View Full Version : What exactly is in the Colt TDP
I see this brought up a lot. What exactly would be in Colt's Technical Data Package that is not already widely known?
Is it a spec list of additional measurements in relation to extension position, head spacing, barrel nut torque, castle nut torque....ect
Serious question, I am curious to know what kind of secret squirrel stuff they have that a company like Bravo Co, as an example, doesn't.
This is off Colts Web site,
The technical data packages for Colt products, which consist of the designs, specifications, patents, trade secrets, manufacturing processes, know how and other intellectual property that goes into a Colt weapon, are closely guarded secrets that are not available to any other manufacturer. In addition, all Colt products are manufactured in Colt’s ISO 9001/2008 Certified facility in Hartford, Connecticut, assuring that every unit delivered lives up to Colt’s highest standards and historical reputation.
second to last paragraph on first page http://www.colt.com/ColtMilitary/Company.aspx
Reads more like an advertisement to me and I love my Colts
This is off Colts Web site,
The technical data packages for Colt products, which consist of the designs, specifications, patents, trade secrets, manufacturing processes, know how and other intellectual property that goes into a Colt weapon, are closely guarded secrets that are not available to any other manufacturer. In addition, all Colt products are manufactured in Colt’s ISO 9001/2008 Certified facility in Hartford, Connecticut, assuring that every unit delivered lives up to Colt’s highest standards and historical reputation.
second to last paragraph on first page http://www.colt.com/ColtMilitary/Company.aspx
Reads more like an advertisement to me and I love my Colts
Exactly. I'm curious to know what they could possibly know that isn't already common knowledge. I have seen, in person in my hand, a few different Colt upper receivers and the faces do not appear to be lapped. I have assembled and disassembled a couple of them as well and they went together as well as any properly spec'd upper.
Example: If I buy a Colt M4 upper, a take off SOCOM barrel, assemble it with the supplied Colt barrel nut that came with the barrel, a BCM BCG, and a Gunfighter CH. Then bought a Colt lower with a DD LPK and stock kit. Would that be less of a weapon that a Commercial 6920 off the shelf at a gun store or online vendor?
I can understand if the TDP had specific detail on the disconnector or timing on a FA or burst FCG, but what voo-do could they do that no one else can do so well?
Again, not trolling, serious question.
Why do people obsess on this crap?:blink:
Why do people obsess on this crap?:blink:
IMO, to have a better understanding of what it is & how it plays a part in the final product.
I was one of those persons who used to think, parts are parts! Even after touring a factory that makes parts for most of the AR type companies including COLT & FN.
My thoughts were that all the parts made were the same.....Wrong!
My finding though a later discussion with my tour guide & other industry insiders, was that parts being run for COLT & FN were using different programs, materials & inspection criteria. In most cases, more stringent rejection requirements that would pass for other companies.
Now when I am out in a shop & hear a sales guy say that "you are only paying for the pony/name on the lower", I won't hesitate to call BS on it but also will explain why.
I pissed a few people off but also caused a upsell to a Colt in one case!
what voo-do could they do that no one else can do so well?
Really it's not no one else can do it, it just that most don't. And right or wrong the TDP is the standard because another one really doesn't exist.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=113944&highlight=tdp
Even the owner of BCM would state (as he has done on this forum before) that it is flattering that people put BCM as equal to Colt. Truth is, Colt is the model (or more accurately the TDP) that BCM follows and is why they are so good.
C4
sinlessorrow
10-19-12, 09:04
The TDP is an ever evolving recipe. While you may have all the ingrediants for the soup you dont have the recipe, best you can do is get as close as possible which can be very coose but not perfect, not to say colts are perfect, but you get the point
I can understand if the TDP had specific detail on the disconnector or timing on a FA or burst FCG, but what voo-do could they do that no one else can do so well?
Again, not trolling, serious question.
It isn't "voodoo" it is consistency and following a detailed map on how to build a gun. See, most companies are always trying to find ways to cut corners on their guns and save some coin. Colt has to follow the TDP so it is nearly impossible for them to cut the quality.
When they do deviate from the TDP (which they do), it is because they have found a better solution that is superior.
C4
Doc Safari
10-19-12, 09:28
Even the owner of BCM would state (as he has done on this forum before) that it is flattering that people put BCM as equal to Colt. Truth is, Colt is the model (or more accurately the TDP) that BCM follows and is why they are so good.
C4
BCM is more than a Colt copyist, though. I have owned four Colt AR's and four BCM AR's at various points in my life, so I think I can make an equal comparison even though the sample size is small. I can say that I noticed more little quality control quirks (for example a pitted and refinished handguard spring on a NIB rifle) in the Colts than the BCM's.
Both brands represent the utmost in reliability compared to say, Bushmaster, but I think BCM is superior in that they have a smaller shop where more attention is paid to each weapon.
Just my HO.
BCM is more than a Colt copyist, though. I have owned four Colt AR's and four BCM AR's at various points in my life, so I think I can make an equal comparison even though the sample size is small. I can say that I noticed more little quality control quirks (for example a pitted and refinished handguard spring on a NIB rifle) in the Colts than the BCM's.
Both brands represent the utmost in reliability compared to say, Bushmaster, but I think BCM is superior in that they have a smaller shop where more attention is paid to each weapon.
Just my HO.
Yes and no. He follows the TDP (as best he can). This is why the CORE quality of his rifles is there. Then he upgrades things like grips, CH, etc.
BCM is a MUCH smaller company and there is a real pride that the workers have there. So that means you are always going to see more attention to detail in regards to F&F and overall care of the rifles.
C4
It isn't "voodoo" it is consistency and following a detailed map on how to build a gun. See, most companies are always trying to find ways to cut corners on their guns and save some coin. Colt has to follow the TDP so it is nearly impossible for them to cut the quality.
When they do deviate from the TDP (which they do), it is because they have found a better solution that is superior.
C4
So lemme make sure I get this right, when Colt cuts corners, it's alright cause they found a better way to make something. However, when any other company does it, it's because they are out to make a buck by lowering the quality of their weapons?? Good Lord.
