded with 80% of the work out there, which is pad installation and scope mounting.

Self-regulation works, if it is decided upon early, look at SCUBA and the way they do it, PADI isn't a government agency, there is no governmental regulation of SCUBA diving, but they decided when the industry was young that they would do that to keep tgovernment out and everybody participates. I think it is too late with gunsmithing.

Red

Small smiths can't influence big companies to the extent we would like, they just don't have the clout. Their clientelle is too small to represent a significant segment of the market to Rem, usrc and others. And their clients don't probably care much for the off the shelf rifles.

Trends that they start can influence the big boys. I'd say it was small smiths and word of mouth that has made the current big bore phenomena what it is, and tha tis picked up now by CZ, ruger and others, but it was not an overnight thing.

I don't think that standards could be applied across the board, if you get the really high level guys on there then anything less than what they would do, even if it would be acceptable to buyers and collectors, might not make the cut. How many checkerers would like Goudy to judge their work? How many metalsmiths would want Wisner looking at theirs?

I think it is a good idea, the thought of having something like that is great, would have saved me money at one point. I just think it is too big an operation to get going and get people to buy into. You're talking about years and years of work. then you run the risk of the government looking at it and seeing a possible cash cow or more important to them, form of control, and BAM, now you sent your review projects and fees to good ol' "uncle always got one hand out and the other in your pocket" sam.

Red

REMEMBER:

Stated purpose is to improve the industry not destroy it, I am 1000% behind no government involvement.

Dago,

The PADI model analogy is a good one.

And hell no the purpose is not to get rid of the small and custom smiths, hopefully it would provide some technical assistance that normally would be prohibitively expensive at their level.

Think "IMPROVE" the industry here guys!!!!!

I'm a member of the American Custom Gunmakers Guild. I think the best thing about the guild is getting together once a year and talking about the trade and how to better position gunmaking in the mind of the shooting public. I look at it as a way to promote the trade so it won't die as an industry. There seems to be a lot of black plastic out there these days so it's good to let shooters know that there's still good custom work available.

Getting together and sharing trade information is a good thing, and some of the members will tell you anything you want to know. I was a modelmaker for 30 years, I'm a fairly good machinist and I like to share how I do things as far as machine setups and tooling goes. I write a column for the GUNMAKER, a guild publication, just to share my machine experiances.

Perhaps if a gunsmithing organization is formed it will be a positive for the industry. It shoudn't be just send in your $20 and you're a member. You need to make sure that there is a basic level competence. The organization needs to be able to give those who don't meet the basic level the pathway to meet the basic competence either through the NRA summer program or some other method.

The American Custom Gunmakers Guild does raise the level of each craftmans. As you go to the show in Reno each year, you get to see good work. You can't do good work if you don't know what it looks like. I think this is the key.

On the down side, some of the members have large egos, you might not want to have a beer with everyone....

quote:

How many checkerers would like Goudy to judge their work?

Again, not the purpose, but what is wrong with him and a his contemporaries defining what 24 line per inch checkering pattern is. Or an established definition of the basic patterns with flexibility enough to provide for variants.

If PADI hadn't self regulated, do you think the US government wouldn't be all over this like stink on you know what?

Again think improve!!!!!

quote:

Perhaps if a gunsmithing organization is formed it will be a positive for the industry. It shoudn't be just send in your $20 and you're a member. You need to make sure that there is a basic level competence. The organization needs to be able to give those who don't meet the basic level the pathway to meet the basic competence either through the NRA summer program or some other method.

Excellent idea about the NRA. I also think that the trade schools that teach gunsmithing need to be involved. And your comment about the $20 a year rubberstamp is 100% correct, that wouldn't help.

OK, yes I am being sort of tongue in cheek, but it seems like BS (bureaucratic senselessness).

You could always call it Gunsmiths of America Society (GAS). Hot air, get it

Lawyers and doctors both have such organizations (the AMA and the state and local BAR associations) and boy you just never hear about any problems invloving lawyers and doctors do you?

Just let the marketplace& word of mouth decide for a potential consumer. Start another Topic 'GUNSMITHS" listed alphabetically where members can comment good or bad on a specific smith or label & consumers may access their comments. Weve all seen atrocious Purdeys, Hollands,etc, even though the name was there the quality wasnt& little known names put out superb work.

