View Full Version : Do you know the definition of quality?
The military’s set of specifications (mil-spec, get it?) is contained within the TDP (Technical Data Package). The TDP carries a lot of weight with you guys and for good reason. It’s just about the only published (even if it is proprietary) specification for manufacturing a “known quantity” carbine/rifle. It has become the defacto standard, not on its merit alone but because no other standard has been published. Does this mean that anything that does not meet the TDP specification is “low quality”? This seems to be the dominant view, and I would say that it’s wholly incorrect. Phillip Crosby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_B._Crosby) defines quality as conformance to requirements, not goodness or elegance. Learn this definition and understand it.
If I were to order 12 DPMS carbines from a distributor and they send me 13 6920’s is this a non conformance? Absolutely. The distributor failed to meet the requirements of my P.O. despite me receiving “more” & “better”. Similarly, the military has certain requirements. For example 1:7 twist 4150 MIL-B-11595E chromed lined barrels, with a specific gas port size, & a notched barrel. The 1:7 twist is to stabilize M856 tracer rounds, and the 4150 barrels hold up better to sustained automatic firing, the gas port is sized to attain a cyclic rate of 700-950 RPM only with 5.56 NATO pressure ammunition and the notch is to mount a M203 grenade launcher.
Are your requirements similar?
Why do we demand the mil-spec when the “me-spec” is more applicable?
Do we know enough about the platform to make decision about which parts of the mil-spec can be deviated from and when?
My intent here is not to justify people’s purchase of “inferior” equipment, but to bring awareness of what quality actually is and the importance of being able to define requirements of the end user and to enable us to be “thinkers” not “followers”. If you’re able to determine your own requirements find something that meets those requirements then do so & be able to explain why you deviated. If not then buy the known quantity but admit that your opinion is unqualified. The truth is, while I appreciate the effort rob_s has put into The Chart, I think that he’s created a monster because people lack the knowledge to understand what they’re looking at (to be fair he tried to explain the features) or what quality is… much less how to achieve it. Some folks will balk at the idea that one of the key principles of quality is to cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality but it wouldn’t make it less true.
Randy B. - Quality Systems Analyst
ASQ Certified Quality Improvement Associate
ASQ Cetrified Quality Process Analyst pending
API/ISO Internal Quality Auditor
Being the offspring of quality engineers, it's simple for me to draw the most linear conclusion between the quality (correct matching and maintenance of tolerances and metallurgy in the parts of a weapon system) and the mean rounds between failure with all other variables controlled.
My requirements differ significantly in a few minor areas, but when looking at a reliable stock carbine there shouldn't be significant deviation from the TDP in regards to BCG, LPK, barrel materials and dimensions, or assembly steps such as pinning gas blocks and staking gas keys and castle nuts as needed.
There are ways to differ that do not hurt reliability (KAC's hydraulic pressed gas blocks, and castle nuts, as well as IWS Bolt on SR-15's come to mind; SS and CHF barrels that are not MIL spec, but outperform that spec in key areas), but cost savings measures leading to tangible deficits on very known quantity weapon systems will eventually become evident as weapons are shot enough.
Thank you for posting this. Too many people think that chart was sent directly from heaven.
irockstar661
04-30-12, 15:01
Thank you as well. I am also in quality. In the aerospace manufacturing industry.
Sent from my LG-P999 using Tapatalk 2
In your example the divergence from the order is a good thing, more high quality rifles than expected. Had they sent you 11 mini-14s then you are screwed.
Has any serious poster on this site ever argued with the fact that better than milspec for logical reasons is ok but worse than milspec is bad? The "it needs to be milspec" is usually preached at folks thinking a $1000 olympic arms rifle is just as good as a $1050 colt.
Why do we demand the mil-spec when the “me-spec” is more applicable?
I tend to view the "mil-spec" as similar to a building code, meaning it is the minimum basic standard and that there is certainly room for improvement. The problem is that many companies don't even meet the minimum standard and in turn charge the same, only slightly less-than, or even MORE than other companies that do meet, or come closer to meeting, the standard.
It sounds to me like you maybe understand the definition of "quality" but you maybe don't understand the spec, or how others choose to apply it to themselves or their recommendations for others. I don't think you'd find anyone here telling people to choose a Colt 6920 because it has a barrel notch but until the release of the 6720 very recently the 6920 was the only way to get the specs that are important for the majority of users (whether military, LE, or civilian) and so we accepted the notch because of that. Similarly, the twist rate issue may have been spec'd for one reason but it has a happy coincidence of also being better for the better performing defensive loads since those loads were often developed to work in the military spec guns.
Also, most people's "me-spec" is nothing more than "cheapest gun that appears to be an AR-pattern firearm I could find at the gun show". That's fine if people buy based solely on appearance and ignorance. In that case, I would like to sell each of them a "Ferrari".
http://images01.olx.com/ui/1/06/03/2900303_1.jpg
The 1:7 twist is to stabilize M196 tracer rounds, and the 4150 barrels hold up better to sustained automatic firing, the gas port is sized to attain a cyclic rate of 700-950 RPM only with 5.56 NATO pressure ammunition and the notch is to mount a M203 grenade launcher.
Great questions overall and food for thought. But I was under the impression that the 1"x7" was implemented to better suit anything from 62gr M855 to 77gr, such as MOD 1 and so forth. Never heard it was geared for tracers, though they obviously have to be accommodated.
By the way, considering your credentials I thought you would be interested to know that your post was a quality one.
:D
militarymoron
04-30-12, 15:28
Great questions overall and food for thought. But I was under the impression that the 1"x7" was implemented to better suit anything from 62gr M855 to 77gr, such as MOD 1 and so forth. Never heard it was geared for tracers, though they obviously have to be accommodated.
IIRC, the 1x7" twist was developed to stabilize the longer M856 tracer, not the M196 (which is a 55gr tracer bullet). the Mk262 MOD 1 didn't come out until almost 20 years after the 1x7" twist was introduced in the M16A2.
back to the original post - good post, and i agree that it's important to understand both your needs and the specifications that something is manufactured to, if you're concerned about quality. but, without the in-depth understanding of what something like the TDP means, it's a convenient way for the new shooter or novice to ensure that the weapon he's purchasing has met SOME SORT of specification, minimal or not. it helps the new the purchaser who does not yet have the knowledge to recognize whether the weapon falls short of, or exceeds the TDP, to narrow the selection down.
In your example the divergence from the order is a good thing, more high quality rifles than expected. Had they sent you 11 mini-14s then you are screwed.
Then you'd be wrong. In QA, there is no good, better or worse, only meets requirements and doesn't meet requirements.
I tend to view the "mil-spec" as similar to a building code, meaning it is the minimum basic standard and that there is certainly room for improvement.
Can you quantify why it's the minimum standard other than it's existence?
It sounds to me like you maybe understand the definition of "quality" but you maybe don't understand the spec, or how others choose to apply it to themselves or their recommendations for others. I don't think you'd find anyone here telling people to choose a Colt 6920 because it has a barrel notch but until the release of the 6720 very recently the 6920 was the only way to get the specs that are important for the majority of users (whether military, LE, or civilian) and so we accepted the notch because of that. Similarly, the twist rate issue may have been spec'd for one reason but it has a happy coincidence of also being better for the better performing defensive loads since those loads were often developed to work in the military spec guns.
If there's two things I understand it's specs and the definition of quality. I'm questioning whether or not you and others actually understand the specs in the TDP and whether or not you've evaluated them to know if they meet your requirements?
Also, most people's "me-spec" is nothing more than "cheapest gun that appears to be an AR-pattern firearm I could find at the gun show". That's fine if people buy based solely on appearance and ignorance.
And what's wrong with that? If they're requirement is for a cool looking gun that's as cheap as possible a HK716 probably isn't the right answer is it?
Then you'd be wrong. In QA, there is no good, better or worse, only meets requirements and doesn't meet requirements.
Yes, in a clincal/iso9000 whatever blank standard you work in this is correct. In the real world I call getting something better than I ordered for the same price a good thing. Say I order a COLT 6920 and the box comes with 3 extra mags. That may be a QA failure to you but I don't mind that. But if I order a colt 6920 and get a dpms with non-chrome barrel that is both a QA failure and a problem for me.
In the world of m4c a company that exceeds the TDP's quality standards is a good thing. A company that doesn't even meet that level is a bad thing.
Can you quantify why it's the minimum standard other than it's existence?
Probably because it is a performance standard established around the round to which it applies, in this case a 5.56.
In the world of m4c a company that exceeds the TDP's quality standards is a good thing. A company that doesn't even meet that level is a bad thing.
Then perhaps the M4C world should become more than drones beating the TDP drum and learn to think for themselves?
Probably because it is a performance standard established around the round to which it applies, in this case a 5.56.
Then the answer to my question is, "No."?
Then the answer to my question is, "No."?
Sounds to me like you are looking to play games at this point. Have at it.
militarymoron
04-30-12, 15:53
Can you quantify why it's the minimum standard other than it's existence?
sure - in a nutshell, it's the minimum standard that the parts manufactured need to meet in dimensions, materials and testing to ensure parts interchangeability, life/durability, and performance etc. of the weapon as required by the military.
Then perhaps the M4C world should become more than drones beating the TDP drum and learn to think for themselves?
What posts are you referring to where a member of m4c derided a company that exceed the TDP quality standards?
Sounds to me like you are looking to play games at this point. Have at it.
