View Full Version : Spikes Tactical Enhanced Lower Parts Kit
I am doing my first AR build and I was wondering if any of you guys know anything about the Spikes Tactical Enhanced Lower Parts Kit and if the trigger is any good. I am relatively knew to this whole build thing. Thanks.
It's decent stuff but honestly I feel like it's a waste of money for what you actually get.
dramabeats
11-01-14, 00:29
I think you'd be better off with with a Colt LPK from gandr (without FCG) and an ALG ACT trigger.
Agree with drama. +1 for ALG ACT Colt LPK.
Not only is the trigger group coated with Nickel Teflon and Nickel Boron, they are tuned by Geiselle. Very good trigger for $60~
Agree with drama. +1 for ALG ACT Colt LPK.
Not only is the trigger group coated with Nickel Teflon and Nickel Boron, they are tuned by Geiselle. Very good trigger for $60~
This is exactly what I did with my two most recently purchased lowers (Spikes Lowers). Bought the Colt LPK, from Grant, sans trigger group and purchased two ALG triggers to give them a try.
Everything went together very smoothly and in dry firing the ALG trigger group is impressive for the $$. In dry firing, it is probably 80% as good as the SSA trigger group and loads better than your average GI LPK trigger.
The only negative about the Colt LPK, I think it needs a pistol grip upgrade, as I've been spoiled by HK V1 battle grips that have additional palm swell and texture. I will be replacing the Colt grip with HK grips eventually.
I am doing my first AR build and I was wondering if any of you guys know anything about the Spikes Tactical Enhanced Lower Parts Kit and if the trigger is any good. I am relatively knew to this whole build thing. Thanks.
I have that LPK in a pistol lower. It's a decent trigger. It's just a run of the mill single-stage trigger that's NiB coated. It takes the grit out of a stock trigger. Still as heavy and as long. Just a lot smoother. I have one in an AR pistol. It works.
Hey all, I've dabbled in doing AR trigger jobs and have stoned/polished a couple of lpk's of my own. Have wanted to try the ALG but havent found a good place to buy the lpk minus fcg. What is the website for this Grants place?
Hey all, I've dabbled in doing AR trigger jobs and have stoned/polished a couple of lpk's of my own. Have wanted to try the ALG but havent found a good place to buy the lpk minus fcg. What is the website for this Grants place?
http://www.gandrtactical.com
NWcityguy2
11-01-14, 16:06
I know this forum doesn't like Spikes and can be a bit harsh on the brand, but that is still too much for a LPK. Some of that stuff, like the KNS pins and billet trigger guard, aren't even necessary. Also a mil-spec trigger coated in NiB is still a mil-spec trigger.
Look at PSA's website and pick a lpk that comes with the grip you want. The last two lpk's I bought from PSA had the same markings as the Colt parts, included a FCG and came with a good grip for the same money. Then if you don't like the trigger (both of mine were good for a mil-spec trigger) you can replace it with something noticeably better and throw the old one in the spare parts bin.
http://palmettostatearmory.com/index.php/ar-15-05/lower-parts/parts-kits.html
$60 did seem a little steep for a lpk minus fcg. I actually like the machining on the Spikes lpk I have. After stone and polish (they cleaned up way easier than dpms or PSA) I threw some JP springs on my lower and the pull is a very nice, short, almost zero creep 5.5lb pull.
SilverBullet432
11-01-14, 20:57
+1 for Colt LPK + ALG, bought that exact combo from G&R recently love it !
Are the components in a colt lpk better quality? Anyone compared them with another band side - by - side?
Are the components in a colt lpk better quality? Anyone compared them with another band side - by - side?
Colt lpk's are the best period.
NWcityguy2
11-01-14, 21:34
Colt lpk's are the best period.
Colt is not necessarily selling small parts made by them, either as kits or in their rifles. Many of the parts shown on G&R's site that have markings are clearly made by Schmid tool.
So where can I buy a Schmid tool LPK that meets the specs required by Colt?
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but from my understanding, Schmid tool makes the FCG (trigger and hammer). The detents, springs, roll pins and the like are made from various other vendors. It's quite likely that most of them from any parts kits come from the same place, at least with the roll pins, detents and springs.
NWcityguy2
11-02-14, 10:54
My PSA kits came with the FCG, Bolt catch and safety with Schmid markings.
