Be an informed consumer!

[CaptainDooley]

Yeah - I know... Here's how it went:

First, bo-hoss said:

I believe C158 can only be bought in complete heat treat "batches" or lots. This requires $100,000+ dollars to purchase one of these lots. I speak from my similar materials experiences at work but I stand to be corrected.That is a lot of cash for a business to have tied up without some sort of contractual commitment, or alot of customers.

Then I said:

BM, Oly, DPMS, etc. HAVE a lot of customers (and contracts).

Then he said:

They purchase their parts from a manufacturing source.

Which is really where that part of the convo should have ended. Since then people have assumed I meant we should all buy BM, Oly, and DPMS - which I didn't. My point was the crap manufacturers have enough of a client base to support buying C158 to put in their bolts (whether they build it themselves or source the parts doesn't matter) and that the cost of buying a batch is not a valid excuse since they could easily plan how many bolts they'd sell and they should (especially the Cerebus companies) have the capital to do it.

All this means is that agencies/individuals purchase based solely on price point, not quality.

Every class I've attended, where someone was running an Oly/DPMS etc, they had some type of reliability issues.

These days, you can purchase a quality weapon from a reputable manufacturer without breaking the bank (BCM comes to mind).

[Austin_Nichols]

I'm not sure what any of those documents prove?

Buy a mill run of steel from any manufacturer worth their salt and you will get a cert stating that their steel composition is what you actually paid for. What is the Mil-Spec for heat treat (pre/post plate)? Hardness? Concentricity? Tolerance Grade? Engineered chrome deposition requirement? Etching solution/method? Nickle base over substrate?

The ballistic test data is clearly not M197 and the NDT shows no reference to the requirement of the M16/M4 TDP (your local muffler shop or Harley Davidson dealer may have magnetic particle inspection equipment but that doesn't mean they are testing in compliance with a Mil standard).

As for the bolt assembly CoC, it simply states that they are complying with what was requested in the purchase order submitted to them--how does this translate to conforming with an undisclosed "Mil-Spec"? Assuming that we are dealing with Carpenter Technology No. 158 case hardening alloy, what base form is utilized (cold drawn, billet, forged)? What heat treat recipe is used/specified? Machined pre or post carburizing? Tolerance? Ra surface finish?

I'm not knocking Paul or BCM, I'm just pointing out that most of this is meaningless as it pertains to Mil-Spec and the "TDP". Personally, Paul's reputation and customer support means a lot more to me than any such data posted by any manufacturer. I don't care if certain manufacturers post documents showing that their parts are made from unobtainium--some companies just don't deserve my patronage.

And as far as the "list" is concerned, if I built guns (), I would hope to hell that my junk didn't make the list--I'd want my self guided specs and processes to exceed what that group represents and offer a product beyond "Mil-Spec" so my customers would have the choice to buy the best.

[C4IGrant]

I'm not sure what any of those documents prove?

It proves a lot of things.

Buy a mill run of steel from any manufacturer worth their salt and you will get a cert stating that their steel composition is what you actually paid for. What is the Mil-Spec for heat treat (pre/post plate)? Hardness? Concentricity? Tolerance Grade? Engineered chrome deposition requirement? Etching solution/method? Nickle base over substrate?

You are correct. You can call up several different steel companies and get a cert for the correct steel and even "pretend" that is the steel you are using. This is where independent destructive testing comes into play.

The heat treat/hardness rating is also checked by BCM (FYI). The thickness of the chrome and how it was applied also has a standard (that BCM specs out when they order their barrels).

The ballsitic test data is clearly not M197 and the NDT shows no reference to the requirement of the M16/M4 TDP (your local muffler shop or Harley Davidson dealer may have magnetic particle inspection equipment but that doesn't mean they are testing in compliance with a Mil standard).

Correct (not M197) and nor does it need to be (as the TDP allows for another option). BCM cannot show what the TDP calls out for obvious reasons. Again, this comes down to how one writes the purchase order and what they specify they want. So when BCM writes out a PO, he uses the TPD guidelines for the NDT lab to follow.

