View Full Version : Hobby gun to work gun.
At what point does an AR manufacture/parts assembler go from hobby guns to a work gun? I have seen many experts from Pat Rodgers to Larry Vickers talk about the quality of the leaders, Colt and KAC. Is it the amount of money and time spent on R&D or making all the major parts in-house? How did Larue, Daniel Defense and BCM go from nowhere to being recognized as one of the good ones? Did the above three listed have growing pains and were they known as hobby guns to begin with? What does it take for a company that is considered by the experts a hobby gun to go to work gun status? Is it the fact that they start making parts in-house compared to having and outside supplier cut uppers and lowers and add the company’s name at the end of the milling process.
Is it the fact that they are able to have a sponsored stallion in their stable pushing the product?
There seems to be so many experts here that someone should be able to give a valid point to what they mean and how a company changes the reputation
I know that there are many hobby gun companies (DPMS and Olympic) that for whatever reason have not improved from where they started and continue to send out the same stuff. I am looking for defined answers and not just they suck or I don’t like them.
Dan
The most simple explanation for the reason that Colt is higher quality than DPMS is the quality of the materials used. Colt uses a higher quality barrel steel than DPMS. Colt uses higher quality materials in the manufacture of their BCGs.
Companies like Colt also have a MUCH better concept of quality control. It's certainly not the case that Colt's never put out a turd, but you might see one defective Colt carbine for every 100 defective DPMS rifles.
Is it the fact that they are able to have a sponsored stallion in their stable pushing the product?
Most definitely not. Plus, I don't think you'd see professional endorsements from folks like LAV for a crap product.
Materials used, proper assembly, QC, good customer service are what makes the manufacturers you mentioned succeed.
Companies that continue to loc-tite castle nuts, improperly stake carrier keys, use out of spec receivers and use lower grade steel for barrel and bcg will always be "hobby gun" status. They cheap out on materials and cut corners during assembly; but you'll see their ads in every gun rag there is.
Manufacturers will buy components from certain subcontractors, knowing that they produce a certain quality for the price.
Some manufacturers buy from the absolute most cut-rate sources.
The differences usually show up once an agency or a certain number of shooters buy a certain brand or model. Once they actually start shooting the damn things (as opposed to hobby shooters who may buy and shoot maybe 100-500 rounds per year) you start seeing trends -- broken parts; failure to cycle/failure to function; poor accuracy or longevity (especially in high round count initial or basic training settings and courses).
Customer service to un-jack problem trends then becomes a priority (any manufacturer can turn out occasional or intermittent lemons or buy bum parts) -- it's how they address customer concerns that will determine whether or not they get return customers, follow-on business, and endorsements to other users.
You can goggle across the entire web to read of thumbs-up/above-and-beyond customer service and fulfillment/happy face endorsements, as well as "Hell no, don't ever buy a jacked-up gun or parts from THESE folks!"
Look at what's happening to Glock's reputation following blaming the customer for Gen 4 problems.
How many police departments are making Olympic and DPMS fleet buys, or are still stuck with original weapons that don't (and never have) worked?
The US Government has a MILSPEC for the M4 Carbine (http://biggerhammer.net/ar15/milspec/MIL-C-71186_(AR).pdf shows one, there may be newer amendments and versions out there).
A Carbine made by anyone can meet or exceed that standard without ever cracking open the Colt/USG Technical Data Plans, drawings, and prints -- but most of the time if they do it's strictly by accident.
In the 1980s I worked in a machine shop that manufactured a product that required each & every part made to be tested to assure quality. It was time consuming, but it had to be done, as the identical neighboring part--looked perfectly "acceptable" but electronic testing would reveal it's flaws. Rather than shipping defective parts & hoping--or taking the " we'll deal with it when it gets returned...." We refused to ship defective parts.
The top companies have requirements for QA/QC on their parts & test each part, so the chances of getting a defective part is reduced. It's not zero--but it's less than if a company "batch tests" or tests every 30th parts, which is why batch tested parts can & do fail more frequently. The better companies start at mil-spec, and meet or exceed it and confirm they did with testing, while other companies claim it--but don't have the testing to confirm they meet mil-spec.
Customer Service at some companies is non-existent. While Colt generally makes a good product--a friend of mine jut had to wait 7 months for his new, but defective .308 AR to be repaired. Daniel Defense & Bravo Co have been 100% on top of the minor issues I had with my purchases--I wish all companies were like them!
Does this help?
A Carbine made by anyone can meet or exceed that standard without ever cracking open the Colt/USG Technical Data Plans, drawings, and prints -- but most of the time if they do it's strictly by accident.
This line right here practically deserves its own sticky - it should be entirely possible to build a rifle that meets and in places exceeds the requirements from the USG TDP - but they're exceedingly rare, and all of them cost more than a Colt.
As far as work gun ready - go from the front of the rifle back. I'll start with just the upper.
It needs to have a barrel made from proper steel (410 SS, 4150CMV usually) for the correct application, attached to an in-spec upper (concentric for the barrel nut threads, 1913 rail up top in line with bore and dimensionally correct, FA that doesn't interfere with cycling, etc.) receiver with a correctly torqued quality barrel nut. It needs to have a usable handguard with backup sights attached such that they are ready when needed. The bolt carrier group needs to be the correct 168 Carpenter steel, with a shot peened bolt, correctly set up extractor and ejector spring, ran with working gas rings in a bolt carrier which has a properly staked carrier key attached with grade 8 bolts - preferably high pressure tested followed by magnetic particle inspection per TDP.
