The same day I bought my S&W 1911 Pro, my sister bought her first gun (a used S&W 669). The clerk at the store asked her if she wanted any ammo. My eyes popped out of my head when he said that it was 35$ for 100 rounds of WWB 9mm.
I told her I'd give her a box and that she'd be able to find ammo online cheaper or at Walmart. Wrong on both counts.
What happened to all of the ammo? Following the wave of mass shootings and fear of new gun laws plus the demand for ammo as more guns are being sold, the supply dried up! Loose boxes can be found here and there but at prices nobody should have to pay for a box of 9mm. I saw a box of American Eagle 9mm for 21$ a box! It almost made me regret not buying the 35$ box at the store. Almost.
I even saw the same box priced as high as 60$ from a dealer which claims to price their good for less than soil. I'm not sure where they get their mud from, but around here, premium gardening soil is only a couple of bucks for a 20 pound bag.
The last time I bought 9mm I paid just under 12$ a box. With the trend indicating that ammo is not going to get cheaper any time soon, I decided to reconsider the hassle of reloading 9mm.
After hours of research, I finally decided on a single stage press. The Lee kits look good, and I am sure they are for the money, but I had read that aside from the press itself, most of the remaining parts of the kit ended up getting replaced later for better quality components. Ultimately, I ended up getting an RCBS Rock Chucker kit. The lifetime warranty and high praise from others helped make that decision.
While the press itself was readily available (and with a 50$ rebate!), some of the other supplies necessary for reloading are not so easily obtained at the moment.
The die I ordered is on backorder and I won't be seeing it for at least a month. Additionally, primers and powder are impossible to find at a fair price. So for now, it looks like I'll be set to order the components when they become available.
Fortunately, I have enough 9mm to last me for a while and this will give me some time to collect my brass.
Monday, July 8, 2013
Sunday, July 7, 2013
Cleaning out the safe...and bringing home a new toy...
After a difficult internal conversation, I decided to part ways with a few guns that I just didn't find myself using.
Some were guns I obtained on impulse...others curiosity or maybe even desire.
Whatever the case, I decided they no longer fit my needs and I traveled to my favorite gun store.
I had brought my Mauser P38, S&W Model 19, S&W Model 686, Sig 229, and Beretta 96G.
2 of those guns I had bought and literally never shot.
Anyway, the Mauser was in nice shape with no import marks as many P38's have. It also had a bunch of Nazi markings on it. I don't recall the year but I only ever shot it once with a friend. It was fun to shoot in single action but the double action trigger was absolutely awful. It might have been the worst double action trigger I have ever used. I am not sure if this is indicative of ALL P38's or just the one I had owned. I liked that it was 9mm and the magazine release at the butt of the gun was neat. Spare parts are readily available which was also nice. Anyway, it will reside better in a collector's hands or maybe even just a shooter.
The S&W 19 had a 4" barrel that unfortunately somebody added a red ramp to. I am a big fan of the red ramp but they did a sloppy job. It could have been touched up upon and made to look nice but I wasn't really looking to invest any money into it. The blueing was in okay shape and it was a pinned and recessed model. But the K frame .357 magnums are known for falling apart under repeated magnum loads. I literally had never shot the gun and only bought it on an impulse because the price was so stupid cheap. I hope it ends up in a shooters hands. It was a truly nice revolver.
The S&W 686 that I parted with had the 8 3/8" barrel and was a 686-1 without the M stamped into the frame. This means that it was never sent back to Smith and Wesson for the firing pin bushing modification. However, the gun was in absolutely perfect condition. The barrel looks like the previous owner never shot it and neither did I. It came with a shoulder holster too which felt odd to wear since the gun was touching your hip (because the barrel is so long) when you wore it. I imagine a hunter or a collector will find this gun and take good care of it.
My Sig 229 was in .40 S&W. I originally got it so that I could convert it to .357 Sig. I never got around to it. After shooting it a couple of times I figured it didn't need it as it already kicked like a mule. Strangely, the Sig 229 kicked more than the Sig 239; both in .40 S&W. I would have expected it to kick a bit less. The double action and single action trigger pulls were nice enough and the gun never gave me any trouble. But I hated the decocking lever being where it was. Half of the time I wasn't sure if I was going to decock the gun or hit the slide release.
The original plan was to get the sub compact for carry but I never got comfortable with the gun and ultimately just started carrying my Beretta 92FS. I really wanted to like the .40 S&W. I still do want to like it. I just haven't found the right platform for it and me yet.
I decided to try the Beretta 96G since I loved my 92FS so much. I couldn't have been more off in my judgement. The ergonomics were familiar but the gun was absolutely horrible to shoot. The Beretta 96 series goes down as one of the guns I've liked the least ever. I don't want to say that it was the worst ever, but my mind is drawing a blank as to what I liked less.
All of these guns left the comfort of retirement that my safe had to offer.
And I decided to use some of my newly found funds to bring home a S&W 1911 Pro in 9mm! Talk about a beautiful gun! It is everything I could want in a 1911. I'd never spend that kind of money on a gun normally, but I figured trading off other guns to get it made it okay.
I like what the 1911 platform has to offer but I find my Colt 1991A1 a bit expensive to practice with and a bit rough on the hands. Maybe I'm a baby about recoil but pistol recoil bothers me much more than revolvers. I can take a .44 magnum with no issue but a .45 ACP is just plain nasty.
I haven't had a chance to shoot it yet but I just tacked on 3 extra magazines to a MidwayUSA order. I'm sure I'll have a lot more to say about it after I shoot it.
Some were guns I obtained on impulse...others curiosity or maybe even desire.
Whatever the case, I decided they no longer fit my needs and I traveled to my favorite gun store.
I had brought my Mauser P38, S&W Model 19, S&W Model 686, Sig 229, and Beretta 96G.
2 of those guns I had bought and literally never shot.
Anyway, the Mauser was in nice shape with no import marks as many P38's have. It also had a bunch of Nazi markings on it. I don't recall the year but I only ever shot it once with a friend. It was fun to shoot in single action but the double action trigger was absolutely awful. It might have been the worst double action trigger I have ever used. I am not sure if this is indicative of ALL P38's or just the one I had owned. I liked that it was 9mm and the magazine release at the butt of the gun was neat. Spare parts are readily available which was also nice. Anyway, it will reside better in a collector's hands or maybe even just a shooter.
The S&W 19 had a 4" barrel that unfortunately somebody added a red ramp to. I am a big fan of the red ramp but they did a sloppy job. It could have been touched up upon and made to look nice but I wasn't really looking to invest any money into it. The blueing was in okay shape and it was a pinned and recessed model. But the K frame .357 magnums are known for falling apart under repeated magnum loads. I literally had never shot the gun and only bought it on an impulse because the price was so stupid cheap. I hope it ends up in a shooters hands. It was a truly nice revolver.
The S&W 686 that I parted with had the 8 3/8" barrel and was a 686-1 without the M stamped into the frame. This means that it was never sent back to Smith and Wesson for the firing pin bushing modification. However, the gun was in absolutely perfect condition. The barrel looks like the previous owner never shot it and neither did I. It came with a shoulder holster too which felt odd to wear since the gun was touching your hip (because the barrel is so long) when you wore it. I imagine a hunter or a collector will find this gun and take good care of it.
My Sig 229 was in .40 S&W. I originally got it so that I could convert it to .357 Sig. I never got around to it. After shooting it a couple of times I figured it didn't need it as it already kicked like a mule. Strangely, the Sig 229 kicked more than the Sig 239; both in .40 S&W. I would have expected it to kick a bit less. The double action and single action trigger pulls were nice enough and the gun never gave me any trouble. But I hated the decocking lever being where it was. Half of the time I wasn't sure if I was going to decock the gun or hit the slide release.
The original plan was to get the sub compact for carry but I never got comfortable with the gun and ultimately just started carrying my Beretta 92FS. I really wanted to like the .40 S&W. I still do want to like it. I just haven't found the right platform for it and me yet.
I decided to try the Beretta 96G since I loved my 92FS so much. I couldn't have been more off in my judgement. The ergonomics were familiar but the gun was absolutely horrible to shoot. The Beretta 96 series goes down as one of the guns I've liked the least ever. I don't want to say that it was the worst ever, but my mind is drawing a blank as to what I liked less.
All of these guns left the comfort of retirement that my safe had to offer.
And I decided to use some of my newly found funds to bring home a S&W 1911 Pro in 9mm! Talk about a beautiful gun! It is everything I could want in a 1911. I'd never spend that kind of money on a gun normally, but I figured trading off other guns to get it made it okay.
I like what the 1911 platform has to offer but I find my Colt 1991A1 a bit expensive to practice with and a bit rough on the hands. Maybe I'm a baby about recoil but pistol recoil bothers me much more than revolvers. I can take a .44 magnum with no issue but a .45 ACP is just plain nasty.
I haven't had a chance to shoot it yet but I just tacked on 3 extra magazines to a MidwayUSA order. I'm sure I'll have a lot more to say about it after I shoot it.
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Guitar Finishing
I have been very busy learning about finishes and how to effectively apply them to guitars.
For a few years, I had a Warmoth Jazzmaster body hanging over my bed. I used a can of Rustoleum enamel spray paint in seafoam green. Aside from already having a guitar in seafoam green, I decided I wanted to try lacquer.
I tried an all natural paint remover that looked like the slime river under New York City in Ghostbusters 2. What a messy mistake. In the end, I used Rustoleum's Aircraft Remover (found in the automotive section of Walmart). The Aircraft Remover is nasty hazardous stuff. I always read the warnings on all chemicals and any that promise neurological damage with repeated exposure should be taken seriously. This means absolutely no indoor use and avoid breathing this crap in if you can.
With the warnings out of the way, it works really damned well! I wish I had started off using it instead of making the mess with the natural pinkish orange crap.
In the mean time, I had another Jazzcaster (Jazzmaster body + Telecaster function) that I had ordered and a neck that also needed to be painted. I set up a small paint booth (and it begs to be expanded upon). I sprayed the neck with a bunch of clear lacquer spray cans. Any time there was a run I wet sanded it out with 400-600 grit paper. I also sprayed the fretboard which is some sort of dark exotic wood (I don't recall which at the moment).
I have been fascinated by sprayed fretboards ever since I noticed that Rickenbacker has sprayed fretboards.
Finishing the neck is seemingly easier since I chose not to tint it. This means that I only applied clear finish.
The body on the other hand required more attention.
I "sealed" the wood with a quick shot of lacquer and then sprayed aerosol lacquer sander/sealer. That stuff stinks! And in retrospect I would have skipped this step and used either more lacquer or shellac. Sanding sealer is used because it is easy to sand but in actuality it is a weaker finish than regular lacquer (hence it being easier to sand).
Then I used an aerosol (noticing a trend?) can of white shellac based primer. I shook the can well but that stuff comes out gloppy and has some sort of agent in it to stop it from drying quickly. This is another can that stinks terribly and not just of alcohol. I made an absolute mess with the shellac primer so I had a lot of sanding to do.
Fortunately the primer dries very fast and pretty hard. It was also in this ghostly white which I was half tempted to leave the finish in. I actually liked the color.
I started applying the color coats in a spray can. Spray can lacquer from Home Depot or Lowes only comes in 3 colors (white, black, and clear) so I went with white. The color coats went on easy and again any runs were handled after a 24 hours with some sandpaper.