If you search the web for "S marked" lpks, you'll see them in everything from older DDs to PTAC.
So where can I buy a Schmid tool LPK that meets the specs required by Colt?
White Oak Armory sells the "S" marked small parts (minus the FCG) for about $41.00.
JBecker 72
11-03-14, 11:05
I bought a Daniel Defense LPK and it too came with an S marked safety, trigger, hammer, and bolt catch. It's a very nice stock trigger too.
While I knew BCM is a good product, the two examples of triggers I have experience with are some of the worst I've felt. I just ordered a QMS for my BCM rifle.
This is exactly what I did with my two most recently purchased lowers (Spikes Lowers). Bought the Colt LPK, from Grant, sans trigger group and purchased two ALG triggers to give them a try.
Everything went together very smoothly and in dry firing the ALG trigger group is impressive for the $$. In dry firing, it is probably 80% as good as the SSA trigger group and loads better than your average GI LPK trigger.
The only negative about the Colt LPK, I think it needs a pistol grip upgrade, as I've been spoiled by HK V1 battle grips that have additional palm swell and texture. I will be replacing the Colt grip with HK grips eventually.
Bit of a derail, but is the HK grip worth the $70 price tag from HKParts?
I think you'd be better off with with a Colt LPK from gandr (without FCG) and an ALG ACT trigger.
Bingo. This is the BEST LPK's available.
http://www.gandrtactical.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=SPK99796
C4
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but from my understanding, Schmid tool makes the FCG (trigger and hammer). The detents, springs, roll pins and the like are made from various other vendors. It's quite likely that most of them from any parts kits come from the same place, at least with the roll pins, detents and springs.
The selector that Colt uses (for instance) is NOT allowed to be sold to anyone else. So every part of the Colt LPK's is pretty well locked up. Read, you cannot get Colt Quality via another brand for less money.
C4
So where can I buy a Schmid tool LPK that meets the specs required by Colt?
You can't.
C4
You can't.
C4
As I suspected. Thanks for the knowledgeable input.
Bit of a derail, but is the HK grip worth the $70 price tag from HKParts?
That depends on two things. 1. What works for you and 2. Your budget.
I really like them and since I can afford them I outfit my builds with them. My other OTS rifles typically stay as from the factory.
mrjinglesusa
11-03-14, 16:33
Bingo. This is the BEST LPK's available.
http://www.gandrtactical.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=SPK99796
C4
I'm getting an error when trying to add to my cart.
A Problem Has Occurred
Please See Below For Details:
There is not enough product in stock to place in your cart, and this product cannot be backordered.
Error Code : Not Available
Are you out the Colt LPKs?
I'm getting an error when trying to add to my cart.
Are you out the Colt LPKs?
They are in stock. Try now.
C4
mrjinglesusa
11-03-14, 16:36
They are in stock. Try now.
C4
Thanks working now. :)
NWcityguy2
11-03-14, 17:47
The selector that Colt uses (for instance) is NOT allowed to be sold to anyone else. So every part of the Colt LPK's is pretty well locked up. Read, you cannot get Colt Quality via another brand for less money.
An reversible selector isn't exactly ground breaking and more than just Colt sells them. How are the rest of the parts different then the parts made by the same companies and sold under different labels?
An reversible selector isn't exactly ground breaking and more than just Colt sells them. How are the rest of the parts different then the parts made by the same companies and sold under different labels?
Not ground breaking, but quality. The difference is standards. Colt has specs to follow other companies rarely. THAT is the difference.
C4
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
NWcityguy2
11-03-14, 18:46
The difference is standards. Colt has specs to follow other companies rarely. THAT is the difference.
That was the vague non-answer I was expecting. Colt has "standards" and "specs", which are not to be specified, that "other companies", once again not to be specified, don't have.
That was the vague non-answer I was expecting. Colt has "standards" and "specs", which are not to be specified, that "other companies", once again not to be specified, don't have.
The specs are this little known document called the TDP. Ever heard of it?
So Colt has to follow this document for ALL parts. What specs does your favorite company follow?
C4
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
My PSA kits came with the FCG, Bolt catch and safety with Schmid markings.
If you search the web for "S marked" lpks, you'll see them in everything from older DDs to PTAC.