This is just one half of a bare bones AR-15 - and there is plenty to go wrong with a lower, but if an upper receiver doesn't fit all of the above, it's literally cheaper to just throw it on gunbroker and start again.
To establish any kind of decent reputation, a company needs to churn out rifles that 99% of them work right out of the box, and will go through the first 1000 rounds problem free (with decent ammunition and magazines). Then they need to be either quick, or very communicative when the need for customer service arrives. If the repair can't be lightning fast (replacement parts from subcontractors unavailable, shipping turnaround time, etc.) then there needs to be accurate, timely communication and a genuine effort to make it right despite limitations.
None of these things are super hard, but the next issue is maintaining the above when business volume increases tenfold - because any company that does the above for more than a year will quickly get buried in people throwing them money if they don't spike their prices through the roof.
Manufacturers who have made the leap from "hobby" to "professional" have the whole package, starting with being professional right from the start.
Folks act like 4150 CMV is the only steel worthy of being used to make barrels. 4140 has been used for decades to make good, even legendary barrels. It's what Steyr used to make barrels for their StG58 which are known to be the best FAL barrels made. Even 4130 has been used with great success. While 4150 CMV is one of the top steels, it doesn't make 4140 or even 4130 barrels garbage. Can anyone here say they can actually see a difference in accuracy, reliability or durability between 4150 CMV and 4130 CM?
One of the few places a manufacturer can actually exceed mil-spec is by developing a manufacturing process for bolts that eliminates the need for HPT. HPT tests bolts and barrels at pressures beyond what they are designed to take. Each barrel and bolt has a limited, but unknown, over-pressure events it can withstand before it fails. Each time a bolt or barrel is HPT tested, that finite number is reduced by one. HPT testing can also start a failure within the part that is still within allowable limits, or even below detectable limits, yet set the part on the path of failure.
Some will insist a bolt must be made of Carpenter steel and must be HPT tested, yet it's interesting to note that KAC does neither
Manufacturers who have made the leap from "hobby" to "professional" have the whole package, starting with being professional right from the start.
Folks act like 4150 CMV is the only steel worthy of being used to make barrels. 4140 has been used for decades to make good, even legendary barrels. It's what Steyr used to make barrels for their StG58 which are known to be the best FAL barrels made. Even 4130 has been used with great success. While 4150 CMV is one of the top steels, it doesn't make 4140 or even 4130 barrels garbage. Can anyone here say they can actually see a difference in accuracy, reliability or durability between 4150 CMV and 4130 CM?
One of the few places a manufacturer can actually exceed mil-spec is by developing a manufacturing process for bolts that eliminates the need for HPT. HPT tests bolts and barrels at pressures beyond what they are designed to take. Each barrel and bolt has a limited, but unknown, over-pressure events it can withstand before it fails. Each time a bolt or barrel is HPT tested, that finite number is reduced by one. HPT testing can also start a failure within the part that is still within allowable limits, or even below detectable limits, yet set the part on the path of failure.
Some will insist a bolt must be made of Carpenter steel and must be HPT tested, yet it's interesting to note that KAC does neither
Somehow jumping back and forth between this as the chinese made AR thread, I got sidetracked with what the minimum specification I'd look for from an assumed 'junk' AR maker seeking to make higher end stuff would be. For a company looking to go from making low end, marginal AR's to offering weapon systems for professionals and serious shooters, I'd still argue the above is preferable, or extensive justification provided for any deviation from TDP (KAC can do this because they put down the round counts to back up their claims. This is the exception, which if anything proves the rule). Same with the HPT requirement - it does reduce the lifetime of each bolt tested, but the only questionable BCG hardware I've owned are ones where the manufacturer didn't want to spend the money on anything but batch MPI.
One of the few places a manufacturer can actually exceed mil-spec is by developing a manufacturing process for bolts that eliminates the need for HPT. HPT tests bolts and barrels at pressures beyond what they are designed to take. Each barrel and bolt has a limited, but unknown, over-pressure events it can withstand before it fails. Each time a bolt or barrel is HPT tested, that finite number is reduced by one. HPT testing can also start a failure within the part that is still within allowable limits, or even below detectable limits, yet set the part on the path of failure.
Some will insist a bolt must be made of Carpenter steel and must be HPT tested, yet it's interesting to note that KAC does neither
If it's not High Pressure Tested (per the spec in black-and-white) it doesn't meet United States M16/M4 military specification, period. Whether or not KAC (or anyone else) does either is irrelevant.
3.4.4 Hiqh pressure resistance. Each barrel assembly and bolt shall withstand the firing of one Government standard M197, 5.56mm high pressure test cartridge conforming to MIL-C-46936. After proof firing, parts shall be free of cracks, seems and other injurious defects as evidenced by visual and magnetic particle inspection.
There is no MILSPEC for National Match M16 barrels, yet every one produced at the USAMU is proofed. They shoot tighter groups, but as they do not meet MILSPEC they also do not last as long as a GI barrel.
The MILSPEC is the minimum for acceptance by the US Government. It doesn't necessarily mean a rifle or carbine you build or buy off the rack/shelf won't meet the rigors and punishment of duty use, but it's an indicator of what you can expect for what you pay for.
A company's ads and marketing might be able truly say their stuff meets or exceeds the spec if they're using and meeting the same criteria (i.e., 1,000 weapon lots, pass/fail, and rejects).