After I wet sanded the finish so that it was flat and would shine really nicely under a clear coat.
One problem with white finishes is that they show absolutely every piece of dust or dirt in the air on your guitar. The clear finish managed to attract damned near everything it could. There were blue pieces of dust in the air!! BLUE!!! Why? How!?
They seem to be pretty well in the finish. And of course during touch ups I managed to sand through the finish on a place. I may just buff the finish out and kind of call it what it is...A low budget spray job and next time use the HVLP gun I bought (after I started) or the disposable spray unit sold at Home Depot and Stew Mac and mix my own lacquer so I have a bit more control over it (the canned stuff is orange peel city!). Even the clear dries with a nasty orange peel unless you spray too much at which point it runs.
I also purchased an air filter for use when I spray to remove dust from the air. I figure I'll just run it for an hour before I start painting and see if that helps. It certainly cannot hurt.
I also have another guitar that I've been having a try at french polishing...but more on that in another post.
For a few years, I had a Warmoth Jazzmaster body hanging over my bed. I used a can of Rustoleum enamel spray paint in seafoam green. Aside from already having a guitar in seafoam green, I decided I wanted to try lacquer.
I tried an all natural paint remover that looked like the slime river under New York City in Ghostbusters 2. What a messy mistake. In the end, I used Rustoleum's Aircraft Remover (found in the automotive section of Walmart). The Aircraft Remover is nasty hazardous stuff. I always read the warnings on all chemicals and any that promise neurological damage with repeated exposure should be taken seriously. This means absolutely no indoor use and avoid breathing this crap in if you can.
With the warnings out of the way, it works really damned well! I wish I had started off using it instead of making the mess with the natural pinkish orange crap.
In the mean time, I had another Jazzcaster (Jazzmaster body + Telecaster function) that I had ordered and a neck that also needed to be painted. I set up a small paint booth (and it begs to be expanded upon). I sprayed the neck with a bunch of clear lacquer spray cans. Any time there was a run I wet sanded it out with 400-600 grit paper. I also sprayed the fretboard which is some sort of dark exotic wood (I don't recall which at the moment).
I have been fascinated by sprayed fretboards ever since I noticed that Rickenbacker has sprayed fretboards.
Finishing the neck is seemingly easier since I chose not to tint it. This means that I only applied clear finish.
The body on the other hand required more attention.
I "sealed" the wood with a quick shot of lacquer and then sprayed aerosol lacquer sander/sealer. That stuff stinks! And in retrospect I would have skipped this step and used either more lacquer or shellac. Sanding sealer is used because it is easy to sand but in actuality it is a weaker finish than regular lacquer (hence it being easier to sand).
Then I used an aerosol (noticing a trend?) can of white shellac based primer. I shook the can well but that stuff comes out gloppy and has some sort of agent in it to stop it from drying quickly. This is another can that stinks terribly and not just of alcohol. I made an absolute mess with the shellac primer so I had a lot of sanding to do.
Fortunately the primer dries very fast and pretty hard. It was also in this ghostly white which I was half tempted to leave the finish in. I actually liked the color.
I started applying the color coats in a spray can. Spray can lacquer from Home Depot or Lowes only comes in 3 colors (white, black, and clear) so I went with white. The color coats went on easy and again any runs were handled after a 24 hours with some sandpaper.
After I wet sanded the finish so that it was flat and would shine really nicely under a clear coat.
One problem with white finishes is that they show absolutely every piece of dust or dirt in the air on your guitar. The clear finish managed to attract damned near everything it could. There were blue pieces of dust in the air!! BLUE!!! Why? How!?
They seem to be pretty well in the finish. And of course during touch ups I managed to sand through the finish on a place. I may just buff the finish out and kind of call it what it is...A low budget spray job and next time use the HVLP gun I bought (after I started) or the disposable spray unit sold at Home Depot and Stew Mac and mix my own lacquer so I have a bit more control over it (the canned stuff is orange peel city!). Even the clear dries with a nasty orange peel unless you spray too much at which point it runs.
I also purchased an air filter for use when I spray to remove dust from the air. I figure I'll just run it for an hour before I start painting and see if that helps. It certainly cannot hurt.
I also have another guitar that I've been having a try at french polishing...but more on that in another post.
Floyd Rose Speed Loader
It's been a few months since I updated my blog and a lot has been happening in my guitar gear world and virtually nothing with regard to firearms.
As I mentioned in another post, I was given a Floyd Rose guitar with the speedloader system to work on. Fortunately, the guitar had a fresh pack of strings with it because the strings are no longer made and are becoming increasingly pricey.
According to Floyd Rose's website they are looking for a new manufacturer, but until that happens, ebay if you best bet and even there the strings range in prices wildly depending on how many auctions are listed and how many people need strings that week.
Anyway...The guitar needed to be set up and the owner wanted it set up floating instead of blocked with the supplied blocking device.
The Floyd Rose site actually has pretty clear instructions on how to do this and they work exactly like they are supposed to. You set the guitar up blocked and then remove the block and loosen the springs until the guitar is in tune. Done. Simple, right?
Some things I liked about the guitar were the ease of string changes. Hmm...Well that is about it.
The guitar felt...cheap. It was made in china and while the finish looked really good, the fret job was not impressive. The guitar is not an expensive instrument, but their are better options in the same price range in my opinion (and not just because of the string availability).
The neck also required a stubby allen key. For those of you who don't know, a stubby key is a normal allen key that has been ground down on a grinding wheel so that the allen key can slip into the truss rod channel between the nut and the string retainer. Otherwise you have to remove the string retainer to adjust the truss rod which requires you to do a whole lot of guessing since you ideally want to adjust the truss rod while the neck is under normal string tension.
Fortunately, I have access to a grinding wheel and a load of spare allen keys. I made a couple of stubby keys in various sizes for use later.
Another quirk that I wasn't too fond of was the fine tuning range adjustments for the strings. It is cumbersome. You have to keep adjusting this silly little set screw on the side of the saddle until the string is in tune. Granted, you only have to do this once if you buy the same gauge strings every time (although good luck with that - beggars can't be choosers).
As I mentioned in another post, I was given a Floyd Rose guitar with the speedloader system to work on. Fortunately, the guitar had a fresh pack of strings with it because the strings are no longer made and are becoming increasingly pricey.
According to Floyd Rose's website they are looking for a new manufacturer, but until that happens, ebay if you best bet and even there the strings range in prices wildly depending on how many auctions are listed and how many people need strings that week.
Anyway...The guitar needed to be set up and the owner wanted it set up floating instead of blocked with the supplied blocking device.
The Floyd Rose site actually has pretty clear instructions on how to do this and they work exactly like they are supposed to. You set the guitar up blocked and then remove the block and loosen the springs until the guitar is in tune. Done. Simple, right?
Some things I liked about the guitar were the ease of string changes. Hmm...Well that is about it.
The guitar felt...cheap. It was made in china and while the finish looked really good, the fret job was not impressive. The guitar is not an expensive instrument, but their are better options in the same price range in my opinion (and not just because of the string availability).
The neck also required a stubby allen key. For those of you who don't know, a stubby key is a normal allen key that has been ground down on a grinding wheel so that the allen key can slip into the truss rod channel between the nut and the string retainer. Otherwise you have to remove the string retainer to adjust the truss rod which requires you to do a whole lot of guessing since you ideally want to adjust the truss rod while the neck is under normal string tension.
Fortunately, I have access to a grinding wheel and a load of spare allen keys. I made a couple of stubby keys in various sizes for use later.
Another quirk that I wasn't too fond of was the fine tuning range adjustments for the strings. It is cumbersome. You have to keep adjusting this silly little set screw on the side of the saddle until the string is in tune. Granted, you only have to do this once if you buy the same gauge strings every time (although good luck with that - beggars can't be choosers).
Saturday, March 30, 2013
More Guitar Projects - Kramer and Floyd Rose Content
About a month ago, a close friend of mine asked me if I'd be able to take a look at their Kramer guitar. I agreed to take a look at it and do my best to get it playing correctly. A few weeks went by before the guitar actually showed up due to scheduling conflicts.
When I opened the case of the guitar, most of the hardware was missing. But I could tell this project was going to be fun and special. The guitar was a 1987 Kramer Baretta with factory Dennis Kline art. The particular art is the lips as seen on the Vintage Kramer website. It is just absolutely tacky and represents everything 80's.
The body and neck are supposedly of an era where ESP was making them. The tuners (Schaller M6!) were all there and in tact.
However, that is where the good news ended, the nut locking pads were all missing. The saddle inserts and locking screws were also long gone. The saddles themselves were also completely locked up from rust.
The stock Seymour Duncan JB had been replaced with a DiMarzio of some nature (nothing against DiMarzio, they make a fine pickup as well).
But worse than all of this the bridge system was clearly missing parts. In fact, it was missing all but the tremolo block and plate for the Floyd Rose Tremsetter. Parts for this system are basically not available unless you are willing to search ebay forever.
My mission was to make the guitar a player. If it could be done with original parts, great, and if not, so be it. The other restriction was that it had to be done for cheap.
That ruled out the original tremsetter system. To be honest, it looked unnecessarily complicated. Especially when you look at modern Trem Stopper units.
Additionally, the guitar was banged up quite a bit. So even if it had all of the original parts, it still would never be a museum quality restoration.
With all of this in mind, I set forth to begin replacing parts and making the guitar playable.
My good friend Adam Reiver with FU-Tone provided a lot of guidance in what was necessary to get this guitar running again.
A lot of the parts were just common parts but it was a matter of finding which ones fit correctly. For example, I learned that Floyd Rose saddle inserts come in multiple sizes and the only difference seems to be how wide they are. This of course makes all of the difference as to whether or not they will fit in the saddle.
Before I could really worry about the inserts though, he showed me how to take apart the saddles so that I could clean them and get them freely moving again. Sure buying a new set would have been easier, but sticking with the economical theme of this guitar, I took a hammer a punch (again thank you Adam for your guidance on this!) and knocked out the pin holding the saddle together. One important detail is that one end of the pin is splined. You want to knock it out so that the splined end comes out first and when reassembling, the splined end should go in last and back into the same end where it came out of (you can see the grooves that the spline created in the saddle).
I cleaned each of the saddles with some steel wool or scotch bright. Some were worse than others. All of the pins required cleaning as well. I made sure to put a little bit of machine oil in the saddles so this will never happen again. It wasn't difficult but it was just time consuming enough that I don't want to have to do it again any time soon.
We outright replaced the block on the bridge with a 37mm brass block. It must be 2 or 3 times the size of the original Floyd Rose block.
Another important change to the bridge was replacing the screw in arm to an arm that tightens with a collar. The newer collared arm socket is a bit larger than the old screw in socket. This required the bridge plate to be drilled out.
My Harbor Freight drill press was not really man enough for this job. They really don't make things like they used to. I used some Harbor Freight step drill bits. The titanium nitride coating literally stripped right off of them as soon as they hit the extremely hard steel from the bridge plate.
I was able to seize up the entire drill press trying to get the drill to go through. I decided to try a dremel with a stone. This worked better but eventually this also got VERY hot and the stone broke. I also managed to burn my wrist on the hot metal not being quite as careful as I had planned. Fortunately, I had enough sense to wear hearing and eye protection. It is also VERY important to clamp the bridge plate to the drill and not try and hold the part in your hand. No sense in losing a finger to a spinning bridge plate that the drill caught.