We all know that you don't like Colt so stay ut of this thread if you plan on stirring the shit pot.
Also, Grant did not say that. Trying reading comprehension.
So lemme make sure I get this right, when Colt cuts corners, it's alright cause they found a better way to make something. However, when any other company does it, it's because they are out to make a buck by lowering the quality of their weapons?? Good Lord.
Excellent discussion. I like to tinker, so I guess my question would be can a rifle be built to a higher standard than the TDP?
Let's say I use a quality Forged upper and lower. Lap the receiver face. A noveske barrel, DD Lite Rail, and a BCG BCG. DD LPK and a Geissele trigger. Sopmod stock and BCM RE, spring, and heavy buffer.
Would there be a question of the barrel being inferior compared to Colt?
Is the TDP a metric to use against a pure and simple battle rifle or does it translate to specialized builds?
So lemme make sure I get this right, when Colt cuts corners, it's alright cause they found a better way to make something. However, when any other company does it, it's because they are out to make a buck by lowering the quality of their weapons?? Good Lord.
Cutting corners is the incorrect term to use here. The TDP says that this part is to be made from XYZ materials. Colt found out (over thousands of guns, testing, etc) that material ABC is actually superior.
Note, I NEVER said that material ABC was CHEAPER than material XYZ I simply said that it deviated from what the TDP called for. Remember that Colt still has to prove to the Govt that is a better option.
So you read into it that the parts were being made cheaper. This was a poor assumption on your part.
C4
So lemme make sure I get this right, when Colt cuts corners, it's alright cause they found a better way to make something. However, when any other company does it, it's because they are out to make a buck by lowering the quality of their weapons?? Good Lord.
The sole reason you have an account on M4C is to insist that [insert your favorite brand here] is just as good as [insert brand you cannot afford here] it seems.
Seriously. You never have anything to add; you just try and stir shit up, arguing that RRA or whatever the case may be is the way to go, or the Springfield XD is the best thing since sliced bread, or Spike's is just as good or better than BCM, or whatever you're smoking in your pipe that particular day. Why do you visit and post here so frequently feeling the way that you do? There are many forums that would be more than happy to have another member like you.
Excellent discussion. I like to tinker, so I guess my question would be can a rifle be built to a higher standard than the TDP?
Yes and no. You will get both answers. I look at the TDP as the baseline (neither entry low nor high end). It just "is."
The question I always ask is, what would be classified as superior to it (please don't say the middy gas system). ;)
Let's say I use a quality Forged upper and lower.
How do you know they are quality? What is the tell? Did you measure every single inch of it? Did you check the surface hardness or verify that they are 7075?
Lap the receiver face. A noveske barrel, DD Lite Rail, and a BCG BCG. DD LPK and a Geissele trigger. Sopmod stock and BCM RE, spring, and heavy buffer.
These are actually personal preferences and does ZERO to make the weapon more reliable.
Is the TDP a metric to use against a pure and simple battle rifle or does it translate to specialized builds?
I use it against any gun that is going to be used to bet your life on. I ignore such things as the gas system and really focus on the meat and potatoes of what the TDP says.
C4
Doc Safari
10-19-12, 14:11
You can't read deviations from the TDP as compromises to quality.
There are many reasons why Colt would deviate from the TDP.
Oftentimes manufacturing sequences are modified because it's discovered that something can be made faster or cheaper some other way, without compromising quality. For example, maybe a process that calls for three manufacturing steps in the TDP can actually be done in two.
Remember: Colt still has to meet material and process specifications, so any deviation from the TDP would have to take that into account.
Remember also that semi-auto-only AR's have slightly different parts in some areas than the select fire military version. That in and of itself is a deviation from the TDP.
Yes and no. You will get both answers. I look at the TDP as the baseline (neither entry low nor high end). It just "is."
The question I always ask is, what would be classified as superior to it (please don't say the middy gas system). ;)
How do you know they are quality? What is the tell? Did you measure every single inch of it? Did you check the surface hardness or verify that they are 7075?
These are actually personal preferences and does ZERO to make the weapon more reliable.
I use it against any gun that is going to be used to bet your life on. I ignore such things as the gas system and really focus on the meat and potatoes of what the TDP says.
C4
I usually stay away from these threads, but some of this makes me wonder why my Daniel Defense rifles should be trusted. They're not Colts. Why would they have any more of the tdp than a bcm or a bm or a dpms or an oly? If no one has the tdp except Colt?
Is this just personal experience with these rifles, or confidence in the builder, or what?
I trust them fine, I'm just wondering what we're talking about here.
When they do deviate from the TDP (which they do), it is because they have found a better solution that is superior.
C4
I don't think that's necessarily true. I know I'm nit picking here but I hate the word "better" when talking about specifications. Something either meets requirements or it doesn't. Or it meets it enough that your customer accepts it anyway because you've justified to them that the deviation would not impact fit, form or function.
If Colt is deviating because they found a "better" way, they should be revising their specification instead of repeatedly asking for waivers according to ISO 9001:2008.
*Disclaimer: I'm a certified ISO 9001:2008 lead auditor.
sinlessorrow
10-19-12, 15:40
I don't think that's necessarily true. I know I'm nit picking here but I hate the word "better" when talking about specifications. Something either meets requirements or it doesn't. Or it meets it enough that your customer accepts it anyway because you've justified to them that the deviation would not impact fit, form or function.
If Colt is deviating because they found a "better" way, they should be revising their specification instead of repeatedly asking for waivers according to ISO 9001:2008.
*Disclaimer: I'm a certified ISO 9001:2008 lead auditor.
Isnt that what they do? When they find a way to improve the system, thy then have to get it tested by the army or whoever and then it becomes a part of the TDP? Correct?
I've been kicking around a build sheet for an SBR. I have my trust completed and I am just dotting the eyes and crossing T's and trying to figure out exactly what I want before I cut the check and send the documents out.
I want this build to be solid and have been looking at receivers (upper and lower) and barrels from Noveske and Ranier specifically. I believe these makers to be of a higher standard or quality than the majority of other options available.
