View Full Version : Proprietary Parts
The general consensus in the AR world, is that proprietary parts should be avoided because because sources for replacement parts are limited. While this is a valid concern, avoiding proprietary parts for such concerns is an opinion and often an over rated one.
Let's back up for a moment and look at this from the macro view of the whole of firearms, not just the smaller niche the AR world inhabits. The reality is, all AR parts are proprietary. While one may yank a barrel assembly off a Colt 6920 and replace it with one from BCM, that barrel assembly won't work on a FN SCAR or Remington 700. AR parts are proprietary to the AR family of weapons. Does that mean a shooter should avoid owning an AR because it's parts are proprietary and incompatible with a Remington 700? Or vice versa?
In my battery of arms, I have 4 different families of self loading battle rifles with a fifth on the way. None use the same magazine and none share any common parts. One uses a different caliber and a clip rather than a detachable box magazine. The AR is the newcomer. If I were to base my needs on parts commonality, the AR is in the minority and would be sold off. None of the self loading rifles have any commonality with any of the manually operated arms with the exception of caliber here and there.
In fact, proprietary parts isn't the issue at all. When folks argue about "proprietary parts" they are actually arguing about "parts commonality", the ability to remove a part that is worn, broken or has otherwise failed and drop in a replacement without having to have it fitted. As a long time enthusiast of firearms, I am amazed there are shooters who expect this. Why? Because, until the AR came along with it's modern design and manufacturing techniques, no other firearm has universally allowed this!
While other firearms of the industrial age allow for parts commonality, many still require the skilled hands of an armorer to ensure critical parts are properly fitted for reliable, safe functioning. A Garand can be built from a pile of parts from other Garands that have been inspected to ensure they are still within limits but fitting the barrel, receiver and bolt still requires an armorer to fit the parts to one another. Same is true with other rifles, such as the 1903 Springfield, 98 Mauser, M-14, SKS and AK. Often, other critical parts also require hand fitting by the armorer such as op rods and fire control groups. The lifter of the M1 Garand needs to be fitted just so for reliable feeding.
Not so with the AR FOW. The barrel, barrel extension and bolt are manufactured in such a way that proper headspacing is the result of built in tolerances and processes, not hand fitting. This means an armorer can grab any barrel assembly and any bolt and they are already headspace, unless the bolt or barrel assembly is worn in such a way that tolerance stacking rears it's ugly head. A properly made FGC will work in any lower. Charging handles, buffers & springs are all drop in parts. Until the adoption of the AR, no other small arms design was so completely plug & play.
It's interesting to note that the AR has become so common, so popular, that many shooters don't realize how unique parts commonality in a FOW with so many different manufacturers really is. It should be impossible.
Few small arms are supported by the after market and custom gunsmiths as the 1911. Fewer still rival it for longevity. But the 1911 does not have the drop in parts commonality the AR does. The 1911 is made by many manufacturers and none hold to the common tolerance and process control the AR enjoys. The closest small arm to the AR in this regard is the Glock. (It may be with more modern releases, there are small arms designs that enjoy the same level of parts commonality as the AR, but I am not personally aware of them and I am open to discussing them in this thread.) The parts commonality of the AR and Glock has spoiled generations of shooters!
The presence of "proprietary parts" in any particular maker's AR is not a deal breaker, unless those parts give inferior performance in some way. In a large institution, such as a military force, law enforcement agency or security contractor, the increased logistical problems are not to be ignored. But is it really a big concern for the individual? Shooters run BAD levers, differing stocks, grips and forearms without worry. Why do they sweat a piston upper or unique bolt design?
The reality is, when the rifle goes down, the shooter needs a replacement now. The thinking shooter realizes "Two is One, One is None" and buys a complete spare carbine. If they cannot afford another rifle, they buy a complete upper. If that's beyond their means, they buy a complete BCG. They have these spares on hand because even if their rifles have parts commonality, a trip downtown to pick up replacements isn't practical during a training class and probably down right impossible during the middle of a firefight.
A shooter with a "proprietary" upper can simply grab the spare rifle or the spare upper, and neither are required to have those proprietary parts. An op rod upper or an upper with a unique bolt design can be replaced with a standard upper. This doesn't mean I think this is the best solution or a good solution for every shooter. It means a shooter can buy and use a proprietary upper (or lower) and still be able to get the rifle back up & running without having to hunt down exotic parts.