I may be challenging dogma but I'm not playing games. It's a serious question. Is the TDP the minimum standard because it's the the "best" standard or because it's the only one published? Also, is it possible to build a "good" carbine that doesn't necessarily meet the TDP?
What posts are you referring to where a member of m4c derided a company that exceed the TDP quality standards?
None, but I have seen members deride a company that didn't meet the TDP specs for deviations that, truth be told are inconsequential for the intended purpose.
None, but I have seen members deride a company that didn't meet the TDP specs for deviations that, truth be told are inconsequential for the intended purpose.
I completely agree in context, but that doesn't deny the need for a military based standard or make it irrelevant to most. If you want to do so much thinking you can elaborate what deviations you feel would be sensible and why.
militarymoron
04-30-12, 16:10
And what's wrong with that? If they're requirement is for a cool looking gun that's as cheap as possible a HK716 probably isn't the right answer is it?
the problem is that the people looking at the cheapest cool looking gun still expect it to function/perform, and are surprised when it doesn't.
As we all know, people use AR's for lots of things. Some of them include:
1. Target shooting
2. Hunting
3. Gun Games
4. Plinking
5. LE/MIL
6. Self Defense
In categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, the TDP has little to no relevance. Meaning that if your gun fails in some way, it really doesn't matter and is mostly an "inconvenience." So buy whatever you like that you believe will best fit your needs.
Categories 5 and 6 is a different type of animal. These guns might be saving someone’s life. So for them, we want a known standard to follow to ensure that every part fits, is reliable and can deliver a certain level of accuracy.
Now the question is, are their guns or parts that go above what the TDP calls for? I am sure there are some parts that will outlive a part built to the TDP standard. I am also sure that some people BELIEVE that something is better just because it fits their needs better, but it actually isn't better in any way (Carbine gas vs Middy Gas systems come to mind).
IMHO, there are few parts that have been verified (or at least tested) as being better than what the TDP calls out. Most of the "enhanced" parts are pretty much smoke and mirrors when you get right down to it.
C4
None, but I have seen members deride a company that didn't meet the TDP specs for deviations that, truth be told are inconsequential for the intended purpose.
That is most likely due to the common mindset (or at least commonly desired mindset) that m4c is not for your average "100 rounds a year at most from a bench rest" shooters. And the deviations from the tdp are ones that impact combat quality rifles. Do you have any posts where someone derided a company for deviations from the TDP that have zero affect on combat reliability? Or are you arguing that m4c should shift the focus to include users that just want to piddly fart around at the range once a year and show off their tacticool ar15 rifle to friends?
If it is the later I take serious exception to that assertion and hope m4c is always dedicated to those with a combat mindset.
I may be challenging dogma but I'm not playing games. It's a serious question. Is the TDP the minimum standard because it's the the "best" standard or because it's the only one published? Also, is it possible to build a "good" carbine that doesn't necessarily meet the TDP?
It is the BEST standard that we currently have for a fighting weapon.
To my knowledge, some AR's MIGHT be better in one or two areas, but as a whole package, they do not supersede the TDP.
One example of being a "better" AR would be a middy gas system because of the ability to use a longer rail.
C4
The TDP is a set of build standards and requirements, anything that deviates it is not necessarily bad but different. Everything that deviates IS however out of spec.
For the companies that cannot or will not adhere to the TDP, some do it because of cost, some do it because they think they've got something better, but nobody does it for both reasons. Hence the TDP, a meshing of cost & quality. Generally speaking if something does not adhere to the standards and requirements in the TDP, it is rightfully viewed as lacking quality. That has been the historical trend and for the most part, it's been dead on. The few exceptions would be things barrels that maintain integrity and longevity, or maintain a better MOA, or enhanced features like midlength gas systems, or possibly the SR-15 E3 bolt, etc.
But these things aren't standardized in a coherent document relating parts to processing, testing and certifications. The TDP is.
Its the minimum standard of a PROVEN platform. Proven in the worst possible environments.... open armed combat. There may be a better wheel out there or a better way to get from point A to B but it's always going to be judged against what is a known commodity.
I may be challenging dogma but I'm not playing games. It's a serious question. Is the TDP the minimum standard because it's the the "best" standard or because it's the only one published? Also, is it possible to build a "good" carbine that doesn't necessarily meet the TDP?
I think I see what you're getting at. Is the TDP the best standard or the best that is currently available? To take a step further, why does the industry default to that standard?
Like many standards, there are often areas where those who are writing or developing the standard do not agree and what results is a middle of the road or good enough metric or standard. I am a structural engineer by trade and have been involved in the development of a few standards in the industry and that is exactly how it works. It becomes a judgement call that both sides agree to as acceptable, but neither agree that the agreed upon standard is best.
However, testing of the standard is the key and that takes money. Perhaps there is a better overall standard for fighting rifles, but how are they going to prove or document such results. The military/gov has done tons of testing and trials and effectively put the guns through rigorous testing on top of extensive use in the field. I am not sure how much of the results from the trials go back into modifying the TDP, but guns built with the TDP as a standard are tested extensively in both trials and actual field use.
That happens in the building industry. A product needs testing to prove that they have the capacity listed in their product literature in order to be approved by many building departments. Those tests cost thousands upon thousands of dollars and while some of these companies may have potentially better products that what is currently available and approved, they have not been tested sufficiently to warrant their acceptance.
None, but I have seen members deride a company that didn't meet the TDP specs for deviations that, truth be told are inconsequential for the intended purpose.
While I don't doubt that this has happened, I believe that the prevailing mindset at M4c is one that is generally capable of distinguishing between deviations from the TDP that are shortcuts or cost-saving measures that compromise reliability and/or functionality and deviations from the TDP that have x benefit to the non-military end user. Also, there is something to be said for a dose of healthy but respectful skepticism towards new processes or technologies that have not been vetted by time and quantity.
5. LE/MIL
6. Self Defense
C4
This is what it's all about. I have a 90 year old .22 bolt action that still works fine, it works fine because it was made of quality gun steel of it's day, but it's a hunting/target rifle and was not meant to do the job of 5 & 6.
I recently had this very discussion on a car forum and told them that they wouldn't buy a PC, TV, or Corvette without knowing the specs so why would you buy a rifle for 5 & 6 use without knowing the specs?
I have no doubt that an AR made from quality gun steel could last a long time doing 1-4 but I wouldn't trust it for 5 & 6.
Piss off.
You can use all the fancy talk you want, but your Bushamster still sucks!
:)
I'm questioning whether or not you and others actually understand the specs in the TDP and whether or not you've evaluated them to know if they meet your requirements?
It's starting to sound like you have some sort of personal ax to grind. Allow myself to quote.... myself
Without the information in the explanations below, The Chart(s) that appears at the bottom of this page is all but worthless. It is critical, when considering an M4-pattern carbine, to ensure that you understand the list of features and can figure out for yourself if a specific feature is applicable to your intended use. If a sufficient number of the features below and on The Chart are not applicable to your use, then perhaps an M4-pattern carbine is not the right choice for you.
And what's wrong with that? If they're requirement is for a cool looking gun that's as cheap as possible a HK716 probably isn't the right answer is it?
If that's their stated requirement they're not going to get an argument from me. But that's not how it goes. The way it goes is they go on and on about how they need a fighting rifle for home defense ans SHTF and training and competing and hunting and... then they go buy a product with a set of specifications that have proven to lead to unreliable operation. Examples include sub-standard bolt steel, failure to test for flaws in said bolt, failure to stake carrier keys, failure to stake receiver endplates, chamber other than that ammo which will perform best for those stated uses, springs which do not function for as long as those spec'd, etc.
I think you're confusing me with the people that use my work product to justify their own purchases. I'm no more a fan of them than I am of those who hate the Chart. It's a collection of data. It's up to the reader to interpret the data, and I've made that clear almost from the beginning.
I'm not saying at all that the need for a standard doesn't exist. I'm saying that the standard may not be the best for all purposes. Some things that are completely application dependent include:
Barrel steel = should be determined by firing schedule
Gas port size = should be tuned for the intended ammo
Buffer weight = should be tuned for the intended ammo
Chamber = should match the intended ammo
IMHO HPT/MPI of individual BCG's and barrel is unnecessary. Batch testing is completely acceptable. KAC has even taken this position on thier BCG's and I believe that they also opened up the port on the SR-15 to allow for a wider range of ammunition to be used reliably instead of being optimized for M855.
I would also submit that you can't exceed a technical spec, again, it's either to spec or not to spec. Off the top of my head the new S&W Magpul MOE Mid, the new AAC carbines and the KAC SR-15 are 2 examples of guns that aren't just not meeting TDP requirements, they're not really following it at all. Are these carbines not suitable for serious purposes?
the problem is that the people looking at the cheapest cool looking gun still expect it to function/perform, and are surprised when it doesn't.
Those people are ****ed up.
As we all know, people use AR's for lots of things. Some of them include:
1. Target shooting
2. Hunting
3. Gun Games
4. Plinking
5. LE/MIL
6. Self Defense
C4
I would classify them into 3 different classes:
1. Fun guns (including target shooting, hunting, gaming, plinking)
2. Self defense/general LE
3. Military/SWAT
I think the differences in application between 2 and 3 are significant enough that they'd require different specifications but none that IMO would compromise the reliability of the weapon system. I realize that's probably a hard sell to folks that carry guns around everyday that they'll probably never use (myself included). :p
Couple of points. The TDP has substantial value and represents millions of dollars of R and D. It is the only known quantity in the AR world.
To make a change from the TDP is to depart from the known.