I like building rifles, but I am not against the idea of buying a complete rifle or upper to fit my needs. I idea of buying a 6920 only to strip it down and have it sent out to get the barrel chopped and gas port played with. This leaves me with the idea that the whole reason for buying a Colt is the TDP and the chop and port work is kinda counter productive to the TDP standard as it will now be changed.
With that said, do I just buy a barrel that is already short and the port modified to work with the shorter barrel from a reputable barrel maker. Like a FN barrel as they have access to the TDP but are they allowed to use that same recipe in producing consumer option barrels.
I know I am probably over thinking this, but I work graveyards and have plenty of time to dwell on things :fie:
By the way, I am also certified ISO 9001:2008 ever since the company I work for began using that standard of metric (wayyyyyy back). I understand the idea of rigid standards and practices.
nineteenkilo
10-19-12, 15:52
Isnt that what they do? When they find a way to improve the system, thy then have to get it tested by the army or whoever and then it becomes a part of the TDP? Correct?
Not really. Colt owned the TDP as a whole prior to 2009. In 2009 the .Mil took control of the TDP, but still has to pay a share per weapon manufactured under the TDP guidelines if manufactured by someone other than Colt. No matter who manufactures the weapon, it still has to be in compliance with the Mil regs to a tee or it will not pass muster.
Don't think of it as a stone tablet of commandments, but rather (as Grant once put it) as a living document that can and does change.
Also keep in mind that it is a Technical Data Package for the specific weapon in question. There is no TDP anywhere (afaik) covering AR civilian offerings in any way. It simply behooves Colt to use the same components as they are on-hand anyway. They could manufacture AR's out of plastic and horsehair without violating their Mil contracts in any way.
sinlessorrow
10-19-12, 16:07
Not really. Colt owned the TDP as a whole prior to 2009. In 2009 the .Mil took control of the TDP, but still has to pay a share per weapon manufactured under the TDP guidelines if manufactured by someone other than Colt. No matter who manufactures the weapon, it still has to be in compliance with the Mil regs to a tee or it will not pass muster.
Don't think of it as a stone tablet of commandments, but rather (as Grant once put it) as a living document that can and does change.
Also keep in mind that it is a Technical Data Package for the specific weapon in question. There is no TDP anywhere (afaik) covering AR civilian offerings in any way. It simply behooves Colt to use the same components as they are on-hand anyway. They could manufacture AR's out of plastic and horsehair without violating their Mil contracts in any way.
Colt did not lose the TDP, the Army gained the ability to bid the M4 contract but the actual TDP is solely Colts until 2050.
Let me try to put this into a better focus.
Yes Colt came up with the TDP.... No mystery.
Why it is so valuable is because COLT and allegedly FN, and some other are the only ones to see it. It IS the "milspec". Military's Specification.
Meaning that the .mil decided that colt produced a rifle and SET(Key Word) the miltary's Minimum Specification for what a M4, M16 rifle has to have.
Now what does that mean? Look at it from a cost POV. Colt can produce the cheapest rifle by building it to the TDP and save some pennies by staying as close to that minimum Spec that they can in order to save and pinch those pennies. The TDP covers not only materials but building methods. Manufacturing methods, Quality testing methods is probably all in the TDP. So a company can yes go above and beyond that. However it is almost pointless for a company to try and outdo Colt for the simple fact that they set the bar. Colt also has the ability to change the TDP with the approval of DOD. Making it a living document. Let me summarize this paragraph even better.
Colt will always make the best rifle for the cheapest. Everyone else can make a rile no doubt but is it better than colt? Probably not. However some are right on PAR. Which is why we here are called snobs for DD, LMT, BCM, and Colt.
You want to shoot a piece of shit go ahead. No one here will argue. Just don't try to piss on our heads and tell us its raining. Stop with "this just as good as" self fulfilling garbage.
Hope that cleared it up a little.
If Colt is deviating because they found a "better" way, they should be revising their specification instead of repeatedly asking for waivers according to ISO 9001:2008.
*Disclaimer: I'm a certified ISO 9001:2008 lead auditor.
Maybe their quality process is defined to allow deviations from TDP? ISO9001:2008 is interested if they follow process as defined, not how actual product comes out.
You surely know, that most common misconception about ISO9001 is that it ensure quality of product or service. It is not. It just says that company has (in scope of certification) set procedures to follow. Those procedures can be set to make crap and be correct by ISO9001.
Bottom line - ISO certificate sounds good and says nothing about final product.
nineteenkilo
10-19-12, 16:26
Colt did not lose the TDP, the Army gained the ability to bid the M4 contract but the actual TDP is solely Colts until 2050.
Sorry. That didn't come out right. I meant they had to let the mil use it for other manufacturers as long as they got their cut.
You surely know, that most common misconception about ISO9001 is that it ensure quality of product or service. It is not. It just says that company has (in scope of certification) set procedures to follow. Those procedures can be set to make crap and be correct by ISO9001.
Bottom line - ISO certificate sounds good and says nothing about final product.
Kinda sorta. Where I work there are rigid specs that are to be followed. The largest part of the ASO9001 is that there are specs to be followed and that everyone is following them. To that end, our specs are constantly being updated and modified and there are required sign offs for each change that is made no matter how small that change may be.
The LQRA audits are in place to ensure that all spec changes are being signed off and that any employee that is asked will tell you the same thing in response to the same question.
Any deviation from the spec makes you 100% liable for any issue that arises. I would believe that Colt uses the same or similar methods with the TDP.
Another question has been brought up in regard to the fact: Does Colt use a different TDP for consumer rifles? Obviously they would in regard to the fact that civi rifles are semi-auto but does it extend to anything else beyond that. Due to the differences, there would be a separate spec to follow for assembly of semi-auto rifles.
I don't know what ISO 9001 has to do with any of this, but there is absolutely no requirement at all to have any specifications for anything, nor it there a requirement to revise a spec versus get a waiver.
4.2.3; 4.2.4; 8.2.2; 8.5.2; 8.5.3. Those are the only portions of the standard the require any documentation and a company can make registration (and I have, twice) with just those. Records of design & development related processes, don't have to include specs. Having worked with several different registrars I judge it likely that I could make registration without any of them, with the right auditor registrar and checkbook. ISO 9k is a joke.
