Untitled Document

"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