Be an informed consumer!

[eternal24k]

good post,
cheers

[QuietShootr]

Excellent post. I predict nearly as much butt-hurt from this as The Chart has caused.

[rob_s]

O

And the difference is? Glass half full half empty means the same thing.

I actually agree with him. I'm not one for semantic arguments but "minimum standard" is a better choice of words.

[C4IGrant]

Excellent post. I predict nearly as much butt-hurt from this as The Chart has caused.

LOL, could be. Why anyone would be upset about knowing what they don't know is beyond me.



C4

[Rara]

Thanks djegators. That was an interesting read. Still didn't tell me what I was looking for, lol, but an interesting read none the less.

Excellent post. I predict nearly as much butt-hurt from this as The Chart has caused.

Actually, I think it will even take a bit of the sting out of the chart for many folks.

I know this board has a much higher signal-to-noise ratio than most other gun boards, lots of guys in here living and breathing thier equipment and need the absolute best. But then, there is people like me, I'm a mechanical engineer, and I sit at a desk all day, and sneak off to the range when I can squeeze it in, and the very rare chance to attend a class. As an engineer, I have a keen interest in "best" in the available equipment, but in a practical sense, I have little need for the best of the best equipment. In my world, a broken bolt is a mild nuisance at the range, not the possible death sentance it would be to someone that lives on thier weapon all day every day. This is why the "sub-standard" manufacturers like DPMS, etc. have a legitimate place in the market, for the guys that run maybe 1000rds through thier gun in 3 years, not 3 hours. For a guy like that does it make sense to spend the extra money for a 4150 CMV barrel when he will never even come close to shooting out even a 4140 barrel?

Not that I'm really defending the lower grade equipment too much, just saying it has its place, even if that place is not here. It goes back to lining up the equipment specifications you insist on against the intended usage, the ramifications of part failure in that usage scenario, and the resulting part cost. For many/most of the folks here, the ramifications of a part failure, are what drive the demand for the best possible equipment, and rightfully so. And this brings us full circle back to parts that have been developed to perform better outside of the rigid mil-spec definition.

[bo-hoss]

I am an engineer as well. I work in a lab environment as well as out in the field and the company I work for does engineering consulting for several industries who cater to Uncle Sam as well as some domestic industry.

Rara, In the future do you see companies who produce firearms parts having to become AS9100 compliant? ALL companies who produce aerospace and ordinance for the govt are required to have this certification.

[QuietShootr]

Thanks djegators. That was an interesting read. Still didn't tell me what I was looking for, lol, but an interesting read none the less.



Actually, I think it will even take a bit of the sting out of the chart for many folks.

I know this board has a much higher signal-to-noise ratio than most other gun boards, lots of guys in here living and breathing thier equipment and need the absolute best. But then, there is people like me, I'm a mechanical engineer, and I sit at a desk all day, and sneak off to the range when I can squeeze it in, and the very rare chance to attend a class. As an engineer, I have a keen interest in "best" in the available equipment, but in a practical sense, I have little need for the best of the best equipment. In my world, a broken bolt is a mild nuisance at the range, not the possible death sentance it would be to someone that lives on thier weapon all day every day. This is why the "sub-standard" manufacturers like DPMS, etc. have a legitimate place in the market, for the guys that run maybe 1000rds through thier gun in 3 years, not 3 hours. For a guy like that does it make sense to spend the extra money for a 4150 CMV barrel when he will never even come close to shooting out even a 4140 barrel?

Not that I'm really defending the lower grade equipment too much, just saying it has its place, even if that place is not here. It goes back to lining up the equipment specifications you insist on against the intended usage, the ramifications of part failure in that usage scenario, and the resulting part cost. For many/most of the folks here, the ramifications of a part failure, are what drive the demand for the best possible equipment, and rightfully so. And this brings us full circle back to parts that have been developed to perform better outside of the rigid mil-spec definition.

I agree that there is a market for it (obviously). Where I get heartburn from them is when their fanbois show up and start with the "My Oly is just as good as a Colt!!" and then when they are proven wrong, they run straight to "You don't need that anyway unless you're a SpecialForcesNinjaDoorGunnerSEALMarineSpecOpsOperator, you poser!!"

Go back to barfcum, jackoff.

[Rara]

I agree that there is a market for it (obviously). Where I get heartburn from them is when their fanbois show up and start with the "My Oly is just as good as a Colt!!" and then when they are proven wrong, they run straight to "You don't need that anyway unless you're a SpecialForcesNinjaDoorGunnerSEALMarineSpecOpsOperator, you poser!!"

Go back to barfcum, jackoff.

Do you acknowledge the guy standing on the streetcorner holding a sign warning of an impending space alien attack? Do you even try to tell him how crazy he is? Or do you just laugh, shake your head and keep walking? How is that so different from your "fanboi" described above?

And I hope that last line was directed at the fictitious fanboi you described, and not at me.

[Rara]

I am an engineer as well. I work in a lab environment as well as out in the field and the company I work for does engineering consulting for several industries who cater to Uncle Sam as well as some domestic industry.

Rara, In the future do you see companies who produce firearms parts having to become AS9100 compliant? ALL companies who produce aerospace and ordinance for the govt are required to have this certification.

I don't, at least not any time soon. The reason is, there is no industry watchdog group for the firearm industry like an SAE or SME type group that could push it through for non-Gov't contractors. Quality systems like AS9100 really are just paperwork tracking systems anyway, ie, do what you said you were going to do, and prove that you did it that way. If the firearm company doesn't have good process controls, they aren't going to suddenly add them to thier documentation. All it would net would be the same companies making the same sub-standard components, only now they would have clear documentation stating that they had been made exactly as they had intended to make them in the first place.

On Edit - After thinking about a little more, I guess that last part isn't 100% accurate. AS9100 does include a lot more of the how to do it right type stuff, on metrology, traceability, design methodology etc, than say ISO. But I think the key is there is still no cross-industry group driving such a requirement.

[bo-hoss]

Thanks for the answer Rara. I re-read my post and I probably should clarify my question a bit. I was only speaking of Govt. firearms contractors, not civilian mfgs. In some of our work, there is no Govt standard because we are working on something the govt really wants but has no previous experience. AS9100 allows us to develop the standard using the best possible technology avaliable. Thanks for your input...