Which isn't to say any standard is necessarily not a joke. Even following the TDP comes down to trust.
I wonder if it is just a matter of time until Colt starts cutting corners and no longer follows the TDP on their "Made for civilian AR's".
After all, they are the ones that in the past have put in sear blocks, changed sizes of pin holes, have had three different bolt carriers, made sure that many AR's had unshrouded firing pins, used over-sized front pivot holes, left the "Bird Cage" around the mag. release unfinished, taken off bayo. lugs, and flash hiders, etc, etc. They did not care about the TDP in any of these instances. And, something like a unshrouded firing pin can effect reliability.
And now, it looks like they have lost another military contract ........... so, to make up the difference they are starting to sell to the likes of Walmart. Dont think that after a year or so that Walmart will not begin chiseling them down on "Their" price.
Something will have to give......... it might just be the TDP in the Civilian rifles.
I am sure they will do that so they lose even more customers and damage their reputation further. :confused: I have to expect nothing less from your posts on this subject. Why don't you do some reading to understand why some of that happened.
I wonder if it is just a matter of time until Colt starts cutting corners and no longer follows the TDP on their "Made for civilian AR's".
After all, they are the ones that in the past have put in sear blocks, changed sizes of pin holes, have had three different bolt carriers, made sure that many AR's had unshrouded firing pins, used over-sized front pivot holes, left the "Bird Cage" around the mag. release unfinished, taken off bayo. lugs, and flash hiders, etc, etc. They did not care about the TDP in any of these instances. And, something like a unshrouded firing pin can effect reliability.
And now, it looks like they have lost another military contract ........... so, to make up the difference they are starting to sell to the likes of Walmart. Dont think that after a year or so that Walmart will not begin chiseling them down on "Their" price.
Something will have to give......... it might just be the TDP in the Civilian rifles.
sinlessorrow
10-20-12, 14:07
I wonder if it is just a matter of time until Colt starts cutting corners and no longer follows the TDP on their "Made for civilian AR's".
After all, they are the ones that in the past have put in sear blocks, changed sizes of pin holes, have had three different bolt carriers, made sure that many AR's had unshrouded firing pins, used over-sized front pivot holes, left the "Bird Cage" around the mag. release unfinished, taken off bayo. lugs, and flash hiders, etc, etc. They did not care about the TDP in any of these instances. And, something like a unshrouded firing pin can effect reliability.
And now, it looks like they have lost another military contract ........... so, to make up the difference they are starting to sell to the likes of Walmart. Dont think that after a year or so that Walmart will not begin chiseling them down on "Their" price.
Something will have to give......... it might just be the TDP in the Civilian rifles.
Keep up with the times, Colt lost the contract by less than $50 and when you add royalties to the Remington bid it was more than Colts. This is why GAO told the Army they had to rebidd and I can almost guarantee Colt will win this time.
The walmart Colts are normal 6920's and Colt won't change that.
I tell you, nothing brings the trolls out from under the bridge like Colt.
I am sure they will do that so they lose even more customers and damage their reputation further. :confused: I have to expect nothing less from your posts on this subject. Why don't you do some reading to understand why some of that happened.
With all do respect, I have read just about everything there is to read about those times, and I also lived through them.
Colt started changing the AR 15's long before President Bush even enacted the first "Imported Assault Weapons Ban". This was when many around here were toddlers. They already had different pins, carriers, unshrouded firing pin, and a different size front pivot pin.
I also realize that during the hysteria after the first "Ban" they had to do some things to "look good" to keep the rifles on the market. Add sear block, remove bayo. lug and flash hider, and go to the half moon carrier.
Then finally came the era of the rifles being made to spec., but with the LEO /Military only warnings carved into the side.
And now............. is the best time of all, they are totally awesome rifles. Even the LEO / Military only warning is gone. Why is it that because I do know the history that I am labeled a troll??
And, it is not a far reach to think that the huge box stores will not lean on them to cheapen their product for more margins. They do that all the time. It just depends on how much Colt will need business at that time.
I respect you, can you show a little ??
With all do respect, I have read just about everything there is to read about those times, and I also lived through them.
Colt started changing the AR 15's long before President Bush even enacted the first "Imported Assault Weapons Ban". This was when many around here were toddlers. They already had different pins, carriers, unshrouded firing pin, and a different size front pivot pin.
I also realize that during the hysteria after the first "Ban" they had to do some things to "look good" to keep the rifles on the market. Sear block, bayo lug, flash hider removed etc.
Then came the era of the rifles being made much closer to spec., but with the LEO /Military only warnings carved into the side.
And now............. the best time of all, they are totally awesome rifles. Even the LEO / Military only warning is gone. Why is it that because I do know the history that I am labeled a troll??
Colt must of wanted to spend all that money designing and implementing these thing into a rifle that they already had developed just to screw their customers.
That statement sounds silly even when I know I was being sarcastic. Do you think that the changes were made to stay in business on account of the pressure and future legislation from the Government and Brady campaign? Seems more likely.
everyusernametaken
10-20-12, 22:13
I don't see Walmart being a driving force in Colt's production methods. Walmart may be able to shop around to the various Chinese manufacturers for a lot of the generic crap they sell, but the branded products, like the name-brand TVs and electronics, are generally the same things sold elsewhere. It doesn't make sense that Colt would change their processes across the board specifically to cater to a single distributor, which I seriously doubt is their largest distribution channel (maybe the single largest distributor, but not accounting for the majority of their sales). Sacrificing the biggest marketing advantage they have just to shave the price down a little bit so that Walmart will keep their rifles on the shelves is absurd. It would take a massive shift, across the industry, to make such a move even remotely viable.
I don't see Walmart being a driving force in Colt's production methods. Walmart may be able to shop around to the various Chinese manufacturers for a lot of the generic crap they sell, but the branded products, like the name-brand TVs and electronics, are generally the same things sold elsewhere. It doesn't make sense that Colt would change their processes across the board specifically to cater to a single distributor, which I seriously doubt is their largest distribution channel (maybe the single largest distributor, but not accounting for the majority of their sales). Sacrificing the biggest marketing advantage they have just to shave the price down a little bit so that Walmart will keep their rifles on the shelves is absurd. It would take a massive shift, across the industry, to make such a move even remotely viable.