Schromf -

I like the concept, as a strictly voluntary, promotional, informational, concept, NOT as a regulatory one. (I got the impression promotion was what you were envisioning, anyway.)

One of the small initial organizational problems would be classifying the different genres of "gunsmiths" to be seperately covered. Some are maybe better called "gunmakers", while others are perhaps better labeled as "certified gun repairers". This latter group includes folks who have no intention of ever building custom rifles, but provide invaluable services, whether replacing the firing pin in an old family heirloom .22, replacing a "perished" recoil pad, fitting a replacement for a lost under-barrel magazine tube, making an extractor replacement on any bolt gun, repairing a cracked stock wrist, whatever...or just showing the shooter how to place the friction bushings in their Browning Auto-5 to handle low-base or high-base shells....

I have a friend who is an outstanding gunsmith in Roseburg, Oregon. He wouldn't build you a custom rifle if you begged him to. He has spent 40 years working for Savage and/or on his own, doing warranty and other repairs for whatever comes in the door. He enjoys that work, doesn't charge an arm or a leg, and is one of only two such 'smiths in this 400 square mile area with such broad and useful linterests and knowledge.

This latter group of gun pros is the one where I suspect the most good could be done for both the general public AND the industry. It could become kind of like taking your "Jetta" to a certified Volkswagen-trained mechanic, or your Chevy to "Mr. Goodwrench"..and he would have a seal or logo to put on his business cards, business sign, or shop window to indicate his proficiency(s).

As a non-regulatory body, it wouldn't be near the heartache to run that a body aimed at the policing of the industry would face.

I think I misunderstood the concept. What you're looking for is a standards organization of a sort. This is like SME (society of Manufacturing engineers) or SAE (society of Automotive Engineers) or an organization that states the standards for certain functions. Example: Unified screw thread series:.....a list of the specifications for shape and dimensions of a screw thread. This group don't judge them, but rather establishes the specs that they should conform to when done.

Another example proposed: scope mounting holes standard: A standard by which a return notice is justified if the scope mount holes are not adhered.
Standard for iron sights example: Iron sights will be installed top dead center +/- .1 degrees from the vertical position of the sight plane as defined by (something)

This organization sets the standard and if my sights are not installed to this spec I can exact a repair to correct it......currently there is no such spec.

Example.....standard for chambering a rifle. A new barrel or refit barrel will be chambered such that the standard "go gage" enters the chamber via the action and a "no go gage" of .006 longer does not after the barrel is attached and tightened to the action.

Currently we have no such standard as there is also the cop out of a field gage and no one is ever shown the gaging by the smith...or rarely.

Some things actually do have specifications BTW...the US military has set specs on checkering and it includes the angle of cut and the amount of "flat" onm the top of the checker.

I was thinking of a regulatory commission.....and Schromf is talking about a standards organization.

A smith can choose to be registered to such an organization and pay a fee and risk losing his accreditation if there is evidence of his not living up to these standards.

I, as a customer, can choose to do business with an accredited smith that adheres to the standards or go anywhere I want.

A customer can easily ask for diversion of the standards and some actually are smart enough to specify things now.

Have I got it now??????

I know a smith that made another smith a retirement present of an Arisaka converted to benchrest.

It was a very accurate Frankenstien.

Vapo, I would fully understand if some sort of panel wouldn't want me in a position to judge quality, especially since I'd insist that any rifle submitted for inspection and approval would have to be taken to the range for a feeding and functioning test, then that sumbitch would have to be tested for accuracy off the bench with hunting bullets (maker may furnish suitable ammo) at 100 and 200 yds. To heck with all the rest of it -- if it won't pass the most basic of all tests and it won't feed and it won't shoot, it flunks out.........

AD

There is a simple problem with all of this, and which has been totally ignored. Most gunowners are unwilling to pay for quality work, and hence get exactly what they are willing to pay for, though far short of what they expect.

It's like complaining about the quality of chi-com goods at walmart when the truth is you could have had a quality product if you'd been willing to pay for it.

I've dealt with a multitude of quality and trade organizations, ISO, NICET, etc and none of them gurantee quality. All they do is raise the price without raising quality and add paperwork. The only way to get top people is to be willing to pay for the good ones, and fire the bad ones.

Paul, what you say is 100% true.