Proprietary parts are not a factual reason to avoid certain AR configurations. It's an opinion and choice weighed out by the individual or institution according to their needs and wants. Avoiding possible logistical nightmares, on the other hand, is a factual reason and a good one. As an aviation technician dealing with aircraft with obsolete and/or unique parts & equipment, I'd love to find the aviation equivalent of the AR that meets our mission requirements!
If you step back to take the larger view, you will see an AR configured with proprietary parts does not lose parts commonality within it's family. Proprietary parts such as bolts and op rods, are not a weakness in the AR FOW (whether or not those parts are improvements is another discussion). Parts commonality is the AR's strength
Please, feel free to discuss each point- pro and con
I think you confuse the term "proprietary" here.
QUOTE:
The reality is, all AR parts are proprietary. While one may yank a barrel assembly off a Colt 6920 and replace it with one from BCM, that barrel assembly won't work on a FN SCAR or Remington 700. AR parts are proprietary to the AR family of weapons. Does that mean a shooter should avoid owning an AR because it's parts are proprietary and incompatible with a Remington 700? Or vice versa?
UNQUOTE
Proprietary is a term used to designate ownership of design. You are talking parts interchangeability between models. Remington model Seven and Model 700 are the proprietary designs of Remington, yet parts do not interchange between models.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proprietary
As for the larger issue: The reason for interchangeability is LOGISTICS. As an Army, it is fine to have a "proprietary" part if the Army buys sufficient parts and all use the same weapon.
What is not acceptable is to have individuals with firearms with proprietary parts when the parts are unique to that individuals weapon, not within the supply chain and are not interchangable with other weapons within the unit/force. If the weapon has a key component failure and there are no parts available, then you have an expensive (and not very effective) pugil stick.
Universal Interchangeability of a platform gives logistics officers wet dreams. As a retired functional test pilot who spent his career in the "barn" non-standard and proprietary parts were stockpiled by every mech and then hidden during inspections. Not only were they great trading materials, many times for the want of a cheesedick part, an aircraft was "down" until you could find somebody with the parts, instead of waiting on the supply chain to catch up
As far as a private citizen goes, if you have sufficient parts squirreled away, it isn't an issue.
I think you confuse the term "proprietary" here.
The reality is, all AR parts are proprietary. While one may yank a barrel assembly off a Colt 6920 and replace it with one from BCM, that barrel assembly won't work on a FN SCAR or Remington 700. AR parts are proprietary to the AR family of weapons. Does that mean a shooter should avoid owning an AR because it's parts are proprietary and incompatible with a Remington 700? Or vice versa?
Proprietary is a term used to designate ownership of design. You are talking parts interchangeability between models. Remington model Seven and Model 700 are the proprietary designs of Remington, yet parts do not interchange between models.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proprietary
As for the larger issue: The reason for interchangeability is LOGISTICS. As an Army, it is fine to have a "proprietary" part if the Army buys sufficient parts and all use the same weapon.
What is not acceptable is to have individuals with firearms with proprietary parts when the parts are unique to that individuals weapon, not within the supply chain and are not interchangable with other weapons within the unit/force. If the weapon has a key component failure and there are no parts available, then you have an expensive (and not very effective) pugil stick.
Universal Interchangeability of a platform gives logistics officers wet dreams. As a retired functional test pilot who spent his career in the "barn" non-standard and proprietary parts were stockpiled by every mech and then hidden during inspections. Not only were they great trading materials, many times for the want of a cheesedick part, an aircraft was "down" until you could find somebody with the parts, instead of waiting on the supply chain to catch up
As far as a private citizen goes, if you have sufficient parts squirreled away, it isn't an issue.
That was my point- It isn't the part being "proprietary" that is being argued, it's parts commonality. In reality, shooters don't care if a rifle has proprietary parts, otherwise they wouldn't upgrade their rifles with ambi controls, BAD this and BAD that, and a wide variety of furniture. They just want to be able to drop in replacement parts. My other point is that the curse of proprietary parts is over rated. The AR uses parts that are proprietary to the AR FOW, no matter how many companies make those parts. On the day the AR becomes as obsolete and obscure on the market as an 1903 Springfield, they'll experience first hand what I mean.
I wholeheartedly agree with your point about logistics. Logistics is what I call a "fact" based consideration. It can be dealt with if an individual or an institution wants to, but having to can cause a real nightmare
Concur.