Just buying components from the same sub-contractors doesn't necessarily mean they do.
At what point does an AR manufacture/parts assembler go from hobby guns to a work gun? I have seen many experts from Pat Rodgers to Larry Vickers talk about the quality of the leaders, Colt and KAC. Is it the amount of money and time spent on R&D or making all the major parts in-house? How did Larue, Daniel Defense and BCM go from nowhere to being recognized as one of the good ones? Did the above three listed have growing pains and were they known as hobby guns to begin with? What does it take for a company that is considered by the experts a hobby gun to go to work gun status? Is it the fact that they start making parts in-house compared to having and outside supplier cut uppers and lowers and add the company’s name at the end of the milling process.
Is it the fact that they are able to have a sponsored stallion in their stable pushing the product?
There seems to be so many experts here that someone should be able to give a valid point to what they mean and how a company changes the reputation
I know that there are many hobby gun companies (DPMS and Olympic) that for whatever reason have not improved from where they started and continue to send out the same stuff. I am looking for defined answers and not just they suck or I don’t like them.
Dan
Larue, Daniel Defense, and BCM all started making parts that earned them reputations as quality manufacturers long before they made rifles. Larue and Daniel Defense got their starts with handguards. Larue also made some of the only really high-end quick-detach optic mounts, at the time (still do, though there are more options now). I don't actually remember what BCM started with, but they, right off the bat, started making barrels and bolts to Colt/TDP specifics, and for significantly less than Colt prices, which caught everyone's' eye.
From there, these guys started making quality uppers using those parts that earned them the reputations they had, and evolved into complete firearms.
Hobby? They all started in the civilian market, and are still there. Since there's no defining line between what someone can take along in their patrol car or... wherever else someone would get paid to take their personally-purchased AR... it's tough to really directly answer the question. It's subjective. It's up to you to decide what meets your own personal minimum requirements for duty.
If it's not High Pressure Tested (per the spec in black-and-white) it doesn't meet United States M16/M4 military specification, period. Whether or not KAC (or anyone else) does either is irrelevant...
My point isn't that bolts & barrels not HPT tested are mil-spec, but that is one of the few places a manufacturer can make an AR part that's better than mil-spec. I was using KAC as an example to show it could be done
...The MILSPEC is the minimum for acceptance by the US Government...
Mil-spec isn't just a minimum, it's a parameter. For example, specs for a rifle could include a max length, max weight, must go a minimum number of rounds without failure, hold a certain number of rounds and so on. An alloy isn't spec'd just because it's the minimum that will do the job, it's chosen because it best meets the requirements of a variety of parameters.
That's not to say the system is perfect, however. There are still things that slip through the crevasses- I mean cracks
Mil-spec isn't just a minimum, it's a parameter. For example, specs for a rifle could include a max length, max weight, must go a minimum number of rounds without failure, hold a certain number of rounds and so on. An alloy isn't spec'd just because it's the minimum that will do the job, it's chosen because it best meets the requirements of a variety of parameters.
The MILSPECs are the objective metrics for acceptance at delivery, not the required and desired (objective and threshold) performance and/or manufacturing specifications (the drawings, blueprints, and materials to be used). Apples and oranges, (or pie v. cake).
The first are established by the users (weight/length, mean round between failures, rounds in the magazines, irons or optics, smooth or rails, etc); the second are specified by the government (in its drawings and specs, e.g., 4150 Chro-Moly-Vanadium barrel material, High Pressure tested -- and here are the specs we'll use to accept and test your submission) or by the original contract awardee's (e.g., Colt's, FN's, or Beretta's TDP, to include materials) First Article submission.
There are HUNDREDS of AR rifles out there that look generally similar and all go bang when you put in ammo. There are only so many that perform the same because they're built of the same components.
There are even fewer that are tested and certified as such.
Obviously it can be done (look at how many Warsaw Pact and Asian outfits put out AKs).
MILSPEC parts will fit and function whether the M4/M16 was built in Connecticut, South Carolina, Canada, Singapore, the Philippines, or Korea (all on the same drawings and TDP).
You can build a damn fine and capable Frankengun you KNOW will work better than one of Uncle's off-the-rack guns if you're selective of its components. When people see some of my carbines and rifles they throw up in their mouth a little because of the name, logo, and address stamped on the lower -- but they shoot better than anything delivered to Uncle's dock. They never went through a government inspector's hands.
I have seen many experts from Pat Rodgers to Larry Vickers talk about the quality of the leaders, Colt and KAC. **************** How did Larue, Daniel Defense and BCM go from nowhere to being recognized as one of the good ones?
You left out Noveske.
A Carbine made by anyone can meet or exceed that standard without ever cracking open the Colt/USG Technical Data Plans, drawings, and prints -- but most of the time if they do it's strictly by accident.
The MILSPEC is the minimum for acceptance by the US Government. It doesn't necessarily mean a rifle or carbine you build or buy off the rack/shelf won't meet the rigors and punishment of duty use, but it's an indicator of what you can expect for what you pay for.
Two material misstatements in one thread...
MILSPEC isn't a minimum and it can't be exceeded. It's a target. You either hit or you don't. Period, Full Stop.
A Carbine made by anyone can meet or exceed that standard without ever cracking open the Colt/USG Technical Data Plans, drawings, and prints -- but most of the time if they do it's strictly by accident.
The MILSPEC is the minimum for acceptance by the US Government. It doesn't necessarily mean a rifle or carbine you build or buy off the rack/shelf won't meet the rigors and punishment of duty use, but it's an indicator of what you can expect for what you pay for.