After the stone broke, I was much closer to the correct diameter I needed than the drill was able to get me to. I tried the drill again and this time I was a bit more successful. Hopefully the heat didn't change the temper of the metal...or at least not at the edge that rests on the stud.
I was also warned that the newer collared socket is a bit deeper than the older screw in style. This meant that the bridge route would have to be deepened over the whammy bar socket.
This was a very easy operation. I took my plunge router and put in a bit with a guide bearing and in one pass took care of the extra material. I probably plunged a bit more than one should in one pass, but the results were good and the bit was cheap enough. Plus I was at the shallowest depth I could be with the bearing making good contact with the guitar body.
I also took this time to enlarge the holes for the bridge studs so that I could put anchors in. Since I had to replace them either way and the guitar was never going to be 100% original, I decided the anchor was a better option.
The wood was pretty rough from the string tension pushing on the studs. Ovaling of these holes is a very common problem.
I measured the anchor with a caliper and then matched it up with a good drill bit. I managed not to botch the paint up at this stage. That was a good thing. I drilled the holes only as deep as the anchors.
I don't have an arbor press (yet) so I hammered the anchors in and some of the paint around the anchors cracked. I am just happy that the paint was already screwed up or I would have been REALLY angry with myself. If anybody has a better way of keeping the paint from getting screwed up, I am all ears.
I think next time (if there is a next time), I will make the hole a little large with a countersink at the top and have the anchor dig its splines in below the painted surface so as not to destroy it.
I will also use a press so I can do it with one slow and smooth motion instead of the violent action of a rubber mallet.
I still have to rewire the pickup and fabricate new cavity covers. So the project isn't done yet, but it has come a LONG way in just the week that I have had it.
Meanwhile, I started working on a Floyd Rose guitar with a Speedloader system. Strings are becoming a bit hard to come by for this system as the last manufacturer of them stopped production in 2010.
I was asked to float the bridge and intonate the guitar. The neck also clearly needs to be looked at. Hopefully it uses a 4mm allen key. Whatever size it uses, it requires a stubby allen key to fit into the clearance notch on the body at the neck.
The Speedloader system is pretty unique. The strings get changed almost as a cartridge. As long as you know how to set it up, you basically just replace the string and only minimal fine tuning is required. The headstock of the guitar doesn't even have tuners on it. Both ends of the string as bullet shaped to fit into the special nut and saddle.
It was a good idea that didn't catch on.
I'll update more later. And if I have any sense perhaps with some pictures.
When I opened the case of the guitar, most of the hardware was missing. But I could tell this project was going to be fun and special. The guitar was a 1987 Kramer Baretta with factory Dennis Kline art. The particular art is the lips as seen on the Vintage Kramer website. It is just absolutely tacky and represents everything 80's.
The body and neck are supposedly of an era where ESP was making them. The tuners (Schaller M6!) were all there and in tact.
However, that is where the good news ended, the nut locking pads were all missing. The saddle inserts and locking screws were also long gone. The saddles themselves were also completely locked up from rust.
The stock Seymour Duncan JB had been replaced with a DiMarzio of some nature (nothing against DiMarzio, they make a fine pickup as well).
But worse than all of this the bridge system was clearly missing parts. In fact, it was missing all but the tremolo block and plate for the Floyd Rose Tremsetter. Parts for this system are basically not available unless you are willing to search ebay forever.
My mission was to make the guitar a player. If it could be done with original parts, great, and if not, so be it. The other restriction was that it had to be done for cheap.
That ruled out the original tremsetter system. To be honest, it looked unnecessarily complicated. Especially when you look at modern Trem Stopper units.
Additionally, the guitar was banged up quite a bit. So even if it had all of the original parts, it still would never be a museum quality restoration.
With all of this in mind, I set forth to begin replacing parts and making the guitar playable.
My good friend Adam Reiver with FU-Tone provided a lot of guidance in what was necessary to get this guitar running again.
A lot of the parts were just common parts but it was a matter of finding which ones fit correctly. For example, I learned that Floyd Rose saddle inserts come in multiple sizes and the only difference seems to be how wide they are. This of course makes all of the difference as to whether or not they will fit in the saddle.
Before I could really worry about the inserts though, he showed me how to take apart the saddles so that I could clean them and get them freely moving again. Sure buying a new set would have been easier, but sticking with the economical theme of this guitar, I took a hammer a punch (again thank you Adam for your guidance on this!) and knocked out the pin holding the saddle together. One important detail is that one end of the pin is splined. You want to knock it out so that the splined end comes out first and when reassembling, the splined end should go in last and back into the same end where it came out of (you can see the grooves that the spline created in the saddle).
I cleaned each of the saddles with some steel wool or scotch bright. Some were worse than others. All of the pins required cleaning as well. I made sure to put a little bit of machine oil in the saddles so this will never happen again. It wasn't difficult but it was just time consuming enough that I don't want to have to do it again any time soon.
We outright replaced the block on the bridge with a 37mm brass block. It must be 2 or 3 times the size of the original Floyd Rose block.
Another important change to the bridge was replacing the screw in arm to an arm that tightens with a collar. The newer collared arm socket is a bit larger than the old screw in socket. This required the bridge plate to be drilled out.
My Harbor Freight drill press was not really man enough for this job. They really don't make things like they used to. I used some Harbor Freight step drill bits. The titanium nitride coating literally stripped right off of them as soon as they hit the extremely hard steel from the bridge plate.
I was able to seize up the entire drill press trying to get the drill to go through. I decided to try a dremel with a stone. This worked better but eventually this also got VERY hot and the stone broke. I also managed to burn my wrist on the hot metal not being quite as careful as I had planned. Fortunately, I had enough sense to wear hearing and eye protection. It is also VERY important to clamp the bridge plate to the drill and not try and hold the part in your hand. No sense in losing a finger to a spinning bridge plate that the drill caught.
After the stone broke, I was much closer to the correct diameter I needed than the drill was able to get me to. I tried the drill again and this time I was a bit more successful. Hopefully the heat didn't change the temper of the metal...or at least not at the edge that rests on the stud.
I was also warned that the newer collared socket is a bit deeper than the older screw in style. This meant that the bridge route would have to be deepened over the whammy bar socket.
This was a very easy operation. I took my plunge router and put in a bit with a guide bearing and in one pass took care of the extra material. I probably plunged a bit more than one should in one pass, but the results were good and the bit was cheap enough. Plus I was at the shallowest depth I could be with the bearing making good contact with the guitar body.
I also took this time to enlarge the holes for the bridge studs so that I could put anchors in. Since I had to replace them either way and the guitar was never going to be 100% original, I decided the anchor was a better option.
The wood was pretty rough from the string tension pushing on the studs. Ovaling of these holes is a very common problem.
I measured the anchor with a caliper and then matched it up with a good drill bit. I managed not to botch the paint up at this stage. That was a good thing. I drilled the holes only as deep as the anchors.
I don't have an arbor press (yet) so I hammered the anchors in and some of the paint around the anchors cracked. I am just happy that the paint was already screwed up or I would have been REALLY angry with myself. If anybody has a better way of keeping the paint from getting screwed up, I am all ears.
I think next time (if there is a next time), I will make the hole a little large with a countersink at the top and have the anchor dig its splines in below the painted surface so as not to destroy it.
I will also use a press so I can do it with one slow and smooth motion instead of the violent action of a rubber mallet.
I still have to rewire the pickup and fabricate new cavity covers. So the project isn't done yet, but it has come a LONG way in just the week that I have had it.
Meanwhile, I started working on a Floyd Rose guitar with a Speedloader system. Strings are becoming a bit hard to come by for this system as the last manufacturer of them stopped production in 2010.
I was asked to float the bridge and intonate the guitar. The neck also clearly needs to be looked at. Hopefully it uses a 4mm allen key. Whatever size it uses, it requires a stubby allen key to fit into the clearance notch on the body at the neck.
The Speedloader system is pretty unique. The strings get changed almost as a cartridge. As long as you know how to set it up, you basically just replace the string and only minimal fine tuning is required. The headstock of the guitar doesn't even have tuners on it. Both ends of the string as bullet shaped to fit into the special nut and saddle.
It was a good idea that didn't catch on.
I'll update more later. And if I have any sense perhaps with some pictures.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Random Tips
I will update this periodically as I have more to add. If you have any good tips, feel free to share them!
When installing a retainer bar on a Floyd Rose style system, use the outer two locking pad screws on the nut to align the screw holes. Their centers should be equal. I usually use a ruler that has the same markings on both sides and is the proper width I need and just line up the same marking on each side of the ruler.
If your guitar has ringing after you mute the strings with your hands, foam under strings behind the nut will reduce this. The foam shouldn't be too hard or it will play with your tuning and possibly pop the strings out of the nut.
Always push with your file or you will ruin it. Keep your file clean as well. Running your file over ordinary blackboard chalk before using it also helps to keep metal debris from building up in it.
Oil or lubricate your cutting tools to keep them sharp longer.
Use linesman pliers to cut guitar strings. They aren't the cheapest tool but they provide good leverage for cutting strings and won't get all nicked up the way most wire cutters will when you use them to cut the steel core of guitar strings.
When installing a retainer bar on a Floyd Rose style system, use the outer two locking pad screws on the nut to align the screw holes. Their centers should be equal. I usually use a ruler that has the same markings on both sides and is the proper width I need and just line up the same marking on each side of the ruler.
If your guitar has ringing after you mute the strings with your hands, foam under strings behind the nut will reduce this. The foam shouldn't be too hard or it will play with your tuning and possibly pop the strings out of the nut.
Always push with your file or you will ruin it. Keep your file clean as well. Running your file over ordinary blackboard chalk before using it also helps to keep metal debris from building up in it.
Oil or lubricate your cutting tools to keep them sharp longer.
Use linesman pliers to cut guitar strings. They aren't the cheapest tool but they provide good leverage for cutting strings and won't get all nicked up the way most wire cutters will when you use them to cut the steel core of guitar strings.
Can't even tell what is real anymore
I was browsing the local craigslist ads when I happened upon an ad for a Chinese Les Paul copy. The guitar was a pretty convincing Les Paul, but what disturbed me most about the guitar was that the headstock actually said Gibson on it. While I worked for Ibanez, I recall a notice on their website warning of counterfeit guitars.
Having been a victim of buying a counterfeit guitar in the past, this really struck a nerve with me. It has me terrified to buy vintage guitars, pickups or just about any other vintage "mojo" part.
Admittedly my own experience with counterfeiting could have (and should have) been completely avoided but greed got the better of me and I found myself with one of the worst looking and functioning Fender Jaguar copies. Needless to say I took a heavy loss and learned a valuable lesson; If it looks too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true.
Caveat Emptor is truly the rule. Buyer Beware. I will say in favor of the craigslist seller, he did mention it was not an authentic Gibson. But will the next seller be so honest?
Some "experts" claim to be able to spot them a mile away. I've played guitar for more than half of my life. I know there are exceptions to every rule for what one company did one year or another. These guitars look very convincing and I'm not certain that I'd be able to tell an authentic one from a counterfeit.