Interchangeability and commonality are the holy grail of aircraft maintenance and logisticians.
Who makes, patents and owns the part design has little importance as long as it meets durability standards, uses common attachment mechanisms and commonly available tools.
EDIT: add availability of replacements also as a factor
But lack of uniformity of looks drives senior officers and NCOs crazy :sarcastic:
majorleaguekennels
06-23-13, 18:01
The AR platform would not be what it is today if was not for the lack of proprietary parts. The modular design of the platform is one of the major draws to AR's. Some proprietary parts I could see, but its a slippery sloop when manufactures start changing thread pitches, and diameters of the platform it would suck! Take the Benelli MR1, that would be the extreme of it, but I feel that is where that road leads if it was supported by the consumer base. You would end up with AR type rifles instead of AR's. If that makes scenes. if not ignore it. I try to stick to using standard style barrel nuts, springs, buffers, etc. but Its not the end of the world if your rail requires a proprietary nut or whatever.. It just is what it is lol.. thats my 2¢
I see where you're coming from Mistwolf.
I tend to attribute the success of the AR aftermarket to a few particularly good "standard interfaces"
Standard interfaces allow "stock" or aftermarket/proprietary parts to be used interchangeably.
Take for example, the pistol grip mounting interface.
That has allowed sticky grips, monster grips, moe grips, K grips, etc.
dozens of options that all attach to the same mount.
Mil spec CAR receiver extension
Dozens of stocks from CAR, to MOE to EMOD to fixed to club foot.
1913 rail
Hundreds of mountable gizmos from lights and lasers to scopes and irons, offset sights, vertical grips, tape switches, rail covers, hand stops, sling mounts
Fire control group
Dozens of options mil spec, two stage, super 3 gun, jewel, etc
Handguards and rails are an area that is still evolving, but suffers from a variety of mounting methods and proprietary mounting nuts.
The only standard interface there is the receiver threads or barrel nut.
Neither of those are real good for mounting rails out of the box.
BufordTJustice
06-24-13, 01:58
Preach it, MistW!!!!
I 100% agree.
Especially since most discussions of this topic happen within the context of being able to "swap parts" in a feces-hits-the-fan type scenario.
As a company that designs and manufactures components that need to work with other factory spec parts and receivers, my biggest gripe is not so much about parts that differ from established factory specs, but that they differ so much that they cause compatibility problems.
By definition, our selectors are proprietary, and differ from factory specs (both of our levers are detachable, improved detent groove, holes, wider gap in the selector flat to accommodate out of spec receivers), we make the critical part as close to milspec as possible, but that itself, as it turns out, isn't ideal, because a milspec diameter selector center would be incompatible with some aftermarket triggers that require a smaller diameter center.
It's these aftermarket triggers manufacturers I have issues with. Bill Geissele's triggers never have these problems, yes they're different from factory triggers, but they still adhere to established specs enough to not cause other parts to stop working.
If proprietary means improved functionality that helps the user, while not creating problems by its presence, and by working poorly with in specs parts, then I'm for it. Resolving one problem and introducing another in the process is not our way of problem solving.
Soon we'll be introducing our EPP and ETP (enhanced pivot pin, enhanced takedown pin, patent pending), in their development, we had to keep a very close eye on compatibility with out of spec receivers. It would have been easy to put out a disclaimer that they will only work with milspec receivers (never mind there's no such a thing for a semi auto milspec receiver) and leave others with slightly out of spec receiver users behind, but that, is also not our way.
Precision in language = clarity of thought
Proprietary: "Owned by a private individual or corporation under a trademark or patent: a proprietary drug."
Proprietary piles o parts..
-HK416
-LWRC
-RUGER whatever it is
-POF
-etc ad nausem
in these cases you get the ergos of an AR w/o being able to source parts from numerous vendors. One becomes wedded to a manufacturer, for support, that may not be around or service old products.
A prolific design, as proven as the AR, has significant logistical, training, and use benefits.
Also with unique designs in the AR platform, such as KAC, they are more expensive- Especially the E3 bolt. It also seems hard to find. Along with the extractor, or springs, etc.
The bolt, however, will probably never break seeing normal civilian use. And if you can afford to break it, you can afford to buy a new one, if you can find one, or can get one from KAC.
Another argument I find, is that with new designs someone has to be the guinea pig that puts the rounds down range to test the system or part. Again, the common AR shooter may not be able to afford that. Or want the hassle of parts breaking, and having to ship back to the company.
