doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Intercepting Sears

JL, let's take this project one step at a time. The collective ideas for the actual frame/action and barrel configuration appear to be solidifying rapidly. Ken, had commented after the tube supplier is determined that he will be contacting a couple of stock makers with profiling machine capability. I believe at that point, the actual manufacturing in the white costs will be determined. It's better to plan thoroughly than to jump into the project without a well thought out program/plan which will lead to a premature project failure.

JL ----- As Mr. George said, I will be having a pattern stock made with very close/tight inletting accomplished. The head of the stock will also be shaped back to the rear of tangs --- after that, the blank will be un-touched. This will allow for personal dimentions to be applied to the blank for a personal fit. I have two very fine and accomplished stockers who have agreed to handle the stockwork on this project . With these guys on board, I can be assured the client will get a first class job done rather quickly. Ken

Ken, as I said, I wish you the very best. It's just my honest opinion that it will never fly. I hope it does. So many others have come and gone trying to do this. How nice it would be to have a source of new parts identical to those in the originals, especially barrels.

Jim,
I suspect the barrels will be more costly than an old barrel donor gun.

Sad that they have to be jobbed out to the Italians. Having just witnessed the production capability of an American company with a new "boutique" gun, it's easy to imagine the pitfalls of expecting much from a loose federation of tradesmen but who knows? Some of us are plungers and some lookers-on. The plungers will make it happen come hell and high water; nothing much gained nay-saying by those including myself who won't pony up.

jack

with regard to suggested improvements in the safety of this gun, I believe that PeterM hit it on the head. What is being discussed is design change and change test and validation work then being put into production. This is a signficant scope expansion over the current goal of reproducing a validated design using better/more modern materials and processes.

Chuck mentioned risk management, I too make a living running technical projects and am constantly looking for risk and mitigation strategies (I worry a lot...but it seems to work since 99% of the stuff I worry about never happens :-).

In my view, a design change of the safety aspects of the action is not consistent with the principal goal of reproducing in modern metal a proven and beloved vintage arm and hence the added risk is not justified on a project which already has significant risk associated with its primary objectives.

I do believe this will happen. I believe it enough that I have very nice English walnut blank on the way via ups at this moment from Cecil Fredi. It will go on a Hurst Earle Lefever.

rabbit, you are correct, it is a loose federation. But take a good look at who is involved. Ken Hurst has over 40 years in the business. He has been the Master engraver at 2 of the largest American firearm makers. In addition, he has run their shops for them. I have spoken to Ken on several occasions. I always feel as though I have spoken to some one with a vast knowledge of the firearms business. If any one else had proposed this, I would sit and wait.

The way I see it, this project follows in the traditions of the European Master guild shops. The difference being that modern technology no longer requires them to work under the same roof.

As for changing the design of the gun. I do not believe that is economically feasible.

Pete

My vote would be to not change the design as well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, especially when involving the safety, and especially when outsourced complex engineering is involved, which will push the cost of the project even higher.

IMHO, KISS (keep it simple stupid) should be the rule here.

Ken didn't promise to create guns, just the barreled actions. That fact in itself significantly reduces the production problems. Stockwork is hand labor intensive and involves variable quality of the material (wood) and more difficult quality control of hand labor. It's such a big issue that the likes of major gun makers pursued synthetic material for machine making of stocks for production guns.

But, Baron is right, there's always the law of unintended consequences that lurks in the background and rears its ugly head when least expected. Still, hashing the pros and cons of potential designs/changes is always good. Sometimes it reveals proven, simple designs that are easily implemented and provide high value.

Baron23 and CH - What would be wrong to follow the KISS principle and later down the road when the barreled action is established and in limited production, then seriously investigate the updating of the safety.

After a couple of stocked prototypes are tested as a completed firearm, it's a strong possibility that the updated safety issue may not be worth while pursuing, i.e., if it ain't broken - why fix it!