The entire thing leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. I'm afraid to buy a new guitar. My only option at this point seems to be building guitars myself from reputable parts dealers.
Is misrepresenting out of ignorance or intention just as bad as counterfeit?
Fender squier or package starcaster guitars being sold above retail. Make no mistake the new starcaster line has nothing to do with the short lived 70's semi hollow guitar.
For example, I have seen a number of Vox amplifiers being sold as tube amps when there isn't a tube in them. Maybe "tube" is a buzz word that generates more profit like "vintage", "point to point", "Pre CBS", or "Blackface".
Even the manufacturers get in on the fun. Marshall had their Valvestate amplifiers. Some of the models contained no valves to speak of (see the VS15R post I made a while back as a reference). Peavey has the "Transtube" series which while containing the word tube in the name does not have a tube to be seen...or heard for that matter.
The manufacturers also like to play games with the output wattage ratings. Bigger is always better so they give you the peak output wattage as though it were the average power. Then you wonder why your 12 watt tube amp (which was manufactured when clean wattage was important) is drowning out your 35 watt newly manufactured amplifier. This has actually happened to me.
Manufacturers and other retailers like to use the term "all tube", "class A", or "point to point" when it is clearly untrue. All tube is admittedly subject to some semantics. Do you define all tube as no solid state components or only a tube audio path?
For example, does the rectifier being solid state make a 1965 Fender Bandmaster any less all tube than a 1965 Fender Tremolux? One could certainly make a debate for either side of the argument as the audio path is nearly identical in both of these amplifiers. Sure the rectifier will affect the sound.
But an amplifier that has a few tubes and a solid state reverb cannot be called all tube, right? What about amplifiers with relays to switch between channels?
As for point to point, again, one has to classify some things. Do terminal strips, eyelet boards, turret boards, etc. count as point to point? Or is that reserved for a mess of wire literally linking point to point? Technically they may not be point to point, but again, this is accepted nomenclature when talking about an old Fender amplifier.
Referring to a modern amp with a printed circuit board just because the manufacturer claims it is hand wired is a falsehood. Truth is, all tube amplifiers have some degree of hand wiring and assembly. But that does not make it point to point wiring.
I've seen plenty of Fender amps completely misrepresented as Pre CBS or blackface when neither one is true. If your amplifier was manufactured from 1965 or later, it is not Pre CBS. It can still be blackface assuming it was manufactured between 1965 and 1967.
After that, they go into silverface amplifiers with and without the drip edge and then a return to blackface cosmetics. Some of these late amps are the ones which get passed off as blackface...and a part of me supposes it is technically true, but vintage enthusiasts know that these late blackface amps are not generally what is meant when one refers to a blackface Fender amplifier.
Some people even have the nerve to classify red knob amplifiers as blackface despite no connection with the prior series of Fender amplifiers.
Another favorite of mine is amplifiers which aren't even Fender amplifiers being referred to as blackface.
As if the manufacturers misrepresenting for their own gain (no pun intended) wasn't bad enough, end users continue to preach this stuff as though it were the bible of guitar playing. If you've ever punished yourself by reading an interview with Eric Johnson, you've already been exposed to toxic levels of bullshit. His playing aside, the man literally holds his fuzz face together with a rubber band because he believes that the screw that holds the cover on the bottom of the pedal changes the tone.
Now we have an entire generation of guitarists who think that Marshall Plexis are high gain, Gibson amplifiers are only for jazz guitarists, and any guitar made before 1979 is vintage (trust me, plenty belong in a land fill!).
Here are a few other overly hyped mojo words to scrutinize carefully when you see them:
Bumblebee capacitors - A capacitor has a very definite function and these values are not magical. In fact they are easily measured with the right equipment. You will find most quality capacitors will sound identical in your guitar. Do not waste your money on these.
Carbon Comp Resistors - These are an older style resistor that has almost universally been replaced by carbon film or metal film resistors for tolerance and thermal noise reasons alone. They pop up in old amps because that is all they had to choose from and they were cheap and available in the correct wattage. Like a capacitor, resistors have values (other than just resistance) which is measurable with the correct equipment. Do not get roped into thinking something is better just because it features carbon comp resistors.
Silicon or Germanium - Usually the argument goes something like this; Germamium is warmer than Silicon. Germanium doesn't have a life force of its own any more than silicon can control what it sounds like. There are a great number of parameters that define the sound of a transistor (both internal and external). Silicon replaced germanium for the same reasons that germanium replaced selenium. It is infinitely more efficient and reliable. Sure as guitarists we appreciate all sorts of inefficiencies (tubes, germanium, etc...), but know that something being germanium won't necessarily sound like anything. It happens to be true that in a Fuzz Face pedal, the germanium pedal will sound a bit darker, but try and tell me that a germanium Rangemaster is dark or warm. There really is more to designing an effect than just selection of the semiconductor material.
Alnico - Almost always in reference to pickups but also with speakers. Alnico magically makes everything better. Coils can be wound in a number of ways and the wire on the coil is just as important as the magnet attached to it. How the coil is wound is important as well. And of course this doesn't even take into account the various Gauss levels of the magnets. Not that it is alnico, but I recall seeing a Neodymium magnetic pickup installed (from the factory) on a guitar while I worked at Ibanez. I believe this was done in an effort to cut down on the amount of (expensive) copper wire used in the pickup. The magnet was so strong that you could pick up a 12" adjustable wrench with it. Additionally, the strings were being pulled down toward the pickup with such force that the entire guitar played sharp. Use some sense when you buy an "upgraded" part for your guitar. Alnico isn't always better. It reminds me of an adage I heard that goes something like this "A well designed solid state amplifier will sound better than a poorly made tube amp." Getting a 20$ alnico pickup? Reconsider. Handmade pickups take time and skill to wind. The parts are expensive as well. Look into quality magnets, wire, and fiber or bobbins.
NOS - I once read something about buying WWII era rifle magazines in which the writer suggested, how many NOS magazines could there possibly be in existence? You go to every gun show and see NOS magazines wrapped in brown paper 65 years after the war ended. Do you really think they produced that much surplus? It is the same with guitar parts, electronic components, and vacuum tubes. I believe there are articles on how some germanium transistors were relabeled as NKT275 for the Dunlop Fuzz Face pedals. The same sort of games go on with vacuum tubes and various electronic components that go into guitars and amplifiers.
...Or maybe I am just being overly skeptical...
What is the point of this rant? I admit that in part, my reasoning is selfish. I want to educate people so that I don't have to hear these fallacies propagated eternally. But I am also tired of seeing people attempt to take advantage of others as well.
Before you start wasting your money on "vintage" parts, consider saving your money and playing your guitar or listening with your ears and not your "gut".
Having been a victim of buying a counterfeit guitar in the past, this really struck a nerve with me. It has me terrified to buy vintage guitars, pickups or just about any other vintage "mojo" part.
Admittedly my own experience with counterfeiting could have (and should have) been completely avoided but greed got the better of me and I found myself with one of the worst looking and functioning Fender Jaguar copies. Needless to say I took a heavy loss and learned a valuable lesson; If it looks too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true.
Caveat Emptor is truly the rule. Buyer Beware. I will say in favor of the craigslist seller, he did mention it was not an authentic Gibson. But will the next seller be so honest?
Some "experts" claim to be able to spot them a mile away. I've played guitar for more than half of my life. I know there are exceptions to every rule for what one company did one year or another. These guitars look very convincing and I'm not certain that I'd be able to tell an authentic one from a counterfeit.
The entire thing leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. I'm afraid to buy a new guitar. My only option at this point seems to be building guitars myself from reputable parts dealers.
Is misrepresenting out of ignorance or intention just as bad as counterfeit?
Fender squier or package starcaster guitars being sold above retail. Make no mistake the new starcaster line has nothing to do with the short lived 70's semi hollow guitar.
For example, I have seen a number of Vox amplifiers being sold as tube amps when there isn't a tube in them. Maybe "tube" is a buzz word that generates more profit like "vintage", "point to point", "Pre CBS", or "Blackface".
Even the manufacturers get in on the fun. Marshall had their Valvestate amplifiers. Some of the models contained no valves to speak of (see the VS15R post I made a while back as a reference). Peavey has the "Transtube" series which while containing the word tube in the name does not have a tube to be seen...or heard for that matter.
The manufacturers also like to play games with the output wattage ratings. Bigger is always better so they give you the peak output wattage as though it were the average power. Then you wonder why your 12 watt tube amp (which was manufactured when clean wattage was important) is drowning out your 35 watt newly manufactured amplifier. This has actually happened to me.
Manufacturers and other retailers like to use the term "all tube", "class A", or "point to point" when it is clearly untrue. All tube is admittedly subject to some semantics. Do you define all tube as no solid state components or only a tube audio path?
For example, does the rectifier being solid state make a 1965 Fender Bandmaster any less all tube than a 1965 Fender Tremolux? One could certainly make a debate for either side of the argument as the audio path is nearly identical in both of these amplifiers. Sure the rectifier will affect the sound.
But an amplifier that has a few tubes and a solid state reverb cannot be called all tube, right? What about amplifiers with relays to switch between channels?
As for point to point, again, one has to classify some things. Do terminal strips, eyelet boards, turret boards, etc. count as point to point? Or is that reserved for a mess of wire literally linking point to point? Technically they may not be point to point, but again, this is accepted nomenclature when talking about an old Fender amplifier.
Referring to a modern amp with a printed circuit board just because the manufacturer claims it is hand wired is a falsehood. Truth is, all tube amplifiers have some degree of hand wiring and assembly. But that does not make it point to point wiring.
I've seen plenty of Fender amps completely misrepresented as Pre CBS or blackface when neither one is true. If your amplifier was manufactured from 1965 or later, it is not Pre CBS. It can still be blackface assuming it was manufactured between 1965 and 1967.
After that, they go into silverface amplifiers with and without the drip edge and then a return to blackface cosmetics. Some of these late amps are the ones which get passed off as blackface...and a part of me supposes it is technically true, but vintage enthusiasts know that these late blackface amps are not generally what is meant when one refers to a blackface Fender amplifier.
Some people even have the nerve to classify red knob amplifiers as blackface despite no connection with the prior series of Fender amplifiers.
Another favorite of mine is amplifiers which aren't even Fender amplifiers being referred to as blackface.
As if the manufacturers misrepresenting for their own gain (no pun intended) wasn't bad enough, end users continue to preach this stuff as though it were the bible of guitar playing. If you've ever punished yourself by reading an interview with Eric Johnson, you've already been exposed to toxic levels of bullshit. His playing aside, the man literally holds his fuzz face together with a rubber band because he believes that the screw that holds the cover on the bottom of the pedal changes the tone.
Now we have an entire generation of guitarists who think that Marshall Plexis are high gain, Gibson amplifiers are only for jazz guitarists, and any guitar made before 1979 is vintage (trust me, plenty belong in a land fill!).
Here are a few other overly hyped mojo words to scrutinize carefully when you see them:
Bumblebee capacitors - A capacitor has a very definite function and these values are not magical. In fact they are easily measured with the right equipment. You will find most quality capacitors will sound identical in your guitar. Do not waste your money on these.