Another thing I will mention that has to do with the Remington 870 specifically: with the new 870's with 7 shot mag tube, the HD and Tactical models, Remington changed the mag extension tube and barrel. By doing that they totally threw a wrench in the 870 mix since you can no longer install normal 870 barrels onto it. Therefore, with that particular model you lose the interchangeability of barrels which was a great benefit with the 870.
majorleaguekennels
06-24-13, 10:53
As a company that designs and manufactures components that need to work with other factory spec parts and receivers, my biggest gripe is not so much about parts that differ from established factory specs, but that they differ so much that they cause compatibility problems.
By definition, our selectors are proprietary, and differ from factory specs (both of our levers are detachable, improved detent groove, holes, wider gap in the selector flat to accommodate out of spec receivers), we make the critical part as close to milspec as possible, but that itself, as it turns out, isn't ideal, because a milspec diameter selector center would be incompatible with some aftermarket triggers that require a smaller diameter center.
It's these aftermarket triggers manufacturers I have issues with. Bill Geissele's triggers never have these problems, yes they're different from factory triggers, but they still adhere to established specs enough to not cause other parts to stop working.
If proprietary means improved functionality that helps the user, while not creating problems by its presence, and by working poorly with in specs parts, then I'm for it. Resolving one problem and introducing another in the process is not our way of problem solving.
That is what I was "TRYING" to say. I agree 100%
Someday, all my ARs will have KAC bolts with radius'd lugs and barrels with extensons to match. Until then, Ill deal with my logistical confusion.:D
I agree, Danno. But are the proprietary parts in those rifle enough for an individual to avoid them solely based on being proprietary? Not because the parts are inferior, add no value or what have you but only because the parts are proprietary- setting aside the logistical problems for the moment.
If the HK piston or op rod were to go Tango Uniform, could not the upper be replaced with with a standard upper? Could not the Ruger upper be replaced with a standard upper?
Part of what got me to thinking about the "proprietary" vs "non-proprietary" discussion is the fact KAC, one of the best regarded makers of ARs uses a unique bolt. There are people who avoid KAC based on this alone. Yet, if a KAC bolt were to fail, a shooter could install a replacement upper and press on and that upper doesn't have to use the unique bolt.
Please understand that I am not advocating or justifying ARs with proprietary parts. As you say, precision of language = clarity of thought. I'm trying to get to the heart of the matter which is-
1) AR parts only fit ARs
2) ARs are unique in the firearms world that not only do standard parts drop in without hand fitting, a variety of drop in unique part are available as well
3) While a unique AR part may not be readily available, it can easily be replaced with a standard part
4) When the AR becomes obsolete, it will no longer be supported by the industry and getting parts will be difficult whether the parts are standard or unique
Part of the reason for having this discussion is to get shooters to look at why they choose rifles and how they plan to support them with better clarity-
-that and the fact I don't have a TV so I have to find other ways to spend my idle time!
I think the biggest problem of ARs with proprietary designs is the real possibility of the design being orphaned in the future. Look at the difficulty now of finding parts for some piston ARs, like the Ruger SR-556. You're probably not going to drive across town to find its parts, heck Ruger may not send them to you, they may want you to send the rifle to them when a $25 part could get it up and running in an hour.
I'm not saying Ruger (or anyone else by name) will orphan their piston AR but there are a lot of proprietary designs out there that won't survive.
Part of what got me to thinking about the "proprietary" vs "non-proprietary" discussion is the fact KAC, one of the best regarded makers of ARs uses a unique bolt. There are people who avoid KAC based on this alone. Yet, if a KAC bolt were to fail, a shooter could install a replacement upper and press on and that upper doesn't have to use the unique bolt.
The pros of having the Best far outweighed the cons of having a proprietary bolt when I purchased my SR15's. As you stated if you can afford to break a E3 bolt, you can afford to purchase a new one.
The proprietary parts of the HK416 was the very reason I decided to get rid of my 10.4in upper a few months ago. I weighed in the cost of the upper, not the price but the cost of maintenance to me, and it lost to a DI upper ( in this case the DD mk18 ). I would check HKParts.net for available bolts and there were none. I ran the scenario that the previous LEO ran this upper on full auto a few times before selling it and I'm going to run it through many classes, what should happen if I need a new barrel? The barrel too, damn near impossible. I liked the idea behind having a DI gun which would match my expectations and if I should need new springs, new bolt, new pins, barrels, gas ports, etc. I have a plethora of respectable manufacturers that can provide parts. As per the HK, it was not likely that parts would be available in the event of breakage, although unlikely but I rather be safe than sorry.