For even a modestly complex mechanical device like an AR, there may be no single individual that is qualified to determine if a change is technically "superior" to the TDP. For example, is Ferritic NitroCarburization (nitriding) a barrel superior treatment to chrome lining? Barrel life, corrosion resistance, throat wear, thermal resistance, treatment processes, accuracy, steel compatability, only exhaustive testing beyond the reach of an individual could truly and comprehensively answer this question. Bolt steel, barrel steel, carrier weight, gas system length, fire control groups, gas blocks, chambers, it is all just a guess. An individual can make a fairly educated guess, but adhearance to the TDP can provide the best answer to many of these questions.
None of my own personal ARs are made to the TDP, non standard gas systems, fire control groups, barrel length and contour, stocks, handguards, calibers.... for everyone of these changes I am making an educated guess, that it will be superior to the TDP for my use, but I realize that I am flapping the butterfly's wings and I am potentially compromising some aspect of performance down the line, and I won't truly know until I have expended the weapon's life.
As far as not exceeding a specification, many specs are for performance. I've spec'ed out a number of vehicles for purchase with a minimum gas mileage number. If a vehicle has a higher gas mileage, are they exceeding the spec?
To the OP, it sounds as if you've got some sort of internet Ax to grind or you want to start an arguement, if you don't intend to sound that way, then you must be an engineer.... jk:p
Raven Armament
05-01-12, 00:20
Quality is much like pornography. I can't clearly define it, but I know it when I see it.
The TDP is the minimum acceptable standard. What many forget is that is also the maximum acceptable standard. To deviate in any way from the stated specifications requires that the deviation is allowed as a suitable substitute. Otherwise it's out of spec.
On the AH64, the two engines are each de-rated to run at half the horse power it can safely put out. So if I supply the Army with engines that run at three quarters power, that's better than spec, right? Wrong. That would result in 50% more power than the airframe is rated for and cause accelerated wear that may lead to a catastrophic failure before the planned inspection cycle can find and prevent it.
Before futzing around with the TDP, first you have to understand what standards affect safety of flight and what is cosmetics and it's not always what you think it is. Most folks would think it doesn't make a difference what type of tape is used to seal the sidewalls of the cargo bay of a 737 or even that the tape is needed. In the normal everyday operation of the aircraft, it's true. But what if there is a fire? If the wrong tape is used, it won't be fireproof and will let smoke into the cabin and injure or kill the crew and passengers. Oxygen can be sucked in to keep the fire going and reduce the effectiveness of the fire detection and suppression systems. Fire will not be contained and spread before it can be suppressed. All because the wrong tape was used or not installed correctly.
Same with the M4. While the presence or lack thereof of the M4 barrel notch will not affect the day to day operation of the AR carbine (unless needed for the mission), a larger or smaller diameter gas port, out of spec bolt or leaky gas key will. A bolt that's too soft will peen; one that's too hard will crack. Too little leade in the chamber will result in pressure spikes. Too much could have a negative affect in accuracy and velocity.
The example in the first post about receiving Colts when the order is for Bushmasters as being out of spec is absolutely correct, even of the Colt is a better rifle.
But keep in mind this- The Colt M4 carbine built for the military has something the Bushmaster does not and maybe something the civilian Colt M4 does not. It's certified to meet the standards Colt was contracted to deliver
A perfect example of people getting what they do not need is the M4 barrel profile itself. Heavier barrel with a notch cut for a grenade launcher. The Military version is a 14.5" barrel while the civilian is 16".....even heavier. And, this added weight is out front were you feel it most. I guess people think it looks cool when actually, the lighter pencil barrel is so much better in just about all civilian scenarios.
Based strictly on compliance with the TDP or even a couple TDPs depending on scope or focus, wouldn't it be safe to say that aftermarket furniture and some operating items (like charging handle for example) from Magpul, Troy, VTAC, DD, BCM etc. do not meet TDP standards, and thus are inferior?
Yet there's alot of folks pushing for BCM Gunfighter version X charging handles, Magpul MOE handguards or free float rail Y from DD or Troy, handstop Z from Tango Down and so on and so forth.
This even though the items do not (AFAI aware of anyway) do not meet the TDP for the military M16/M4 family of small arms.
They are accepted for use on a unit level, but aren't specifically called out in TDP.
However KAC does have a TDP compliance with thier RIS, RAS and whatever other alphabet item they produce for the military.
Does this make thier items so vastly superior that no other should be accepted if one were using mil-spec TDP as the minimum standard for parts and assemblies?
No dog in the fight, just had this pop into my head as one of the glaring examples that TDP might not always be the ideal as based on an individuals need.
Like it or not, such sub items are pertinant to the function of the weapon system as a whole, yet if the TDP is unquestionably followed the example items are sub par and unacceptable for use or substitution.
Which is kinda where I believe the OP is coming from in the 1st post as defined by later posts.
is there better than milspec???
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=88634
I think there is... as long as the material and tolerance specs of the TDP is used as a minimum dimension, why would it not be better to knowingly deviate in certain aspects when a "better" alternative for the application exists?
IIRC, there is no commercially available gun which is compliant. even the Colt 6920 is not TDP due to the 16" barrel. so what does that say for the strict adherents?
A perfect example of people getting what they do not need is the M4 barrel profile itself. Heavier barrel with a notch cut for a grenade launcher. The Military version is a 14.5" barrel while the civilian is 16".....even heavier. And, this added weight is out front were you feel it most. I guess people think it looks cool when actually, the lighter pencil barrel is so much better in just about all civilian scenarios.
Most of us have tolerated the M4 barrel profile because it was a compromise we were willing to accept to get what we otherwise wanted. Even then, I went to the trouble of buying 6520s and changing out the A2 upper to a flattop because I didn't need the M4 profile.
I think the only reason we got the 16" M4 profile at all is because the various manufacturers simply assumed that what everyone wanted was a gun that looked just like what we saw on the nightly news.
clmarshall21
05-01-12, 08:43
Can you quantify why it's the minimum standard other than it's existence?
Its the minimum standard because its the standard that they (the military) chose/developed and ultimately, employ. If there were 30 other specifications in existence that outlined differing requirements for fighting carbines, the "minimum standard" for the military would be whichever of those standards they adopted and employed. It only makes sense though that the military is the only entity with enough experience to produce a standard for these weapons. That might explain why the mil-spec standard is the one and only (that I know of).
Minimum standard is ultimately decided by the customer. The military, as a customer, dictates the criteria for the finished product that they are buying and the manufacturer that supplies them must follow those guidelines. That criteria is based on the weapons intended use and has been established by years of use and abuse and high dollar investments into R&D, etc. If you, as a customer, have varying criteria for your weapon/toy/paperweight (whatever it ends up being classified as) for your intended use, that is totally acceptable because you are the customer. Perhaps in your opinion, a 416SS Middy with a LITE rail "exceeds mil-spec" but the fact is, that is now a rifle built to your specification and no longer acceptable per mil-spec. The idea of your specification exceeding another customers specification is irrelevant because as customers your intended use MUST be different or you wouldn't have deviated from the military's specification in the first place. Of course, technology (whether it be manufacturing methods, metallurgy, dimensions, inspection technology, etc) that the military finds as being superior to what is outlined in their specification may be adopted and the specification will evolve.
In my industry the customer employs a specification to build or repair a piece of equipment to, and in many cases they will adjust the criteria of that specification to meet needs that they feel need to be met. Those original specifications are the industry standard but each customer that employs those standards commonly deviates from them to make up for, in their opinion, short comings of the original specifications. These deviations usually result in large investments of time and money to prove that the deviation they are making is acceptable.
I would also submit that you can't exceed a technical spec, again, it's either to spec or not to spec. Off the top of my head the new S&W Magpul MOE Mid, the new AAC carbines and the KAC SR-15 are 2 examples of guns that aren't just not meeting TDP requirements, they're not really following it at all. Are these carbines not suitable for serious purposes?
The TDP is written for either the M16A2/A4 or the M4. One has a rifle length gas system and a 20" barrel and the other uses a carbine gas system and a 14.5" barrel.
None of the guns mentioned above can be measured against the TDP as they use a different gas system and or barrel lengths. So it’s kind of like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.
The term "suitable" is going to be best defined by the end user (in their opinion and for their needs). The question I have to ask is, are those guns listed above superior to the TDP? Are they equal to what the TDP calls out?
The honest answer is that we do not know. In a perfect world, we could run the .Mil testing on a gun following the TDP and one that does not and then field said gun(s) and watch how well they do over the span of say 5 years (or more). This would THEN tell us which one is better or more "suitable" for a defensive roll.
Until the above happens, all discussions on the topic are purely hypothetical at best.
C4
The_War_Wagon
05-01-12, 08:55
Originally Posted by rob_s
Also, most people's "me-spec" is nothing more than "cheapest gun that appears to be an AR-pattern firearm I could find at the gun show". That's fine if people buy based solely on appearance and ignorance.
And what's wrong with that? If they're "requirement" is for a cool looking gun that's as cheap as possible a HK716 probably isn't the right answer is it?
And that's PRECISELY what M4C is NOT about.
I think the only reason we got the 16" M4 profile at all is because the various manufacturers simply assumed that what everyone wanted was a gun that looked just like what we saw on the nightly news.
