|
Post by tpelle on Feb 4, 2020 12:12:15 GMT -5
I've had too much time on my hands lately recovering from a bad cold, and I've been pondering the question stated in the subject of this thread.
I think we all can agree that the FEG P9 is a good quality copy of the pre-MKII FN Hi Power, even to the extent that most of all parts will interchange between the two. What got me thinking about this is that I just replaced the mushy original safety on my FEG Counterfeit FN with a brand new factory MKII/MKIII ambi safety (which I cut down to be a non-ambi safety). It went incredibly easily. Coming from an engineering background, this set me thinking about the steps involved in the tasks required to reverse-engineer an item of this complexity, especially if part interchangeability with the original is desired. So let's discuss this:
First, let's make sure everyone understands what reverse-engineering entails. Reverse-engineering would involve obtaining samples of an original product, then disassembling it down to the last screw, pin, spring, and part. You probably would prefer to have multiple original samples to avoid engineering your copy according to a part that happened to be at the extreme limit of a tolerance. (Tolerances define the degree that a part may vary in size from the "ideal perfect" part and still be acceptable, so that two in-tolerance parts would work together acceptably even if one part was on the low end of the tolerance and the other part was on the high end.) You may wish to obtain, say, a dozen "originals", measure them all as accurately as you can, tabulate the results, throw out the highest and lowest value, then average the remaining ten. Then you would evaluate the resulting average, and determine what the "target" value should be based on manufacturing principles. For instance, if the diameter of a pin averaged out to be 3.0015927 mm, you would probably make a judgement call that the diameter should probably be 3.0 mm - a standard drill size for the hole that would be made in the frame and in the part that the pin was securing. This process would take place for every dimension of every part that went into the final product, and the manufacturing tolerances for that part would specified. Then a set of detail drawings would be made of each part. This would all take place in the "design engineering" phase of the project.
Next, "production engineering" would take over. The production engineer's job is to figure out exactly how to manufacture the part using the machinery that his factory has on hand, the "tooling" involved, what new tools and machinery would have to be procured, and the actual steps and the sequence that they should occur to make each part would be determined. Finally what is known as a "part book" is compiled for each part that contains the relevant part drawings and tooling drawings for that specific part, and machine feed rates and/or rpm, the rough part dimensions of each operation, the finished part dimensions, and what surfaces on the rough parts would be used to locate and fixture the part for that step in the operation, etc.
Finally, when a given number of all finished parts are manufactured, multiple prototype assemblies are put together and tested, and those prototypes are all then disassembled, all of the parts are "mixed up" in fandom order, then the products are reassembled to make sure that the tolerances chosen will still result in a final assembly that meets the final specification. This is done many times to "flush out" problems, the problems are corrected and new parts madeand the drawings and part books are updated. Rinse and repeat.
If part interchangeability with the original item being "copied" is part of the goal, so many of the original items are disassembled and thrown into the mix of parts in order to check for that.
Only then are you ready to go into production with your final product.
I think you can see that this is a laborious, time consuming, and extpensive process in and of itself. And the explanation that I gave above really just scratches the surface.
But if you could obtain a complete set of engineered drawings for the final assembly and all of the parts, and the manufacturing parts books, you path to going into production is pretty well cleared.
So where would FEG have obtained this information?
Remember that early in WWII, Belgium was overrun by the Germans, who took over the FN factory and started producing Hi Powers for their own use. This means that the German Army, and specifically the Waffenamt (the German "War Department"), obtained all of the engineering and production information for the Hi Power, and that this information was conveyed back to the Waffenamt for their evaluation and their go ahead to commence production. The Waffenamt also supplied QC and final inspection personnel, as well as their own unique proof marks and acceptance stamps to be applied to those pistols manufactured, and any changes that the Waffenamt wanted were incorporated into the manufacturing process (such as the deletion of the magazine disconnect, which was never installed in any of P640b pistols that the Germans made).
So complete engineering and manufacturing information for the Hi Power existed and was on file in Berlin.
We all know that, at the conclusion of the war in Europe, the Russians were permitted the privilege of taking Berlin, and following shortly behind the combat troops that entered the city, officials responsible for the acquisition of any German technical "secrets" were there to grab up whatever could be found. It is not out of the question that part of the booty that they obtained was the complete engineering and production package for the Hi Power.
I am suggesting here that when FEG took on the task of manufacturing a clone of the Hi Power, it is not entirely out of the question that this complete engineering and manufacturing package was simply handed to them by the Soviets. It is also within to believe that FEG would have had to make a few minor alterations due to the differences in production machinery that may have existed between what FN originally had in their plant and what FEG had in theirs 35 or 40 years later.