Colt has bins of rejected parts from parts manufacturers under contract with them. The companies that make these parts WILLINGLY take these parts back without any hassle. Why? Because they can sell the Colt rejected parts to other companies.
What standards does PSA follow for their AR PARTS? DO they have bins of rejected parts that failed their QC department???
Doubtful. My bet is that they are buying the parts That companies like Colt and BCM reject.
C4
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
I'd consider picking up one of those LPKs but then I'd replace the safety with an ambi and replace the pistol grip at all, at which point there isn't too much left. I'm thinking of trying out some V7 parts too, which means there's even less remaining of the original kit.
I'd consider picking up one of those LPKs but then I'd replace the safety with an ambi and replace the pistol grip at all, at which point there isn't too much left. I'm thinking of trying out some V7 parts too, which means there's even less remaining of the original kit.
Keep the parts as spares in case the the aftermarket parts you selected fail and or suck. The grip is irrelevant as it is so cheap. We commonly get people trying to buy JUST the A2 grip so out it up on EBAY and make some money.
C4
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Colt has bins of rejected parts from parts manufacturers under contract with them. The companies that make these parts WILLINGLY take these parts back without any hassle. Why? Because they can sell the Colt rejected parts to other companies.
What standards does PSA follow for their AR PARTS? DO they have bins of rejected parts that failed their QC department???
Doubtful. My bet is that they are buying the parts That companies like Colt and BCM reject.
C4
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
I think this point was discussed in depth in another thread in regards to AR barrels. The point comes down to not just who made the parts, but to what specs the parts are made. Just because some company has parts made by a household name, doesn't mean jack shit if the specs that they give the company are crap. Same if said company's QC suck.
Im beginning to think that its a waste of time attempting to sell people on the superiority of, for example, a Colt LPK. Ultimately, its no skin off my behind if people are thrilled with their "its just as good as x" kit. The superiority of a colt lpk is abundantly clear once you use one. Example: all the slop that is present in many other safety selectors. Pop in a colt spring, detent, and safety. Slop = gone. In fact, I just went back and replaced a very sloppy BCM safety selector with a colt safety selector. Slop = gone ;) Im never going with anything else. Thanks for offering the Colt lpk's, Grant.
Not trying to derail the thread. But since the subject of the TDP came up, I'll add my two cents. Colt's TDP is their recipe for building the M4. It's their refined method of manufacture and it was accepted by the Government. Colt's Technical Data Grant to, and license agreement with, the government permits the government to distribute the TDP to contractors who build weapons and parts in the United States for military use. Contractors are required by the government to certify adherence to the legends in the TDP. By doing so, Colt retains their rights to the design and manufacture of parts and earns royalties. So, it seems the main goal of the TDP is to keep the money flowing to Colt.
Keep the parts as spares in case the the aftermarket parts you selected fail and or suck. The grip is irrelevant as it is so cheap. We commonly get people trying to buy JUST the A2 grip so out it up on EBAY and make some money.
C4
Sent from my SM-G900V using TapatalkI keep them as spares, none of it is worth enough to spend the time to post it. I'm just saying I wouldn't use that many of the parts, and already have spares.
LPK includes:
Pivot pins and springs/detents
Safety and spring/detent
Bolt catch and spring/insert/roll pin
Trigger guard
Mag catch
The gun I shoot most has a billet lower (doesn't need trigger guard), ambi safety, and the other parts I'm thinking of picking up from V7. Of course, their parts are $$$ but I've heard nothing but positive reviews of their stuff and lighter is nice.
The companies that make these parts WILLINGLY take these parts back without any hassle. Why? Because they can sell the Colt rejected parts to other companies.
Grant, From some of the BCM media/ interviews, it sounds like BCM loses money by rejecting so many parts. Don't the fabrication companies take back the substandard parts from BCM? Is it just that they have to take the time to ship them back?
NWcityguy2
11-04-14, 01:05
The specs are this little known document called the TDP. Ever heard of it?
So Colt has to follow this document for ALL parts. What specs does your favorite company follow?
The parts in my AR's come from a well known manufacturer are featured in other high quality AR's.
You yourself sell a house brand lpk that wasn't made for Colt using the TDP. Those are mostly LMT are they not? Schmid Tool is a supplier to Colt and in some capacity has access to the TDP, does LMT? What specs does LMT follow?