As for the bolt assembly CoC, it simply states that they are complying with what was requested in the purchase order submitted to them--how does this translate to conforming with an undisclosed "Mil-Spec"? Assuming that we are dealing with Carpenter Technology No. 158 case hardening alloy, what base form is utilized (cold drawn, billet, forged)? What heat treat recipe is used/specified? Machined pre or post carburizing? Tolerance? Ra surface finish?

Same as above. PO's are written to what the TDP calls out. What the TDP says cannot be listed on the errornet.

I'm not knocking Paul or BCM, I'm just pointing out that most of this is meaningless as it pertains to Mil-Spec and the "TDP". Personally, Paul's reputation and customer support means a lot more to me than any such data posted by any manufacturer. I don't care if certain manufacturers post documents showing that their parts are made from unobtainium--some companies just don't deserve my patronage.

It sounds like you are trying too, but don't fully grasp that the questions you are asking would do the following things:

1. Get BCM sued.
2. Give his competitors the jump they need to catch up to him and the program he has established.
3. Show the world that he has access to sensitive data.

So what it means is that BCM knows that you cannot just order a certain barrel steel, bolt steel or have just have something MPI'd. You HAVE to write out the specifics so you get exactly what the TDP calls out. I am sure everyone would love to see the documents, but just cannot happen on open forum.

You are right though when you say that just because a company follows the TDP and produces a quality gun does not mean that you should give them your business. Cost, CS, reputation all play into it. Giving people a look down the rabbit hole sure goes a long way though.

And as far as the "list" is concerned, if I built guns (), I would hope to hell that my junk didn't make the list--I'd want my self guided specs and processes to exceed what that group represents and offer a product beyond "Mil-Spec" so my customers would have the choice to buy the best.

That's great! There are MANY ways to exceed the TDP. At this time, no company does it.



C4

[rob_s]

And as far as the "list" is concerned, if I built guns (), I would hope to hell that my junk didn't make the list--I'd want my self guided specs and processes to exceed what that group represents and offer a product beyond "Mil-Spec" so my customers would have the choice to buy the best.

What you evidently fail to see is how few (meaning virtually none) actually do exceed even meet those standards, let alone exceed them.

You sound like you maybe have some engineering or machining knowledge and you're trying your best to apply it, but I think it's getting mis-applied and I think you're totally missing the point of both this thread and the Chart.

[rob_s]

Hate to bring up a month old post, but the only items on an Olympic AR that are outsourced at present are springs and pins. Everything else is produced by Olympic Arms. The plastic parts are not made at the Oly plant, but they are made in Washington State on Oly designed molds...My source for this info is Oly's marketing honcho.

Olympic makes great hay out of this "fact", the problem is that it doesn't matter. Would you rather have a gun I make from scratch in my garage on one that Colt assembles from parts made to the mil-spec and assembled in accordance with same?

Oly loves to shout from the rooftops "we make all our own parts!" but what gets missed is that this is meaningless. This morning I made all my own ingredients for a shit sandwich, but that doesn't mean I want to eat it.

[ge_traveler]

Oly loves to shout from the rooftops "we make all our own parts!" but what gets missed is that this is meaningless. This morning I made all my own ingredients for a shit sandwich, but that doesn't mean I want to eat it.

Damn, that pretty much says it all. Can't get much more to the point than that.

[Austin_Nichols]

Originally Posted by Austin_Nichols
I'm not sure what any of those documents prove?

It proves a lot of things.

The documents only prove what the documents show; the rest you are implying/inferring.

Originally Posted by Austin_Nichols
Buy a mill run of steel from any manufacturer worth their salt and you will get a cert stating that their steel composition is what you actually paid for. What is the Mil-Spec for heat treat (pre/post plate)? Hardness? Concentricity? Tolerance Grade? Engineered chrome deposition requirement? Etching solution/method? Nickle base over substrate?

You are correct. You can call up several different steel companies and get a cert for the correct steel and even "pretend" that is the steel you are using. This is where independent destructive testing comes into play.