AD

quote:

I've dealt with a multitude of quality and trade organizations, ISO,

I'd certainly agree that ISO 900X is nothing but a BS organization.....adding cost and papers...a serious waste!!!

I also agree that folks are real cheap --ckers when it comes to buying quality smithing. That's why I build my own. I'm one of the cheap asses!!!!

I also see schromf's point as to the lack of standards in smithing and suspect that some method of adding standards might be of value.

One could make the point that if there truly was value in it someone would have done it already..... Regardless I think the concept has merit.

All: ISO 90xx is not the answer, that is simply a process to document how you consistanly produce garbage. You can manufacture the worst product in the world as long as you have documented how you will consistanly produce the same garbage. Its a management cop out, and not a substitute for quality commitment.

No a standards organization is first and yes Vapodog that is what I mean. If there are no standards how do you judge anything? What is the scale, a yardstick, a ruler or a micrometer?

An example how many times have I heard a thread about what about this stock? Then off into subjective land we all run like gooslings. We piss and moan that this vendor overgrades stocks, that vendor couldn't grade a shithouse door, and the next undergrades. Then we collectivley by word of mouth hoot or toot praising or condeming.

My question is we have some excellent stockmakers on the board, do you think that a group of these knowledgable individuals are incapable of sitting down and documenting the knowledge base that they already have. Trust me they are much more qualified to define and figure out the grey areas and set a standard, than the average shmo.

In the end it will be the consumer that has the final say. If there were a set of standards and you were making a decision on selecting who your dollars are going to, wouldn't you be more likely to spend it with a vendor that subscibed to a proffesional set of standards vrs the guy who whittled a sign out and hung it over his barn saying "guns by bubba" ( no offense to the band of ).

Adam smiths invisible hand will eventually get into play and market forces will prevail.

Yes I agree about the cheap side of the gun consumers nowdays. When I was young a fair price to purchase a decent rfle or pistol was at least two weeks wages, and roll back another twenty years or so before that and months wages were in the mix for a purchase. Most today won't spend a full weeks wages on their purchases. This is a completely seperate issue about the whole industry being in trouble long term, lets see manufacture a item that doesn't wear out in a lifetime, that in real dollars goes down in price point every year. Great investment model and we wonder why the surviving gun companies are run by their marketing departments? Anyway this is off point.

Yes there would need to classifications, I don't want to go into the details, its obvious that in the above stock scenario, that synthetic and wood are not going to be the same. How these divisions get broken up is for the industry to define, not the consumer, if it doesn't work the consumer will vote with their wallets.

Yes it way late in the industry evolution to start thinking in these terms, way past due in my mind. But they say the method of climbing a mountain is taking the first step. Without it you sit on your porch, which is pretty much where it is now.

Allen,

I would stand in line to buy the rifles you QA'd. The manufacturers would absolutly hate you.

schromf,

I think you should run for political office because your philosophy would fit right in...ie: if there is a problem (real or perceived) lets pass a law or form an organization to address it.

As was pointed out in a previous post, the consumer is at the heart of most problems with companies providing goods and services, and the vast majority of people have champagne apatites and beer pocket books...and most companies respond in kind.

The cream normally rises to the top, but in the firearms business one had better not plan on becoming independently wealthy real soon if your customer base depends solely upon people willing to pay top dollar for top products or services.

Schromf, all I can say is, if an off-the-shelf Remington 700, Model 70, Savage 110, Weatherby Vanguard, Tikka, Sako 75, or Browning A-Bolt can produce acceptable accuracy in most cases right out of the box, there's something seriously wrong if a $5,000 or higher custom rifle only shoots minute-of-foot groups.

There's something even more wrong with the "custom" gunmaker who sends a high-dollar rifle out the door without having a single foggy notion as to how well it shoots, or even how well it feeds. The "build it and ship it out without a shot fired" philosophy is outrageous, and an insult to the trusting customer who ordered that rifle and saved his hard-earned money to purchase it. I don't care about how nice the checkering is: if it doesn't, shoot, it's nothing but a fancy fire poker to me..........

AD

AD

If Allen would run a riflemaking business, I would also stand in line for one of the .338s made there.

...master pud pounder.... I damned near choked, one of the finest ones yet!

About a year ago I suggested a licensing board. A place where customers could bring grievances about gunsmiths and be vindicated.....remedied.....it was not at all supported here....and I'm OK with that...