What standards does PSA follow for their AR PARTS? DO they have bins of rejected parts that failed their QC department???
Doubtful. My bet is that they are buying the parts That companies like Colt and BCM reject.
My bet is no one here knows how truthful or untruthful this speculation is.
The whole “TDP” thing has gotten tired. People talk about the TDP like it’s the secret recipe for Crabbie Patties. Without it, no manufacturer can come close to Colt’s secret recipe.
We’re talking about a gun, here. Not a new drug that kills Ebola. A gun, whose lineage is pushing 50 years old. The material specifications are well known. How parts are made and put together would be clear to any 2nd year engineering student with a set of calipers and a pair of reading glasses. And yet the notion no other company can do as well, or better, without the TDP has become the prevailing notion.
The TDP has become a crutch for Colt more than anything else. It seems its principal reason for existence anymore is to keep an ailing company attached to the government tit. Colt’s technical data grant and licensing agreement with the government requires that the government force contractors who build copies of, and parts for, the M4 to follow Colt’s TDP and certify that they have done so. It’s a way for Colt to keep their hands in the pot even when they aren’t the primary contractor, by forcing other contractors to use Colt’s “proprietary methods” to build copies and parts whose patents expired long ago. The money, in the form of royalties, flows to Colt.
But the TDP keeps getting thrown around. When someone brings up the issue of a new Colt gun that’s all bunged up, the picture of Colt parts in a box comes out, with the exclamation that “Colt builds their guns to a standard.” Yeah. Their own standard. I’m sure other companies have that picture on their corporate strategy boards surrounding by question marks, with their CEO saying “all we know at this point is that we should throw all our shit in an old mail bin and shake it up.”
Also, the TDP isn’t static. It’s a dynamic plan that changes (with the mutual consent of Colt and the government) has manufacturing techniques develop, as revealed in publicly available government audit reports. So one can scarcely say that the TDP of ten years ago is still the only way to build a gun today. It’s silly to suggest there’s no way for others to improve on design or manufacture of the gun when Colt does it themselves.
The simple fact is Colt’s TDP isn’t unknown, at least outside the industry. Years ago, the Army inappropriately released the TDP to the Navy, who inappropriately released it to dozens of Colt’s competitors – who ultimately never produced anything for the military. It’s out there, and you can bet your bippee it exists on the hard drives of competitor’s computers.
Colt’s recipe for the M4 isn’t secret, and it isn’t out of the technological capabilities of countless other companies. What it is is OWNED and stuck to the government with Colt’s proprietary version of gorilla glue. That’s all.
And by the way, the TDP really only matters to the government and contractors who build copies of, and parts for, the M4 in the US for military use. Colt has no such contracts with the public and whether they following the TDP in the production of the guns they sell to the public depends on one thing – Colt’s whim.
I think this point was discussed in depth in another thread in regards to AR barrels. The point comes down to not just who made the parts, but to what specs the parts are made. Just because some company has parts made by a household name, doesn't mean jack shit if the specs that they give the company are crap. Same if said company's QC suck.
Bingo. It is all about in house QC! Colt, BCM, etc have expensive gauges to check everything that comes in OR that they build in house. Most companies let the manufacturer of said part do their QC. This is not a good idea.
People would be wise ask their fav AR "manufacturer" who does their QC.
C4
Grant, From some of the BCM media/ interviews, it sounds like BCM loses money by rejecting so many parts. Don't the fabrication companies take back the substandard parts from BCM? Is it just that they have to take the time to ship them back?
Yes and no. Give you an example. BCM got a batch of barrels in many years ago that were shooting around 4MOA at 100yds. Paul did not find this acceptable and rejected the entire lot. The barrel manufacturer believed them to be in spec. So Paul was out.
Most companies will take back something that is out of spec. Where you run into issues is if you say that a barrel (for instance) must shoot 2MOA or better and the manufacturer does not guarantee that same standard.
C4
The parts in my AR's come from a well known manufacturer are featured in other high quality AR's.
How do you know they weren't rejected parts from that "high quality" AR manufacturer?
You yourself sell a house brand lpk that wasn't made for Colt using the TDP. Those are mostly LMT are they not? Schmid Tool is a supplier to Colt and in some capacity has access to the TDP, does LMT? What specs does LMT follow?