Carbon Comp Resistors - These are an older style resistor that has almost universally been replaced by carbon film or metal film resistors for tolerance and thermal noise reasons alone. They pop up in old amps because that is all they had to choose from and they were cheap and available in the correct wattage. Like a capacitor, resistors have values (other than just resistance) which is measurable with the correct equipment. Do not get roped into thinking something is better just because it features carbon comp resistors.
Silicon or Germanium - Usually the argument goes something like this; Germamium is warmer than Silicon. Germanium doesn't have a life force of its own any more than silicon can control what it sounds like. There are a great number of parameters that define the sound of a transistor (both internal and external). Silicon replaced germanium for the same reasons that germanium replaced selenium. It is infinitely more efficient and reliable. Sure as guitarists we appreciate all sorts of inefficiencies (tubes, germanium, etc...), but know that something being germanium won't necessarily sound like anything. It happens to be true that in a Fuzz Face pedal, the germanium pedal will sound a bit darker, but try and tell me that a germanium Rangemaster is dark or warm. There really is more to designing an effect than just selection of the semiconductor material.
Alnico - Almost always in reference to pickups but also with speakers. Alnico magically makes everything better. Coils can be wound in a number of ways and the wire on the coil is just as important as the magnet attached to it. How the coil is wound is important as well. And of course this doesn't even take into account the various Gauss levels of the magnets. Not that it is alnico, but I recall seeing a Neodymium magnetic pickup installed (from the factory) on a guitar while I worked at Ibanez. I believe this was done in an effort to cut down on the amount of (expensive) copper wire used in the pickup. The magnet was so strong that you could pick up a 12" adjustable wrench with it. Additionally, the strings were being pulled down toward the pickup with such force that the entire guitar played sharp. Use some sense when you buy an "upgraded" part for your guitar. Alnico isn't always better. It reminds me of an adage I heard that goes something like this "A well designed solid state amplifier will sound better than a poorly made tube amp." Getting a 20$ alnico pickup? Reconsider. Handmade pickups take time and skill to wind. The parts are expensive as well. Look into quality magnets, wire, and fiber or bobbins.
NOS - I once read something about buying WWII era rifle magazines in which the writer suggested, how many NOS magazines could there possibly be in existence? You go to every gun show and see NOS magazines wrapped in brown paper 65 years after the war ended. Do you really think they produced that much surplus? It is the same with guitar parts, electronic components, and vacuum tubes. I believe there are articles on how some germanium transistors were relabeled as NKT275 for the Dunlop Fuzz Face pedals. The same sort of games go on with vacuum tubes and various electronic components that go into guitars and amplifiers.
...Or maybe I am just being overly skeptical...
What is the point of this rant? I admit that in part, my reasoning is selfish. I want to educate people so that I don't have to hear these fallacies propagated eternally. But I am also tired of seeing people attempt to take advantage of others as well.
Before you start wasting your money on "vintage" parts, consider saving your money and playing your guitar or listening with your ears and not your "gut".
Monday, January 21, 2013
Did some fret work...
As the title indicates, I did some fret work for the first time, and I am not good at it...yet. But, we do things to learn. Practice makes perfect.
I had bought a small collection of various fret working files from Stew Mac. I bought their double sided files as well as the dual grit diamond files that are angled.
As with all fret work, I removed the strings and straightened the fretboard as best I could using a Stew Mac notched straight edge. It is a very expensive straight edge but it is really worth the money. It gets a lot of use and it takes the frets out of the neck, which for leveling frets is ideal!
The neck I was setting has a bit of a twist to it. but I did the best I could with it.
For leveling the frets, I initially used a flat leveling file. It took a lot less material off in a pass than I expected, but due to a lot of heavy wear on the first position frets, I had a lot of material to remove.
I ended up following the string path which ends up giving you a more conical (compound) radius to the fret board instead of cylindrical.
Then I tried using the traditional double sided crowning files to recrown the frets. I was not confident in my work enough to try using triangle files for this task.
Their operation is simple enough. Push the file over the frets until it is crowned. At least that is how it reads online. What I found is that it doesn't necessarily crown the fret evenly. So I ended up with uneven crowns on the frets.
The markings on the frets also became increasingly difficult to see as I continued to work. I am not sure if it is the lighting in my shop area (which is currently being upgraded). This did not assist me in making a nice even crown.
I found that lubricating the file with pro-cut or paraffin wax greatly assisted the filing action. However, the wax and pro-cut can hold the loose chips and powder from the frets. I read about some people using chalk to prevent their files from clogging. However, this does little in the way of lubricating the file which helps keep the file sharp and last longer. This is important as these files are NOT cheap when you consider a standard hardware file.
One thing I want to make a special point out of is that you should ALWAYS push with your file. Push it to cut and then lift it completely off of the material you are filing and then start again pushing. Don't drag it in reverse over the frets. This can (not saying it definitely will - but they are not cheap files - why risk it?) damage the teeth on the file.
Polishing the frets was much easier. I used 0000 steel wool and just rubbed them until they were shiny. It was the only step that went exactly as planned. The double sided fret crowning files took off very little material per pass and consequently didn't leave very deep gouges in the frets. Therefore polishing them (or dressing them) was much easier and able to be done with the 0000 steel wool by itself instead of a many step process of polishing with progressively finer grit papers.
I'm sure I could have made the frets shine a bit more had I done more than the 0000 steel wool, but at the end of the process, the frets were in just as bad condition as when I had started except that they no longer had big dips in the frets where the strings rested on them.
After I was finished with my first fret job I was well aware of what separates an amateur butcher job versus a professional job. I also realized how important practice and experience are with this sort of thing.
I was not going to be discouraged from learning. I ended up going back to Stew Mac (yes I am a Stew Mac fan boy) and buying their dual grit diamond files as well as the appropriate radiused wooden sanding block for the neck I was working on.
I want to clarify a little bit about why I am a Stew Mac fan real quick. Firstly, they have a wonderful and complete collection of guitars specific items at reasonable prices or at the very least competitive with other sites selling similar products. Additionally, they have extremely prompt shipping! Very few companies will beat them in this regard. And lastly, very few of their products that I have bought have disappointed me. Most of them are very much exactly as described and the high quantity and quality of their user reviews makes an educated purchase much easier. Their site also features a lot of great free information with plenty of pictures to illustrate them. I have no association with them and nothing to gain by talking Stew Mac up. They aren't the only site I deal with, but they are usually the first place I go for guitar specific tools.
With the new files I and radiused sanding block I decided to have another go at some fret work.
The radiused sanding blocks can be used instead of a file to maintain the clylindrical shape of the frets and fretboard when working on a fixed radius fretboard. The easiest way to use them is with self-adhesive sandpaper. Having used 3m paper for various woodworking needs, I am quite fond of it. However it is not cheap. While a few different grits would probably have been convenient, being on a budget left me buying just 320 grit. I figured it is fine enough that it won't leave deep gouges in the frets and will take them down slowly.
When actually working with the 3m paper, I really don't press down on the block more than just applying light even pressure so that all of the frets have an equal amount of material removed at the same time. Like using a file, you want to go the entire length of the fretboard in one pass and then start again. Starting at the last fret and working up toward the nut will result in slightly more material being removed from the rest of the fretboard than the first position as the sanding block stops at the nut and doesn't pass the entire length of the sanding material over the fret. This isn't necessarily a bad thing since the first position is going to see a lot of play and having the frets higher than the following frets will ensure little to no buzz.
I noticed I was able to do a much more even job of leveling the frets with the sanding block. Some frets definitely had flatter plateaus on them, but it was very even from side to side on the fret. How well the frets were initially installed on the guitar is also a factor in how even the leveling will be across the fret as well. Anybody who has owned a very cheap import guitar will know exactly what I am talking about. Usually one end of the fret is sticking up. This can lead to the frets being physically sharp on the hand or in the case of the 90's Epiphone Coronet I owned, the high e string was able to actually get stuck under the fret end and created a really neat (although completely undesirable) harmonic droning e.
I also used the dual grit diamond files for crowning the frets this time. The files have a 150 and a 300 grit surface. I found the 300 grit surface to be WAY too slow for me. I was surprised actually. I expected it to cut much faster. As with the traditional files, I found that lubricating the file helped it cut as well.
One thing that separates diamond files from traditional files is that the diamond files can cut with a push and a pull stroke. The diamonds will last forever themselves but are only as good as the bond that they have with the tool. My understanding is that the industrial diamonds are electronically deposited on the surface of the file. I'd think the bond was pretty good, but still, I like to try and take care of my tools.
One thing I had a bit of difficulty with when using the crowning files was which size file to use. They come in narrow, medium, and wide. Narrow wire isn't particularly common on modern instruments and wide wire is what I'd think was on a bass guitar, so I went with medium. However, I think there is a trend toward wider wire now which means that it isn't always clear as to which file to use.
I also found doing an even job with the diamond files to be easier. Perhaps my one previous try at crowning the frets helped or perhaps I am just better at using the diamond crowning files. Only time will tell as I have not yet given up on the traditional files. I have plenty of junker guitars that I bought at flea markets to hone my skills with.
As an unrelated note, why do vises have to be so expensive? Or rather why do cheap vises have to be made like scrap metal?
-Zach
I had bought a small collection of various fret working files from Stew Mac. I bought their double sided files as well as the dual grit diamond files that are angled.
As with all fret work, I removed the strings and straightened the fretboard as best I could using a Stew Mac notched straight edge. It is a very expensive straight edge but it is really worth the money. It gets a lot of use and it takes the frets out of the neck, which for leveling frets is ideal!
The neck I was setting has a bit of a twist to it. but I did the best I could with it.
For leveling the frets, I initially used a flat leveling file. It took a lot less material off in a pass than I expected, but due to a lot of heavy wear on the first position frets, I had a lot of material to remove.
I ended up following the string path which ends up giving you a more conical (compound) radius to the fret board instead of cylindrical.
Then I tried using the traditional double sided crowning files to recrown the frets. I was not confident in my work enough to try using triangle files for this task.
Their operation is simple enough. Push the file over the frets until it is crowned. At least that is how it reads online. What I found is that it doesn't necessarily crown the fret evenly. So I ended up with uneven crowns on the frets.
The markings on the frets also became increasingly difficult to see as I continued to work. I am not sure if it is the lighting in my shop area (which is currently being upgraded). This did not assist me in making a nice even crown.
I found that lubricating the file with pro-cut or paraffin wax greatly assisted the filing action. However, the wax and pro-cut can hold the loose chips and powder from the frets. I read about some people using chalk to prevent their files from clogging. However, this does little in the way of lubricating the file which helps keep the file sharp and last longer. This is important as these files are NOT cheap when you consider a standard hardware file.
One thing I want to make a special point out of is that you should ALWAYS push with your file. Push it to cut and then lift it completely off of the material you are filing and then start again pushing. Don't drag it in reverse over the frets. This can (not saying it definitely will - but they are not cheap files - why risk it?) damage the teeth on the file.
Polishing the frets was much easier. I used 0000 steel wool and just rubbed them until they were shiny. It was the only step that went exactly as planned. The double sided fret crowning files took off very little material per pass and consequently didn't leave very deep gouges in the frets. Therefore polishing them (or dressing them) was much easier and able to be done with the 0000 steel wool by itself instead of a many step process of polishing with progressively finer grit papers.
I'm sure I could have made the frets shine a bit more had I done more than the 0000 steel wool, but at the end of the process, the frets were in just as bad condition as when I had started except that they no longer had big dips in the frets where the strings rested on them.