Two material misstatements in one thread...
MILSPEC isn't a minimum and it can't be exceeded. It's a target. You either hit it or you don't. Period, Full Stop.
Conceded. They ARE a set of pass/fail criteria. They can be broad (batch-testing) or they can be very narrow.
There are no bennies for surpassing the standard -- except maybe down the road if the government has granted a value-added performance bonus.
They CAN be punitive -- should the contractor fail to meet them the Government Contracting Officer can demand the awardee "Show Cause" as to why they shouldn't be penalized or have their award cancelled or withdrawn.
Some of this stuff has to be internet-generated. Yesterday's solid self-defense guns are today's "hobby guns." Opinion changes like Paris haute-couture. For a while Noveske was the only one to have, then it was BCM if you wanted to stay alive , then Daniel Defense was the only one in a pinch, now it's KAC . . . . with Colt the perennial winner. All else are suitable only as movie props, or to give to criminals, safe in the knowledge that with the first round fired, they'll instantly deconstruct into a little pile of metal powder.
NWcityguy2
09-28-13, 20:52
At what point does an AR manufacture/parts assembler go from hobby guns to a work gun?
If you talked to every person on this website (or any other) you'll never find one universally accepted standard. People can't even agree on what Milspec should mean in relation to the civilian market. So as you read peoples responses try to remember that these are personal standards that people set and not some adherence to a written or unwritten rule about what should be what.
IMO shooting a bullet is work for a gun. The gun doesn't know if it is shooting a bullet for someones hobby, self defense, competition, hunting, etc. The user decides what type of gun it is. If two identical BCM guns go to a gun shop and one is bought for a range toy and the other is bought for a duty weapon, one gun turns into one and the other likewise.
There seems to be so many experts here that someone should be able to give a valid point to what they mean and how a company changes the reputation
There are lots of ways for a company to change its reputation. They can improve the quality of their guns, they can give guns to gun rags and have them reviewed, they can become more active in social media, they can give free guns to respected people then publish pictures of those people using the guns, they can sponsor websites like this one, they can sponsor shooting events, they can have excellent customer service departments, they can have excellent shipping departments, etc.
If you are looking to buy a gun for actual duty then consider all sorts of things like department policy, how often and long you will have to carry it, what distances you will shoot, what ammo you will shoot in it, compatibility with other equipment you already use and of course your budget/reimbursement/tax write off. If you want to buy a hobby gun that other people consider a duty gun get a 16" carbine from any brand you mentioned in your first paragraph.
The milspec TDP is intended to be a floor, below which the DoD sees no reason to pay for weapons which will see fielding. In terms of quantities of civilian AR's made, that floor is deemed astronomically high by companies with less than stellar QC/QA, therefore their marketing department steps in with stuff like 'ours is better because it's different', instead of showing large sample size high round count testing set to low statistical P values of MRBF above a certain threshold and improved over the TDP specification.
Some of this stuff has to be internet-generated. Yesterday's solid self-defense guns are today's "hobby guns." Opinion changes like Paris haute-couture. For a while Noveske was the only one to have, then it was BCM if you wanted to stay alive , then Daniel Defense was the only one in a pinch, now it's KAC . . . . with Colt the perennial winner. All else are suitable only as movie props, or to give to criminals, safe in the knowledge that with the first round fired, they'll instantly deconstruct into a little pile of metal powder.
You're entirely misunderstanding this - Noveske are STILL the barrels and barreled uppers to have if you want the best of both worlds in precision rifles with high durability, not to mention the Gen2 lowers that are arguably the nicest out there; BCM still makes a lot of fantastic components (GF CH, Grips), as well as making very customizable uppers off solid CHF and standard barrels; DanielDefense still makes amazing rails, and have unbeatable deals on complete rifles with CHF barrels and solid rail systems, not to mention the de facto standard for rail affixed iron sights; KAC still have the SR-15, which is arguably the best complete base rifle in existence, with the Mod1 being another incremental improvement over the E3/IWS model; and Colt has always been 'the' standard by which the others are judged, and now that their DoD contract work isn't taking the entire production capacity, the Sprawl-Mart sourced 6920's are the best value in civilian AR's out there.
It's not that hobby guns are inadequate for firing off half a dozen mags a day on a trip to the range to have a good time - they're perfect for that. If ran hard, then you'll start to see the myriad of reasons why people here pay more for rifles.
BoringGuy45
09-28-13, 23:03
There's no doubt that a number of AR manufacturers use lower quality materials and do not have the quality control of others. I'm sure that there are others that are so out of spec that they barely fit anything not made by the same company. However, as it's been pointed out, what is considered duty grade and what is considered hobby grade in a rifle, beyond what can be easily seen, seems to be open for debate. There are some who hold to milspec like the Bible: Let anyone who adds to or takes away from what is written be condemned. And there's still another camp that sees milspec as the place to start, but looks for ways to improve upon the current designs.
I frankly don't see anything wrong with the latter position. As long as the improvements don't in any way compromise the rifle's functioning and durability, and the gun is still compatible with just about every standard AR part on the market, I say why not?
The milspec TDP is intended to be a floor, below which the DoD sees no reason to pay for weapons which will see fielding. In terms of quantities of civilian AR's made, that floor is deemed astronomically high by companies with less than stellar QC/QA, therefore their marketing department steps in with stuff like 'ours is better because it's different', instead of showing large sample size high round count testing set to low statistical P values of MRBF above a certain threshold and improved over the TDP specification.