If Walmart wanted to sell a cheaper derivative of a Colt AR, they probably could guarantee the volume necessary for some sort of special production run. It wouldn't be a 6920, it may have some special model number only for them. Walmart does this with other things and certainly has the financial firepower to do it.
If Colt made a special model for Walmart, it doesn't compromise Colt's quality in general, it only would mean that they build something different to a specific set of commercial price parameters. Obviously, it would have zero effect on military contract versions or other versions sold through other distribution, but may add further pressure to the el cheapo end of the market.
In the context of this thread topic, this would have nothing to do with the TDP. The reason that Colt has the TDP is consistency, spare parts compatibility, and quality assurance. If you have multiple sub contractors for multiple parts, you have to have some way to assure that you will get perfect fit every time any maintenance or assembly is done, and this has to be over the lifespan of a long-lived product. That set of specs has to be a "living document" where changes can be made as new technology, materials, or processes emerge. If Colt can find a way to maintain quality and decrease their costs, that is just SOP for a responsible company.
If Colt made a special model for Walmart, it doesn't compromise Colt's quality in general
No, it would just compromise all the firearm distributors and dealers that have been loyal to them for years.
No, it would just compromise all the firearm distributors and dealers that have been loyal to them for years.
I don't want to derail this thread on the TDP, but retailing is all about volume. The economic reality is that loyalty isn't worth as much as volume these days. You could have a very loyal customer of Colt's that has been a distributor for them for 40 years and their annual volume can be surpassed in a week by a busy Walmart store. Who has greater value as a retail outlet? What would you do if you were Colt? What would your shareholders expect you to do? Colt's shareholders would expect Colt's management to make decisions that would increase their equity value, like increasing sales volumes would do. To Colt's average shareholders, Colt's products are a commodity and the higher the volume moved, the greater the value.
This thread started ok. From there it is downright silly. Some Walmarts are selling the Colts. But, I have also been to many that are selling the DPMS, BM and Windham trash and not the 6920's.
I stopped at many Walmarts on the way from Georgia to Houston and then onto Phoenix and the story was the same.
I guess I just have enough faith in Colt that they will actually do the right thing as they have been for several years.
Of course it won't really matter because we are all going to die in about 62 days.
Of course it won't really matter because we are all going to die in about 62 days.
This doesn't bode well for the armorers class I'm taking in Jan from ya!
PatrolRifleGroup
10-21-12, 08:15
Duplicate
PatrolRifleGroup
10-21-12, 08:17
I like building rifles, but I am not against the idea of buying a complete rifle or upper to fit my needs. I idea of buying a 6920 only to strip it down and have it sent out to get the barrel chopped and gas port played with. This leaves me with the idea that the whole reason for buying a Colt is the TDP and the chop and port work is kinda counter productive to the TDP standard as it will now be changed.
Since you have your trust, why not just buy a Colt 6933 and modify from there? A change of grip and stock won't comprimise the core of the rifle. If you want a little longer rail, just chop the FSB and install the rail over it. Whether you do a Form 1 on a 6920 or a Form 4 on a 6933, the wait will be the same.
http://clydearmory.com/colt-le6933-11-5.html
Here's two for sale on GB:
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=312271194
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=312109683
Is the TDP a metric to use against a pure and simple battle rifle or does it translate to specialized builds?
The TDP is used to build mil-spec rifles for the military, in govt. approved facilities that make the critical operating parts for the rifle, whereas non-critical parts can be sourced from outside vendors.
Commercial rifles are NOT mil-spec (govt. inspected), but can use parts spec from the TDP. So what.
The four or five rifle manufacturers that constantly get talked about here can be look at as GTG in a job that requires their use, provided the rifle has been shot more than 100 flawless rounds.
sinlessorrow
10-21-12, 09:29
This doesn't bode well for the armorers class I'm taking in Jan from ya!
Bahahaa. See my quote IG.
Since this thread is pretty OT now, even the few myans still alive dont believe the whole 2012 crap lol.
Since you have your trust, why not just buy a Colt 6933 and modify from there? A change of grip and stock won't comprimise the core of the rifle. If you want a little longer rail, just chop the FSB and install the rail over it. Whether you do a Form 1 on a 6920 or a Form 4 on a 6933, the wait will be the same.
http://clydearmory.com/colt-le6933-11-5.html
Here's two for sale on GB:
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=312271194
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=312109683
Now that seems like a viable option right there. At minimum I can start looking for a 6933 upper. I will check around and find a local dealer and see what they can do for me as far as price, but more than likely I will be looking for an online dealer.
So back to the original question, regarding the TDP:
Can it be safely assumed (at a minimum) that a Colt Semi-auto would use the same standards as far as upper receiver and BCG. These items could be used between the FA mil rifles as well as the civi models. The question would then be are there different vendors for the mil 14.5" verses the 16" commercial barrels?
The question would then be are there different vendors for the mil 14.5" verses the 16" commercial barrels?
If you are not shooting FA, does it matter? Don't over think this.
sinlessorrow
10-21-12, 12:16
If you are not shooting FA, does it matter? Don't over think this.
Same barrels, the only difference is one is 16" the other 14.5" colt does all their barrels in house
Now that seems like a viable option right there. At minimum I can start looking for a 6933 upper. I will check around and find a local dealer and see what they can do for me as far as price, but more than likely I will be looking for an online dealer.
So back to the original question, regarding the TDP:
Can it be safely assumed (at a minimum) that a Colt Semi-auto would use the same standards as far as upper receiver and BCG. These items could be used between the FA mil rifles as well as the civi models. The question would then be are there different vendors for the mil 14.5" verses the 16" commercial barrels?
It is my understanding that ALL 14.5" M4 barrels start off life as a 16" M4 barrel (and then are cut down). So they are the same.
