Questions on the TDP

[Nathan_Bell]

The way I have come to understand it the TDP is the full spec for manufacturing of a M-16. It tells what materials to use, what tolerances should be held, and what processes for surface preparation. The TDP is US gov't property, they effectively leasing it to FN at the moment, correct?

Why is the TDP so tighly held? Why is it no available to any MFG to get from the gov't using a FOIA request, so that they might attempt to offer the public "mil spec" AR's and possibly offer Uncle Sam a better deal for contract lots of M-16's?

[Hoplophile]

Why is the TDP so tighly held?
The data for an M16 is obviously not as sensitive as the data for stuff like laser guided bombs or nukes but a weapon is a weapon.

[Harv]

Don't think that other AR Makers don't know what the TDP is in great detail.. remember they choose to not follow it vs. they don't know what it is, so they do the "best"they can with what they know.

COLT and FN HAVE to follow it to the letter, that's part of the contract... And they have to pay for the infrastructure (QA dept, testing/Inspection,etc) where is a lot of the other companies do not and will not pay the extra dollars.

Companies like LMT and BCM follow the TDP as well which is why a lot of people recommend them as well..

Companies like Vulcan/Hesse/Olympic,etc which are on the bottom end of the AR makers don't follow it and there pricing reflects it... as does there quality....;)

[Dave L.]

Harv,
Are you saying that putting together an AR built with a mixture of parts from Colt/FN/LMT/BCM you would still pretty much have a Mil-Spec AR (that follows the TDP)?

[K.L. Davis]

Ostensively the TDP belongs to the contract holder, whether it is an in house document or "leased" to them by the US Gob'ment. It is a detailed description of the product that the contract covers -- During open competition for a contract, a company must enter into non disclosure agreements and various other bindings that protect the information for various reasons. It really is not that easy to get and a lot of commercial parts are made from RE, not the TDP.


TDP DISTRIBUTION STATEMENTS

1. Distribution Statement A - This is approved for public release: distribution is unlimited.

2. Distribution Statement B - Distribution is limited to US Government agencies only; other requests shall be referred to the controlling DOD office.

Limited Distribution B is protected by “SPECIAL LICENSE RIGHTS” and may require a non-disclosure agreement before TDP can be obtained.

Reasons for selection of Distribution B -

a. Foreign Government Information - limits distribution according to the desires of the foreign government that furnished the technical information.

b. Proprietary Information - protects information not owned by the US Govt and protected by a contractor's "limited rights" statement, or received with the understanding that it not be routinely transmitted outside the US Government.

c. Test and Evaluation - protects results of test and evaluation of commercial products or military hardware when such disclosure may cause unfair advantage or disadvantage to the manufacturer of the product.

d. Contractor Performance Evaluation - protects information in management reviews, records of contract performance evaluation, or other advisory documents evaluating programs of contractors.

e. Critical Technology - protects information and technical data the advanced current technology or describes new technology in an area of significant, or potentially significant military application, or that relate to a specific military deficiency of a potential adversary.

f. Premature Dissemination - protects information on systems or hardware in the developmental or conceptual stage to prevent premature disclosure that might jeopardize the inventor's right to obtain a patent.

g. Software Documentation - protects software documentation and data releasable only under specific regulations.

h. Administrative or Operational Use - protects technical or operational data or information from automatic dissemination under the International Exchange Program (IEP) or by other means. This protection covers publications required solely for official use or strictly for administrative or operational purposes.

i. Specific Authority - protects information not specifically included in the above reasons, but which requires protection according to valid documented authority such as Executive Orders (EOs), classification guidelines, or regulatory documents.

3. Distribution Statement C - Distribution is authorized to US Government agencies and their contractors; other requests for this document shall be referred to the controlling DOD office.

Limited Distribution C is protected by “SPECIAL LICENSE RIGHTS” and may require a non-disclosure agreement before TDP can be obtained.