To me the perfect example of this is the RRA rifles. They look at the Colt 6920 and look to improve the trigger pull with their 2-stage NM design, while it is a better feel than the standard GI setup, it is a problematic design that is documented to have problems. So while the feel is an improvement to the hobby shooter, there is a sacrifice of reliability which in a hard use/duty gun is not acceptable.
They also use non CL barrels in most models to improve accuracy over the milspec Colt. Once again they are giving up properties that are valued by the serious shooters to appeal to the hobbyist.
...MILSPEC parts will fit and function whether the M4/M16 was built in Connecticut, South Carolina, Canada, Singapore, the Philippines, or Korea (all on the same drawings and TDP)...
As far as the TDP goes, it depends. When I was working as a contractor providing maintenance on AH64-A Apaches and AH64-D Longbows, the TDP belonged to the contracting company and it was well guarded from competitors. When a new contract company took over the contract, they used their own TDP. We still provided the same quality maintenance but certain details about how we went about our business changed as a result
In this case your example isn't the same.
As far as the TDP goes, it depends. When I was working as a contractor providing maintenance on AH64-A Apaches and AH64-D Longbows, the TDP belonged to the contracting company and it was well guarded from competitors. When a new contract company took over the contract, they used their own TDP. We still provided the same quality maintenance but certain details about how we went about our business changed as a result
As far as the TDP goes, it depends. When I was working as a contractor providing maintenance on AH64-A Apaches and AH64-D Longbows, the TDP belonged to the contracting company and it was well guarded from competitors. When a new contract company took over the contract, they used their own TDP. We still provided the same quality maintenance but certain details about how we went about our business changed as a result
Yeah, I'd echo IG's comment, that your experience comes from a field where conservative, religiously followed preventative maintenance is the norm, and a lot of the TDP data content which was deemed sensitive had to do with the huge sums of money required to determine the expected mean lifetime, approximate low end 3 sigma lifetime, and testing procedures to ensure that parts fall within spec. It's a completely different QA regime, where there are plenty more correct answers because of the redundancy built into systems as well as the massively improved documentation and PM protocols in place.
Take those same airframes, give them to a third party nation, with the knowing expectation they'll put crap fuel through it, provide lax PM for it, and you'd start to see that the most conservative TDP far outstrips the more feature laden options. Simply put, firearms are more common, receive poorer documentation, and mostly get ran harder in worse conditions with the expectation that they work above minimum anyway.
Colt sued when the Army gave Colt's TDP to FN without permission- and wonhttp://www.teamm14.com/images/smilies/bb6.png
Are you sure about that? I am pretty sure that FN was given the TDP officially.
Colt sued when the Army gave Colt's TDP to FN without permission- and wonhttp://www.teamm14.com/images/smilies/bb6.png
There was a discussion awhile back about it. The DoD or the Army gave a package to FN so they could bid on making M4s. Part of that package was the TDP which Colt owned as they are the ones who developed the M4 to begin with. Colt took it to court and as I recall, they settled on having the right to be the sole provider for the M4 (which expired a few months ago) and would be paid a set price for each carbine for the life of the contract.
A company with a .gov contract must have a set of documents outlining and detailing how they will conduct business. The documents cover just about every aspect of the services to be provided including how the company will assure material, parts & processes used will meet the requirements the .gov has set. Because of the nature of the relationship our contracting company had, it also included pay rates, benefits, training and working conditions of employees. We learned a lot about the TDP we were working under and were not allowed to share any of it because the information would allow a competing company to know how we were doing business and figure out a way to out-bid us.
Aircraft companies often have a similar agreement with the FAA. It's called a Letter Of Agreement. A company will write a letter outlining how they plan to do business based on the FARs and other FAA regulations and submit it to the FAA. If the FAA agrees, they sign off on it and the company is legally bound to follow it. Sometimes, what's in the LOA doesn't match the regulations (due to unique circumstances and/or outdated regs) but if the FAA accepts it, it's binding. TDPs sometimes have agreements that deviate from the original contract or specifications to streamline and improve services provided
I don't know if there was a "TDP" back then, but a a good example of a company needing to protect their intellectual property is the story of the jeep. The American Bantam Car Company, on their own initiative, did much of the development work on what was to later become the jeep. Later, when the Army finally recognized the need for such a vehicle, took Bantam's drawings and specifications of the Bantam to Willys-Overland, giving them a leg up in the design process. Bantam laid the groundwork for what was to become a key machine in winning the Second World War and the most iconic automobile in history, yet made no profit from it, simply because the technical data they developed for it was not protected
Are you sure about that? I am pretty sure that FN was given the TDP officially.
He is correct...
I am not referring to the suit, but the fact that it wasn't allowed to be given out. I was under the impression that there are circumstances where the Army was allowed to do this.
Seems kind of weird since Colt is now making M240's and they would need the TDP to build them.
He is correct...
The Navy inappropriately gave FN Colt's M4 TDP. Colt sued and won.
Fast-forward and the Army solicited bids for another M4 contract, as Colt's was at capacity. Remington won it. Colt bitched and asked for a review.
Colt won the Government review. The M4 contract was bid again, and FN won.