C4
There was a thread about if there was such a thing as superior to the TDP, and I have to be in the camp that yes there is. I've been using the same M4 the last 5 years and I own a Daniel Defense and it takes about half a second to tell which one is the better weapon. That doesn't mean I don't trust both of them, that doesn't mean they aren't both fantastic, but to say nothing is better than a Colt is asinine.
The TDP is the benchmark that no rifle less than should be trusted, so Colt sets the standard. Some companies exceed the standard through the same development process that leads to Colt changing the TDP, other cut corners to save money.
There was a thread about if there was such a thing as superior to the TDP, and I have to be in the camp that yes there is. I've been using the same M4 the last 5 years and I own a Daniel Defense and it takes about half a second to tell which one is the better weapon. That doesn't mean I don't trust both of them, that doesn't mean they aren't both fantastic, but to say nothing is better than a Colt is asinine.
The TDP is the benchmark that no rifle less than should be trusted, so Colt sets the standard. Some companies exceed the standard through the same development process that leads to Colt changing the TDP, other cut corners to save money.
To think that with just a half second observation you can tell that the dd is better than a colt. That is like saying my rock river is just as good as colt or dd. How can you tell without firing which is better? How do you quantify better? A company that tries to meet the standard that colt set does not make them better. DD is a great company making a great product, but to say they are that much better than colt is asinine.
Could a company make a better m4/AR than colt? You always hear people say blank company is making better m4/AR's than colt. What is better? If a company uses higher grade materials that are structurally superior, but the system can not run more than 20 rounds without malfunctioning. Is it better? Colt is the gold standard, and DD is not a better weapon. They are probably equal, but DD is not so obviously superior you can see it with two weapons side by side.
I can understand someone liking a company better than another, but to have an emotional attachment where you believe they are far superior to all else without logical reasoning is the epitome of stupidity. If you like your DD more than your colt that is great you should at least say that you like it better, and not that DD is far superior. I like my bcm's more than what colt is offering, but i can not put one next to a colt and know it is superior. Your bias is obvious. Nothing wrong with having a bias one way or another, but your bias is also clouding your judgement.
I cant tell them apart.
Magazines go in, bullets come out with boring predictability.
There was a thread about if there was such a thing as superior to the TDP, and I have to be in the camp that yes there is. I've been using the same M4 the last 5 years and I own a Daniel Defense and it takes about half a second to tell which one is the better weapon. That doesn't mean I don't trust both of them, that doesn't mean they aren't both fantastic, but to say nothing is better than a Colt is asinine.
The TDP is the benchmark that no rifle less than should be trusted, so Colt sets the standard. Some companies exceed the standard through the same development process that leads to Colt changing the TDP, other cut corners to save money.
I think its a stretch to say the DD is superior, sure the DD comes better outfitted with accessories from the factory, but i personally would say they are sixes. Both are fantastic guns. Are there improvements to the TDP? I think so, examples are KAC's E3 bolt and IWS lowers, LMT's MRP platform, Vltor's A5 receiver extention, ect.
To think that with just a half second observation you can tell that the dd is better than a colt. That is like saying my rock river is just as good as colt or dd. How can you tell without firing which is better? How do you quantify better? A company that tries to meet the standard that colt set does not make them better. DD is a great company making a great product, but to say they are that much better than colt is asinine.
Could a company make a better m4/AR than colt? You always hear people say blank company is making better m4/AR's than colt. What is better? If a company uses higher grade materials that are structurally superior, but the system can not run more than 20 rounds without malfunctioning. Is it better? Colt is the gold standard, and DD is not a better weapon. They are probably equal, but DD is not so obviously superior you can see it with two weapons side by side.
I can understand someone liking a company better than another, but to have an emotional attachment where you believe they are far superior to all else without logical reasoning is the epitome of stupidity. If you like your DD more than your colt that is great you should at least say that you like it better, and not that DD is far superior. I like my bcm's more than what colt is offering, but i can not put one next to a colt and know it is superior. Your bias is obvious. Nothing wrong with having a bias one way or another, but your bias is also clouding your judgement.
Obvious hyperbole is obvious.
If folks would take time to research the subject and do a little analysis of the data, they would be able to come up with reasonable conclusions and spare us the wilder speculations.
I have worked on military aviation contracts. The TDP covers everything a company does to fulfill the contract they have with the .gov. Everything. Changes can be made to the TDP to change how things are done as needed to speed up production or make improvements to quality or for a variety of other reasons. The TDP must be followed or the company will be fined or even lose the contract. If a competitor can get hold of the TDP, they can use that information to great advantage in the next bidding cycle.
Colt subcontracts many of the parts used to assemble their rifles. Those companies may not get the TDP but they will be given the standards Colt needs them to meet in order to satisfy the .gov. Any company that does get any part of the TDP to manufacture parts for Colt will have to sign a non-disclosure agreement. However, that's not to say the sun-contractors will be forbidden from manufacturing larger lots to be able to sell to other AR makers.
A good example of this is bolts made from Carpenter Steel. This is a special alloy and is very expensive unless bought in large lots. A small company couldn't buy a small lot of Carpenter steel and make just a few bolts at competitive prices. AR bolts are likely to be made by one company who buys Carpenter steel in large lots and produces bolts for Colt and everyone else. It's more cost effective just to make all the bolts to Colt specs than to make them two or three different ways. (My guess is this is the real reason KAC bolts are not made from carpenter steel.) Colt gets what they need, the rest get sold to other companies and everyone wins because costs are kept low.
While no one but Colt holds the TDP for the M4 (FN has the rights to the TDP for the M16), Colts subs the work out for various parts. Other companies benefit by being able to buy parts from lots made to Colt specs and Colt benefits by having costs lowered through larger production runs.
We are seeing the result of this as more makers offer carpenter steel bolts and FN barrels.
I have no insider information but this is my conclusion from the data I have gleaned on the subject. It may not be 100% spot on, but it makes sense according to what I know and my own experiences working under a TDP. I know there are those on this forum who can correct me if I'm wrong
Colt subcontracts many of the parts used to assemble their rifles. Those companies may not get the TDP but they will be given the standards Colt needs them to meet in order to satisfy the .gov.
Colt is allowed to source non-critical parts from outside vendors. These parts are still built to mil-spec.