Reasons for assigning Distribution Statement C.

a. Foreign Government Information - limits distribution according to the desires of the foreign government that furnished the technical information.

b. Software Documentation - protects software documentation and data releasable only under specific regulations.

c. Critical Technology - protests information and technical data that advance current technology or describe new technology in an area of significant, or potentially significant military application, or that relate to a specific military deficiency of a potential adversary.

d. Administrative or Operational Use - protects technical data or information from automatic dissemination under the International Exchange Program (IEP) or by other means. This protection covers information required solely for administrative or operational purposes.

e. Specific Authority - protects information not specifically included in the above reasons, but that requires protection according to valid documented authority such as EOs, classification guidelines, or regulatory directives.

4. Distribution Statement D - shall be used to authorize distribution of technical documents to DoD components and their contractors.

Limited Distribution D is protected by “SPECIAL LICENSE RIGHTS” and may require a non-disclosure agreement before TDP can be obtained.

Reasons for assigning Distribution Statement D.

a. Foreign Government Information - limits distribution according to the desires of the foreign government that furnished the technical information.

b. Software Documentation - protects software documentation and data releasable only under specific regulations.

c. Critical Technology - protects information and technical data that advances current technology or describes new technology in an area of significant, or potentially significant military application, or that relate to a specific military deficiency of a potential adversary.

d. Administrative or Operational Use - protects technical or operational data or information from automatic dissemination under the IEP or by other means. This protection covers information required solely for administrative or operational purposes.

e. Specific Authority - protects information not specifically included in the above reasons, but which requires protection according to valid documented authority such as EOs, classification guidelines, or regulatory directives.

5. Distribution Statement E - shall be used to authorize distribution of technical documents to DoD components only.

Limited Distribution E is protected by “SPECIAL LICENSE RIGHTS” and may require a non-disclosure agreement before TDP can be obtained.
Reasons for selecting Distribution Statement E.

a. Direct Military Support - the document contains export-controlled technical data or such military significance that release for purposes other than direct support of DoD-approved activities may jeopardize an important technological or operational military advantage for the United States. Designation of such data is made by competent authority in accordance with DoD Directive 5230.25.

b. Premature Dissemination - protects information in the developmental or conceptual stage to prevent premature disclosure that might jeopardize the inventor's right to obtain a patent.

c. Critical Technology - protects information and technical data that advance current technology, or describe new technology in an area of significant, or potentially significant, military applicant or that relates to a specific military deficiency of a potential adversary.

d. Foreign Government Information - limits distribution according to the desires of a foreign government that furnished the information.

e. Proprietary Information - protects information not owned by the US Government and protected by a contractor's "limited rights" statement, or received with the understanding that it not be routinely transmitted outside the DoD.

f. Test and Evaluation - protects results of test and evaluation of commercial products or military hardware when such disclosure may cause unfair advantage or to the manufacturer of the product.

g. Contractor Performance Evaluation - protects information in management reviews, records of contract performance evaluation, or other advisory documents evaluating programs of contractors.

h. Software Documentation - protects software documentation and data releasable only under specific regulations.

i. Specific Authority - protects information not specifically included in the above reasons, but which requires protection according to valid documented authority such as EOs, classification guidelines, or regulatory directives.

j. Administrative or Operational Use - protects technical or operational data or information from automatic dissemination under the IEP or by other means. This protection covers information required solely for administrative or operational purposes.

6. Distribution Statement F - shall be used to signify that all distribution of technical document is to be determined by the controlling DOD office.

Limited Distribution F is protected by “SPECIAL LICENSE RIGHTS” and may require a non-disclosure agreement before TDP can be obtained.

Reasons for selecting Distribution Statement F.

a. Direct Military Support - the document contains export-controlled technical data of such military significance that release for purposes other than direct support of DOD-approved activities may jeopardize an important technological or operational military advantage for the United States. Designation of such data is made by competent authority in accordance with Directive 5230.24.

b. Special Dissemination and Reproduction - protects information subject to special dissemination limitation specified by paragraph 4-505, DOD Regulation 5200.1-R.

7. Distribution Statement X - shall be placed on technical data that are subject to export controls, and which is intended for audiences broader than provided in Distribution Statements B, C, D, E, or F.
Limited Distribution X is protected by “SPECIAL LICENSE RIGHTS” and may require a non-disclosure agreement before TDP can be obtained.

[C4IGrant]

Harv,
Are you saying that putting together an AR built with a mixture of parts from Colt/FN/LMT/BCM you would still pretty much have a Mil-Spec AR (that follows the TDP)?