When the Government solicits a request for bid they send a copy of the TDP to all qualified bidders so they can figure their ability to meet MILSPEC, delivery numbers and rate, and costs and profit margin. If for any reason an outfit wthdraws, or if they lose the bid, they are required (by agreement with the Government) to return the TDP and all data.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Colt-M4-Data-Rights-The-Individual-Carbine-Competition-06942/
The origin of the “M4 Addendum” traces back to the improper release of the M4 TDP by the US Army’s Rock Island Arsenal to the US Navy’s NSWC-Crane in early 1996. NSWC-Crane had requested a copy of the M4A1 TDP to support the solicitation of accessories for the M4 SOPMOD kit. While soliciting an adaptor for training ammunition, NSWC-Crane provided the M4A1 TDP to 21 vendors in August/96. As one of the potential bidders, Colt was very much surprised to receive a copy of their own TDP drawings, and gave notice that the terms of the 1967 Licensing Agreement had been breached. NSWC-Crane quickly attempted to recover all copies of the TDP and sent out non-disclosure agreements (NDA) to the other 20 vendors. All of the vendors except FN Manufacturing complied. FN Manufacturing officials had balked on one of the five terms of the NDA, refusing to state whether they had safeguarded the TDP while it was in their possession. Instead, they provided a letter asserting that they had not improperly used the data.
Rock River has US Government contracts but the performance metrics are based on the DEA's specs, not military nor the Colt TDP. Those carbines meet the DEA's original requirements and nobody else's.
I am not referring to the suit, but the fact that it wasn't allowed to be given out. I was under the impression that there are circumstances where the Army was allowed to do this.
It depends on the contract agreement. If the contract stipulates the company holds the rights to the TDP, the .gov cannot just give it to anyone
Seems kind of weird since Colt is now making M240's and they would need the TDP to build them.
Colt would have received the basic TDP or an outline of what was expected to be in the TDP but not any part that was proprietary to FN. Colt, being experienced in delivering arms to the military, would have had little trouble developing a TDP that matched their business model and was acceptable to the DoD or whichever entity is in charge of the contract.
An example would be the granting of contracts for the M14. The M14 was developed by the government run Springfield Armory and TRW, Winchester and Harrington & Richardson were contracted to produce them. Each company received the drawings and specifications but each had their own approach as to how they'd make the rifle. TRW installed all new machinery and used updated manufacturing processes and TRW M14s are reputed to be the best quality. Winchester started with existing machines & processes based on their experience making Garands. The TDP of each would have been changed to reflect that to ensure parts interchangeability and that quality standards were met
So should we apply this TDP to our working Pistols as well? So everyone here uses nothing but TDP standard pistols for working guns?:rolleyes: This whole BS standard for AR's is just that BS. I have 3 AR's and would use any of them as working guns and yes I trust my life to them working when needed- end of story. As I do for all my firearms. Everyone I own.:D So tell me which police department shoots thousands of rounds on a weeekly basis in the line of duty? Other then front line troops in combat do you really need that capability. Tell me which AR's made for civilian use wouldn't work for SD/HD situations most of us would encounter? For the life of me I haven't seen all these subpar AR's blowing up on a daily basis. Unless some fools feed them an overpressured round- an alot of those were the so called TDP standard guns!
Tzintzuntzan
09-30-13, 11:03
I'm not sure why you're trying to bait us, do you own three Stags that've never given you trouble after 1000 rounds each or something? PDs don't need to shoot at asymmetric warfare deployment work ups to see S&Ws, bushies, RRAs, etc shit the bed on them. Hell some just fail initial inspection and get sent back right away. Whether or not a TDP meeting/exceeding gun matters to you or not has no baring on whether or not one is essential to others.
Cylinder Head
09-30-13, 11:04
One of the few places a manufacturer can actually exceed mil-spec is by developing a manufacturing process for bolts that eliminates the need for HPT. HPT tests bolts and barrels at pressures beyond what they are designed to take. Each barrel and bolt has a limited, but unknown, over-pressure events it can withstand before it fails. Each time a bolt or barrel is HPT tested, that finite number is reduced by one. HPT testing can also start a failure within the part that is still within allowable limits, or even below detectable limits, yet set the part on the path of failure.
Some will insist a bolt must be made of Carpenter steel and must be HPT tested, yet it's interesting to note that KAC does neither
Centurion is also in the growing group of manufacturers that does not HPT test their bolts, specifically for the reasons you mentioned.
Tzintzuntzan
Well the TDP obviously doesn't matter to PD's either cause if it was the criteria for purchase then why have they and still do buy non TDP compliant AR's? As do other Federal agencies. If all AR's needed to be TDP compliant the market would force all manufactures to be TDP compliant would it not? Or is that the purpose of the majority of this board to force all manufactures to comply? As we see with all the so called compliant makers this means extra cost/ higher prices for AR's.:confused:
Tzintzuntzan
Well the TDP obviously doesn't matter to PD's either cause if it was the criteria for purchase then why have they and still do buy non TDP compliant AR's? As do other Federal agencies. If all AR's needed to be TDP compliant the market would force all manufactures to be TDP compliant would it not? Or is that the purpose of the majority of this board to force all manufactures to comply? As we see with all the so called compliant makers this means extra cost/ higher prices for AR's.:confused:
I thought to myself, what is this guy talking about? Then I realized you must be coming at this from the perspective that the cheapest commercial AR available must be the baseline price for an AR, and that everything else is "more expensive."
Interesting point of view... but it generally isn't going to net you quality property.
Dead Man
Quality is a relative term. I haven't had anything break on my AR's.