The heat treat/hardness rating is also checked by BCM (FYI). The thickness of the chrome and how it was applied also has a standard (that BCM specs out when they order their barrels).

Again, the documents shown do not support this assertion beyond one bar tested in 2006.

Originally Posted by Austin_Nichols
The ballsitic test data is clearly not M197 and the NDT shows no reference to the requirement of the M16/M4 TDP (your local muffler shop or Harley Davidson dealer may have magnetic particle inspection equipment but that doesn't mean they are testing in compliance with a Mil standard).

Correct (not M197) and nor does it need to be (as the TDP allows for another option). BCM cannot show what the TDP calls out for obvious reasons. Again, this comes down to how one writes the purchase order and what they specify they want. So when BCM writes out a PO, he uses the TPD guidelines for the NDT lab to follow.

Prove it. I find no exception to M197 anywhere within the TDP or drawing set. Furthermore, the documents shown do not support your claim that the purchase order specifies Colt intellectual property.

Are you claiming that BCM holds proprietary and confidential data obtained illegally, by fraud, or contract breach of a third party?

Originally Posted by Austin_Nichols
As for the bolt assembly CoC, it simply states that they are complying with what was requested in the purchase order submitted to them--how does this translate to conforming with an undisclosed "Mil-Spec"? Assuming that we are dealing with Carpenter Technology No. 158 case hardening alloy, what base form is utilized (cold drawn, billet, forged)? What heat treat recipe is used/specified? Machined pre or post carburizing? Tolerance? Ra surface finish?

Same as above. PO's are written to what the TDP calls out. What the TDP says cannot be listed on the errornet.

Same as above.

Originally Posted by Austin_Nichols
I'm not knocking Paul or BCM, I'm just pointing out that most of this is meaningless as it pertains to Mil-Spec and the "TDP". Personally, Paul's reputation and customer support means a lot more to me than any such data posted by any manufacturer. I don't care if certain manufacturers post documents showing that their parts are made from unobtainium--some companies just don't deserve my patronage.

It sounds like you are trying too, but don't fully grasp that the questions you are asking would do the following things:

1. Get BCM sued.
2. Give his competitors the jump they need to catch up to him and the program he has established.
3. Show the world that he has access to sensitive data.

So what it means is that BCM knows that you cannot just order a certain barrel steel, bolt steel or have just have something MPI'd. You HAVE to write out the specifics so you get exactly what the TDP calls out. I am sure everyone would love to see the documents, but just cannot happen on open forum.

You are right though when you say that just because a company follows the TDP and produces a quality gun does not mean that you should give them your business. Cost, CS, reputation all play into it. Giving people a look down the rabbit hole sure goes a long way though.

Taken at face value, these documents show: the composition of steel as allowed by MIL-B-11595E, material specs for one bar of steel tested in 2006, what ballistic test data looks like for a generic .223 proof load, that 454 gun barrels of unknown steel were subjected to NDT via Magnaflux method (results unknown), and a manufacturer certified that they did what they were told for a 440 piece HP MP bolt assembly.

And despite your assertion otherwise, there is absolutely zero evidence here that BCM is writing specifications for parts vendors based on Colt's TDP any more than they are copying Oly's proprietary build data. Or that they are even complying with the sampling rates as required by MIL-B-11595E.

Now, before you guys pop a blood vessel, I'm playing Devil's advocate here. Obviously if Paul has somehow managed to get his hands on Colt's data, he cannot possibly prove any of the above. But that's where I think you're doing a disservice to BCM with this.

For example, let's take Shitcan Rifle Company, the hypothetical equivalent to Vulcan or Hesse. Shitcan who sells complete "mil-spec" M4 clones for $600, goes on TOS, and claims with nearly identical documents to what you've presented here that finally there is evidence and proof supporting their claim of adherence to Colt's TDP and full mil-spec compliance. Would you take the same documents at face value from Shitcan Rifle Company? And if not, then you're only reading the tea leaves to arrive at a foregone conclusion. That's not presenting objective data, that's called being a salesman. Trust but verify you said.