If you buy parts from companies that follow the TDP then you will have a high quality weapon. The ONLY way to get a mil-spec AR is to be issued one. You can however (if you know where to look) get a lot of the parts and pieces that make up a mil-spec weapon.

For instance, the company that won the contract to supply the Military with small parts is where I get the bolts and bolt carriers. It is also the same place where FN gets them. ;)




C4

[C4IGrant]

The way I have come to understand it the TDP is the full spec for manufacturing of a M-16. It tells what materials to use, what tolerances should be held, and what processes for surface preparation. The TDP is US gov't property, they effectively leasing it to FN at the moment, correct?

Why is the TDP so tighly held? Why is it no available to any MFG to get from the gov't using a FOIA request, so that they might attempt to offer the public "mil spec" AR's and possibly offer Uncle Sam a better deal for contract lots of M-16's?

As KL pointed out, the TDP is a closely held document, but there are boot leg copies of it out there.

Most AR manufacturers aren't really manufacturers at all. They are simply "assemblers" (like me). They most likely have access to a copy of the TDP and or know what the Military requires. They simply choose to go the other way. This statement sounds rather harsh, but what it really means is that parts that follow the TDP are VERY hard to come by. So in order to ACTUALLY make a product, they have to go to other sources for the parts and pieces. These other parts (like 4140 barrel steel, rifle barrel extensions, etc) are much easier to find.

Let's look at a prime example of this parts shortage. BCM builds a TDP following upper. When Paul first started his quest, he ran into problem after problem, from locating the proper barrel steel to finding a company to properly make the barrels. This problem is ongoing and is why BCM uppers are not available currently.

Let's look at another example. I have known where FN get's their bolts and carriers for about 2 years now. I am JUST now getting my hands on them. :mad: TDP following parts have about a 6 month to 1 year wait (as you are basically getting inline behind all the big boys). The other main problem is that unless you are going to open a large purchase order with them, they don't have any interest in you (especially dealers).




C4

[Dave L.]

The ONLY way to get a mil-spec AR is to be issued one.


Oh I know that- But you could almost fit a playing card between the upper and lower reciever on the Colt M4 that I was issued(you could rattle it)...so if the TDP is so strict than why does it seem like there is less quality control on "Mil-Spec" weapons as far as the fitting of the upper and lower is concerned?
(ps, the M4 wasn't a "missmatched" upper and lower...it was shipped to the unit that way)

[C4IGrant]

Oh I know that- But you could almost fit a playing card between the upper and lower reciever on the Colt M4 that I was issued(you could rattle it)...so if the TDP is so strict than why does it seem like there is less quality control on "Mil-Spec" weapons as far as the fitting of the upper and lower is concerned?
(ps, the M4 wasn't a "missmatched" upper and lower...it was shipped to the unit that way)


Upper and lower play matters not and is not something to worry about.

The "fit & finish" side of the AR is only watched by the civy populace. As long as the weapon is properly anodized, then all is good.



C4

[Alpha Sierra]

Oh I know that- But you could almost fit a playing card between the upper and lower reciever on the Colt M4 that I was issued(you could rattle it)...so if the TDP is so strict than why does it seem like there is less quality control on "Mil-Spec" weapons as far as the fitting of the upper and lower is concerned?
(ps, the M4 wasn't a "missmatched" upper and lower...it was shipped to the unit that way)
What Grant said, plus you have to understand that just because some parts of an assembly are required to have have tight dimensional and positional (GD&T) tolerances according to the blueprints, not all parts will. Tight tolerancing where not technically or practically necessary is a waste of time and money.

[K.L. Davis]

A curious development in the AR world really...

The MilSpec is not a fluke... not by a long shot, it is the result of really smart guys at big name companies, and really smart guys in garage workshops having their ideas tested for over fifty years in theaters all over the world.

Is it perfect? No... but it serves well and always getting better. The gap between the upper and lower receiver was most likely within the specs, and truth is, unless you get the two so far apart that it messes up feeding... it really does not alter the combat effectiveness of the weapon.