Then I suggested to a poster once that he should return his .300 RUM to the gunsmith and demand that he buy it from him as the smith poured heat to the front receiver ring and turned it blue (stainless rifle) trying to exact a repair to a scope mount hole. I further stated that if the smith didn't buy the gun from him he should file a small claims case against him. Wow...did I get flak over that!!!!!

There's no excusing a man's inability to research his suppliers. We almost always ask before we take our car to the garage for repairs.....seems we research a little there.

That said, any one that hangs up a shingle with the word "GUNSMITH" on it should, at a minimum, not be a hazard to the public.

Schromf, it don't appear as though the concept of a gunsmithing standards organization is well supported on this forum either. However I think that this type of discourse is exactly the kind of thing that plants seeds that bear fruit later. I. for one, commend your thoughts and ideas.

No, Rick I completly disagee I neither think like a politician, nor am I politically correct enough. I am blunt and I have no bones calling a shithead a shithead right up close and personal. In short I am about as politically correct as a hand gernade.

I have been an engineer and technician for over 30 years. Crawled my way into engineering not with education but through the school of hard knocks. Yes Boris Badenov and I are members of the same alma matter: Whats a Madder U (WMU).

Standards have made enginnering what is today, if you went to the store to buy a light bulb and there were fifty different types, all with different bases, different voltages, and different hertz requiremnts, you the average consumer is both confused, probably paying too much, and probably walking out the store with the wrong item.

A strong case in point is the computer that you are using,a nd gives both you and I the luxury of being able to post on this board. Two developements went hand in hand to get a cost effecitve solution under your fingertips. The Dept. of Defense started funding R&D efforts in the late 50's and early 60's, that produced RAM at a cost of $10,000 per K. Enter efforts of the ASEE ( American Society of Electrical Engineers) a self governing non government opganisation, which I am a member of. Standards were developed, improvements were made, and forty + years later RAM is a commodity item. Same thing happened with hard drives, modem ports, IDE interfaces and USB devices. Engineers and manufacturers worked to develop and improve standards.

Benefit?

You have a low cost computer at your finger tips that would have cost over a 1/2 million dollars in 1962. You gain.

And no laws are not what I am suggesting, I was clear in the begiining and throughout the post, that is a solution looking for a problem.

Much ado about nothing.

schromf,

Sounds like you have it all figured out and researched so why not start the thing up?

quote:

I'd certainly agree that ISO 900X is nothing but a BS organization.....adding cost and papers...a serious waste!!!

It is a barrier to the market.
In the 1980's one could not build a product in thier garage that would be allowed to fly on military aircraft. The quality assurance BS paper work kept the work in the hands of big corperations.
Now ISO 9000 is doing the same thing for many commercial products.

Have you ever noticed how many small buisiness guns make?

The Clinton administration tried to reduce that number, but just count head in Shotgun News, and you can see there is not much of a barrier there.

My point about Goudy judging checkering was totally missed.

It is about standards. You can apply standards to mechanical natures of things, like the socket type for brake light bulbs, and on guns probably something like thread pattern for the barrel and action. But SO much of what makes a gun, customs especially, different and special is the artistic portion. opinions differ and there is more than one way to 'properly' tackle many problems.

The reason, in my opinion, that the guild works is that they don't set a standard of how things are done, they set a standard of quality. I saw a rifle at a show that a smith had done with custom sights etc. I thought the rear sight was fugly, just an abortion. BUT, it was well made, I am sure it was very functional, and I bet a lot of people that saw it liked it.

Those guys in the guild are great, they really want to get more people interested in gunsmithing and more gunsmiths up to the level that they are at. Getting information about them out there, publicized, I think is the key if you want to improve the industry. Get it to where joe blow with a 270 vanguard from walmart knows about it and when he gets ready to have serious work done he asks "are you a member of ACGG".

I had a bad experience that only cost me a few hundred dollars (well, much more since I found this sight and learned what real customs were, but that is my fault ) with a local shop who's work I thought was good. I didn't know much, have much experience, and went off the word of other laymen that had never seen real custom work. Had I known more then I could have checked if they were in the guild to see if they had gotten their work past the scrutiny of others doing the same thing.