After I was finished with my first fret job I was well aware of what separates an amateur butcher job versus a professional job. I also realized how important practice and experience are with this sort of thing.
I was not going to be discouraged from learning. I ended up going back to Stew Mac (yes I am a Stew Mac fan boy) and buying their dual grit diamond files as well as the appropriate radiused wooden sanding block for the neck I was working on.
I want to clarify a little bit about why I am a Stew Mac fan real quick. Firstly, they have a wonderful and complete collection of guitars specific items at reasonable prices or at the very least competitive with other sites selling similar products. Additionally, they have extremely prompt shipping! Very few companies will beat them in this regard. And lastly, very few of their products that I have bought have disappointed me. Most of them are very much exactly as described and the high quantity and quality of their user reviews makes an educated purchase much easier. Their site also features a lot of great free information with plenty of pictures to illustrate them. I have no association with them and nothing to gain by talking Stew Mac up. They aren't the only site I deal with, but they are usually the first place I go for guitar specific tools.
With the new files I and radiused sanding block I decided to have another go at some fret work.
The radiused sanding blocks can be used instead of a file to maintain the clylindrical shape of the frets and fretboard when working on a fixed radius fretboard. The easiest way to use them is with self-adhesive sandpaper. Having used 3m paper for various woodworking needs, I am quite fond of it. However it is not cheap. While a few different grits would probably have been convenient, being on a budget left me buying just 320 grit. I figured it is fine enough that it won't leave deep gouges in the frets and will take them down slowly.
When actually working with the 3m paper, I really don't press down on the block more than just applying light even pressure so that all of the frets have an equal amount of material removed at the same time. Like using a file, you want to go the entire length of the fretboard in one pass and then start again. Starting at the last fret and working up toward the nut will result in slightly more material being removed from the rest of the fretboard than the first position as the sanding block stops at the nut and doesn't pass the entire length of the sanding material over the fret. This isn't necessarily a bad thing since the first position is going to see a lot of play and having the frets higher than the following frets will ensure little to no buzz.
I noticed I was able to do a much more even job of leveling the frets with the sanding block. Some frets definitely had flatter plateaus on them, but it was very even from side to side on the fret. How well the frets were initially installed on the guitar is also a factor in how even the leveling will be across the fret as well. Anybody who has owned a very cheap import guitar will know exactly what I am talking about. Usually one end of the fret is sticking up. This can lead to the frets being physically sharp on the hand or in the case of the 90's Epiphone Coronet I owned, the high e string was able to actually get stuck under the fret end and created a really neat (although completely undesirable) harmonic droning e.
I also used the dual grit diamond files for crowning the frets this time. The files have a 150 and a 300 grit surface. I found the 300 grit surface to be WAY too slow for me. I was surprised actually. I expected it to cut much faster. As with the traditional files, I found that lubricating the file helped it cut as well.
One thing that separates diamond files from traditional files is that the diamond files can cut with a push and a pull stroke. The diamonds will last forever themselves but are only as good as the bond that they have with the tool. My understanding is that the industrial diamonds are electronically deposited on the surface of the file. I'd think the bond was pretty good, but still, I like to try and take care of my tools.
One thing I had a bit of difficulty with when using the crowning files was which size file to use. They come in narrow, medium, and wide. Narrow wire isn't particularly common on modern instruments and wide wire is what I'd think was on a bass guitar, so I went with medium. However, I think there is a trend toward wider wire now which means that it isn't always clear as to which file to use.
I also found doing an even job with the diamond files to be easier. Perhaps my one previous try at crowning the frets helped or perhaps I am just better at using the diamond crowning files. Only time will tell as I have not yet given up on the traditional files. I have plenty of junker guitars that I bought at flea markets to hone my skills with.
As an unrelated note, why do vises have to be so expensive? Or rather why do cheap vises have to be made like scrap metal?
-Zach
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Country of Origin
Foreward: What you are about to read is a rant. It is in no way meant to indicate that your fill-in-the-blank item from fill-in-the-blank country is garbage. If you love it, then I am very happy for you!
I have tried to keep this as organized as possible, but it bounces back and forth between guitars, firearms, and tools. If it doesn't make sense, I apologize. If you need clarification or think I am out of line, please let me know. I appreciate all constructive feedback.
<Rant>
Perhaps it is American arrogance or being egocentric, but I have a strong preference for American made products.
I guess I should elaborate on this post more since this blog deals with firearms as well as guitars and both have been made all over the world.
When it comes to guitars, the sad fact is, American guitars just aren't what they used to be. But then again, import guitars aren't really what American guitars used to be either. Due to many regulations, the finishes on guitars have changed, the woods used have changed, etc.
Many of the companies that supply components to guitar makers no longer make their products in the same ways. This can be good or bad. For example, guitar necks used to be uniquely shaped by the builder where now CNC machines can produce near identical replicas time and time again meaning that (love it or hate it) each guitar will be more similar than previously possible.
In contrast, I've seen a few "clever" schemes to save money such as pickups with reduced amounts of copper in them. Copper is expensive and the prices are constantly on the rise. Anybody who shoots can attest to the rising cost of ammunition. One such scheme was a pickup that contained neodymium magnets. The idea was that the stronger magnet could compensate for less copper and thus create a strong output. What they failed to take into account when making this pickup is that the strings are also magnetic and they will be pulled down toward the fingerboard causing buzzing, sharp notes, and ghost tones.
Another thing that is very different about guitars is the quality of the wood used. Some woods aren't even legal to import anymore (Brazilian rosewood comes to mind) and a lot of guitar bodies are just made with 4 or 5 pieces of scrap glued together. Then, because shortcuts were taken in the finishing stage, the finish sinks over the years and you can see distinct lines in the finish where the wood was glued together.
Some finishes are just littered with junk on them as well. White finishes usually show this best. But finishing takes time and time is money so it is acceptable to have a poor quality finish in the name of profit. Profit is ultimately what is driving these negative changes.
White metal, or pot metal as it is sometimes called, has also replaced parts which used to be steel. A good example is the block used on nearly every Strat style bridge. They are almost entirely zinc alloy. The first time I played a guitar with a steel block, it was like taking the blanket off of the guitar and letting it really ring. It was bright with so much more clarity. Personally, I'd rather have a bright sound that I can darken. It is much more difficult to brighten a dark sound.
Sometimes there are surprises though. I remember the first time I received a transistor from South Korea. I was mortified. I was also uneducated on the matter. Turns out South Korea was then the third largest exporter of transistors and integrated circuits. Their quality was top notch as well.
It also turns out that Korean guitars are extremely nice! I'd range them right along side of American and Japanese quality. The Korean stuff used to be a great deal but the costs have gone up on all of it making it not much cheaper than any other guitar on the market. I have the same complaint with Japanese guitars. Well that and I find the electronics to be questionable. The pickups on my Japanese guitars just seem to be more microphonic than any other guitars I own. They also use miniature pots (sometimes of wrong values) in places where I'd like to see a full size pot. I'm sure cost and availability drive this. But larger pots have a longer life expectancy than miniature models (it helps to review the specs from the various manufacturers from time to time).
One term I see used is "Old World". Usually it is in reference to how something is built. I'm sure if you've ever used an old tool versus the modern equivalent, this term makes perfect sense. My grandfather had a shed full of tools meant to last a lifetime and be passed on to sons and son's sons. Now with stores like Harbor Freight, tools are able to be purchased for a fraction of the price that they previously cost. If the tool gets the job done and breaks, it is no great loss.
Don't take this as me bashing Harbor Freight. I am a member of their discount club and buy many tools there every year. With the export of most tool manufacturing to china, the quality of a Harbor Freight tool versus a "name brand" tool isn't much different while the cost is.
Another sad fact is that a lot of name brands are just names now. The quality which built their reputation is no longer in the products. Think of all of the Harmony and Kay guitars which are now being exploited in name and being manufactured in China.
I was reading about Nicholson files exporting their production to Mexico, China, Brazil, etc... and I saw a well put argument against this preference for American made goods being an argument of arrogance. The basics of the argument were that it was experience, not pride, which has lead to the conclusion that some things were simply better when they were manufactured in America. In this case, Nicholson files from Mexico were tested to be considerably softer than they should be which means a much shorter life for the file.
Like those who discovered this a few years ago when the changeover initially happened, I was fortunate enough to find USA made files mixed in with the Mexican files (at the same price no less) hiding in the back of the display. While I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Fender guitar made in Mexico, I will not be buying Mexican Nicholson files. For that matter, what is up with Martin moving production to Mexico on all but their top end guitars?
Again, maybe it is arrogant to think that Mexico cannot produce the same guitars that were once made in my home state of Pennsylvania, but how can Martin put their name on a guitar that is made outside of the Martin factory by people without the same years of experience that Martin has enjoyed? I grant that it is pretty difficult to screw up a solidbody guitar but an acoustic guitar is a different beast.
Despite all of this, most of the guitars in the stores are at the very least somewhat playable or capable of being played. They lack the "fit and finish" of better quality (read more expensive) guitars, but what do you expect when you get a complete electric guitar and amplifier for 99$!? It isn't entirely the manufacturer's fault.
The consumer has demanded more affordable goods and most consumers probably wouldn't notice the difference between an Indonesian and Korean made guitar if they were just the casual player. But it is this catering to the budget minded that has cheapened the entire experience of buying a tool or a guitar.
Strictly my opinion here. The worst guitars I have ever played came from India and China. From best to worst, I'd rank: America, Korea, Japan, Mexico, Indonesia, China, India. Yes I know there are other countries making guitars. For example, I have a Canadian made Seagull guitar. It is great but I haven't played enough of them to comment.
I'm sure others will note that I put Korea before Japan. Honestly, I think the quality of American, Korean, and Japanese guitars are all on par with each other. I'm sure some are better than others of each variety and a Japanese guitar could be better than an American or Korean and every such permutation. The Japanese stuff probably has a slightly better resale value, but I think that is also part of what makes the Korean stuff a good deal.
Mexican guitars are a lot like Indonesian guitars. Some are really great. Some need a lot of help. You'll start to notice a lot more finish issues with guitars from either of these countries, but the prices are also generally lower. If you are less concerned about how the guitar looks, some of these guitars are actually really good deals. But again, it is completely subjective.
Guitars made in China are a mixed bag. I've played everything they have to offer from the lowest end guitars to the "top end". The quality is all over the map. The resale sucks all around though. I also don't appreciate the counterfeit guitars they produce. One place the cost cutting generally shows is the fret work.
China also brings us those Hanah Montana guitars and those Daisy Rock guitars which are just awful. I feel so bad for the little girls who get duped into buying those things. I have literally seen Hanah Montana guitars with strings so high off of the fretboard there is no way the guitar could or would ever play in any manner other than for slide.
Daisy rock guitars are interesting. I bothered to read their mission statement. It all looked really good and made perfect sense. Girls are different anatomically (smaller hands and larger breasts - this is not meant to be a sexist remark but more of a matter of fact - I am sure there are some exceptions - I am so concerned with being politically correct sometimes). The idea was to make smaller guitars that weighed less to be more encouraging for female guitarists. They come in all kinds of girly designs with lots of sparkle finishes. I think I even saw one shaped like a flower.
