View Full Version : Better Than "Mil-Spec"
.
I know the term; “mil-spec” is tossed around a lot. I think most people forget when a “specification” is given for anything; it is usually, a ‘minimum’ requirement and not a maximum requirement. I guess because there have been so many below “mil-spec” AR’s made in the past, knowledgeable consumers now are just happy to have an AR meet “mil-spec” and they don’t look beyond.
I'm sure years ago someone thought that, "Hey, "Carpenter 158" would make a better AR Bolt!" So they tried it. I know it wasn't "mil-spec" at the time but that changed. Certainly there are some AR components out right now that are "better" than mil-spec but who's to say.
For example, Mid-Length AR’s are not mil-spec, Noveske’s Chrome-Plated M-249 barrels are not mil-spec, Geissele SSA triggers are not mil-spec, the Fail Zero BCG’s are not mil-spec, and so on.
I guess the answers to what I’m really asking could be considered opinions but maybe there will be some “facts” to substantiate some of the answers??
“What current AR components are considered to actually exceed mil-spec?”
.
The barrels made by Centurion and Noveske are made from M249 bbl steel with double thick chrome lining. This exceeds milspec.
The barrels made by Daniel Defense, BCM, Centurion and Noveske are hammer forged which makes them harder / last longer. This exceeds milspec. (Button rifled is ok for milspec).
.
I know the term; “mil-spec” is tossed around a lot. I think most people forget when a “specification” is given for anything; it is usually, a ‘minimum’ requirement and not a maximum requirement. I guess because there have been so many below “mil-spec” AR’s made in the past, knowledgeable consumers now are just happy to have an AR meet “mil-spec” and they don’t look beyond.
I'm sure years ago someone thought that, "Hey, "Carpenter 158" would make a better AR Bolt!" So they tried it. I know it wasn't "mil-spec" at the time but that changed. Certainly there are some AR components out right now that are "better" than mil-spec but who's to say.
For example, Mid-Length AR’s are not mil-spec, Noveske’s Chrome-Plated M-249 barrels are not mil-spec, Geissele SSA triggers are not mil-spec, the Fail Zero BCG’s are not mil-spec, and so on.
I guess the answers to what I’m really asking could be considered opinions but maybe there will be some “facts” to substantiate some of the answers??
“What current AR components are considered to actually exceed mil-spec?”
.
I think just about everyone (or at least most everyone on THIS forum) knows that that Mil-Spec is basically the lowest quality standard that is acceptable for a fighting weapon.
If you remove the stuff that really does not matter from the TDP, you are left with such things as steel composition, testing/certs, gasport size, installation procedures, chamber dims, chrome thickness, hardness of finishes, etc, etc.
The above list is almost never duplicated let alone improved upon.
C4
.....such things as steel composition, testing/certs, gasport size, installation procedures, chamber dims, chrome thickness, hardness of finishes, etc, etc.
The above list is almost never duplicated let alone improved upon.
C4
==================================
So, you don't think things can be improved? That maybe a better steel or finish or lining, etc. could be out there right now just waiting for someone to apply it to an AR? Or maybe it has already been applied but no one has "proven" it?
Just wondering...
.
==================================
So, you don't think things can be improved? That maybe a better steel or finish or lining, etc. could be out there right now just waiting for someone to apply it to an AR? Or maybe it has already been applied but no one has "proven" it?
Just wondering...
.
Did I say that? No. What I did say is that most companies CANNOT meet the basic elements of the TDP standard. So if they cannot even do that, how will they ever exceed it???
Remember that in order to prove that something is better than the baseline (which is the TDP), you would have to test the hell out of it (read high round count). Most companies are not willing to do this (as ammo is expensive).
There are some gun companies that are doing things above the TDP standard (in some ways), but that is generally only one or two items. Nothing across the board.
Remember that only a stupid person would look at "mil-spec" or the TDP and think of it as the Holy Grail of quality. The problem is that there really isn't much better out there (currently).
C4
wolf_walker
11-02-10, 09:37
==================================
So, you don't think things can be improved? That maybe a better steel or finish or lining, etc. could be out there right now just waiting for someone to apply it to an AR? Or maybe it has already been applied but no one has "proven" it?
Just wondering...
.
It'd be a sad state if nothing better existed now than did however many decades ago the TDP was written. Cost is another matter.. :)
It'd be a sad state if nothing better existed now than did however many decades ago the TDP was written. Cost is another matter.. :)
Things are better. Remember that the TDP is a living document and is always evolving.
C4
The barrels made by Centurion and Noveske are made from M249 bbl steel with double thick chrome lining. This exceeds milspec.
The barrels made by Daniel Defense, BCM, Centurion and Noveske are hammer forged which makes them harder / last longer. This exceeds milspec. (Button rifled is ok for milspec).
Why? Why is this nonsense allowed to continue? Just when I think sanity is starting to make an appearance, the M249 steel double chrome lined hammer forged bullshit rears its ugly head... :suicide2:
Noveske, BCM and Centurion should be given awards for excellence in marketing!
Did I say that? No. What I did say is that most companies CANNOT meet the basic elements of the TDP standard. So if they cannot even do that, how will they ever exceed it???
Remember that in order to prove that something is better than the baseline (which is the TDP), you would have to test the hell out of it (read high round count). Most companies are not willing to do this (as ammo is expensive).
There are some gun companies that are doing things above the TDP standard (in some ways), but that is generally only one or two items. Nothing across the board.