The proprietary parts of the HK416 was the very reason I decided to get rid of my 10.4in upper a few months ago.
Actually, while HK bolt is different than DI bolt, HK416 can use DI bolt in case of bolt failure. Also standard AR firing pin can be used if standard bolt is used (not with HK bolt, due to thicker bolt face). Problem with HK416 barrel is more of legal issue, but it can always be replaced with MR556 barrel, that is "made in USA" or barrel blank can be fitted to HK barrel extension.
But generally "problem" with HK416 or MR556 parts comes from, that HK is considered to be "yet another AR, but in piston flavor, but with lot of proprietary parts". Yes, HK looks like AR, handles like AR, can even accept some AR parts. But it should be considered as separate weapon system, like SCAR, ACR, SIG 550, F2000, SA80, G36, Aug, Tavor, etc. I never heard anyone complaining that SCAR takes only FN parts, or G36 takes only HK parts. HK416 is exactly like that, new rifle, designed to fit inside something that more-less resembles AR upper and lower, but still it is different beast. To keep it working you do not put in random parts from random manufacturers like lot of people do in their ARs (and then start topics "help! my build does not work!").
Well said and my original point.
Precision in language = clarity of thought
Proprietary: "Owned by a private individual or corporation under a trademark or patent: a proprietary drug."
Proprietary piles o parts..
-HK416
-LWRC
-RUGER whatever it is
-POF
-etc ad nausem
in these cases you get the ergos of an AR w/o being able to source parts from numerous vendors. One becomes wedded to a manufacturer, for support, that may not be around or service old products.
A prolific design, as proven as the AR, has significant logistical, training, and use benefits.
Actually, while HK bolt is different than DI bolt, HK416 can use DI bolt in case of bolt failure. Also standard AR firing pin can be used if standard bolt is used (not with HK bolt, due to thicker bolt face). Problem with HK416 barrel is more of legal issue, but it can always be replaced with MR556 barrel
I had done a lot of research on HKPRO about that very issue and couldn't find much, perhaps I didn't look hard enough on the search engine. I too ran the idea of running a mr556 barrel cut down should I have needed but I figured it was too much work. The SBR DI gun, although with shorter parts life and more prone to malfunction due to fouling, had a better logistics of parts, which for me was the biggest plus. Also being a 22 yr old college student, the cost of maintaining the correct parts in case of failure was too much. I loved the idea of the SBR DI gun that, if anything should be damaged, parts were available and relatively cheap ( compared to HK prices). btw I enjoy reading your posts on HKPRO and thank you for all the informative posts that I have learned from you both on this site and the other.
Please understand that I am not advocating or justifying ARs with proprietary parts. As you say, precision of language = clarity of thought. I'm trying to get to the heart of the matter which is-
1) AR parts only fit ARs
2) ARs are unique in the firearms world that not only do standard parts drop in without hand fitting, a variety of drop in unique part are available as well
3) While a unique AR part may not be readily available, it can easily be replaced with a standard part
4) When the AR becomes obsolete, it will no longer be supported by the industry and getting parts will be difficult whether the parts are standard or unique
The problem with proprietary parts is that you have to usually get the parts from one source, as opposed to the AR. Break a bolt? Colt, DD, BCM, Noveske, etc etc will work.
What is also missing is the training element. Rely too heavily on a gun with ambi controls and if you somehow come across a standard gun, you can run into some problems.
As far as number 4, look at the 1911. I'm sure when the AR becomes obsolete some people will still cling to ARs for whatever reason. They may cost you $4000 for one that works, but they'll justify it somehow.
...
I do not criticise your decision. In case when HK416 did not offer you any significant advantage over AR (LAV list comes to mind), your decision was very reasonable (in my case it is almost as hard to get AR parts as HK parts and I can not have spare bolts anyway). I just used your case to comment on some misconceptions around HK416.
Not so with the AR FOW.
What does "FOW" mean? I cannot find it in any list of acronyms.
TurretGunner
06-25-13, 10:21
This is a term and a discusion, that has gotten on my nerves for the last couple years. I am so frigging tired of people throwing up this statement "I wont own it beacuse it has proprietary parts or I can't get spare parts at my local gun store".
