Back to home page
Back To Quick
Index Page
"Design . . . Evolution?"
We've all been raised in the modern
era. Our experience is almost 100% tied to mass produced items.
Even our finest items, are mass produced . . . simply in smaller
"production runs". Those items we seek to one day own,
be it a watch, an automobile, or yacht, are still each a member
of a particular factory's production. That's the way we live -
nothing wrong with that at all.
When we confront an unfamiliar object,
all of our senses co-operate to produce a judgment call as to
it's origin, age, and rarity. We will have formed an opinion long
before we are even aware of the things we automatically took into
account. Example: The item is wood and leather and has brass buckles
on the straps. We almost immediately assume it's not modern, yet;
the leather isn't all dry and fragmented into shreds, so we update
it to maybe within the past hundred years. We've done all this
without thinking about it. We'd never spend a micro second wondering
if something with nylon straps and velcro strips was an antique.
We just make an instant judgment call, based upon our personal
experience. We trust the instincts we've developed.
Now, another thing we take for granted:
We assume that any product currently on the shelf is the the end
development of many similar things which came before it. That's
the way our system usually works. It's our experience with most
items we know. But it's not so here. I often make just one unit
to prove a concept I wish to test. If I don't make another one
for a long time, that doesn't mean I didn't like it. I just have
limited time and no end to ideas I wish to test. Often, the most
basic concept of the idea is passed over and I start right in
making the second or third generation (the first two would have
been proven to my satisfaction just in my head). This accounts
for why you'll see a brand new Class of rifle introduced here
on the site, and the photo will be that of a "Mature"
design, rather than that of a stripped down "Concept"
model.
We have many assumptions with us when
we bring up a web site, such as this one, and start to look around.
Our instincts can play tricks on us because this site is not part
of the normal factory production system we see everywhere else.
It's normal to assume that the things we see here must be individual
units from larger production runs. That's not the case. It's also
normal to assume that they probably all have standardized parts.
That's not the case either. I build my components to the individual
needs of the design.
Often, we find that expensive versions
of products are just the cheaper version which has been dressed
up alittle - that there's a similar base model underneath. Not
so here. Mine are completely different from the ground up. This
is a very hard assumption for folks to leave behind when considering
my work. It's not our normal experience to find things which are
purpose designed from a clean sheet of paper.
Here's my classic example of this popular
marketing gimmick. Years ago, Cadillac wanted to address the personal
luxury market which BMW was running away with. It came out with
the Cimmeron. It was a Chevy Cavalier with more sound deadening.
It had it's own special fake wire wheel covers and hood badge.
Probably had leather seats and steering wheel. Extra fake wood
on the dash. Our local GM dealer made the mistake of sitting them
side by side on his lot. Can't even remember why I was there -
getting a part for something I guess. Well, there was no doubt
that the little Caddy was still a Chevy in my mind. Even though
it was twice the price. You'll all know many versions of this
old trick. The TV with more fake woodgrain on the cabinet used
to cost far more, even though it had the same electronics inside.
That was then. The new version of this marketing tool is becoming
even more reinforced in our minds as computers fill our lives.
There's the base model computer with little more than a single
40watt light bulb inside. Then, for more money, you get more plug-in
chips. You add enough plug-ins, you get a real computer. For alittle
more, you get a faster processor. AND, you can add chips to that
one too!
The proof that this concept is part
of our collective experience is something I hear at shows all
of the time. "How much is a plain one?" The assumption
is that there is a base unit somewhere which has all of the power,
velocity, and accuracy; without the glued-on glitter. That's the
one everybody wants. In reality, every refinement needs a "support
group" of new components. Usually, the rifle becomes different
from the most fundamental level up.
With my work, there is no single base
model which I add extra features to. Each model starts with a
fresh, clean sheet of paper. There are many reasons for industry
to make production runs. 1). If the market is considered to be
vast, then it makes sense to drive the cost of production and
retail costs down to a level where vast numbers of customers can
afford the product. 2). In order to accomplish goal number one,
that factory and it's employees must be kept very productive and
busy. No time to fiddle around with improvements - just make more
copies of the same thing. 3). Toward the end of one production
run, your marketing people can begin to create a frenzy for the
"Next - new and improved" version which will be the
next production run. 4). For a small percentage who fall for it,
they can glue on a decal to a unit pulled off the production line
and double the price for this "Custom" version.