Yes, our LPK's (which we no longer sell) was primarily made up of LMT components. The smaller parts (detents, springs, etc) came from one of Colt's suppliers. With that said, I used have to reject out of spec parts from time to time.
There are couple things you are not grasping. First, Schmid tool cannot sell the parts they offer to Colt that are a specific style and or have an agreement with Colt not to sell to anyone else. Yes, the TDP (which can be found floating around the net) is available to any company (or they can just reverse engineer the part). So Schmid tool is going to follow the specs from the TDP. Secondly, just because a part came from Schmid tool doesn't mean it is right. You are relying on them to do their own QC. What you want to happen is the company that buys from them to do it with no/go gauges and such. This rarely happens IMHO.
My bet is no one here knows how truthful or untruthful this speculation is.
The AR industry is a pretty small. Someone knows something about every company. I could write books about what I know that goes on inside various manufacturers. So yes, we have some idea of what goes on and where parts come from. There are two groups of AR shooters out there IMHO. One wants to know where parts come from and that high levels of QC are being done. The others don't care as long as it fits into their AR. To each their own.
If you are happy with company XYZ's parts, I could care less. Buy everything they make! For my personal builds and the builds I do for personal friends such as Mr. Hackathorn, we ONLY use Colt and G&R/LMT LPK's. Why? Life is short. Buy quality ONCE.
C4
The whole “TDP” thing has gotten tired. People talk about the TDP like it’s the secret recipe for Crabbie Patties. Without it, no manufacturer can come close to Colt’s secret recipe.
We’re talking about a gun, here. Not a new drug that kills Ebola. A gun, whose lineage is pushing 50 years old. The material specifications are well known. How parts are made and put together would be clear to any 2nd year engineering student with a set of calipers and a pair of reading glasses. And yet the notion no other company can do as well, or better, without the TDP has become the prevailing notion.
The TDP has become a crutch for Colt more than anything else. It seems its principal reason for existence anymore is to keep an ailing company attached to the government tit. Colt’s technical data grant and licensing agreement with the government requires that the government force contractors who build copies of, and parts for, the M4 to follow Colt’s TDP and certify that they have done so. It’s a way for Colt to keep their hands in the pot even when they aren’t the primary contractor, by forcing other contractors to use Colt’s “proprietary methods” to build copies and parts whose patents expired long ago. The money, in the form of royalties, flows to Colt.
But the TDP keeps getting thrown around. When someone brings up the issue of a new Colt gun that’s all bunged up, the picture of Colt parts in a box comes out, with the exclamation that “Colt builds their guns to a standard.” Yeah. Their own standard. I’m sure other companies have that picture on their corporate strategy boards surrounding by question marks, with their CEO saying “all we know at this point is that we should throw all our shit in an old mail bin and shake it up.”
Also, the TDP isn’t static. It’s a dynamic plan that changes (with the mutual consent of Colt and the government) has manufacturing techniques develop, as revealed in publicly available government audit reports. So one can scarcely say that the TDP of ten years ago is still the only way to build a gun today. It’s silly to suggest there’s no way for others to improve on design or manufacture of the gun when Colt does it themselves.
The simple fact is Colt’s TDP isn’t unknown, at least outside the industry. Years ago, the Army inappropriately released the TDP to the Navy, who inappropriately released it to dozens of Colt’s competitors – who ultimately never produced anything for the military. It’s out there, and you can bet your bippee it exists on the hard drives of competitor’s computers.
Colt’s recipe for the M4 isn’t secret, and it isn’t out of the technological capabilities of countless other companies. What it is is OWNED and stuck to the government with Colt’s proprietary version of gorilla glue. That’s all.
And by the way, the TDP really only matters to the government and contractors who build copies of, and parts for, the M4 in the US for military use. Colt has no such contracts with the public and whether they following the TDP in the production of the guns they sell to the public depends on one thing – Colt’s whim.