Ironically every Daisy Rock guitar I have ever picked up (yes I can't help myself - I also really liked the Pink Squier Hello Kitty guitar with the cat shaped pickguard), they are set up terribly (which may be the store goons doing their best with a bad situation or doing their best with their limited abilities) and weigh a ton! How is that supposed to be encouraging for a woman? Or for a man?
A poorly set up instrument is the most discouraging thing for a beginner. If it plays and sounds bad, you probably are not having a fun time which means you will dread practicing instead of look forward to it.
So in the end, a girl would ironically be better off buying a guitar not marketed for women and dealing with a larger fretboard or uncomfortable curves on the guitar digging in than dealing with a completely unplayable piece of crap that looks really pretty. Whatever happened to student models? You know, short scale guitars with 1 pickup.
While it is nearly impossible to avoid buying things made in China, it is actually pretty easy to avoid buying a guitar made in China. As a result, I avoid it. These guitars often look the part, but play them side by side with the guitar they are trying to be like and see the difference. If you have a made in China guitar and it is your favorite guitar, please read the disclaimer at the beginning of this rant.
However, the weirdest and worst experience I have ever had was with an Indian made guitar. It looked right. Well sort of. It was clearly a guitar but there was something about the shape that wasn't quite right. I picked it up and played it anyway. And it felt a lot like it looked. Weird. Something was just all around wrong with it. It played in tune and everything, but I couldn't shake the feeling like something was really off. I had to put it down and I haven't since seen an Indian made guitar.
Firearms, on the other hand, have enjoyed a different experience. With the popularity of surplus military firearms on the rise, it is hard to imagine not owning at least one imported firearm. Even the Chinese Norinco firearms seem to get good reviews. I just can't personally bring myself to owning one. As backward as it seems (from the standpoint of nearly every other industry), the Norinco firearms actually command a premium. This is possibly because of quality and rarity (due to an import ban - for more information on this, read about Operation Dragon Fire in which the Chinese were accused of assisting, what they believed to be, LA street gangs with acquiring fully automatic weapons and more). But you don't typically read about Norinco firearms having catastrophic failures nor do you read about poor quality.
For that matter, I've had just as many problems with modern American made firearms as foreign made. However, I can't complain to Soviet Russia's Izhevsk Arsenal if I have a problem where as Smith and Wesson, Ruger, and Henry have all taken VERY good care of me.
Maybe firearms are built differently because they have a function that needs to be reliable and also safe. Legal action against a firearms manufacturer is bad for business and reputation. And a damaged reputation can be just as bad or worse than making a lousy product.
Some examples, it is not uncommon to hear from people who refuse to buy from Smith and Wesson because they switch to MIM (Metal Injection Molded) parts or because they feel that Smith and Wesson sold out to the government by putting internal keylocks in their revolvers.
1911 enthusiasts will tell you that the Beretta M9/92F's that replaced it as the official sidearm of the military in the 80's is a piece of junk because during testing, a few of the slides cracked and separated from the frames. This was consequently fixed in the Beretta 92FS which is an amazingly reliable pistol!
Some reputations cloud the reality. Many consider the AK-47 to be the ultimate weapon because their favorite video game glorified it or because they saw it on TV. But the reality is, the round that goes into the gun does not have that great a ballistic performance and when fired rapidly, is difficult to control. But the AK-47 was never meant to be the ultimate gun. It was created to arm a military.
People as consumers want it all. We want cheap prices, tack driving guns that will shoot out to 1500 yards with no recoil, be lightweight, have enough stopping power to take out an elephant...blah blah blah.
I don't fault Smith and Wesson. I don't fault Beretta. I don't fault the AK-47.
One thing that I find interesting about firearms is that country of origin seems to matter less than actual product. For example, some guns from a manufacturer are just riddled with issues while another model from the same maker may be considered to reliable.
Taurus guns are a good example. A lot of people rave about the Taurus 1911's while their revolvers are nothing short of a nightmare.
I've have a friend who has a Beretta Tomcat. Those models are best known for frame cracks. Yet Beretta shotguns and the M9/92FS are great!
Walther P22's also had a reputation for cracked slides. Not sure if that was ever fixed completely. They look like neat guns and feature a single/double action trigger which I think is unique for a .22 pistol. Perhaps this isn't quite fair since Smith and Wesson now makes Walther pistols in the US, but even still, Walthers are known for reliability as are Smith and Wesson guns.
Maybe isn't just firearms. Maybe everything is subjective? Afterall, every guitar made in the US isn't good while every guitar made in China isn't unplayable. Maybe. But I'm still not buying any made in Mexico Nicholson files.
</Rant>
Epilogue: I returned to the store where I bought my Nicholson files and managed to find a couple more made in USA files and bought a few more for safe keeping and for the future. I left a few in the store. Hopefully whoever finds them will enjoy the same internal dialogue that I did or at least some similar such line of thought. It was those files that inspired this rant.
I have tried to keep this as organized as possible, but it bounces back and forth between guitars, firearms, and tools. If it doesn't make sense, I apologize. If you need clarification or think I am out of line, please let me know. I appreciate all constructive feedback.
<Rant>
Perhaps it is American arrogance or being egocentric, but I have a strong preference for American made products.
I guess I should elaborate on this post more since this blog deals with firearms as well as guitars and both have been made all over the world.
When it comes to guitars, the sad fact is, American guitars just aren't what they used to be. But then again, import guitars aren't really what American guitars used to be either. Due to many regulations, the finishes on guitars have changed, the woods used have changed, etc.
Many of the companies that supply components to guitar makers no longer make their products in the same ways. This can be good or bad. For example, guitar necks used to be uniquely shaped by the builder where now CNC machines can produce near identical replicas time and time again meaning that (love it or hate it) each guitar will be more similar than previously possible.
In contrast, I've seen a few "clever" schemes to save money such as pickups with reduced amounts of copper in them. Copper is expensive and the prices are constantly on the rise. Anybody who shoots can attest to the rising cost of ammunition. One such scheme was a pickup that contained neodymium magnets. The idea was that the stronger magnet could compensate for less copper and thus create a strong output. What they failed to take into account when making this pickup is that the strings are also magnetic and they will be pulled down toward the fingerboard causing buzzing, sharp notes, and ghost tones.
Another thing that is very different about guitars is the quality of the wood used. Some woods aren't even legal to import anymore (Brazilian rosewood comes to mind) and a lot of guitar bodies are just made with 4 or 5 pieces of scrap glued together. Then, because shortcuts were taken in the finishing stage, the finish sinks over the years and you can see distinct lines in the finish where the wood was glued together.
Some finishes are just littered with junk on them as well. White finishes usually show this best. But finishing takes time and time is money so it is acceptable to have a poor quality finish in the name of profit. Profit is ultimately what is driving these negative changes.
White metal, or pot metal as it is sometimes called, has also replaced parts which used to be steel. A good example is the block used on nearly every Strat style bridge. They are almost entirely zinc alloy. The first time I played a guitar with a steel block, it was like taking the blanket off of the guitar and letting it really ring. It was bright with so much more clarity. Personally, I'd rather have a bright sound that I can darken. It is much more difficult to brighten a dark sound.
Sometimes there are surprises though. I remember the first time I received a transistor from South Korea. I was mortified. I was also uneducated on the matter. Turns out South Korea was then the third largest exporter of transistors and integrated circuits. Their quality was top notch as well.
It also turns out that Korean guitars are extremely nice! I'd range them right along side of American and Japanese quality. The Korean stuff used to be a great deal but the costs have gone up on all of it making it not much cheaper than any other guitar on the market. I have the same complaint with Japanese guitars. Well that and I find the electronics to be questionable. The pickups on my Japanese guitars just seem to be more microphonic than any other guitars I own. They also use miniature pots (sometimes of wrong values) in places where I'd like to see a full size pot. I'm sure cost and availability drive this. But larger pots have a longer life expectancy than miniature models (it helps to review the specs from the various manufacturers from time to time).
One term I see used is "Old World". Usually it is in reference to how something is built. I'm sure if you've ever used an old tool versus the modern equivalent, this term makes perfect sense. My grandfather had a shed full of tools meant to last a lifetime and be passed on to sons and son's sons. Now with stores like Harbor Freight, tools are able to be purchased for a fraction of the price that they previously cost. If the tool gets the job done and breaks, it is no great loss.
Don't take this as me bashing Harbor Freight. I am a member of their discount club and buy many tools there every year. With the export of most tool manufacturing to china, the quality of a Harbor Freight tool versus a "name brand" tool isn't much different while the cost is.
Another sad fact is that a lot of name brands are just names now. The quality which built their reputation is no longer in the products. Think of all of the Harmony and Kay guitars which are now being exploited in name and being manufactured in China.
I was reading about Nicholson files exporting their production to Mexico, China, Brazil, etc... and I saw a well put argument against this preference for American made goods being an argument of arrogance. The basics of the argument were that it was experience, not pride, which has lead to the conclusion that some things were simply better when they were manufactured in America. In this case, Nicholson files from Mexico were tested to be considerably softer than they should be which means a much shorter life for the file.
Like those who discovered this a few years ago when the changeover initially happened, I was fortunate enough to find USA made files mixed in with the Mexican files (at the same price no less) hiding in the back of the display. While I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Fender guitar made in Mexico, I will not be buying Mexican Nicholson files. For that matter, what is up with Martin moving production to Mexico on all but their top end guitars?
Again, maybe it is arrogant to think that Mexico cannot produce the same guitars that were once made in my home state of Pennsylvania, but how can Martin put their name on a guitar that is made outside of the Martin factory by people without the same years of experience that Martin has enjoyed? I grant that it is pretty difficult to screw up a solidbody guitar but an acoustic guitar is a different beast.
Despite all of this, most of the guitars in the stores are at the very least somewhat playable or capable of being played. They lack the "fit and finish" of better quality (read more expensive) guitars, but what do you expect when you get a complete electric guitar and amplifier for 99$!? It isn't entirely the manufacturer's fault.
The consumer has demanded more affordable goods and most consumers probably wouldn't notice the difference between an Indonesian and Korean made guitar if they were just the casual player. But it is this catering to the budget minded that has cheapened the entire experience of buying a tool or a guitar.
Strictly my opinion here. The worst guitars I have ever played came from India and China. From best to worst, I'd rank: America, Korea, Japan, Mexico, Indonesia, China, India. Yes I know there are other countries making guitars. For example, I have a Canadian made Seagull guitar. It is great but I haven't played enough of them to comment.
I'm sure others will note that I put Korea before Japan. Honestly, I think the quality of American, Korean, and Japanese guitars are all on par with each other. I'm sure some are better than others of each variety and a Japanese guitar could be better than an American or Korean and every such permutation. The Japanese stuff probably has a slightly better resale value, but I think that is also part of what makes the Korean stuff a good deal.
Mexican guitars are a lot like Indonesian guitars. Some are really great. Some need a lot of help. You'll start to notice a lot more finish issues with guitars from either of these countries, but the prices are also generally lower. If you are less concerned about how the guitar looks, some of these guitars are actually really good deals. But again, it is completely subjective.
Guitars made in China are a mixed bag. I've played everything they have to offer from the lowest end guitars to the "top end". The quality is all over the map. The resale sucks all around though. I also don't appreciate the counterfeit guitars they produce. One place the cost cutting generally shows is the fret work.