Hadn't had to send any back for warranty work. So I guess they are quality made AR's then wouldn't you agree? Now I don't run thousands of rounds through them every year/week. I don't go into combat on a daily basis, or weekly or monthly. Don't run them in 3 guns, classes etc. So no I don't need to spend thousands on a TDP compliant AR like a DD, Norveske, KAC. And yes two of them cost less then a Colt 6920 . :D
Tzintzuntzan
09-30-13, 12:57
Purchases made by PDs aren't usually the highest measure of quality. The fact that a manufacturer's delivery of rifles can routinely fail the inspection criteria for officers who might only put 100 rounds a month through a carbine is a big clue as to how well built those rifles are. Whether or not a rifle passes however depends on how knowledgeable the department and officers are about ARs in general. Those aren't quite the best odds since dollah, dollah signs are generally the first thing looked at.
As far as the Feds go, you need to look at it in one of two ways. Which Federal agencies do the most hands on work? Which units do the most hands on work in a governement agency? Why do they almost all run Colts if they meet one of these two criteria? The only odd cases here are DEA, USSS and HRT if you trust Wikipedia that far. DEA ditched quite a few RRAs after shooting them but picked up on LWRC for both tactical and patrol units and hasn't had many regrets for the 5.56 guns. I hear the early REPRs were a nightmare though since they were built around a shitty C-Prod mag that wasn't even original AR10/SR25 pattern. Secret Service I don't know much about but supposedly they run KAC carbines. Allegedly HRT uses some HK416s but I don't know that for sure and would guess that they still have some SBR type DI rifles from Colt in use as well since they can still be made to run.
Also, you lost me at needing to pay thousands of dollars for a DD, unless you mean the ISR :confused:
Lastly, if none of this matters to you, because it does to "us", then why keep baiting us to try and get people agitated?
I don't know this, but I would imagine these agencies are buying based on cost, not performance. I'm quite sure the Secret Service has a significantly higher weapon budget per agent than the DEA.
Tzintzuntzan
09-30-13, 13:15
As far as DEA and FBI are concerned the LWRC and Colt guns meet their criteria, whatever that is. For USBP and other units it is a Colt carbine or what have you. Whether or not this means they have "the best" or a "budget fitting measure" is to be decided but considering that they haven't had a recent search for a new service rifle I would expect they are at least doing okay, if not admirably. Whether any of those rifles float your boat or not is not up to them.
anyone who has any questions about the differences between "hobby" and "work" guns needs only to look at the difference between Snap-on tools and Craftsman.
when I started racing motorcycles I had a whole kit of Craftsman tools but noticed professional mechanics used Snap-on or the like. I asked a guy once and he said, "for a weekender, the Sears tools will work well. But if you use them for a living, you'll find out pretty quick what the difference is and why they are worth the money"...
Tzintzuntzan
09-30-13, 13:51
Good post ra2bach. Let's hope we can convince the OP and similar people that we're not just setting money on fire by not paying for that "milspec" bushmaster.
I have been shooting one type of firearm or another for more decades than I care to admit. When one does enough shooting, long enough, a pattern becomes clear. Cheap firearms are exactly that- cheap. Some deliver a good value, many do not.
My father owned a gunshop for a short time and was, until he had his last stroke, an incurable horsetrader. Between my father, friends, his friends and family members, I've had the chance to see many different types of firearms- high end, affordable, economical and cheap. I've managed to be able to afford one or two high end firearms but never a cheap one. Some ARs, like the Colt are affordable. Some, like the KAC are high end. A couple qualify as affordable- more are simply cheap.
It's been said a thousand times, but it bears repeating- If you don't know why a milspec AR works, don't deviate. If you do deviate, know what to look for. An affordable AR is a good value, an economical AR can be a better value, but a high end AR is always a better value than a cheap AR.
Note- An overpriced AR is just a trailer park tramp dressed up in skimpy a dollar store Halloween costume. She might look good at first, but you'll regret taking her home to meet your mother
ra2bach
Now thats funny! For the record I used both tools -professionally! They both break- alot! One is supper exspensive the other not so much.
They both have lifetime warrenty. Both get the job done. So your point is?:haha:
NWcityguy2
10-01-13, 19:59
So while most of this thread turned into a pissing match about the TDP something useful came out of the part that didn't.
Purchases made by PDs aren't usually the highest measure of quality...(snip by NWcityguy2) ...dollah signs are generally the first thing looked at.
That is 100% the truth. There are a metric butt ton of "hobby grade" ARs being used for duty right now. The reality is there is no hard line between which civilian ARs are meant for duty and which are not.
And that's why obsessing over what an AR is meant to be used for is a fruitless endeavor. People decide what a gun will be used for and the gun shoots bullets out of it's barrel.
anyone who has any questions about the differences between "hobby" and "work" guns needs only to look at the difference between Snap-on tools and Craftsman.
when I started racing motorcycles I had a whole kit of Craftsman tools but noticed professional mechanics used Snap-on or the like. I asked a guy once and he said, "for a weekender, the Sears tools will work well. But if you use them for a living, you'll find out pretty quick what the difference is and why they are worth the money"...
I know the Iceman. The Iceman is the best car AC mechanic in Houston, and that's saying a lot. He uses mostly Craftsman.
I know the Iceman. The Iceman is the best car AC mechanic in Houston, and that's saying a lot. He uses mostly Craftsman.
yeah, and Kobalt tools sponsors a racing team, so what does that mean?
a lot of "professional" mechanics use Craftsman tools because of the price and because of the warranty, you just replace them when they break. but spend a day pulling a Craftsman ratchet and then switch to a Snap-on and a little light will start to dimly glow...