With my product, I do not become captive
to a batch of parts in a storage bin. I make fresh product to
current design requirements. This is an option industry does not
have. They sub-contract a "run" of parts, and then;
you can be sure they are going to use them all up before they
make changes. Small jobber shops can run into the same issues.
They won't offer a better one until they use up the old ones first.
Small businesses used to run into a smaller version of this same
problem: They needed printed brochures. They probably only needed
a few hundred. That's all they'd use before some critical pc.
of information changed. However; printers used to only want to
do a minimum of 1k or 5k units. Not worth their time to do less
they claimed. If they'd do less, they'd just jump the price for
each unit up to what they wanted for the minimum job anyway. They'd
disclose that you could pay two bucks and fifty cents apiece for
your two hundred units or take the full thousand for fifty cents
each! So, you ended up with your two hundred units you needed,
and eight hundred to throw away. The other option you had was
this: you could just make the same old thing for the rest of your
life because you had the brochures. No, that's not for me. I hate
web sites which never change. I won't look at catalogs which never
have anything new. That just means they have no new ideas and
are tired of the whole thing.
OK, we've covered the point that there's
no Barnes base unit, and, all my rifles are built to a unique
set of fresh plans. This is where the idea of design evolution
can cause confusion. Since I don't just build one model, there's
no obvious progression from one to the next. That can be maddening
to a world which is used to . . . say . . . a Model 54, then a
54-A, a 54-B, a 54-C, etc., etc. I currently have about ten rifles
in various stages of production in the shop. They are all different.
And, many are completely different one to the next.
Why on earth would I do such a madd
thing? Because I have endless ideas and things I want to try.
One additional reason that some craftsmen make an endless evolving
run of only one version of one product is this: they have so darned
few fresh ideas that they are content to just produce the same
old thing decade after decade. I'd go nuts doing that. I already
have scores of drawings for ideas I'll never have time to make.
There are files full of them. The ideas never stop rolling by.
Every once in awhile, I just have to sort of "freeze frame"
one of them and make it. If it applies to a customer's order,
he benefits from the upgrade. If it's a wild departure, I might
end up with a rifle for the "Speculation List" after
testing.
When you see a set of features on one
rifle, and then a different set of features on another rifle;
it would be normal (for our current experience) to assume that
one set is current and the other was a previous, now obsolete,
set. Not so with my work. Since I'm free to make whatever I want
each time, my work does not exhibit this classic trail of "tried/discarded",
"tried/discarded" features which are commonplace in
other work. Now, lest I run afoul of those of you who appreciate
this sort of detective work and find comfort in viewing a progression
of design, let me say this: I know that I'm a bit unique in this
point. Many master craftsmen have plied their craft and stuck
to "the rules" of the object at hand. The old Kentucky
rifles come to mind. There developed what are now called "schools"
of design. The end result of this, to an artist like myself, would
be prison itself. To be forced to "Have" to end each
scroll thus, and to be "forced" to put "this"
ramrod pipe on "that" forearm design. To be scolded
for having the "Wrong" trigger guard or the "incorrect"
lock unit . . . that's not for me. I have far too many ideas of
my own to become a slave to reproducing some other artist's past
work. And, if you think about it, those "Schools" of
design were mostly clarified a hundred years after the craftsman
died. The artist didn't have to follow all those rules - they
made what they wanted to make. It's the ones who copy the old
work today that get a real narrow focus about what's "proper".
That's fine, it's simply not what I wish to do.
So, enough said for this time. The
bottom line seems to be that what you see here, is simply what
I've done so far. Each airgun worked well or it would not be here.
Certainly, my knowledge and craftsmanship continue to develop,
however; that does not mean that one item becomes obsolete and
another one takes it's place. These are all valid designs. They
are not copies of someone else's work. If there is a particular
feature which causes you concern, please ask about it. There might
be a way to offer you an alternative design. Or, upon discussing
it, you just might view it in a different light.
Thanks for reading. I know it was alot
of material. Hope you found it of interest.
Back To Barnes
Pneumatic Home Page