Weird Frontweights

[Ron Nossaman]

>No... seriously, I am not particularilly familiar with factory pattern leading
>proceedures so I have no idea really how these actually work out. I am 
>saying tho
>that if (for whatever reasons) they or any other proceedure results in such 
>varying
>FW's, then something is wrong with the proceedure.

A manufacturer using a certain key set with a certain combination of action
parts and hammers can, hopefully, be reasonably assured that each of a set
of keys from one set to the next will require a certain amount of lead in a
certain place to accommodate an expected overall load from it's specific
wippen, hammer, etc. That statistical probability that key __ will need __
grams at __ mm from the balance hole constitutes a leading pattern. The
more precisely the keys are made, the more uniform the action parts are
from set to set, and the fewer number of keys between lead repositioning,
the smoother the front weight progression. In a manufacturing environment,
they weigh the time of individually weighing off keys against the
statistical probability that it won't make a significant enough difference
to be worth the trouble, and lead them according to the pattern they have
determined gives them the best results for the buck. Sure, they could
produce better results individually weighting keys as a first step, but I
don't know that anyone does this in production. Typically, the individually
weighted keys are something that is done at the end of the action assembly
and setup process to disguise the friction and geometry problems. It's
cheaper than starting over and fixing the real stuff.

So wildly erratic front weights are probably the result of the manufacturer
weighing the keys off after action assembly, and leading for resulting
static down weight. 

Now does it make sense?
   
Ron N