Lets break it down with the HK416 or even the SCAR.
If an agency, organization or countries decides to field this weapon, then 999 out of 1000 times they are getting the service and support that goes along with it. They can order spare parts or have the units repaired. Most prudent agencies would have spares on hand so there is no shortage of rifles to fullfill the mission.
If an individual owns this weapon, Then so what? I can order parts on the internet. I can source them other places. Is this the only rifle you own? The vasy majority of people who own a 416 or a SCAR or a AUG, already own a few vanila Ar15's. If any of my rifles goes down...........then I pick up another and worry about fixing the other when I have time and resources allow. If the economy crashes, and we break into civil war and its the end of the world as we know it, you think there will be a shortage of rifles and spare parts around? Would it even mattter?
KAC is another great example. Yes they use a special bolt and extension..........big deal. You ever think there is a reason they make a special bolt and extension..........its not to save money.
If for some reason I am face to face with the zombie appocolypse or a hoarde of D.C. urbanites rioting.......and my rifle goes down.........how is that different then a run of the Mill AR? Am I going to ask for a time out while I install a new hammer or replace a broken bolt? I am going to do the same thing I would have done if I was carring a SCAR, TAVOR, AUG, or AR...........Pick up another rifle.
Magazine comminality is far more important than worrying about the difference in spare parts........that 99.9% of the time, you will never need anyway.
The HK416 was the only rifle I had, which was also why proprietary parts was a big thing for me. But if I had the money to buy more rifles at the time and now :laugh: I would have kept it.
What does "FOW" mean? I cannot find it in any list of acronyms.
Family Of Weapon
...If the economy crashes, and we break into civil war and its the end of the world as we know it, you think there will be a shortage of rifles and spare parts around? Would it even mattter?...
Good point.
Yes, there will be a shortage because everyone and their dog will be grabbing and hoarding what they can. Look what what happened during this last panic. There seems to be an attitude that having a standard AR will allow it's owner to simply go out and pluck replacement parts off the street, as if people are going to simply drop their rifles because the balloon went up. Or find parts in an abandoned police car. Truth is, any firearm dropped in the street will be instantly scooped up by the mob and the only way you'll be able to scavenge parts off of a corpse is because you shot and killed them.
It's silly to think spares will be readily available for anything when a large disaster hits- small arms, cars or kitchen appliances. If you don't already have spares and replacements in hand, no amount of scrounging will save you.
It's said "You don't rise to the occasion, you fall back to your level of training." Spares are the same way- "You don't rise to scrounge battlefield pickups. You fall back on your own logistics". When one of my aircraft has a problem, if I don't have the parts needed, I have to wait until I can locate a source to obtain the part and wait until I can either pick it up or have it delivered. While waiting for the new parts to arrive, my aircraft is grounded and losing money. If there is an economic collapse or other disaster, the infrastructure is going down and I will then have to rely on what spares I have on hand until the situation restabilizes
It won't be any different in maintaining firearms
At a certain point upgrading from the Brown Bess makes sense...
:D
If we never leaned forward there would no innovation. In a non-gov setting, this makes 'upgrades' for the individual a risk versus reward scenario. For a .gov entity to change over, it depends on the same "is the juice worth the squeeze relationship", I'd argue that for 99.99% of the Government folks carrying guns, the Colt M4A1 is more than enough.
Turret gunner, your limited experience makes me think gun librarian, not working armorer of an operational unit.
Units do not have a defacto O&M piece (as understood in USG circles) that is responsive to operational variances. They have whatever parts are on their shelf, and hopefully can order more as needed.
Proprietary parts are a huge institutional issue. HK MP5's, HK416's esp have had issues getting their proprietary parts to the customer in a timely manner. Users of foreign produced weapons will have issues due to bureaucratic import export issues, distance, and institutional inertia.
Post 9/11 one couldn't buy Colt M4 parts w/o a ridiculous lead time. At least other sources for compatible parts could be sourced... at great expense.
I think this post and the previous pretty much sum up the issue pretty clearly and I agree.
Turret gunner, your limited experience makes me think gun librarian, not working armorer of an operational unit.
Units do not have a defacto O&M piece (as understood in USG circles) that is responsive to operational variances. They have whatever parts are on their shelf, and hopefully can order more as needed.