When I read stuff like this I gotta say, that it makes me laugh. The TDP is NOT the end all be all for how to build an AR. What it represents is a set of standards, protocols, etc to follow. A blue print that leads to a QUALITY part. Are their better parts available than what the TDP calls for? I think so. For example, the BCM GunFighter Charging Handle is a fantastic item. Is that design in the TDP? No. What BCM did pull from the TDP is the material specifications and the anodizing. So there is still a lot of validity coming from the TDP and companies that can re-invent the wheel + plus follow the TDP's standards will create a winning combination IMHO. Just as the GF CH is a good deviation from the TDP, this is not always the case. So people would always be wise to dig deeper than looks when trying to figure out if something is quality or not.
Yes, the TDP is out there (no question). The TDP is however a living document and gets updated from time to time. So the TDP that a company has from 1990 isn't going to be exactly the same as it is today. Since the TDP is out there (as you say), why don't more companies follow it? Why don't we have more companies like BCM, Noveske, etc out there building high quality AR15's? The reason? Cost. It is expensive to follow the TDP set standards, protocols and testing. It is much cheaper to NOT do all that. So the bottom line is all about money. Some companies cut a lot of corners so they can offer the public a $600-$800 dollar AR. Other companies will tell you that they have $600-$800 dollars IN THE GUN! Which company do you want to buy from???
In regards to your GUESS that Colt might not follow the TDP on the commercial side, this is 100% not true. Colt ONLY KNOW's how to make guns one way. That is following THEIR document. It would be like saying, we are going to make some beer, but we are NOT going to follow our own recipe (the one they wrote from scratch) and use some other companies recipe for THEIR BEER. :jester:
C4
When I read stuff like this I gotta say, that it makes me laugh….
C4
Thanks for the reasonable, if somewhat indignant, response. Unfortunately, it’s a mostly non-sequitur post. Nonetheless, I agree with most of it.
Back to my point…
The M4 carbine is no longer proprietary. The patents expired long ago. Any manufacturer can produce a (civilian legal) M4 clone for the civilian market. In addition, it’s a low tech piece of hardware. The material specifications are well known. Those specifications aren’t part of the secret Colt TDP. And we know how it’s supposed to perform. So as I stated, any sophomore engineering student could back-engineer Colt’s gun and could, putting his mind to it, reproduce it to Colt’s specification. It just ain’t that hard.
After this many years, the value of Colt’s TDP isn’t that it ensures Colt’s position as the only producer of a quality firearm or quality parts. Any manufacturer worth its own weight in dog-shit could produce a gun and parts of equal quality should they desire to do so. Some do. And some, like Vltor, have improved on some of those parts.
Your assertions that the TDP ensures quality parts is true. But it’s also incidental. Incidental to the fact that the present primary purpose of the TDP – along with Colt’s Technical Data Grant and licensing agreement – is to ensure that Colt has a steady income from the production of M4 guns and M4 parts regardless of the manufacturer.
In shortest form, it fell out like this: the military needed a gun. Colt produced samples and a TDP and presented to the government. The government selected it and told Colt they would buy it if they were built to the specifications in the TDP. Colt agreed. Done deal. But not quite.
In addition, Colt presented a licensing agreement to the government that the government accepted and has had to deal with ever since. Among the conditions was the requirement that if the government selected other manufacturers to build M4 or M4 parts, the government had to require that the manufacturers build the guns and parts using Colt’s TDP’s drawings and legends. The manufacturers had to certify that they manufactured the part using the TDP. Did that ensure a quality part? Sure. Could quality parts have been manufactured without the TDP? No question about it. So the real purpose of requiring competitors to use the TDP wasn't to ensure a quality part, it was to ensure that Colt would receive a royalty from the manufacturer because they used Colt’s proprietary (but not all that hard to replicate) recipe for manufacture. In order to accomplish this, Colt had to give the government a Technical Data Grant that allowed (read required) the government to give the TDP to manufacturers for the sole purpose of building guns and parts in the US for the military. So, if the government terminated their M4 contract with Colt and awarded it to another manufacturer, the licensing agreement stayed intact and the new manufacturer had to build the guns to Colt’s TDP and pay Colt a royalty. As far as I know, the government has been saddled with that agreement to date. It has been enforced by Colt on more than one occasion.
Colt’s TDP (read quality standard) is nice. They build a good gun. I wouldn’t own a handful of them if they weren’t good guns. But the TDP is now, primarily, the mechanism that allows Colt to claim royalty fees on the manufacturing of parts (for the government) for which the patents have expired. (If the patents hadn’t expired, the patent owner could have ensured income by licensing the patent.) If the licensing agreement and Technical Data Grant were not in place, the government would be able to find a manufacturer that could build the M4 cheaper and better than Colt (and somebody would step up). The license, TDG and TDP is the mechanism that Colt uses to make sure they "get their cut" if that occurs.