There was a thread about if there was such a thing as superior to the TDP, and I have to be in the camp that yes there is. I've been using the same M4 the last 5 years and I own a Daniel Defense and it takes about half a second to tell which one is the better weapon. That doesn't mean I don't trust both of them, that doesn't mean they aren't both fantastic, but to say nothing is better than a Colt is asinine.
The TDP is the benchmark that no rifle less than should be trusted, so Colt sets the standard. Some companies exceed the standard through the same development process that leads to Colt changing the TDP, other cut corners to save money.
This is actually true (that companies can exceed what the TDP calls out).
The question I have is, what are they??? We have to be careful and separate personal choices in gas systems, FCG's, etc and what actually improves the reliability of the weapon.
I look forward to hearing your answers.
C4
sinlessorrow
10-22-12, 08:01
From what I have seen colt does a lot of in house work. They machine most everything themselves. They may buy the raw forgings bu they machine them in house.
Lowers
http://www.gunsandammo.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/behind-the-scenes-at-colt/1.jpg
Round bar stock which will make the barrels.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/behind-the-scenes-at-colt/5.jpg
Machining the bolt carrier.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/behind-the-scenes-at-colt/6.jpg
Blanks done in house and machine/rifled.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/behind-the-scenes-at-colt/8.jpg
http://www.gunsandammo.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/behind-the-scenes-at-colt/9.jpg
Bolts.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/behind-the-scenes-at-colt/10.jpg
I think its safe to say alot of the TDP is in house. When smaller places get carpenter 158 bolts im sure it comes like in the pics, but then they have to build to their own specs not the TDP.
If folks would take time to research the subject and do a little analysis of the data, they would be able to come up with reasonable conclusions and spare us the wilder speculations.
I have worked on military aviation contracts. The TDP covers everything a company does to fulfill the contract they have with the .gov. Everything. Changes can be made to the TDP to change how things are done as needed to speed up production or make improvements to quality or for a variety of other reasons. The TDP must be followed or the company will be fined or even lose the contract. If a competitor can get hold of the TDP, they can use that information to great advantage in the next bidding cycle.
Colt subcontracts many of the parts used to assemble their rifles. Those companies may not get the TDP but they will be given the standards Colt needs them to meet in order to satisfy the .gov. Any company that does get any part of the TDP to manufacture parts for Colt will have to sign a non-disclosure agreement. However, that's not to say the sun-contractors will be forbidden from manufacturing larger lots to be able to sell to other AR makers.
A good example of this is bolts made from Carpenter Steel. This is a special alloy and is very expensive unless bought in large lots. A small company couldn't buy a small lot of Carpenter steel and make just a few bolts at competitive prices. AR bolts are likely to be made by one company who buys Carpenter steel in large lots and produces bolts for Colt and everyone else. It's more cost effective just to make all the bolts to Colt specs than to make them two or three different ways. (My guess is this is the real reason KAC bolts are not made from carpenter steel.) Colt gets what they need, the rest get sold to other companies and everyone wins because costs are kept low.
While no one but Colt holds the TDP for the M4 (FN has the rights to the TDP for the M16), Colts subs the work out for various parts. Other companies benefit by being able to buy parts from lots made to Colt specs and Colt benefits by having costs lowered through larger production runs.
We are seeing the result of this as more makers offer carpenter steel bolts and FN barrels.
I have no insider information but this is my conclusion from the data I have gleaned on the subject. It may not be 100% spot on, but it makes sense according to what I know and my own experiences working under a TDP. I know there are those on this forum who can correct me if I'm wrong
Thanks for the info, what you say makes sense.
This is actually true (that companies can exceed what the TDP calls out).
The question I have is, what are they??? We have to be careful and separate personal choices in gas systems, FCG's, etc and what actually improves the reliability of the weapon.
I look forward to hearing your answers.
C4
-A bolt that doesn't shear lugs in the same spot and reliably crack at the cam pin hole.
-An adjustable gas system that can compensate for weak ammo and eroded gas port.
-Slower cyclic rate in general via heavier buffer or revised gas port size to allow for more reliable extraction.
-Free floated barrel & under barrel accessory monolithic upper receiver.
-A bolt that doesn't shear lugs in the same spot and reliably crack at the cam pin hole.
-An adjustable gas system that can compensate for weak ammo and eroded gas port.
-Slower cyclic rate in general via heavier buffer or revised gas port size to allow for more reliable extraction.
-Free floated barrel & under barrel accessory monolithic upper receiver.
1. Agree.
2. Would be nice, but does not really make a gun that much more reliable.
3. Since most M4's are shot ONLY on SA, not really important IMHO.
4. Happens now (SOCOM orders guns with DD RIS's).
So really, just the first one directly affects reliability over the long term. Can you list which companies have improved upon the bolt?
C4
1. Agree.
2. Would be nice, but does not really make a gun that much more reliable.It would make the gun more reliable across a wider range of circumstances. i.e. suppressed, dirty, improperly lubed
3. Since most M4's are shot ONLY on SA, not really important IMHO. When they remove the happy switch, it will stop being important.
4. Happens now (SOCOM orders guns with DD RIS's). Point taken, needs to be service wide IMO.
5. Magazines that weren't designed to be disposable. Forgot this one.
So really, just the first one directly affects reliability over the long term. Can you list which companies have improved upon the bolt?
C4
I think what Armalite did by relieving one of the lugs to spread the load more evenly was a very interesting solution, I forget who it was that just added more material around the cam pin hole area though. Are these surefire remedies? I don't know, I'm just a quality nerd not an engineer.
sinlessorrow
10-22-12, 09:17
1. Agree.
2. Would be nice, but does not really make a gun that much more reliable.
3. Since most M4's are shot ONLY on SA, not really important IMHO.
4. Happens now (SOCOM orders guns with DD RIS's).
So really, just the first one directly affects reliability over the long term. Can you list which companies have improved upon the bolt?
C4
Only true way to improve upon the bolt of the AR-15 is to also alter the barrel extension. So KAC.
A FF rail will also increase bolt life, but this is done by reducing pressure on the bolt lugs from the barrel extension becoming slightly miss aligned when pressure and weight is placed on a non FF rail.