I agree with you in part but I don't believe manufacturers assumed anything. The civilian market demanded and continues to demand a mil-spec gun (at least on M4C.net) so alot are edging in that direction if they already weren't compliant. As an example "upgrading" to 4150 on a semi auto gun where 4140 was suitable. Some guys say that it's "cost cutting" or "skimping on quality", IMO it's choosing the correct material for the application. Why buy an F350 to haul a twin sized mattress when an F150 will do? The mission should drive your gear choices and not everything should be poo-pooed because it's not TDP. If you're a civilian looking for a HD carbine or a LEO wanting a patrol rifle your parameters for use aren't the same as a SOF assaulter and maybe your carbine shouldn't be the same either.
It seems to me that when you compare an item to an established spec you have two options:
1) the item is in spec
or
2) the item is out of spec
That's it. Those are your choices. I think this has been mentioned already. If the item is in spec then IMO the process ends here. If the item is out of spec then you could take it a step further and try to determine if the deviation from spec somehow makes the item superior or inferior to the established spec. This is where you have to apply your own needs/wants and establish your own parameters and as a result only you can determine if the deviation from the established spec is in any way inferior or superior for your use.
I agree with you in part but I don't believe manufacturers assumed anything. The civilian market demanded and continues to demand a mil-spec gun (at least on M4C.net) so alot are edging in that direction if they already weren't compliant. As an example "upgrading" to 4150 on a semi auto gun where 4140 was suitable. Some guys say that it's "cost cutting" or "skimping on quality", IMO it's choosing the correct material for the application. Why buy an F350 to haul a twin sized mattress when an F150 will do? The mission should drive your gear choices and not everything should be poo-pooed because it's not TDP. If you're a civilian looking for a HD carbine or a LEO wanting a patrol rifle your parameters for use aren't the same as a SOF assaulter and maybe your carbine shouldn't be the same either.
I think you've put the cart before the horse. I don't know how long you've been following the commercial AR market, but for as long as I can remember the manufacturers were pushing "mil-spec" as if it meant something.
All I, or we, have done is hold their feet to the fire with their claims, and asked consumers to educate themselves as to what they're being sold... and fed.
do some idiots bang on the TDP drum a bit too hard? Of course. But I have been taking great pains to remove any mention of the TDP as a whole or any use of the term "mil-spec" out of the Chart and Explanation of Features for several years now. The TDP was the genesis of the list of criteria, yes, but there is a clear explanation as to what the choices are and why they matter in the E of F. You will notice there is no mention of barrel length, gas system length, gas port size, barrel profile, or any of the other features that are irrelevant to reliability and longevity.
speaking of drums, you've been a member here for far too long to just now be bringing all this up. What's driving this now out of the blue? You say you're not stirring the pot but I'm not sure I believe that just yet. What was it that caused you to post this now? If you think you're bringing fire to the cavemen and telling people something they didn't know, the disclaimer I quoted above has been a part of the Chart for years.
I agree with you in part but I don't believe manufacturers assumed anything. The civilian market demanded and continues to demand a mil-spec gun (at least on M4C.net) so alot are edging in that direction if they already weren't compliant. As an example "upgrading" to 4150 on a semi auto gun where 4140 was suitable. Some guys say that it's "cost cutting" or "skimping on quality", IMO it's choosing the correct material for the application. Why buy an F350 to haul a twin sized mattress when an F150 will do? The mission should drive your gear choices and not everything should be poo-pooed because it's not TDP. If you're a civilian looking for a HD carbine or a LEO wanting a patrol rifle your parameters for use aren't the same as a SOF assaulter and maybe your carbine shouldn't be the same either.
This is certainly true (cost/quality of the weapon matching up to one’s personal reqs). Like I posted, if your intended roll is to shoot 5rds a year at the pesky ground hog on your property, buy whatever you like (as it really doesn't matter).
The slippery slope of choosing parts that do not conform to the TDP is that there are OTHER repercussions of this. Meaning, when I see a 1/9 twist rate on an AR, I IMMEDIATELY think out of spec chamber and overly large gas port. Another concern I have is that the gun is not assembled properly.
To me, it is simple. If the company making the AR cannot spend the $7 dollars to upgrade from a 4140 to a CMV, what else did they go cheap on?? There are many more examples, but you get the point.
C4
I agree with you in part but I don't believe manufacturers assumed anything. The civilian market demanded and continues to demand a mil-spec gun (at least on M4C.net) so alot are edging in that direction if they already weren't compliant. As an example "upgrading" to 4150 on a semi auto gun where 4140 was suitable. Some guys say that it's "cost cutting" or "skimping on quality", IMO it's choosing the correct material for the application. Why buy an F350 to haul a twin sized mattress when an F150 will do? The mission should drive your gear choices and not everything should be poo-pooed because it's not TDP. If you're a civilian looking for a HD carbine or a LEO wanting a patrol rifle your parameters for use aren't the same as a SOF assaulter and maybe your carbine shouldn't be the same either.
Not everything is poo-pooed because it's not TDP compliant. Midlength gas systems are wildly popular here. 16" barrels are freaking ubiquitous. Pencil/lightweight barrels are wildly popular. The vast majority of guns here are not select fire. Any Magpul/VLTOR/whatever stock is not compliant with the M4 TDP. Go to a pic thread and tell me how many of those you see. 4150 barrels often come on guns that are less expensive to the buyer than guns with 4140 barrels, so in that case why would the buyer not want 4150CMV? Stainless barrels are commonplace here for precision applications. Who here has ever said that KAC's E3 bolt is a bad thing (outside of possible logistical concerns)?
The fact is there are a litany of features that are embraced here that are not compliant with the M4 or M16 TDP. I think you are making a bigger deal out of this than it is.
Side note: there are those that advocate buying a Colt 6920, which is about as close as you can get to a civilian legal M4, and shooting the hell out of it if you are new to the game. This shouldn't be confused with necessarily saying that the 6920 is the end all be all in stock configuration, but is a recommendation founded in experience against blowing money on crap before you know you need it.
Why buy an F350 to haul a twin sized mattress when an F150 will do?
You can't compare the extra hauling ability of a truck with the potential live saving functionality of a firearm. Still if you are 100% certain you will never have to use your rifle to save a life, go find your best bargain and cut a corner or two. I suppose it really doesn't matter at that point except possibly making for an embarrassing outing on the range due to failures.
However I believe most of us here come from the perspective that if our rifles are be called upon in a life saving emergency, we want them to be the most reliable and effective known variant for the job. It's really not all that complicated.
Side note: there are those that advocate buying a Colt 6920, which is about as close as you can get to a civilian legal M4, and shooting the hell out of it if you are new to the game. This shouldn't be confused with necessarily saying that the 6920 is the end all be all in stock configuration, but is a recommendation founded in experience against blowing money on crap before you know you need it.
Right. Since you can get one in the $1K range, has one of the best names (if not the best name) in the AR world, is reliable and holds its value (which is very important if you need to sell it) the Colt AR is an easy choice.
C4
Side note: there are those that advocate buying a Colt 6920, which is about as close as you can get to a civilian legal M4, and shooting the hell out of it if you are new to the game. This shouldn't be confused with necessarily saying that the 6920 is the end all be all in stock configuration, but is a recommendation founded in experience against blowing money on crap before you know you need it.
and because, regardless of WHAT spec it's built to, we have a better confidence that it will run for the new shooter so they can focus on, you know, shooting. We have all seen the poor new guy with his sub-par rifle having failure after failure and not learning a damn thing other than he should have bought something else.
People either understand or they don't.
This strikes me as 3 pages of some one trying to justify buying garbage by "muddying the waters".
I guess I'm so simple minded that I just trust "the chart", and it's author.
Right. Since you can get one in the $1K range, has one of the best names (if not the best name) in the AR world, is reliable and holds its value (which is very important if you need to sell it) the Colt AR is an easy choice.
C4
and because, regardless of WHAT spec it's built to, we have a better confidence that it will run for the new shooter so they can focus on, you know, shooting. We have all seen the poor new guy with his sub-par rifle having failure after failure and not learning a damn thing other than he should have bought something else.
Agreed.
People either understand or they don't.
This strikes me as 3 pages of some one trying to justify buying garbage by "muddying the waters".
I guess I'm so simple minded that I just trust "the chart", and it's author.
Exactly my thoughts.
This whole thread reeks of someone trying to justify their purchase of a carbine that's not suitable for anything other than range use.
Sure, a company can not follow the TDP and still make a quality rifle suitable for self defense. BUT.. They need to be using the TDP as a minimum and then they can improve on that as they see fit. Literally every company out there that is not following "mil-spec" or the TDP is doing so to save $$$. It's not hard to see.
Why would a manufacturer not follow "mil-spec" requirements and/or the TDP? Think about it. Why would they not? What reason do they have not to? Because they can save money. They can cut corners.
I don't care if my Magpul stock or other accessories does not meet the TDP because generally they are not associated with the reliability and quality standard of the gun. It's simply to customize the rifle to suit the primary user (you) better.
My BCM is using all kinds of different accessories (all quality) that might not technically meet the TDP, BUT the heart of the gun and where it counts definitely does -- that's what matters and that's where companies like Rock River and Bushmaster cut so many corners.
Speaking of drums, you've been a member here for far too long to just now be bringing all this up. What's driving this now out of the blue? You say you're not stirring the pot but I'm not sure I believe that just yet. What was it that caused you to post this now? If you think you're bringing fire to the cavemen and telling people something they didn't know, the disclaimer I quoted above has been a part of the Chart for years.