Originally Posted by Austin_Nichols
And as far as the "list" is concerned, if I built guns (), I would hope to hell that my junk didn't make the list--I'd want my self guided specs and processes to exceed what that group represents and offer a product beyond "Mil-Spec" so my customers would have the choice to buy the best.

That's great! There are MANY ways to exceed the TDP. At this time, no company does it.


C4

I reject the notion that no manufacturer exceeds Colt, FN, or Sabre's product. One could argue that Noveske's rifles exceed the M4 in many aspects, some DD's too, as does KAC's SR-15 series. I think BCM, depending on the model, exceeds it as well (I'm very fond of the GF4; all my rifles wear them).

I definitely agree that there is more junk out there than real quality. And I appreciate the efforts of guys like Paul who strive to offer the best product they can produce for a reasonable price. I have a great deal of respect for what he has accomplished and by no means am I saying that BCM weapons are not everything you claim and more. I purchase from Bravo regularly, their customer service is first rate, and I'll continue to send them my money for quality goods--that's the best endorsement a consumer can give.

ETA:
Let me add that Paul doesn't need to prove anything to anyone. He's earned his reputation in this industry. If you produce an inferior product and make great claims to the contrary it will catch up with you. But give people their money's worth and exceed their expectations and you'll have what BCM enjoys right now. I don't expect any manufacturer to disclose proprietary information. I'd rather see BCM stick with their established marketing and leave this document can of worms alone.

[Austin_Nichols]

What you evidently fail to see is how few (meaning virtually none) actually do exceed even meet those standards, let alone exceed them.

You sound like you maybe have some engineering or machining knowledge and you're trying your best to apply it, but I think it's getting mis-applied and I think you're totally missing the point of both this thread and the Chart.

No, I'm with you. We agree as it relates to your chart. My contention is with the presented data for BCM; my engineering and material science background has nothing to do with it.

[C4IGrant]

The documents only prove what the documents show; the rest you are implying/inferring.

This is where common sense, and an understanding of what the TDP calls out comes into play. Meaning, that you cannot put together a program like BCM has without this understanding. This is why you have NOT seen ANY other company put out documents and info that BCM has on their rifle program.

Again, the documents shown do not support this assertion beyond one bar tested in 2006.

How many documents would it take then? All of them? The reason why certain dates were chosen was because they wanted folks to realize that BCM's dedication to producing quality and following the TDP spec goes way back.

Prove it. I find no exception to M197 anywhere within the TDP or drawing set. Furthermore, the documents shown do not support your claim that the purchase order specifies Colt intellectual property.

Are you claiming that BCM holds proprietary and confidential data obtained illegally, by fraud, or contract breach of a third party?

Would love to, but cannot as the document is controlled (and yes I have the ability to read and or get info about any section of the TDP I so desire). I am sure that won't be good enough for you (which I am fine with). The fact remains that there are two ways to skin this cat and the TDP DOES ALLOW for variation/options.

I make no claims as too what BCM has or does not have. Read my first post about common sense and applying logic to these documents.

Taken at face value, these documents show: the composition of steel as allowed by MIL-B-11595E, material specs for one bar of steel tested in 2006, what ballistic test data looks like for a generic .223 proof load, that 454 gun barrels of unknown steel were subjected to NDT via Magnaflux method (results unknown), and a manufacturer certified that they did what they were told for a 440 piece HP MP bolt assembly.

And despite your assertion otherwise, there is absolutely zero evidence here that BCM is writing specifications for parts vendors based on Colt's TDP any more than they are copying Oly's proprietary build data. Or that they are even complying with the sampling rates as required by MIL-B-11595E.

Again, common sense comes into play here. BCM can only state so much without showing their hand. Any company that would show PROOF that they have full access to the TDP is a fool. Now some companies can and will try and follow this logic when they attempt to convince the public that they have the same quality as BCM. The main way to catch them playing the "mil-spec game" is in how they write out their program details. Meaning, if you happened to read the long thread that Paul wrote on TOS and on his forum here, you would quickly realize that he knows exactly what he is doing, how much labor went into the development of his program and where he got the details from.

