Page 16


ManageMent www.us- tech.com What Makes a Design Perfect? By Ed Becze, Ph.D., CEO, Pegmatis W


hat is a perfect design? The reality is that there will al- ways be someone who can


find improvement or who has an opinion about how to improve — the armchair engineer or designer. But, it’s worthwhile to consider what con- stitutes a perfect design. Does such an enigma really exist? To answer this, we must look at the challenge and the process of executing the task and the finally assess how to gauge perfection.


The Battle of San Juan Hill Let’s travel back to 1898 and


the Battle of San Juan Hill. Regard- less of heroics, on July 1, some 1,270 well-entrenched Spaniards held off a daunting American force of around 15,000 soldiers. The Spanish, armed with their


Mauser-derived designs and modern ammunition using smokeless pow- ders, held off the Americans and their .30 to .40 Krag rifles. As a re- sult, the U.S. Army revisited its choice of weapons. In 1892 the ordnance office re-


viewed 52 different rifle action de- signs. Shortlisted were three foreign designs: the Krag, Lee and Mauser. The Krag was selected, cited for its ease of loading. The magazine could be loaded without raising the bolt and placing the rifle temporarily out of service. Other factors, such as robust-


ness, ability to handle chamber pres- sure and reliability were not consid- ered as important as the loading fea- ture. Requirements drove the deci- sion. The Krag design met the re- quirements presented to the commit-


tee and thus was selected. During the Battle of San Juan


Hill, those unlucky American troops tested the ordnance office’s choice. It became apparent that they were se- verely outgunned. This was driven by an understanding of the “test results” of the conflict and new requirements with different evaluation criteria.


Evaluating the Perfect Rifle Col. Craig Boddington (USMC


Ret.) wrote an article in which he de- scribed the path that led to the develop- ment of the M1903 Springfield. Bod- dington wrote that the top engineers at Springfield Armory were tasked with reviewing the Mauser design in light of the U.S. Army’s new requirements and lessons learned from the Battle of San Juan Hill. After several years of intense


study, it was concluded that the Mauser design was “perfect and could not be improved upon.” Need- less to say, the obvious similarity be- tween the M1903 Springfield and the Mauser spawned a royalty payment of $250,000. Peter Paul Mauser’s rifle design


is simple. Simple to the point that it almost seems so obvious and that anyone could have designed it. It is strong, robust and functionally flaw- less. It can handle heavy loads and is the basis of more modern actions de- signed to handle more powerful car- tridges. This perfection comes with only a single drawback — they are very expensive to manufacture. Re- move cost from the equation and, voila!, perfection.


Navigating the Challenge of the American Marketplace


Helping international advanced manufacturing companies to accelerate strategic growth in the American market through direct operational management and expert guidance.


Getting Started in the Americas


Restructuring Your American Operation


Managing Your American Operations


Advising Your Board of Directors


Accelerating Growth Through M&A


Wherever you are on your journey to expansion into the American market, we can help. Contact us to discuss how we can grow your business, together.


+1 203 226 8895 sales@allianceamericas.com allianceamericas.com


Huge Online Knowledge Center.


Every special feature, every news article, and


every new product release printed in our hard copy


issues is search-ready and retrievable through our online knowledge center.


A wealth of information. www.us-tech.com.


Winchester, an American re-


peating arms manufacturer, adopted the Mauser’s fundamental design, improving on the safety mechanism. Both safety mechanisms func-


tion well, but one is designed for com- bat and the other for hunting. Again, the requirements drive what is con- sidered perfect, but the basis of the action remains unchanged. This rifle


A good design does not necessarily need to be


appreciated for its mechan- ical perfection, because as users, we instinctively know what is good. A perfect design evades significant improvement.


was nicknamed “The Rifleman’s Ri- fle” and the iconic Model 70 was born using the Mauser-type action re- named to “Controlled Round Feed.”


Counting the Cost The only real drawback was the


cost to manufacture. The Model 70 car- ried this iconic action for decades, up until 1964. From this point on, the pressure to reduce costs became too great and the Push Feed Model 70 was born. This functional action was pro- duced for decades, though spurned by afficionados and collectors. In 1992, Winchester reintro-


duced the original action at a serious premium. Why does this particular design stand the test of time? Why would people be willing to pay a steep price for this older system? Part of the draw is in mechanical perfection, but the majority is simply instinct. As users, we instinctively know what is good. The esoteric question of what


makes a perfect design is still diffi- cult to answer, but can be illuminat- ed by who is asking and the context of the question. A perfect design evades significant improvement. Per- fect designs are simple. A design is simple if one can


look at it and want to hit themselves in the head for “not thinking of that.” A perfect design functions flawlessly, test after test. Ultimately, it is some- thing that someone wants to pay for and is willing to pay what it takes to create the best product. Finally, a perfect design de-


lights users and generates value that withstands crises or pressures to re- place with cheaper options. Contact: Pegmatis, 835 Harring-


ton Court, Unit 202, Burlington, Ontario, L7N 3P3, Canada % 859-361-4792 E-mail: info@pegmatis.com Web: www.pegmatis.com r


December, 2020


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80