I read more than I post & I wouldn't call having a discussion on determining requirements and filling needs "stirring the pot". But I'll be honest, my thread the other day narrowing down carbine choices that got shut down drove this post but it's something I've been wanting to discuss for a while. Folks gave their input usually "Get Colt, DD, a BCM. They're quality guns." but for the most part were unable to explain why. Which IMO pointed to people not really knowing what quality actually is. I took it as an opportunity to fill a gap with some knowledge & hopefully get people to evaluate needs/wants/application/use prior to making decisions or giving input. IMO, it's not enough to have the right an answer, you should be able to qualify it as well and lately people haven't really been doing that.
Exactly my thoughts.
This whole thread reeks of someone trying to justify their purchase of a carbine that's not suitable for anything other than range use.
How do you determine suitability? I'm challenging the dogma that "suitable" always = "TDP spec".
Why would a manufacturer not follow "mil-spec" requirements and/or the TDP? Think about it. Why would they not? What reason do they have not to?
Maybe the end user is not the military?
The slippery slope of choosing parts that do not conform to the TDP is that there are OTHER repercussions of this. Meaning, when I see a 1/9 twist rate on an AR, I IMMEDIATELY think out of spec chamber and overly large gas port. Another concern I have is that the gun is not assembled properly.
I hear you but, that is a result of poor QC from a vendor not deviating from the TDP.
Anybody that spends an hour here, and still doesnt know what is quality, and why, I don't think they ever will.
I read more than I post & I wouldn't call having a discussion on determining requirements and filling needs "stirring the pot". But I'll be honest, my thread the other day narrowing down carbine choices that got shut down drove this post but it's something I've been wanting to discuss for a while. Folks gave their input usually "Get Colt, DD, a BCM. They're quality guns." but for the most part were unable to explain why. Which IMO pointed to people not really knowing what quality actually is. I took it as an opportunity to fill a gap with some knowledge & hopefully get people to evaluate needs/wants/application/use prior to making decisions or giving input. IMO, it's not enough to have the right an answer, you should be able to qualify it as well and lately people haven't really been doing that.
Since most of the people asking the questions aren't asking the right questions either, I'd say they get what they deserve. If someone doesn't ask anything more than "what AR should I get?" then they really don't deserve any more response than "Get a Colt, BCM, DD, etc."
Your thread that got locked appeared to be a fishing expedition as well, frankly.
Maybe the end user is not the military?
I would like for you to stop attempting to be socratic and superior and vague and instead be specific.
He asked you a question. Answer it. Outside of cost, what un-checked box on the Chart is a positive reason for an empty blank? Yes, I've read all the recent nonsense from companies that do not wish to pay for, or know how to perform, HPT/MPI, regarding how skipping it is "better" so let's leave that one alone as a tar baby we don't want to get stuck in. Pick something else.
Phillip Crosby defines quality as conformance to requirements, not goodness or elegance. ... If I were to order 12 DPMS carbines from a distributor and they send me 13 6920’s is this a non conformance? Absolutely. The distributor failed to meet the requirements of my P.O. despite me receiving “more” & “better”.
What you defined there is accuracy, not quality. You might be confusing "quality of service" with the actual term "quality", which is a characteristic of an item. The former relates to accuracy and is what you are talking about - getting precisely what you ordered. That is not at all the same thing as the actual term "quality". You might be missing the context of Crosby's definition.
I hear you but, that is a result of poor QC from a vendor not deviating from the TDP.
They go hand in hand.
C4
I would like for you to stop attempting to be socratic and superior and vague and instead be specific.
He asked you a question. Answer it. Outside of cost, what un-checked box on the Chart is a positive reason for an empty blank? Yes, I've read all the recent nonsense from companies that do not wish to pay for, or know how to perform, HPT/MPI, regarding how skipping it is "better" so let's leave that one alone as a tar baby we don't want to get stuck in. Pick something else.
I answered his question. The reason that Colt follows the TDP is because it's what the military specified. Specifications aren't positive or negative, they're just specs. It's up to the customer to decide what they want and up to the vendor to provide exactly what's the customer ordered. It's really that simple. I can only answer that question for myself and my requirements, others may differ and that's fine.
Great thread, thanks OP.
I think this is the point: if someone buys a cheaper AR, like my Windham SRC or Stag 2T, then it is automatically deemed as unacceptable for HD / SD because it doesn't meet one or two specifications.
It has a 1/9 twist: the heaviest ammo I've got is 62gr.
It can't hold up to sustained full auto fire: not a problem, it only shoots in semiauto anyway.
If you shoot 1,000 rounds in a few hours it will break: I don't have 1,000 rounds of ammo and only two magazines are kept loaded.
I fail to see how the Stag or Windham is insufficient for HD.
The bolt on each is staked.
Now that I've provided enough examples / information for me to be properly crucified for my words...:suicide2:
I also have a DD M4 V2.
Just not sure exceeds military spec is actually needed for all SD / HD applications.
I get the "buy the best" AR for HD logic, just like the 1911 folks that don't want MIM small parts; Kimber is not "good enough", must get Brown, Baer, Wesson (none of those have MIM). All the while Kimber owners with thousands of rounds through their pistol think it is "good enough".
Good God, kimbers and stags are good enough for hd......
Insanity is all that comes to mind......
I answered his question. The reason that Colt follows the TDP is because it's what the military specified. Specifications aren't positive or negative, they're just specs. It's up to the customer to decide what they want and up to the vendor to provide exactly what's the customer ordered. It's really that simple.
Unfortunately in the case of ARs the customer doesn't get to order exactly what they want. That's the whole point of the Chart. It's to help the customer understand what they are getting with the most common brands. The Explanation of Features is there to help the customer understand not only what he's getting, but why he might want one thing or another, or why the standard may be a good thing in the absence of simply ignoring the standard.
and you didn't answer his question, you dodged it. and you dodged it again here. he asked you a specific question about a specific specified item.
I can only answer that question for myself and my requirements, others may differ and that's fine.
Then this really does just come back to you being mad your thread got locked and acting superior, because none of that is news to anyone. Except maybe you?
Again, the disclaimer I quoted on page 1 of this thread has been on the Chart almost since the beginning, and virtually everyone but the very densest of people has understood that even without the disclaimer.
What you defined there is accuracy, not quality. You might be confusing "quality of service" with the actual term "quality", which is a characteristic of an item. The former relates to accuracy and is what you are talking about - getting precisely what you ordered. That is not at all the same thing as the actual term "quality". You might be missing the context of Crosby's definition.
and who named Crosby king dingaling of (re)defining words anyway?
quality (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quality?s=t)
qual·i·ty [kwol-i-tee] noun, plural qual·i·ties, adjective
noun
1.
an essential or distinctive characteristic, property, or attribute: the chemical qualities of alcohol.
2.
character or nature, as belonging to or distinguishing a thing: the quality of a sound.
3.
character with respect to fineness, or grade of excellence: food of poor quality; silks of fine quality.
4.
high grade; superiority; excellence: wood grain of quality.
5.
a personality or character trait: kindness is one of her many good qualities.
adjective
16.
of or having superior quality: quality paper.
17.
producing or providing products or services of high quality or merit: a quality publisher.
18.
of or occupying high social status: a quality family.
19.
marked by a concentrated expenditure of involvement, concern, or commitment: Counselors are urging that working parents try to spend more quality time with their children.
This thread tells me that many people still don't get it.
First, I must make a correction- I stated that the TDP gives the minimum and the maximum. That's not quite right. The TDP is the acceptable standard.
For any deviations from the TDP to be acceptable, it must first be approved. Where use of the GF CH or Magpul furniture is approved, they are suitable substitutes as replacement parts.
Manufacturers are not required by contract or law to provide ARs to the commercial market that meet the TDP or to ensure deviations are acceptable. Civilian buyers are not required to buy ARs that meet the TDP or have acceptable deviations. So caveat emptor.
We do not have to adhere to the exactness of the TDP to get a good AR carbine- a civilian cannot have a machinegun or an SBR without the proper paperwork, for example. But instead of using this point to show the need to identify acceptable deviations, many critics use it to justify any deviation.
I want my AR to be reliable. Tinkering is fine when I'm at home bored because I don't have a TV to watch and hate doing housework. Tinkering sucks when I'm shooting with my friends and they get to break all the clay pigeons while I'm trying to clear a double feed, or dealing with an improperly adjusted gas regulator. It sucks even harder when waking up to the sounds of forced entry in my home or I find an angry bear between me and my Jeep, 20 miles from the nearest highway.
The TDP is a good standard. Know what deviations are acceptable and under what conditions. The choice is yours- Build a rifle as close to TDP as legally possible. Use acceptable deviations from the TDP to build a reliable AR to meet your mission needs. I'd like to see the results and am interested in hearing how well it works. Or build an under performing jam-o-matic for all I care. Just don't waste our time posting about it here
They go hand in hand.
What about Lilja's 4140 1:8 twist .223 "patrolman" barrels? Do the deviations make the barrel poor quality or just not TDP compliant?
Unfortunately in the case of ARs the customer doesn't get to order exactly what they want. That's the whole point of the Chart. It's to help the customer understand what they are getting with the most common brands. The Explanation of Features is there to help the customer understand not only what he's getting, but why he might want one thing or another, or why the standard may be a good thing in the absence of simply ignoring the standard.
I'm not sure why you're harping on this. I think mostly everyone here understands the intent of the chart.
and you didn't answer his question, you dodged it. and you dodged it again here. he asked you a specific question about a specific specified item.
Just because you don't like or understand the answer doesn't mean that I didn't answer it. I'm not going to speculate why someone else specs thier guns the way they do. Maybe you should look into it. An idea for an article perhaps?