Proprietary parts are a huge institutional issue. HK MP5's, HK416's esp have had issues getting their proprietary parts to the customer in a timely manner. Users of foreign produced weapons will have issues due to bureaucratic import export issues, distance, and institutional inertia.
Post 9/11 one couldn't buy Colt M4 parts w/o a ridiculous lead time. At least other sources for compatible parts could be sourced... at great expense.
TurretGunner
06-25-13, 17:46
Turret gunner, your limited experience makes me think gun librarian, not working armorer of an operational unit.
Units do not have a defacto O&M piece (as understood in USG circles) that is responsive to operational variances. They have whatever parts are on their shelf, and hopefully can order more as needed.
Proprietary parts are a huge institutional issue. HK MP5's, HK416's esp have had issues getting their proprietary parts to the customer in a timely manner. Users of foreign produced weapons will have issues due to bureaucratic import export issues, distance, and institutional inertia.
Post 9/11 one couldn't buy Colt M4 parts w/o a ridiculous lead time. At least other sources for compatible parts could be sourced... at great expense.
Not sure where all your hostility is coming from......Or why you have a hard on for me, when I have been spot on...
Most Federal Agencies Can also contract for support and Maintain services. Depending on the contract, needs and funding..... it's pretty flexible.
Military Can order whatever they need through the Class IX system. As someone who was a unit level (company) armorer during OIF... I am very familiar with the system (or at least the way it was 6-7 years ago). Anything that couldn't (or was not authorized) be done at the unit level, was taken to a higher echelon shop run by contractors (deployments) or Army 45B's (stateside). Broken FCG parts, Cracked Uppers, Bent Barrels, and anything that was not plug and play was sent here. Broken M249's , M2's and Mark19's and I believe up to the 25MM for the LAV's were serviced there. We, at the company level, could not order many of the small parts through the supply system, and either had to source them on open market (IMPAC card) or make drug deals with other units for their spares.
Why would a unit run a weapon system they could not support? Your telling me the Teams running MP7's and other newer systems cannot get parts or support for their weapons? I see modern weapons on CRANE's accession list that they are trying to get rid of....including both of the weapons you talked about. So if parts are so hard to come by, why wouldn't they cannibalize fully functional weapons marked as excess instead of sending it to sit in a warehouse in Indiana.?
If you would have taken the time to read and digest what I wrote, you would clearly see "Most prudent agencies would have spares on hand so there is no shortage of rifles to fulfill the mission". I had PLENTY of spares in my arms room. Shit I was not "authorized" to replace.......but when the shops closed down and weapons are dead lined........I did what I had to do to make sure they guys had what they needed to go out on missions. I also had adequate "SPARES" that were either excess or belonged to soldiers who were KIA/WIA and were sent home early.
However none of this even matters to the bulk of what I said earlier.
As an individual, which most of us are, we have more than 1 rifle/carbine. If a rifle goes down, pick up another and worry about getting the other one back on line later. Parts are always out there, you just have to look. No one here is talking about obscure or rare weapons that are near impossible to source parts.
Turret Gunner - dial it in fast. DANO is a KNOWN ENTITY. He has a VAST resume and if you had not noticed has SME under his name.
He speaks with authority in this issue, and that is about all I can say.
What is also missing is the training element. Rely too heavily on a gun with ambi controls and if you somehow come across a standard gun, you can run into some problems.
I don't think that is a valid argument at all. Sorry.
I was trained on 9 small arms and machinguns during my time in the service:
G3
Glock 17
MP-5
MG3
M2 Browning
HK416
MP-7
Minimi/SW
FN MAG
In addition to other weapon systems such as the M84 Carl Gustav, Eryx, M72 LAW, HK79, M320 and so forth.
Many of these have vastly different methods of operation, requiring different manipulations. If I can have all of these systems in my head, and operate them adequatly, I do not think for a minute that a lack of some buttons on the left side of the gun will suddenly cause issues with regards to weapon handling and manipulation.
The argument that the Glock is THE model for parts inter-changeability is off.
If your yardstick is the number of after-market parts providers specifically for the Glock family it may make your argument a little stronger as the manufacturers are supporting a single brand of pistol.
There are hundreds of 1911 and AR manufacturers. There are quite a few AK manufacturers.
But is it really a big concern for the individual? ... Why do they sweat a piston upper or unique bolt design?They cost a ton more. When YOU are paying for shit is exactly when you don't waste money on proprietary (i.e. expensive) parts.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.