If the guild could get enough coverage to be really looked at by consumers then I think it would also be great for them to put out a book/let or such with a lesson on STANDARDS OF QUALITY showing what to look for in wood to metal fit for instance, with examples, good checkering, etc. etc.

I fully support the idea of expanding the guild, getting more of its information out there, more publications, I'd like to see different gunsmiths profiled in magazines. I think it is terrible that we have so many gun rags and no "rifle centerfold" each month. Mark is right, the only way to know good work is to see it. I know doodly squat about good stock design, but I learn a bit every time I look at a picture. I learn a lot every time I get to see a good rifle in person and the guy that built it will talk to me.

Alan, there is just no way to argue against that, function is foremost.

Red

quote:

Sounds like you have it all figured out and researched so why not start the thing up?

No Rick I really don't. I do see a problem and I am familiar with processes that would POSITIVILY influence and work toward correcting. If I truelly had this figured out as you say, I wouldn't be having the difficultly I am having articulating and convincing you and others of the benefit. Further this is not a single individual effort. In the electrical mechanical engineering world that is where I am profiecient and understand the benefit of the organizational structure I have made some observations:

1. standards are a collaborative effort. Multiple individuals must be involved. THis is for political and technical reasons. Political the best example is left a single source of input Beta would be the standard on your VCR today, Sony would have dominated this in the being, effectively cutting off all the competion in its infancy stages, simply there never would have been a VHS standard.

From the technical side individuals make mistake, small ones, big ones the scale doesn't matter, this work needs to cheched and verified.

2. Most of these standards developments are not funded efforts. Inside the engineering world we volunteer time and resources to make this happen. This happens both at the individual and the corporate level, it is common for several corporations to contribute engineers into a standards development. The caution flag here is propriatary, standards that only benefit Winchester for example and are DOA from the engineers perspective. The purpose is not to give Winchester a competitive edge against their competitors such as Ruger and Remington, the engineering goal is to help all three.

Some other observations:

1 Gunsmiths from my observation over the years are well read and are very willing to self educate themselves. Most gunsmiths in my past experiences all have librarys and use the reference materail they have. They both take the time to read the materail, and purchase it out of their own pockets. Problem is the are few reliable sources of information, some of the best have gone out of print, and are quasi collectable. RE: Jerry Kuhnhausen manual on the 1911

2. Reference designs, I know if I had a direct source to get reference designs on both the 1911 colt, and the mauser 98 they would both be in my library.

3. There are some members on this forum that both have the knowledge and the technical knowledge to significantly contribute to this effort. Alf and Ray A come immediately to mind, but they are certainly not the only ones so don't feel left out, purpose here is to get it out of their heads and bookshelves and make it a commonly availble resource.

4. Speaking of resource. The method that this works in the engineering world is we buy these publications. They are not cheap, simple thing can be a couple of hundred dollars, and can go as high as a couple of thousand depending on the complexity and the demand. The upper end publications encompass volumes and several books. Average is 300-400 dollars. And no these publications are not really readily availbale to the public, Borders doesn't stock them, neither do most technical librarys. And these aren't your latest Jane Austin novels, volume is low I am sure that some of these documents are sold in volumes as low as 50 a year. These are boring to death to the general public, have zero slaes and marketing appeal. Good news is CD's have brought the price down, 1/2 the cost of the printed volume.

Rick,

I am not the one to get this started. If I showed up at the next meeting of the Guild humping legs, the first question out of their collective mouths would rightfully be: Who the hell are you? No and even working at light speed this would take five years to get moving, couple of years to convince the membership at large its worthwhile ( which I am obviously making crappy headroads on even on this board ), then it would move to how to make this economically viable and not just a big cost that the guld would have dollars to pay for. Then to the next level of the nuts and bolts, which you take years to sort out. In the electrical engineering world we have standards that took years to develop. The steps to the process goes something like:

1. Concept
2. Review of need
3. Draft standard
4. Input and revisions of draft
5. final spec
6. superceeded and revisions to specification

Item #2, #3 and #4 can be lengthy. And in our world technology moves so fast that getting to #3 often, gets you back at #2 as technolgy has moved faster than the standards.

A good example of this is the CAT 6 standard used on routers and servers. The standard is in draft not relasable document stage right now, you can buy it, but there are no reference designs. Remember this is a volunteer not direct funded org so slow is part of the process.

I got my cable guy here to fix my internet so I will pick this up later.