...spend a day pulling a Craftsman ratchet and then switch to a Snap-on and a little light will start to dimly glow...
I hate Snap-On ratchets. Whoever thought a smooth round handle was a good idea on an oil soaked ratchet or when you have to wrench by feel should be kicked in the groin. Repeatedly
vicious_cb
10-02-13, 05:45
The difference is your life probably doesn't depend on the quality of your wrench...
vicious_cb
Already stated I'd use any of my AR's for that purpose.:D With out hesitation.
The difference is your life probably doesn't depend on the quality of your wrench...
True, but lives depend on the quality of the maintenance it performs.
I've been a long time user of Craftsman tools but a few years ago, I started noticing a significant slip in their quality and have started changing over to Snap-On for certain items, like sockets.
I've got to say, no one has a better ratcheting screwdriver than the latest design from Snap-On
True, but lives depend on the quality of the maintenance it performs.
I've been a long time user of Craftsman tools but a few years ago, I started noticing a significant slip in their quality and have started changing over to Snap-On for certain items, like sockets.
I've got to say, no one has a better ratcheting screwdriver than the latest design from Snap-On
No difference from the base argument.
Craftsman, Snap-On, Kobalt, Acme, Binford, Harbor Freight -- they all look the same and should do the same function. They're not made the same, they're not from the same materials, nor are they backed up the same, either.
"Hobby tools vice work tools."
You can line up factory-made ARs and carbines and externally they're close (if not identical). Start shooting them and you start discovering issues, some small, some catastrophic.
So should we apply this TDP to our working Pistols as well? So everyone here uses nothing but TDP standard pistols for working guns?:rolleyes:
I don't think the TDP is BS. But, it is a double standard. What is the standard for a pistol to be used for self defense (or carried on duty)? I've heard things like 200 rounds of practice and ammo and 100 rounds of whatever your are going to carry. As far as I know, nobody does MPI of their pistol barrel's (or any other part). Why is the standard there lower? Because the higher standard doesn't exist?
For a policeman, it seems like the pistol is more likely to be used in a fight than a long gun. Is a S&W M&P 9 more reliable than a S&W M&P 15T? I don't think so. Why will some of you carry one but not the other?
That said, if I was going to carry an AR into battle I would carry one of the "top tier". That decision is made easy by the fact that there isn't that much of a money difference between many of them and many of the "lower tier's".
For home defense, I'll grab my M&P 15 sport before either my glock 19 or my M&P 9 if given the choice.
NWcityguy2
10-03-13, 19:11
S&W ARs are proof that you can blow off the TDP and nobody will care as long as the gun itself works.
justin_247
10-03-13, 19:38
The reason the TDP is important is because it is, in many ways, the compendium of technical "lessons learned" from years upon years of operational experience in the most rugged environments imaginable. When a certain number of failures occurred, they looked into it, fixed it, and updated the TDP. As a result, weapons built IAW the TDP are much less likely to experience various failures than weapons not built IAW the TDP.
If you spend your time using your weapon to shoot paper plates and dirt clods in pretty controlled conditions, then the TDP may not matter much to you. But if you are a person whose life depends on your weapon and you operate in a ton of environments over which you have no control over (read: law enforcement, military, and security personnel), whether or not your weapon was built IAW the TDP could mean the difference between life and death.
Am I saying that there are aspects of the TDP that have yet to be changed in light of recent developments? Certainly.
But that is not an excuse for a company to ignore the TDP to save a buck while pretending that their weapon is "just as good as" a weapon built by a company who follows the TDP.
justin_247
10-03-13, 19:50
S&W ARs are proof that you can blow off the TDP and nobody will care as long as the gun itself works.
S&W doesn't "blow off" the TDP. In fact, they follow it more closely than most of their competitors (except for Colt, FN, DD, BCM, Centurion, LMT, Spike's, and Noveske). That said, they are the lowest quality rifle I would be willing to buy.
The parts that they ignore (primarily barrel composition and associated quality control measures, and barrel twist rate) they make up for sourcing the parts from known good suppliers. And my understanding is that they are implementing better quality control measures based upon the TDP. I'm unsure if they fully got it up and running or not, and whether or not they are batch testing or individually testing components.
And they are way overgassed. We did some testing in GA with a midlength being used by a police officer.
I ran with various 5.56 ammo using an H3 buffer and blue Springco. It also ran with the Vltor A5H4 and green Springco spring.
My MKI MOD0 eye ball indicated that is was larger than the standard .076.
S&W ARs are proof that you can blow off the TDP and nobody will care as long as the gun itself works.
And they are way overgassed. We did some testing in GA with a midlength being used by a police officer.
I ran with various 5.56 ammo using an H3 buffer and blue Springco. It also ran with the Vltor A5H4 and green Springco spring.
My MKI MOD0 eye ball indicated that is was larger than the standard .076.
If you're selectively going to follow the TDP, and target a rifle for the $700 out the door audience, they've made exactly the right call in my book - run a 1:8 twist and a huge gas port so it handles the widest variety of mediocre ammunition that your target audience is likely to feed it.
Anybody willing to feed a rifle a steady and exclusive diet of 5.56 pressure quality brass ammunition isn't going to hesitate to just buy the 6920 or equivalent rifle - S&W did a good job of evaluating their market.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.