Yes, you have to play connect the dots a little, but the truth is easy to figure out.

Now, before you guys pop a blood vessel, I'm playing Devil's advocate here. Obviously if Paul has somehow managed to get his hands on Colt's data, he cannot possibly prove any of the above. But that's where I think you're doing a disservice to BCM with this.

A lot companies claim "mil-spec" for their AR's. None have submitted one single document to this fact. BCM has lead the way and will continue to do so.

Paul and I are big fans of educating the consumer. Paul has been shown this thread and he approved of what I have written in it. So from BCM's POV, no disservice has been done.

For example, let's take Shitcan Rifle Company, the hypothetical equivalent to Vulcan or Hesse. Shitcan who sells complete "mil-spec" M4 clones for $600, goes on TOS, and claims with nearly identical documents to what you've presented here that finally there is evidence and proof supporting their claim of adherence to Colt's TDP and full mil-spec compliance. Would you take the same documents at face value from Shitcan Rifle Company? And if not, then you're only reading the tea leaves to arrive at a foregone conclusion. That's not presenting objective data, that's called being a salesman. Trust but verify you said.

To have a mil-spec rifle program, you cannot JUST list documents. You have to give details as too what you are doing and why. As I said earlier, if you had a chance to read Paul's lengthy thread about their program, you come away with the realization that he knows EXACTLY what he is doing and why. I am sure that some companies will list all kinds of paper work in the future to support their claims. This is where the informed consumer comes in and asks "WHY?" Why do you do it that way? What drove you to use that steel? Or why did you have this lab do that MPI and not another one or why do you have to black out your Purchase Orders?

Personally I would be suspicious of ANY AR manufacturer that did not black out certain details. Reason being is because if they REALLY KNEW what they were dealing with, they would guard it like gold.

I reject the notion that no manufacturer exceeds Colt, FN, or Sabre's product. One could argue that Noveske's rifles exceed the M4 in many aspects, some DD's too, as does KAC's SR-15 series. I think BCM, depending on the model, exceeds it as well (I'm very fond of the GF4; all my rifles wear them).

When we talk about creating a weapon that exceeds the TDP, we have to look at the ENTIRE document (not just parts of it). So yes, some companies do use a better made barrel than what is spec'd or use a better bolt/barrel extension. As a whole though, are their ENTIRE rifles superior to what the TDP calls out? Nope. They would need to update EVERYTHING on the gun, right down to the springs and detents.

I definitely agree that there is more junk out there than real quality. And I appreciate the efforts of guys like Paul who strive to offer the best product they can produce for a reasonable price. I have a great deal of respect for what he has accomplished and by no means am I saying that BCM weapons are not everything you claim and more. I purchase from Bravo regularly, their customer service is first rate, and I'll continue to send them my money for quality goods--that's the best endorsement a consumer can give.

ETA:
Let me add that Paul doesn't need to prove anything to anyone. He's earned his reputation in this industry. If you produce an inferior product and make great claims to the contrary it will catch up with you. But give people their money's worth and exceed their expectations and you'll have what BCM enjoys right now. I don't expect any manufacturer to disclose proprietary information. I'd rather see BCM stick with their established marketing and leave this document can of worms alone.

Luckily people are different. Some are fan boys and will buy whatever that manufacturer puts out (no matter the quality). Still others will buy from a manufacturer based 100% on cost, availability, CS or if they think the product will impress their friends.

For me, I look at the specs first. If the quality is there, then CS, availability and cost matter little to me (as I most likely won't need or be concerned about any of those things).

BCM's marketing is about education of the consumer and they are the ONLY company sticking their neck out there to do it. This is not a "strategy" but a better way to do business.



C4

[Austin_Nichols]

Thanks for the serene reply and though we don't necessarily see eye to eye, I think we can simply agree to disagree on many of the points discussed.

Regardless of that, best of luck to Paul and BCM.