What do you all think?
|
|
|
Post by ibmikey on Feb 8, 2020 19:33:57 GMT -5
Yes I think you have too much time available for a subject that will have no consequence on the shooter/ collector. I have several FEG’s included in my small gathering of twenty Hi Power pistols and they look and shoot like an FN and the original blue blood FN’s have not thrown them out as yet. Your ideas on how the FEG came to being is nice, I kinda think a saucer full of green guys gave them the plans both plausible.
|
|
|
Post by sams1 on Feb 8, 2020 23:12:03 GMT -5
Actually, I think that tpelle's theory of how FEG started the HP production, although very hard to prove, is a plausible one. If so, it would not be the first time a conquering army/government taking advantage of their losing adversary's innovations and technology. I wish there was a way to really find out one day.
|
|
|
Post by abninftr on Feb 9, 2020 20:24:43 GMT -5
Plausible perhaps, but what would motivate the Soviets to provide a puppet state the capacity to manufacture something it has no real purpose for? Only two logical answers come to me. The first answer is "nothing". The second, speaking solely of weaponry, to produce deniable weapons to revolutionary factions. But, then we have to ask why when the Soviets had vast stores of captured German weapons that cost them nothing to produce? You know, like the weapons we were capturing from the VC in Vietnam? I will add that those stores of stockpiled captured weapons provided the K98s, Lugers, and P-38s we were buying and selling in the US just two decades ago.
My conclusion is that FEG took it upon themselves to do what they needed to do to create a sellable product. The Czechs did the same thing with the CZ75 which "poached" some of its design from the SIG p210.
Again, as always, that's just my opinion. And as we know, opinions are like rectums -- everybody has one and most are full of ****.
|
|
|
Post by tnorris on Feb 10, 2020 9:06:29 GMT -5
I think I would side with abninftr. It would be a great story if, 30 years after the war ended, the Soviets gave blueprints to the Hungarians. Better yet if the Hungarians stole them from some file cabinet to produce small arms for a possible future conflict with the folks who demanded control of their territory after the war. The Czechs and Hungarians wanted to be Americans... Eisenhower gave them away to Russia. There were likely tons of seriously underemployed and highly talented workers throughout Eastern Europe. The cost of reverse engineering would not be so great as in the west. They didn't need to bring something to market in a hurry. Plenty of time to get it right... and they only got pretty darned close.
Perhaps one day we will know!
|
|
|
Post by CXM on Feb 10, 2020 10:42:04 GMT -5
Interestingly enough, when the HP was chosen for production in Canada during WWII, FN employees who escaped from Belgium when the Germans were about to occupy the factory brought drawings for the HP according the the books now available.
For some reason or another the decision was made to convert the drawings to English measure rather than using the metric drawings they had... unfortunately, this resulted in serious difficulties with getting the pistol into production... and it did not get into series production until 1944... a delay that IMHO could have been avoided if they had simply produced a metric gun...
This does highlight the difficulty in reverse engineering... though with modern computer driven instruments and production machinery it would be less difficult than today....
FWIW
CHuck
|
|
|
Post by abninftr on Feb 10, 2020 16:31:00 GMT -5
'For some reason or another the decision was made to convert the drawings to English measure rather than using the metric drawings they had... unfortunately, this resulted in serious difficulties with getting the pistol into production... and it did not get into series production until 1944... a delay that IMHO could have been avoided if they had simply produced a metric gun...'
The answer to why Inglis converted the metric measurements to 'Imperial' is really quite simple. Metric was not commonly used in the English speaking world in the 1940s. Metric tooling; i.e. drills, etc. was virtually non-existent in Britain, the USA, Canada, and Australia. Producing Metric manufacturing tooling would have been obscenely time consuming and difficult given the needs of wartime production. Converting the measurements, and using existing tooling was much more efficient.
The 'serious delays' were the result of a number of factors and not, to any significant extent, a result of the dimension conversion. The decision making process itself became protracted. London, Ottawa, Inglis in Toronto, RSAF Enfield, the Belgian Government in Exile, and even Washington were all involved. Enfield had an on-going BHP develop project of its own, and that the Belgians wanted to protect their patent and licencing rights (for the post-war era) only protracted negotiations, decision-making and even -- in the end production.
It wasn't like they all sat down at a big table, someone said, 'I have an idea. Let's __________________', and everybody else said, 'Yeah, let's do it!'