Then this really does just come back to you being mad your thread got locked and acting superior, because none of that is news to anyone. Except maybe you?
LOL it's a thread on the internet. Acting superior? Dude, I do this quality stuff for a living.
and who named Crosby king dingaling of (re)defining words anyway?
The modern manufacturing industry.
So assuming you have nothing but good intent with this thread I must ask, what is the new standard you propose?
If you think the TDP is off base for a certain segment of the m4c population what is the new standard. And what aspects of the TDP does it "fix"? With out a solution to your perceived problem you aren't doing much besides running around screaming that the sky is falling.
Why exactly are we wasting bandwidth on this thread when we have discussed it time and again in various ways?
So assuming you have nothing but good intent with this thread I must ask, what is the new standard you propose?
If you think the TDP is off base for a certain segment of the m4c population what is the new standard. And what aspects of the TDP does it "fix"? With out a solution to your perceived problem you aren't doing much besides running around screaming that the sky is falling.
This is just a discussion, I think a good one. There's nothing wrong with the TDP, I never said there was ever a problem with it and I'm not proposing a new standard. I'm proposing that people research and become knowledgeable enough to objectively be able to evaluate their requirements and do what best fits their needs even if deviates from the TDP. Most folks are at least halfway there with regards to furniture, gas systems, barrel profiles and add on widgets but are hesitant to go any further. I understand that it takes alot of knowledge to be able to deviate and "get away with it" (Grant's suppressor optimized SBR for exmple) but I think it's a level that we should all try to aspire to.
Why exactly are we wasting bandwidth on this thread when we have discussed it time and again in various ways?
Because discussing "old" controversial/contrarian topics is good and healthy, especially for a discussion forum.
Most folks are at least halfway there with regards to furniture, gas systems, barrel profiles and add on widgets but are hesitant to go any further
So what exactly are you talking about? Barrel steel? Barrel twist rate? Chamber? Gas port size? ........anything else?
So what exactly are you talking about? Barrel steel? Barrel twist rate? Chamber? Gas port size? ........anything else?
Good heavens man, let's stop feeding in. This has become a senseless debacle.
To think that we have one extreme here where a member is ripped for, let's say, recently asking about input regarding a Windham variant, to the other, where extreme tolerance is practiced to the point of near simplistic insanity.
The entire initial post could have easily been summed up with the question: Why do you think that established spec guidelines matter?
At which point it would have likely been closed within minutes.
I would classify them into 3 different classes:
1. Fun guns (including target shooting, hunting, gaming, plinking)
2. Self defense/general LE
3. Military/SWAT
I think the differences in application between 2 and 3 are significant enough that they'd require different specifications but none that IMO would compromise the reliability of the weapon system.
Sorry but "general LE" is who will be the first responder to a terrorist event, even before they know what it really is, and need to be able to suppress the same as "Military/SWAT" if not more so since the first responders will be in small numbers.
So what exactly are you talking about? Barrel steel? Barrel twist rate? Chamber? Gas port size? ........anything else?
Assuming proper assembly? Honestly, I think that's about all I would deviate on because those items are dependent on ammo and volume of fire which will differ person to person. BCG materials probably shouldn't be dicked with but I think HPT/MPI batch testing is acceptable with a good quality system in place.
What about Lilja's 4140 1:8 twist .223 "patrolman" barrels? Do the deviations make the barrel poor quality or just not TDP compliant?
Depends on their intended roll. If a guy wants to shoot yotes, then I would say that barrel is an excellent idea. If they owner wants to hunt smelly men in far off countries, then yes that barrel is a poor choice.
C4
RogerinTPA
05-01-12, 16:48
The funny thing is, to the General Population, this entire discussion matters not. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, for a cheaper price, it's "quality enough" for them. After all, the max use will only be a few mags a year, and displayed as a show piece to any male who wants to see it. Other wise, it will collect dust in the back of the closet or under the bed. Which is totally OK for "their" purposes, but not for us and our use. Outside of firearms, most of us will buy the very best in anything that we care to consume and afford. We are a pretty competitive, no shit, discerning group. We were probably like that prior to joining M4C, and it's probably what's kept us here. Collectively, we're not willing to settle for second rate for most things, regardless of what the actual definition of the term "quality" means.
I'm not saying at all that the need for a standard doesn't exist. I'm saying that the standard may not be the best for all purposes. Some things that are completely application dependent include:
Barrel steel = should be determined by firing schedule
Gas port size = should be tuned for the intended ammo
Buffer weight = should be tuned for the intended ammo
Chamber = should match the intended ammo
IMHO HPT/MPI of individual BCG's and barrel is unnecessary. Batch testing is completely acceptable. KAC has even taken this position on thier BCG's and I believe that they also opened up the port on the SR-15 to allow for a wider range of ammunition to be used reliably instead of being optimized for M855.
I would also submit that you can't exceed a technical spec, again, it's either to spec or not to spec. Off the top of my head the new S&W Magpul MOE Mid, the new AAC carbines and the KAC SR-15 are 2 examples of guns that aren't just not meeting TDP requirements, they're not really following it at all. Are these carbines not suitable for serious purposes?
There are some odd origins on this, and I think it may be enlightening to understand why the TDP can take precedence over this.
Part sourcing plays a huge part in this - KAC who has complete control over the parts being made can make a reliable statistical conclusion that batch testing is adequate for the hardware they make. When sourcing these parts from elsewhere, especially when not relying on a published reject rate when sampling (reject entire lots) the lower tier manufacturers are FAR more likely to include metallurgically or dimensionally inferior parts into their builds - I've seen this happen, and the tendency has been that those companies that choose to perform sample testing by batch don't have publicly known/available reject rates, while those that perform complete individual HPT/MPI testing end up with a significantly lower failure rate.
The argument that destructive testing limits product lifetime is valid, however even after the HPT/MPI process those bolts are good for around the lifetime of that barrel, and it makes the most sense to replace those as a set anyway. On the civilian side, the odds of any weapon system seeing those sorts of rounds are really low if you look at it per rifle sold, as only small minority of those rifles will see even 250+ rounds per year every year for a decade, let alone twice that total.
Barrel steel should be one of only a few types for a rifle, and if an accuracy requirement not less than 2-4MOA (depending on ammo) is all that needs to be met, then 4150 chromoly vanadium with chrome lining is the correct choice. Stainless units make sense for higher precision setups, but those differ from the TDP in a meaningful way, and can only be a few different alloys to work well.
Omitting the chrome lining and running steels like 4140 or cheaper for cost savings is a prime example of failing to meet the TDP that can be a detriment to function - they can be a bit more accurate, and work great as plinking and varminting guns, but I wouldn't call that a quality enhancement.
Gas port size for specific ammo has been covered extensively, but it usually comes down to user ignorance. New and uneducated users will run the cheapest ammunition through every gun and assume it will work, so the default for commercial sales is to go with massive gas ports to ensure function - this also obscures other functional deficiencies often. For competition or varminting guns with adjustable gas blocks and the like, tuning makes more sense load by load, but for a carbine used as a defensive weapon system that's not entirely acceptable, hence why for users running 5.56 pressure ammunition, there is a specified gas port size for each length that will produce proven results.
Tuning buffer weight is another prime example - very light buffers enable users to run weaker ammunition, but often in marginal spec carbines, this masks/uncovers other existing problems with the design, especially related to the details of extraction and chambering fully. For educated users it's a nonissue, but without the safest bet for reliable function tends to be following something extensively tested - back to the TDP as a default, and usually running heavier buffers is only a direct result of something not working as advertised with the other variables chosen.
Same applies with chambers matching - for running only .223 pressure ammunition a great way to enhance accuracy is to run a tighter chamber. A CMV (nonCL) barrel with .223 chamber running good OTM .223 ammunition will be ludicrously accurate, but also susceptible to FTE failures when ran hot, or if proper cleaning regimen isn't maintained. A really good (read expensive) barrel with something like the Noveske Mod0 chamber can still digest 5.56 pressure ammunition and produce amazing groups. The former is a MUCH better cost argument for varminting, plinking, and sporting applications where shooting volume is known and limited. The latter is clearly the winner the rest of the time - back to paying more to get quality.
It is absolutely possible to exceed a technical spec, so long as the deviation still meets the functional requirements and exceeds it in a useful way (e.g. if your TDP for a bridge is based on toothpicks and marshmallows, the introduction of popsicle sticks and superglue would in fact do so). The difference is that the research cost to verify this is extremely high, and millions of dollars in testing and decades of T&E have led to a very developed TDP. Some companies (KAC comes to mind) have very extensively tested parts that deviate in significant ways, but only after millions of dollars spent have they gone forward with production, while more commonly the 'exceeds mil spec' advertising companies are precisely the opposite.
The last part is tolerance for user intervention required. I'm trying to build a similar (but different in enough ways to render his experience unhelpful to me) Suppressed SBR as Grant's, and the only reason I have confidence that I can eventually have a solid running carbine from that is because I will have a pile of parts to throw at it, and that I'll be unconcerned if I have to quit a development path, come back here, research, and try again - all with the realization that somebody sourcing the same parts as I have is likely to face different problems.
Repeatability is incredibly valuable, and while I agree that a ME-SPEC is possibly a better choice for somebody very educated on the platform (i.e. somebody who can or probably will build their own, and have a level of understanding that cleaning and assembly blindfolded is just an inconvenience), blindly adhering to a proven, if imperfect TDP is vastly better than paying around the same cost for something that doesn't function as advertised.
Brilliant post!
I don't think anything else needs to be said.