As far as that license, TDG and TDP go, it applies to the government. It is not a contract with the public. If Colt builds guns for the civilian market according to their TDP, good on them. But they don’t have to. The “agreement” with the government binds Colt and the government to each other. It doesn't bind Colt’s duty to the public.
Really happy with my palmetto state armory trigger. http://palmettostatearmory.com/index.php/catalog/product/view/id/172/category/244/
10mmSpringfield
11-05-14, 03:00
I have to say that every single bolt catch I've received from Spikes barely catches the follower on G2 PMAGS, and sometimes fails to lock the bolt back on the last round.
I've had to replace that part with the longer fingered Colts to work with ALL of my G2's.
There's more meat on the back of the follower with the G3's that this doesn't seem to happen.
Also the trigger that comes with the "tactical enhanced package" is nothing special.
exkc135driver
11-05-14, 15:51
...
So the real purpose of requiring competitors to use the TDP wasn't to ensure a quality part, it was to ensure that Colt would receive a royalty from the manufacturer because they used Colt’s proprietary (but not all that hard to replicate) recipe for manufacture.
...
OK, so Colt was savvy enough to structure a business deal so that it would, as far as the gummint is concerned, receive royalties into perpetuity. So they're good businessmen.
Your problem with that is ... ??
Thanks for the reasonable, if somewhat indignant, response. Unfortunately, it’s a mostly non-sequitur post. Nonetheless, I agree with most of it.
Back to my point…
The M4 carbine is no longer proprietary. The patents expired long ago. Any manufacturer can produce a (civilian legal) M4 clone for the civilian market. In addition, it’s a low tech piece of hardware. The material specifications are well known. Those specifications aren’t part of the secret Colt TDP. And we know how it’s supposed to perform. So as I stated, any sophomore engineering student could back-engineer Colt’s gun and could, putting his mind to it, reproduce it to Colt’s specification. It just ain’t that hard.
After this many years, the value of Colt’s TDP isn’t that it ensures Colt’s position as the only producer of a quality firearm or quality parts. Any manufacturer worth its own weight in dog-shit could produce a gun and parts of equal quality should they desire to do so. Some do. And some, like Vltor, have improved on some of those parts.
Your assertions that the TDP ensures quality parts is true. But it’s also incidental. Incidental to the fact that the present primary purpose of the TDP – along with Colt’s Technical Data Grant and licensing agreement – is to ensure that Colt has a steady income from the production of M4 guns and M4 parts regardless of the manufacturer.
In shortest form, it fell out like this: the military needed a gun. Colt produced samples and a TDP and presented to the government. The government selected it and told Colt they would buy it if they were built to the specifications in the TDP. Colt agreed. Done deal. But not quite.
In addition, Colt presented a licensing agreement to the government that the government accepted and has had to deal with ever since. Among the conditions was the requirement that if the government selected other manufacturers to build M4 or M4 parts, the government had to require that the manufacturers build the guns and parts using Colt’s TDP’s drawings and legends. The manufacturers had to certify that they manufactured the part using the TDP. Did that ensure a quality part? Sure. Could quality parts have been manufactured without the TDP? No question about it. So the real purpose of requiring competitors to use the TDP wasn't to ensure a quality part, it was to ensure that Colt would receive a royalty from the manufacturer because they used Colt’s proprietary (but not all that hard to replicate) recipe for manufacture. In order to accomplish this, Colt had to give the government a Technical Data Grant that allowed (read required) the government to give the TDP to manufacturers for the sole purpose of building guns and parts in the US for the military. So, if the government terminated their M4 contract with Colt and awarded it to another manufacturer, the licensing agreement stayed intact and the new manufacturer had to build the guns to Colt’s TDP and pay Colt a royalty. As far as I know, the government has been saddled with that agreement to date. It has been enforced by Colt on more than one occasion.