What we are seeing, with the popularity of the platform and the number of dedicated civilian shops, is the move towards a "more precision" built rifle, where fit and finish come into play -- How good is that? Only time will tell; but the automotive industry owes the vast majority of it developement over the last 50 years to the people at race tracks. Just as shooting owes more than a nod of thanks to the guys in yellow glasses, or the "gamesmen" with the race pistols.

But then, we don't drive race cars back and forth to work, nor is our interstate commerice tied to NASCAR; as with anything, there is a tipping point.

The SPR is considered by many to be the most effective weapon to ever be fielded by US soldiers... given the number in service, the total rounds fired and the number of enemy those figure have sent on to whatever awaits them. But any one of the SPRs can have that same gap between the receivers... they are hand built, but from MilSpec parts around a very nice barrel.

There have been systems that are fitted up tight as a duck's butt, but they have not done so well... not nearly as well as the SPR. I was part of a range test for a bolt action sniper's rifle, standard ABC testing thing -- one gun tabled and the other two picked up to take out the range, when the senior guy says "pull the bolts on them guns and swap 'em"

:eek: <= that is what the guy from the manufacture looked like.

Again he was told... "Look, in shipping them to a field unit, some REMF diddled with them and the bolts got mixed up, it happens... swap the bolts" -- turns out the two guns had hand lapped bolts and while one would take the swapped bolt, the other would not fit -- that gun was DNF right there.

So... I was saying that we are seeing something curious happen in the ol' black rifle field -- the same thing that happened to the 1911 over the last two or three decades. In fact, a lot of the players in the AR field now are carry overs from the 1911 market of yore.

Guns are built for racing, super precision, looks, collecting... they are becoming National Match guns, bench rest guns and safe queens -- if anyone would have ever told me when I was using a three prong to break the wires on a case of C-Rats, that the rifle I was using would be a collector one day, I would have declared them off the current map section, unable to orient and no longer battle field effective. But look at where we are...

There are shops that cater to those that want a level of precison and reduced tolerances... and they are busy -- but I have seen those popular systems die horribly going OTB, while a standard "battle-rattle" grade gun worked fine (after shaking all of the crap out of it). So it is about what the end user wants and needs...

The ideas and "enhanced products" find their way to field testing, some survive, some die quickly... but in nearly every case, there is a lesson learned. One only need look at the current sighting system or railed handguards that the military is using, to see how things are changing... but I cast a wary eye to many things, for all too often I have seen how such things doth turn a young man's head. That, and it kind of feels like deja vu all over again.

That is the real pisser about these Interweb forums... one man's meat is another man's poison -- but the camps are so entrenched that it is humorous at best. Much like William Golding's castaway group, you have those that follow Jack or Ralph, maybe Simon or Roger, even Piggy... and each group finds the other's endevours wastefull; be it hunting the Sow, guarding the platform or building a signal fire.

I am lucky I guess, most of the guys I work with just sorta keep low, moving in defilade, but moving forwards... afterall, there is still the Beast out there.

[BoyScout4Life]

As KL pointed out, the TDP is a closely held document, but there are boot leg copies of it out there.

Most AR manufacturers aren't really manufacturers at all. They are simply "assemblers" (like me). They most likely have access to a copy of the TDP and or know what the Military requires. They simply choose to go the other way. This statement sounds rather harsh, but what it really means is that parts that follow the TDP are VERY hard to come by. So in order to ACTUALLY make a product, they have to go to other sources for the parts and pieces. These other parts (like 4140 barrel steel, rifle barrel extensions, etc) are much easier to find.

Let's look at a prime example of this parts shortage. BCM builds a TDP following upper. When Paul first started his quest, he ran into problem after problem, from locating the proper barrel steel to finding a company to properly make the barrels. This problem is ongoing and is why BCM uppers are not available currently.

Let's look at another example. I have known where FN get's their bolts and carriers for about 2 years now. I am JUST now getting my hands on them. :mad: TDP following parts have about a 6 month to 1 year wait (as you are basically getting inline behind all the big boys). The other main problem is that unless you are going to open a large purchase order with them, they don't have any interest in you (especially dealers).




C4

This pretty much answered the question I posted to you, asking why they were not stamped MP tested. Thanks for clarafication...BoyScout4Life

[C4IGrant]

You are welcome.



C4