I get the "buy the best" AR for HD logic, just like the 1911 folks that don't want MIM small parts; Kimber is not "good enough", must get Brown, Baer, Wesson (none of those have MIM). All the while Kimber owners with thousands of rounds through their pistol think it is "good enough".
Ok, not to derail here, but I must.
I've owned 3 Kimbers back in the day. Each one of them went back to Kimber for work. Ramp and throat work. One of them went back a 2nd time, came back and still wouldn't shoot worth a damn. FTFs, FTEs with multiple types of ammo. 3 strikes you're out. 3 brand new F'ing guns still wouldn't shoot after 500-1000 rounds a piece.
That is shit. Sorry, but it is. They are all long gone. I'm pissed I put up with as much shit from Kimber as I did. They even told me over the phone they were receiving a lot of guns back that were unable to shoot hollow points and were having various other reliablity issues. You know when you here a manufacturer say that, somethin's up.
No way in hell I'd trust my life with a Kimber on my hip or my nightstand.
THAT is why I own Wilson Combat 1911s now - not a single failure of any sort after thousands of rounds fired through 3 of them.
Sometimes rumors ARE true. I've had first hand experience with it - never again. I dont want to start a 1911 pissing contest, but seriously. Don't make generalizations. There are reasons WHY people bash Kimbers. There are reasons WHY people bash DPMS guns etc.
If you've got one that works, great, but do not discount other's experience with them.
Just because you don't like or understand the answer doesn't mean that I didn't answer it. I'm not going to speculate why someone else specs thier guns the way they do. Maybe you should look into it. An idea for an article perhaps?
.
I don't think anything else needs to be said.
Think highly of yourself?
Suwannee Tim
05-01-12, 21:01
A little approximate calculation if you will permit me: the probability of a law abiding citizen getting into a gunfight, 1/1,000, the probability he will have or be able to get his AR before the fight is over, 1/10, the probability his Colt will fail, costing him his life, 1/10,000 and the probability his Bushie will fail costing him his life, 1/1000. So the probability your Colt will fail and cost you your life, 1/10,000,000 or 0.0000001, the probability your Bushie will fail you and cost you your life, 1/1,000,000 or 0.000001. I do not worry much about such low probability events.
Now consider the commonly given advice, "buy a Colt and shoot the heck out of it." I submit a Colt with 5,000 rounds down the pipe is less reliable than the Bushie with 500 rounds given that there are no grave flaws in the Bushie and the grave flaws seem to be unusual and in the distant past, at least in my limited experience.
I expect many years pass and no law abiding civilian and no police officer looses his life because his AR failed him. There is not a day that goes by that a civillian does not loose his life to tire failure nor a week that goes by that a cop does not loose his life to tire failure. This is the kind of thing I worry about.
The_War_Wagon
05-01-12, 21:09
This is just a discussion, I think a good one. There's nothing wrong with the TDP, I never said there was ever a problem with it and I'm not proposing a new standard.
Thus sayeth the quality control expert, who does this for a living.
Fork is inserted - fork test reveals... DONE. :rolleyes:
No way in hell I'd trust my life with a Kimber on my hip or my nightstand.
THAT is why I own Wilson Combat 1911s now - not a single failure of any sort after thousands of rounds fired through 3 of them.
Sometimes rumors ARE true. I've had first hand experience with it - never again. I dont want to start a 1911 pissing contest, but seriously. Don't make generalizations. There are reasons WHY people bash Kimbers. There are reasons WHY people bash DPMS guns etc.
If you've got one that works, great, but do not discount other's experience with them.
I had three different Kimbers that worked fine when I sold them, and each had passed the 500 round break-in.
I now have MIM free 1911's: Baer (UTC), Brown (Special Forces), Dan Wesson (Valor).
FYI: Colt reportedly has four MIM parts in their 1911's, so if anyone is resolved to only use the "best" to defend themself and theirs...
A little approximate calculation if you will permit me: the probability of a law abiding citizen getting into a gunfight, 1/1,000, the probability he will have or be able to get his AR before the fight is over, 1/10, the probability his Colt will fail, costing him his life, 1/10,000 and the probability his Bushie will fail costing him his life, 1/1000. So the probability your Colt will fail and cost you your life, 1/10,000,000 or 0.0000001, the probability your Bushie will fail you and cost you your life, 1/1,000,000 or 0.000001. I do not worry much about such low probability events.
Now consider the commonly given advice, "buy a Colt and shoot the heck out of it." I submit a Colt with 5,000 rounds down the pipe is less reliable than the Bushie with 500 rounds given that there are no grave flaws in the Bushie and the grave flaws seem to be unusual and in the distant past, at least in my limited experience.
I expect many years pass and no law abiding civilian and no police officer looses his life because his AR failed him. There is not a day that goes by that a civillian does not loose his life to tire failure nor a week that goes by that a cop does not loose his life to tire failure. This is the kind of thing I worry about.
Who brought Mr. Reality in here to ruin our fun? :p
I had three different Kimbers that worked fine when I sold them, and each had passed the 500 round break-in.
I now have MIM free 1911's: Baer (UTC), Brown (Special Forces), Dan Wesson (Valor).
FYI: Colt reportedly has four MIM parts in their 1911's, so if anyone is resolved to only use the "best" to defend themself and theirs...
Funny, it wasn't Kimber's excessive use of MIM parts that caused the failures with mine.
Thus sayeth the quality control expert, who does this for a living.
Fork is inserted - fork test reveals... DONE. :rolleyes:
I'm QA, not QC. It was a discussion, not a mass movement to create a new standard. If I was going to go through all the trouble to develop a better standard you better damn well believe that I'm bringing it to market and not opening it up to open discussion with random people on the internet. Lighten up Francis.
There is a difference in leading a discussion and being antagonistic, and most of your posts have been the latter. You spend your money on what you want and I'll do the same. Frankly thanks to this forum I was able to learn a ton of info before I purchased my AR (BCM 16in. Middy) and I may not put thousands of rounds through it a year but I know it will work when I want/need it too.
There is a difference in leading a discussion and being antagonistic.
I agree but I don't think that they're always mutually exclusive. In the end, I've decided against buying a carbine. I'll use the money to round out my carry gear and get more handgun training and start shooting IDPA.
So do you know the definition of quality yet, or do you still have it confused with order fulfillment accuracy?
The TDP is the minimum acceptable standard. What many forget is that is also the maximum acceptable standard. To deviate in any way from the stated specifications requires that the deviation is allowed as a suitable substitute. Otherwise it's out of spec.
Couldn't have said it better...
This guy should be appointed the M4C Mil-Spec SME.
This thread tells me that many people still don't get it.
First, I must make a correction- I stated that the TDP gives the minimum and the maximum. That's not quite right. The TDP is the acceptable standard.
While not technically right, it was an accurate definition. Grant, are you taking notes?
Why exactly are we wasting bandwidth on this thread when we have discussed it time and again in various ways?
A-****ing-men!
Shit is this thread still going?
If you have needs/requirements/wants that differ from what a TDP spec'd rifle can offer you, then go buy or build another rifle to fill your niche.
Otherwise, the TDP is the best set of criteria for building a reliable general purpose carbine while maintaining a cost threshold and known quality.
A little approximate calculation if you will permit me: the probability of a law abiding citizen getting into a gunfight, 1/1,000, the probability he will have or be able to get his AR before the fight is over, 1/10, the probability his Colt will fail, costing him his life, 1/10,000 and the probability his Bushie will fail costing him his life, 1/1000. So the probability your Colt will fail and cost you your life, 1/10,000,000 or 0.0000001, the probability your Bushie will fail you and cost you your life, 1/1,000,000 or 0.000001. I do not worry much about such low probability events.
Now consider the commonly given advice, "buy a Colt and shoot the heck out of it." I submit a Colt with 5,000 rounds down the pipe is less reliable than the Bushie with 500 rounds given that there are no grave flaws in the Bushie and the grave flaws seem to be unusual and in the distant past, at least in my limited experience.
I expect many years pass and no law abiding civilian and no police officer looses his life because his AR failed him. There is not a day that goes by that a civillian does not loose his life to tire failure nor a week that goes by that a cop does not loose his life to tire failure. This is the kind of thing I worry about.
The bold part is KEY! We have fixed more BM's (as an example) than you have EVER seen. We seel them fail in training classes all the time. Could one of those failures been when their life was on the line? Yep.
I have to ask is why risk it by buying a weapon that is neither built right or is using parts that follow a standard???
C4
I had three different Kimbers that worked fine when I sold them, and each had passed the 500 round break-in.
I now have MIM free 1911's: Baer (UTC), Brown (Special Forces), Dan Wesson (Valor).
FYI: Colt reportedly has four MIM parts in their 1911's, so if anyone is resolved to only use the "best" to defend themself and theirs...
I love the "500rd break in" thing. When I built my FIRST 1911 (via the Vickers 1911 pistolsmith class), the very first round went BANG! Followed by mag after mag.
Point is that if your 1911 is not running in the first 500rds, it wasn't built right to begin with.
C4
Couldn't have said it better...
This guy should be appointed the M4C Mil-Spec SME.
While not technically right, it was an accurate definition. Grant, are you taking notes?
A-****ing-men!
Grant doesn't need to take notes as he already knows. ;)
C4
Why buy an F350 to haul a twin sized mattress when an F150 will do?
Your analogy is flawed for a number of reasons.
Not one person on earth would be justified in purchasing a truck to specifically haul one twin mattress. To purchase a $20k truck solely to transport a single twin mattress is foolishness, and at least, unrealistic. You might say, "I never said a single twin mattress!" But that was your example.