And, that's without even discussing what would be sacrificed (BREN guns? STENS? Inglis was producing both) given the limited resources to produce pistols. That was but one more issue complicating the process. Then there was the question of who would get the pistols. Should they all go to Russia and China through Lend-Lease? Should they go to the Commonwealth forces, and how would that complicate the supply chain (the STEN was the only 9MM in Commonwealth service at the time)? If shared, what percentage would go to Lend-Lease, and what percentage to the Commonwealth.
Remember too, that in 1940-42 Britain was very much on the defensive. The priorities wee surviving the battle of the Atlantic, winning the Battle of Britain in the air, the Blitz, re-arming after Dunkirk, fighting the Italians and the Germans in Greece, the sea and air battle in the Mediterranian, the war in the Western Desert (North Africa) and even fight the Vichy French in Syria and Lebanon. In the midst of all that, Japan attacked Malaya and Singapore almost at the same time as they attacked Pearl Harbour and the Philippines, and then subsequently attacked Burma and India.
One can imagine that the production of a 'secondary weapon', a pistol, was not a high priority for anyone.
|
|
|
Post by tpelle on Feb 11, 2020 13:59:41 GMT -5
My purpose in starting a discussion regarding this matter was not in hopes of someone stepping forward to say "Yes, I was there when FEG was taking the initial steps towards manufacturing the P9, and they did it like this." Honestly, I doubt if anyone high enough in FEG management at the time is still alive, and if they were, they probably aren't saying. My purpose was in starting a discussion regarding the remarkable degree of part interchangeability between the FEG P9 and the FN Hi Power. I would really like to hear from someone with a manufacturing-engineering background to weigh in on my postulation that FEG was likely able to work from a set of original FEG drawings.
So far, on the two FEGs that I own, everything that I have attempted to replace I did so using FN parts consistent with a pre-MKII Hi Power. The only thing that was NOT a perfect drop-in was the ambi MKII/MKIII safety that I recently installed, and the degree of fitting there was simply "shoe-shining" the large part of the safety axis pin down to be a slip fit to the FEG frame hole. And considering the allowable tolerance that the safety would have to be held to in order for it to work properly, I'm not sure that the amount that it was oversized was not intentional.
I honestly think that is remarkable.
|
|
|
Post by mark75h on Feb 11, 2020 14:08:07 GMT -5
I acquired a Hi Power trigger, removed the mag safety and swapped it into my FEG without checking anything. The FEG barrel lug hammered on the top of the trigger until it broke off with a fresh round in the chamber. Once I understood the problem I was able to get the gun into battery with assistance and discharge the cambered round with 3 hands on the gun. On disassembly, it was obvious the barrel lug had been hitting the trigger for some time.
My exprience turns out to be "close enough to be dangerous"
|
|
|
Post by tpelle on Feb 11, 2020 14:09:13 GMT -5
abninftr, good comments. One thing that you didn't mention though was the fact that the original order, even before the first part was machined at Inglis, came from the Nationalist Chinese for Hi Powers with shoulder stock/holsters to use against the Japanese. Eventually, though, most of the pistols in that order never reached Chine but instead were turned over to the British Commonwealth forces.
CXM, remember that 15 or 20 years later, another of Deudonne Saive's designs was converted from the original metric to English dimensions for convenience of production - the FAL rifle.
|
|
|
Post by abninftr on Feb 11, 2020 20:02:57 GMT -5
Yes, the first order was from the Chinese Nationalist government through the Lend=-Lease programme. In fact, one of the two examples of FN pistols used during the reverse engineer process belonged to the Chinese (the other, if memory serves, belonged to the Browning family), and was passed to Inglis through their embassy in Washington.
The Chinese had a love affair with shoulder stocked pistols. That began with the Mauser pistol (AKA Broom Handle Mauser). It was only natural for them to order shoulder stocked BHPs from FN once production started in the 1930s. That said, it was also only natural that when they were 'invited to the table' that they would want 'same as'. Getting them over the Himalayas from India and into the Nationalists' hands proved more problematic than anyone imagined.
I should add, that FEG would have had access to a vast number of FN pistols to measure and narrow down the dimensional tolerances. That was not a luxury Inglis had.
Speaking about the FN/FAL cum Australian, British, and Canadian (ABC) L1A1s SLRs and the Indian I1A1s, only the ABC SLRs will interchange. Newly produced rifles were exchanged to confirm the fact during their production. The Indian rifles? That was a different matter all together.
|
|