China also brings us those Hanah Montana guitars and those Daisy Rock guitars which are just awful. I feel so bad for the little girls who get duped into buying those things. I have literally seen Hanah Montana guitars with strings so high off of the fretboard there is no way the guitar could or would ever play in any manner other than for slide.
Daisy rock guitars are interesting. I bothered to read their mission statement. It all looked really good and made perfect sense. Girls are different anatomically (smaller hands and larger breasts - this is not meant to be a sexist remark but more of a matter of fact - I am sure there are some exceptions - I am so concerned with being politically correct sometimes). The idea was to make smaller guitars that weighed less to be more encouraging for female guitarists. They come in all kinds of girly designs with lots of sparkle finishes. I think I even saw one shaped like a flower.
Ironically every Daisy Rock guitar I have ever picked up (yes I can't help myself - I also really liked the Pink Squier Hello Kitty guitar with the cat shaped pickguard), they are set up terribly (which may be the store goons doing their best with a bad situation or doing their best with their limited abilities) and weigh a ton! How is that supposed to be encouraging for a woman? Or for a man?
A poorly set up instrument is the most discouraging thing for a beginner. If it plays and sounds bad, you probably are not having a fun time which means you will dread practicing instead of look forward to it.
So in the end, a girl would ironically be better off buying a guitar not marketed for women and dealing with a larger fretboard or uncomfortable curves on the guitar digging in than dealing with a completely unplayable piece of crap that looks really pretty. Whatever happened to student models? You know, short scale guitars with 1 pickup.
While it is nearly impossible to avoid buying things made in China, it is actually pretty easy to avoid buying a guitar made in China. As a result, I avoid it. These guitars often look the part, but play them side by side with the guitar they are trying to be like and see the difference. If you have a made in China guitar and it is your favorite guitar, please read the disclaimer at the beginning of this rant.
However, the weirdest and worst experience I have ever had was with an Indian made guitar. It looked right. Well sort of. It was clearly a guitar but there was something about the shape that wasn't quite right. I picked it up and played it anyway. And it felt a lot like it looked. Weird. Something was just all around wrong with it. It played in tune and everything, but I couldn't shake the feeling like something was really off. I had to put it down and I haven't since seen an Indian made guitar.
Firearms, on the other hand, have enjoyed a different experience. With the popularity of surplus military firearms on the rise, it is hard to imagine not owning at least one imported firearm. Even the Chinese Norinco firearms seem to get good reviews. I just can't personally bring myself to owning one. As backward as it seems (from the standpoint of nearly every other industry), the Norinco firearms actually command a premium. This is possibly because of quality and rarity (due to an import ban - for more information on this, read about Operation Dragon Fire in which the Chinese were accused of assisting, what they believed to be, LA street gangs with acquiring fully automatic weapons and more). But you don't typically read about Norinco firearms having catastrophic failures nor do you read about poor quality.
For that matter, I've had just as many problems with modern American made firearms as foreign made. However, I can't complain to Soviet Russia's Izhevsk Arsenal if I have a problem where as Smith and Wesson, Ruger, and Henry have all taken VERY good care of me.
Maybe firearms are built differently because they have a function that needs to be reliable and also safe. Legal action against a firearms manufacturer is bad for business and reputation. And a damaged reputation can be just as bad or worse than making a lousy product.
Some examples, it is not uncommon to hear from people who refuse to buy from Smith and Wesson because they switch to MIM (Metal Injection Molded) parts or because they feel that Smith and Wesson sold out to the government by putting internal keylocks in their revolvers.
1911 enthusiasts will tell you that the Beretta M9/92F's that replaced it as the official sidearm of the military in the 80's is a piece of junk because during testing, a few of the slides cracked and separated from the frames. This was consequently fixed in the Beretta 92FS which is an amazingly reliable pistol!
Some reputations cloud the reality. Many consider the AK-47 to be the ultimate weapon because their favorite video game glorified it or because they saw it on TV. But the reality is, the round that goes into the gun does not have that great a ballistic performance and when fired rapidly, is difficult to control. But the AK-47 was never meant to be the ultimate gun. It was created to arm a military.
People as consumers want it all. We want cheap prices, tack driving guns that will shoot out to 1500 yards with no recoil, be lightweight, have enough stopping power to take out an elephant...blah blah blah.
I don't fault Smith and Wesson. I don't fault Beretta. I don't fault the AK-47.
One thing that I find interesting about firearms is that country of origin seems to matter less than actual product. For example, some guns from a manufacturer are just riddled with issues while another model from the same maker may be considered to reliable.
Taurus guns are a good example. A lot of people rave about the Taurus 1911's while their revolvers are nothing short of a nightmare.
I've have a friend who has a Beretta Tomcat. Those models are best known for frame cracks. Yet Beretta shotguns and the M9/92FS are great!
Walther P22's also had a reputation for cracked slides. Not sure if that was ever fixed completely. They look like neat guns and feature a single/double action trigger which I think is unique for a .22 pistol. Perhaps this isn't quite fair since Smith and Wesson now makes Walther pistols in the US, but even still, Walthers are known for reliability as are Smith and Wesson guns.
Maybe isn't just firearms. Maybe everything is subjective? Afterall, every guitar made in the US isn't good while every guitar made in China isn't unplayable. Maybe. But I'm still not buying any made in Mexico Nicholson files.
</Rant>
Epilogue: I returned to the store where I bought my Nicholson files and managed to find a couple more made in USA files and bought a few more for safe keeping and for the future. I left a few in the store. Hopefully whoever finds them will enjoy the same internal dialogue that I did or at least some similar such line of thought. It was those files that inspired this rant.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
I always forget how much I love my Beretta 92FS!
I went shooting today for the first time in a few months. I had been meaning to go for those months but things come up.
I brought 5 guns in total; both of my Ruger Mark III's (Target competition and Hunter), Beretta 92FS, CZ 75B (stainless special edition), and my S&W 686 with a 4" barrel.
As I may have mentioned previously, my Ruger Hunter has been nothing but completely reliable and dead accurate. My Competition Target model on the other hand has been back to Ruger to have the grip frame replaced. I'd like to say again, Ruger was exceptionally good about repairing the gun! They have top notch customer service in my book!
The Smith and Wesson also had been back to their facility for a cracked/chipped firing pin bushing. Smith and Wesson was also exceptionally good about taking care of this repair. I hadn't fired the revolver since it had been returned.
The last time I had both of the Rugers taken apart for cleaning, I decided to restake all of the pins (which is what caused the grip frame replacement to begin with). During this process the rear site on the Competition model had come loose. I expected that I'd be sighting in the gun at the range.
I had bought the CZ75B after reading a number of good reviews. I like stainless guns so the Special Edition was right for me. I also liked the sights on it better than the stock models which had some poorly applied paint on the sight blade that was more egg shaped than round.
The Rugers performed exactly as expected. The Hunter is far more accurate than I am and the Competition model needed to be sighted in. Other than that, there were no problems.
The Smith and Wesson performed better than I expected. I fed it the remaining box of American Eagle .38 Special (which is what caused the firing pin bushing to crack) as well as a few rounds of Fiocchi .357 Magnum 142 grain FMJ.
I must say, I REALLY like that Fiocchi ammo! I also have Sellier and Bellot 158 grain FMJ .357 Magnum which I also like. But seeing as I didn't take any with me to compare the two against each other, I can only comment on the Fiocchi through the 4" 686. It didn't add all that much more kick to the gun and it was dead on every shot! Too bad I only have 1 box of it (and it is half gone now).
I spent some time with the CZ75B as well. It is one of my newest guns and I haven't quite bonded with it. I shoot it well enough, but I am not comfortable enough with it to start carrying it over the Beretta 92FS.
The grip on it is much more comfortable than the 92FS and it holds one more round. Despite this, I feel like I shoot the Beretta a lot better. It also weighs more than the Beretta but feels like it kicks more. The Beretta is already pretty heavy to walk around with.
The CZ definitely has an advantage in the trigger pull. I find the double action to be very smooth and comfortable. The single action is probably not much different between the two.
The Beretta on the other hand is kind of big and clumsy but all of my shots stayed in the 10 and X ring at 7-10 yards shooting pretty rapidly while my shots with the CZ were in the 8 and 9 rings as well.
The Beretta was my second gun and my first semi automatic pistol so I guess it is true that you should shoot what you are comfortable with. I'm sure had I bought the CZ before the Beretta, I'd be a much better shot with it. But for now, the Beretta is going to continue to be my primary carry weapon.
I brought 5 guns in total; both of my Ruger Mark III's (Target competition and Hunter), Beretta 92FS, CZ 75B (stainless special edition), and my S&W 686 with a 4" barrel.
As I may have mentioned previously, my Ruger Hunter has been nothing but completely reliable and dead accurate. My Competition Target model on the other hand has been back to Ruger to have the grip frame replaced. I'd like to say again, Ruger was exceptionally good about repairing the gun! They have top notch customer service in my book!
The Smith and Wesson also had been back to their facility for a cracked/chipped firing pin bushing. Smith and Wesson was also exceptionally good about taking care of this repair. I hadn't fired the revolver since it had been returned.
The last time I had both of the Rugers taken apart for cleaning, I decided to restake all of the pins (which is what caused the grip frame replacement to begin with). During this process the rear site on the Competition model had come loose. I expected that I'd be sighting in the gun at the range.
I had bought the CZ75B after reading a number of good reviews. I like stainless guns so the Special Edition was right for me. I also liked the sights on it better than the stock models which had some poorly applied paint on the sight blade that was more egg shaped than round.
The Rugers performed exactly as expected. The Hunter is far more accurate than I am and the Competition model needed to be sighted in. Other than that, there were no problems.
The Smith and Wesson performed better than I expected. I fed it the remaining box of American Eagle .38 Special (which is what caused the firing pin bushing to crack) as well as a few rounds of Fiocchi .357 Magnum 142 grain FMJ.
I must say, I REALLY like that Fiocchi ammo! I also have Sellier and Bellot 158 grain FMJ .357 Magnum which I also like. But seeing as I didn't take any with me to compare the two against each other, I can only comment on the Fiocchi through the 4" 686. It didn't add all that much more kick to the gun and it was dead on every shot! Too bad I only have 1 box of it (and it is half gone now).
I spent some time with the CZ75B as well. It is one of my newest guns and I haven't quite bonded with it. I shoot it well enough, but I am not comfortable enough with it to start carrying it over the Beretta 92FS.
The grip on it is much more comfortable than the 92FS and it holds one more round. Despite this, I feel like I shoot the Beretta a lot better. It also weighs more than the Beretta but feels like it kicks more. The Beretta is already pretty heavy to walk around with.
The CZ definitely has an advantage in the trigger pull. I find the double action to be very smooth and comfortable. The single action is probably not much different between the two.
The Beretta on the other hand is kind of big and clumsy but all of my shots stayed in the 10 and X ring at 7-10 yards shooting pretty rapidly while my shots with the CZ were in the 8 and 9 rings as well.
The Beretta was my second gun and my first semi automatic pistol so I guess it is true that you should shoot what you are comfortable with. I'm sure had I bought the CZ before the Beretta, I'd be a much better shot with it. But for now, the Beretta is going to continue to be my primary carry weapon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)