The average consumer will actually say, "I lack the ability to haul larger things that wont fit in the back of my Mazda 626. I would like a quality product that can haul bigger things."
He would then imagine different scenarios in which he would see the need for his carbine/truck being used. he might even forsee the need to haul big, heavy things up hills, and go through dirt roads, and adjust his priorities accordingly.
Not everything is poo-pooed because it's not TDP compliant. Midlength gas systems are wildly popular here. 16" barrels are freaking ubiquitous. Pencil/lightweight barrels are wildly popular. The vast majority of guns here are not select fire. Any Magpul/VLTOR/whatever stock is not compliant with the M4 TDP. Go to a pic thread and tell me how many of those you see. 4150 barrels often come on guns that are less expensive to the buyer than guns with 4140 barrels, so in that case why would the buyer not want 4150CMV? Stainless barrels are commonplace here for precision applications. Who here has ever said that KAC's E3 bolt is a bad thing (outside of possible logistical concerns)?
The fact is there are a litany of features that are embraced here that are not compliant with the M4 or M16 TDP. I think you are making a bigger deal out of this than it is.
PERFECTLY SAID PALMGUY. You will find, as Palm guy said, that most here, do NOT adhere strictly to the TDP. Even companies like BCM etc. do not. They carry a variety of barrel lengths, barrel materials, including SS410, and CHF. There are certain elements of the TDP that are important to many professionals, sheepdogs, and civilians. That would be closer to your Ford f150 vs. 350 example.
My uncle bought a Chevy truck, and it has given him nothing but problems. There isn't a week that goes by when he doesn't say, "I should have bought a Toyota truck." Mind you, he doesn't specify Tacoma, FJ Cruiser, Tundra, 4 runner, etc. But he knows the brand he trusts because of the...track record.
It's really about brand names isn't it? It is about what brands have proven themselves, and which are lacking.
To not choose the brands that are most reliable is just plain silly. Especially if you can envision yourself seeing the need to haul heavy materials with your truck :D in the future.
Many are indeed making an AR purchase because they see a potential need for the most reliable weapon/truck they can get. They see it is their duty to train with it, and know their weapon.
A little approximate calculation if you will permit me: the probability of a law abiding citizen getting into a gunfight, 1/1,000, the probability he will have or be able to get his AR before the fight is over, 1/10, the probability his Colt will fail, costing him his life, 1/10,000 and the probability his Bushie will fail costing him his life, 1/1000. So the probability your Colt will fail and cost you your life, 1/10,000,000 or 0.0000001, the probability your Bushie will fail you and cost you your life, 1/1,000,000 or 0.000001. I do not worry much about such low probability events.
Interesting. What specific, documented information do you base these odds on?
We get your point, but don't deny you are just throwing crap at the wall to see if it will stick.
A little approximate calculation if you will permit me: the probability of a law abiding citizen getting into a gunfight, 1/1,000, the probability he will have or be able to get his AR before the fight is over, 1/10, the probability his Colt will fail, costing him his life, 1/10,000 and the probability his Bushie will fail costing him his life, 1/1000. So the probability your Colt will fail and cost you your life, 1/10,000,000 or 0.0000001, the probability your Bushie will fail you and cost you your life, 1/1,000,000 or 0.000001. I do not worry much about such low probability events.
Now consider the commonly given advice, "buy a Colt and shoot the heck out of it." I submit a Colt with 5,000 rounds down the pipe is less reliable than the Bushie with 500 rounds given that there are no grave flaws in the Bushie and the grave flaws seem to be unusual and in the distant past, at least in my limited experience.
I expect many years pass and no law abiding civilian and no police officer looses his life because his AR failed him. There is not a day that goes by that a civillian does not loose his life to tire failure nor a week that goes by that a cop does not loose his life to tire failure. This is the kind of thing I worry about.
This gets back to the main goal of m4c. It is for people who shoot regularly. Not for people that want a safe queen rifle.
That aside I'll take a well maintained colt with 5000 rounds over the typical shot once a year, maybe cleaned and put back in the safe bushie.
Interesting. What specific, documented information do you base these odds on?
We get your point, but don't deny you are just throwing crap at the wall to see if it will stick.
They were 100% made up, but he was just trying to illustrate his POV (which I understand, but do not agree with).
C4
I've been following this thread, I'm honestly surprised it hasn't gotten the axe yet...
With all of the long winded posts, I think Grant has said it best:
Could one of those failures been when their life was on the line? Yep.
I have to ask is why risk it by buying a weapon that is neither built right or is using parts that follow a standard???
An AR is first and foremost a fighting rifle, I believe IG has hit on that before. I have many friends that have purchased subpar ARs and shoot a couple hundred rounds a year if they're feeling squirrely. In some SHTF scenario, if they have to defend themselves, family, and home, I know they would grab that weapon first because it is 'tactical.' Even if you're only shooting those 200 rounds each year, why have a weapon that may work even 95% of the time when you could have one that is a damn safe bet for roughly the same coin. I don't really see an argument for it...
Suwannee Tim
05-02-12, 10:29
The bold part is KEY! We have fixed more BM's (as an example) than you have EVER seen. We seel them fail in training classes all the time. Could one of those failures been when their life was on the line? Yep.
I have to ask is why risk it by buying a weapon that is neither built right or is using parts that follow a standard???
C4
We live in a world full of risks, some controllable, some not. Some risks are big like a tire failure, some risks small like an AR failure. The soldier requires a top quality weapon. A cop needs a top quality weapon. The average guy will never know the difference. To answer the question, I am not advocating buying a lesser quality weapon, just trying to put the risk in perspective.
They were 100% made up, but he was just trying to illustrate his POV (which I understand, but do not agree with).
Certainly, and I tried to elude that I knew he was just making stuff up to prove a point. But even at that it was misleading, this because just mentioning shooting a certain manufacturer's rifle as the example doesn't consider ammo quality or suitability and it also doesn't factor in using a decent mag. Even as guesswork it was over-simplified because different manufacturer's sometimes have different tolerance levels for such things.
But again I do get his point and am not looking to say there is absolutely nothing to it, just that there's more to the overall picture when determining reliability.
Although now I'm probably over-thinking as well.
We live in a world full of risks, some controllable, some not. Some risks are big like a tire failure, some risks small like an AR failure. The soldier requires a top quality weapon. A cop needs a top quality weapon. The average guy will never know the difference. To answer the question, I am not advocating buying a lesser quality weapon, just trying to put the risk in perspective.
I guess so. This average guy (and many other average guys on this forum) train with said weapon(s) so we WILL see failures with crap weapons. That is a no go in my book.
So the answer to your question is that I view my life as the same as a Soldiers or LE's life. While I certainly won't have to shoot it as much as say a soldier, I do not know the future and what is coming. Better to plan for the worst and hope for the best than the other way around.
C4
Suwannee Tim
05-02-12, 12:11
Interesting. What specific, documented information do you base these odds on?
We get your point, but don't deny you are just throwing crap at the wall to see if it will stick.
I won't deny stirring the pot Safety. After all, we don't jump into these things so we can all agree. The numbers are guestimates for the sake of discussion. Pulled out thin air. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear.
Every week I see two or three or more guys I have never seen before show up at the range with their Ollies, Bushies, stuff I've never heard of, very few Colts, LMTs and the like. They are buying what the gun salesmen are peddling and they are peddling what they have and that ain't Colts and LMTs. These guys shoot their couple of hundred rounds for the year and go home with a big grin. The amazing thing is how few failures I see. It is rare anyone has a problem with an AR on the ranges I frequent. Grant, IG et al, see things from a different angle than I do. They see the busted guns, the problem guns. I see them working. And no, I'm not comparing my experience and expertise with Grant, and IG, I'm contrasting it. Even the lesser brands of AR don't fail 5% of the time, one in a thousand failure rate or less is what I guestimate, eliminating the ammo, operator error and magazine related failures. That's a guestimate mind you and I wouldn't argue with one in five hundred. Multiply that by the slim chance a civilian or even your typical LEO will ever use his AR in a fight and you have a really small number. You guys should be gratified that your favorite bang stick works so well, even when when the lineage is questionable. Don't get me wrong, I don't advocate the purchase of any of these guns. I get asked pretty regularly for advice and my advice is Colt.
.....Better to plan for the worst and hope for the best than the other way around....C4
I certainly agree. In fact, I'm spending most of my free time in May on the end of a shovel treating my house for termites, preemptive not reactive. The only exception is my weekly half day at the range.
Now consider the commonly given advice, "buy a Colt and shoot the heck out of it." I submit a Colt with 5,000 rounds down the pipe is less reliable than the Bushie with 500 rounds given that there are no grave flaws in the Bushie and the grave flaws seem to be unusual and in the distant past, at least in my limited experience.
I submit that either way, you are better off shooting 5k rounds. Your gear might not be as reliable, but you are MORE reliable.
Training trumps gear.
If you maintain your colt, then it will be just as reliable as day one, when it was brand new. The same cannot be said for out of spec weapons.
Suwannee Tim
05-02-12, 19:44
....If you maintain your colt, then it will be just as reliable as day one, when it was brand new......
Not for me as I don't know a program of planned maintenance for the various parts that break. That's for another day, another thread. For now, my crisis gun is semi-retired and I will run my practice gun to failure, fix it and run it some more. I looked at the stickies and didn't see any such schedule or plan. If anyone has or has seen such I would appreciate a reference.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.