A faster cut can contribute to a cheaper route, but it is not the complete economic comparison. Align the delivered component and batch boundary before comparing BTA with gundrilling.
A manufacturer rate claim is not a batch invoice
UNISIG’s tooling discussion makes productivity claims for its BTA context. Those claims are not current charges or inspected yield for the job under review. Retain the named application conditions before using a rate in a quotation model.
Show the denominator with assumed inputs
Here is a deliberately invented comparison in generic currency units:
| Route | Included batch charges | Accepted holes | Charge / accepted hole |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | 1,000 | 100 | 10.00 |
| B | 900 | 80 | 11.25 |
Route B has a lower total charge but a higher charge per accepted hole. The table demonstrates arithmetic only; A and B are not measured BTA and gun-drilling outcomes. Labeling them as real process results would add evidence that this example does not contain.
Match the included operations
Keep setup, machine time, tool service, inspection and required finishing identifiable. If one route delivers an as-drilled bore while the other includes finishing to the drawing, their totals cover different outputs. Align that boundary before interpreting a difference as a process advantage.
Also retain the supplied blank and part quantity. An assumed repeat order and a first batch with trial work can have different included charges even when their final bore requirements match.
Use the calculator below to reproduce each row with explicit inputs, then replace them with comparable job charges and actual accepted output. Continue to BTA batch cost for defining the boundary or gundrilling cost per hole for the other route’s record. An economic decision then rests on the specified delivery rather than a cutting-rate headline.
Revision note
October 8, 2026: revised the technical explanation and connected reading after source review. Original publication date and URL retained.