Colt’s TDP (read quality standard) is nice. They build a good gun. I wouldn’t own a handful of them if they weren’t good guns. But the TDP is now, primarily, the mechanism that allows Colt to claim royalty fees on the manufacturing of parts (for the government) for which the patents have expired. (If the patents hadn’t expired, the patent owner could have ensured income by licensing the patent.) If the licensing agreement and Technical Data Grant were not in place, the government would be able to find a manufacturer that could build the M4 cheaper and better than Colt (and somebody would step up). The license, TDG and TDP is the mechanism that Colt uses to make sure they "get their cut" if that occurs.
As far as that license, TDG and TDP go, it applies to the government. It is not a contract with the public. If Colt builds guns for the civilian market according to their TDP, good on them. But they don’t have to. The “agreement” with the government binds Colt and the government to each other. It doesn't bind Colt’s duty to the public.
I am not sure if you know who I am or not, but you are talking to someone that knows everything about the TDP, Colt, licensing agreements, etc.
Yes, we know that Colt does not have to use the TDP to build AR's, but that's all they know.
NOTE; If you are someone that I know, but don't recognize your screen name, please send me a PM and let me know. ;)
C4
OK, so Colt was savvy enough to structure a business deal so that it would, as far as the gummint is concerned, receive royalties into perpetuity. So they're good businessmen.
Your problem with that is ... ??
Yes, they were. Not sure if Rowland owns a business or not, but you do things like this to make sure you turn a profit on your business.
C4
Yes, they were. Not sure if Rowland owns a business or not, but you do things like this to make sure you turn a profit on your business.
C4
And there you go. The retention of the TDP, the licensing agreement with the government - it was the mechanism by which Colt ensured themselves an income from the production of the M4 and M4 parts regardless of the manufacturer. One can’t criticize Colt’s for that. The goal of any company is to make a profit. No company, unless it wants to go out of business quickly, is so altruistic as to give away its proprietary technical data.
Notwithstanding, I think it can be said that the government (and the tax payer) got the shitty end of the stick, as someone usually does. While Colt’s built a good rifle, it managed itself poorly. The agreements with the government were, in no small part, Colt’s lifeline to viability. It kept Colt’s breathing while it prevented the government from freeing itself from Colt’s and finding a new (Colt’s TDP-free) manufacturer. Example: I understand that when approached as a possible alternate supplier of the M4, FN informed the government that they didn’t need Colt’s TDP to produce a quality weapon and could simply back-engineer Colt’s parts and build the same thing for less. The government declined noting their agreements with Colt’s. The result was that FN then had to increase its estimate of costs to cover royalties that had to be paid to Colt’s.
Colt builds a good gun. I’ve said that before. The TDP may have been a secret, desirable tome of documents at one time. But what it contains now is really no secret. It’s become part of a mechanism to keep Colt’s heart beating. I think it could also be argued that it has stifled innovation by forcing manufacturers to build parts Colt’s way when qualitatively equal, or superior parts, could be made more efficiently resulting in lower cost.
I don’t want to see a company as storied as Colt to go out of business. But damn. The whole thing is a case-study in how not to do things. In my opinion, it’s nothing short of an example of defense contractor welfare.
Doc Safari
12-11-18, 11:01
So, I have a question. I've started stocking up on spare parts and I understand that you cannot get a hammer, for example, that is "exactly" like the one Colt would supply from an aftermarket source, but since Schmid Tool was mentioned and Brownells sells them, is the Schmid hammer a good, durable part? If I read earlier posts correctly, Schmid has supplied hammers to Colt. So in what way(s) would this one deviate from the ones sold to Colt? In Teflon finish only? Or in other areas.
https://www.brownells.com/aspx/search/productdetail.aspx?sid=223138&pid=120771
I'm only wanting to stock quality spares, so any input is appreciated.
So, I have a question. I've started stocking up on spare parts and I understand that you cannot get a hammer, for example, that is "exactly" like the one Colt would supply from an aftermarket source, but since Schmid Tool was mentioned and Brownells sells them, is the Schmid hammer a good, durable part? If I read earlier posts correctly, Schmid has supplied hammers to Colt. So in what way(s) would this one deviate from the ones sold to Colt? In Teflon finish only? Or in other areas.
https://www.brownells.com/aspx/search/productdetail.aspx?sid=223138&pid=120771
I'm only wanting to stock quality spares, so any input is appreciated.
My guess: finish and un-notched hammer, only.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.