I think adjustable gas blocks are really not needed personally. The M4 does fine suppressed and you avoid somoen running their gun on the suppressed setting while not suppressed(you know itll happen).
Only true way to improve upon the bolt of the AR-15 is to also alter the barrel extension. So KAC.
In theory yes, but we have not seen any formal .Gov testing on this yet to prove it (nothing against what KAC claims, but I like to see head to head tests).
A FF rail will also increase bolt life, but this is done by reducing pressure on the bolt lugs from the barrel extension becoming slightly miss aligned when pressure and weight is placed on a non FF rail.
I would have to see a comparison between two identical guns (one with a FF and one without) to buy this argument that a FF rail keeps the barrel extension from moving.
C4
1. Agree.
2. Would be nice, but does not really make a gun that much more reliable.It would make the gun more reliable across a wider range of circumstances. i.e. suppressed, dirty, improperly lubed
3. Since most M4's are shot ONLY on SA, not really important IMHO. When they remove the happy switch, it will stop being important.
4. Happens now (SOCOM orders guns with DD RIS's). Point taken, needs to be service wide IMO.
5. Magazines that weren't designed to be disposable. Forgot this one.
3. No need to remove it as it is rarely used.
4. Yes, but does it improve the overall reliability? Don't think so.
5. True. Mags are usually the main problem with a gun not running. Then we run into PM's and trigger pullers knowledge about cleaning and lubrication.
The M4's reputation amongst troops for not being reliable really comes from:
1. Worn out mags.
2. Armorers not doing their jobs, not having spare parts and not being skilled enough to fix or ID problems.
3. Poor lubrication knowledge.
C4
sinlessorrow
10-22-12, 10:23
In theory yes, but we have not seen any formal .Gov testing on this yet to prove it (nothing against what KAC claims, but I like to see head to head tests).
I would have to see a comparison between two identical guns (one with a FF and one without) to buy this argument that a FF rail keeps the barrel extension from moving.
C4
I understand that. I think it was KevinB who initially stated it, mentioned Crane has some data on it for those with access, it is also a reason why the VLTOR MUR came out, according to them a upper that gave more consistant bolt travel increased bolt life in their tests.
I do agree that I would like to see some tests data, for now I just go off things said by people in the know.
Additonally longer bolt life and increased reliability.
*According to a telecon I had with Gus Taylor
back,
I beleive that even a steel bbl nut affixed onto the rail will act as a heatsink to some extent.
The advantages to the FF system (depending on mount type) can allieviate the pressure on the barrel from a vert grip etc.
All weight on the barrel will contribute to forcing the barrel/barrel extension slightly out of alignment - thus forcing more pressure on one side of the bolt - especially on unlocking the locking lugs of the bolt will have unequal pressure exterted upon them - and thus lead to reduced bolt life.
With a more uniform pressure/lock, this then decreases wear and inturn leads to great life and reliability. Additionally this is another place where thin barrels with suppressors suffer greater bolt failure than thicker barrels.
Crane had a metric ton of data on this stuff for those with access who are curious.
For me - popping a FSB is a minor issue - and I feel the added benifits of a FF rail are worth the few extra dollar for the rail, and the few minutes to pull the FSB and barrel to replace the nut etc.
Im not sure what the true bolt life of the AR-15 is but I know Pat Rogers has numerous guns in the 15,000+ range with no broken bolts yet that they run in the EAG classes.
In theory yes, but we have not seen any formal .Gov testing on this yet to prove it (nothing against what KAC claims, but I like to see head to head tests).C4
I would also like to see some head to head testing done. I would say its a safe bet that the E3 bolt would live up to the claims IMO.
Sorrow, thank you for posting those photos, particularly of the bolt blanks. On one hand, they answer a few questions. On the other, they raise a few
I have a BCM bolt that has had just over 10K rounds through it. I have replaced the ejector spring only and it is still running strong. M855, M193, Hornady Steel TAP, etc... etc... and 65% of the time it was run suppressed.
I understand that. I think it was KevinB who initially stated it, mentioned Crane has some data on it for those with access, it is also a reason why the VLTOR MUR came out, according to them a upper that gave more consistant bolt travel increased bolt life in their tests.
I do agree that I would like to see some tests data, for now I just go off things said by people in the know.
Im not sure what the true bolt life of the AR-15 is but I know Pat Rogers has numerous guns in the 15,000+ range with no broken bolts yet that they run in the EAG classes.
Sorrow, thank you for posting those photos, particularly of the bolt blanks. On one hand, they answer a few questions. On the other, they raise a few
Colt makes EVERYTHING in house and also goes through contractors.
C4
I would say its a safe bet that the E3 bolt would live up to the claims IMO.
Absolutely. Understand what Grant is saying, but that said, the design of the standard bolt being what it is, and how it fails; the E3 design is an improvement.
Colt makes EVERYTHING in house and also goes through contractors.
To clarify, you mean they have the ability to do everything in house but sometimes sub work out as needed, correct? This was always my understanding and seems like what you meant, just confirming.
To clarify, you mean they have the ability to do everything in house but sometimes sub work out as needed, correct? This was always my understanding and seems like what you meant, just confirming.
Yes. Having all your eggs in one basket is just asking for a problem (machine goes down, labor problems, etc).
C4
Colt makes EVERYTHING in house and also goes through contractors.
C4
That's what I suspected
I would also like to see some head to head testing done. I would say its a safe bet that the E3 bolt would live up to the claims IMO.
This is where I really feel that in a more open competition KAC would have had a chance to campaign the feature set of the SR-15 as a candidate for a revised 21st century TDP (DoD cost savings over adopting a whole new FOWS) in the E3 bolt system and MWS lower, and probably CHF barrels and a revised gas system as gradual retrofits to existing stocks of weapons.
To me it seems like it should be rather simple to manufacture parts to a given spec with the right equipment and right QC/QA (read - discarding parts that don't cut it), and the only reason we see significant lemon rates on ANY modern manufactured goods is that those firms have concluded it's not worth the cost to them to identify and discard those parts.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.