Remember that only a stupid person would look at "mil-spec" or the TDP and think of it as the Holy Grail of quality. The problem is that there really isn't much better out there (currently).
C4
====================================
I misunderstood.
When I was originally posing the question I was going to ask "What current AR's and/or AR components are considered to actually exceed mil-spec?". But I thought that there is really only just a limited number of items in exceedance and not a whole gun. So, I was just wondering "what items were exceeding the mil-spec?"
Thanks
.
:
Noveske, BCM and Centurion should be given awards for excellence in marketing!
I do not see where DD or BCM make any claims about M249 or double chrome.
DD: http://www.danieldefense.com/?page=shop/detail&product_id=250
BCM: http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/BCM-BFH-11-5-Carbine-Barrel-Stripped-p/bcm-brl-s-11%20bfh.htm
C4
====================================
I misunderstood.
When I was originally posing the question I was going to ask "What current AR's and/or AR components are considered to actually exceed mil-spec?". But I thought that there is really only just a limited number of items in exceedance and not a whole gun. So, I was just wondering "what items were exceeding the mil-spec?"
Thanks
.
You could say that some of the current coatings for BCG's exceed the .Mil standard. You could also make the case that the KAC Bolt offers longer life than a standard one.
Is the middy gas system vastly superior to the carbine or rifle length gas system? That is up for debate I think, but IMHO I think it is.
C4
Geissele SSA triggers are not mil-spec, the Fail Zero BCG’s are not mil-spec, and so on.
Again the nonsense continues.
I would like to see these components put up against real USGI parts and see how mainy fail of each. Until then, you cannot claim these items are better.
I would also rather have a USGI carrier with standard finish (that is proven to work over decades of service) than an aftermarket one with an enhanced finish.
Why? Why is this nonsense allowed to continue? Just when I think sanity is starting to make an appearance, the M249 steel double chrome lined hammer forged bullshit rears its ugly head... :suicide2:
Noveske, BCM and Centurion should be given awards for excellence in marketing!
You're weird. BCM doesn't advertise the gimmicky double chrome lining, only Noveske. BCM just offers cold hammer forged barrels. Hey, you know who else offers that as standard issue? Colt Canada. You know who has tried to make cold hammer forged barrels part of the M4 carbine but has been shot down by .gov bean counters? Colt Defense.
You should really know your shit before you stick your foot in your mouth. http://m4carbine.net/images/smilies/new/jester.gif
Heartbreaker
11-02-10, 12:54
If someone wants to use a part because it's up to the standards of the US military there's nothing wrong with that, personally "mil spec" means very little to me, I'm not equipping an entire fighting force, so I don't have to consider cost and politics in my decisions. Not using something because it's not "combat proven" however is ridiculous. If you were around at the time you probably heard the same things about reflex sights and PMAGs. "Nah that's just plastic stuff for civilians, I'll stick with aluminum GI mags and iron sights that are COMBAT PROVEN." You wouldn't give up your wife's gourmet cooking for MREs would you? To me it's no different, the civilian market is ahead of the game on many things, and ARs in my mind are definitely one of them.
You're weird. BCM doesn't advertise the gimmicky double chrome lining, only Noveske. BCM just offers cold hammer forged barrels. Hey, you know who else offers that as standard issue? Colt Canada. You know who has tried to make cold hammer forged barrels part of the M4 carbine but has been shot down by .gov bean counters? Colt Defense.
You should really know your shit before you stick your foot in your mouth. http://m4carbine.net/images/smilies/new/jester.gif
He knows what he is talking about. He knows Colt Canada uses CHF barrels.
His point is the CHF/Machine Gun Steel/Double Chrome Lining issue is a bunch of hype. People act like this is necessary for a barrel now and the past 50 years of AR-15 barrel making practices aren't good enough anymore.
I feel a CHF barrel is only necessary on a machinegun and falls into the "nice to have" category for an assault rifle.
If someone wants to use a part because it's up to the standards of the US military there's nothing wrong with that, personally "mil spec" means very little to me, I'm not equipping an entire fighting force, so I don't have to consider cost and politics in my decisions. Not using something because it's not "combat proven" however is ridiculous. If you were around at the time you probably heard the same things about reflex sights and PMAGs. "Nah that's just plastic stuff for civilians, I'll stick with aluminum GI mags and iron sights that are COMBAT PROVEN." You wouldn't give up your wife's gourmet cooking for MREs would you? To me it's no different, the civilian market is ahead of the game on many things, and ARs in my mind are definitely one of them.
It is widely known that aftermarket bolt carrier groups cause all sorts of functioning issues. Putting an "enchanced" finish on it (which benefits are debatable at best) doesn't change these functioning issues.
It is widely known that aftermarket bolt carrier groups cause all sorts of functioning issues. Putting an "enchanced" finish on it (which benefits are debatable at best) doesn't change these functioning issues.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think about military contract suppliers in terms of bolt carrier group desirability? Edit - AO Precision, for example.
I hate reading these kinds of threads... If "the definition of quality is conformance to requirements; not goodness" (I'm stealing from Phillip Crosby here) how can we quantify "better" without defining the specific requirements? Is hammer forged double thick chrome lined Vanadium alloy or "standard" lined 4140 CROMO "better" than bare 416 stainless? Well, that depends on the intended application doesn't it? Is midlength gas better than carbine? Maybe, but not if you require a 10.5" barrel. If people could just wrap their heads around the fact the the mil-spec is just the military specification and not THE specification things would be easier. Define your own specification and chose accordingly if that happens to fall in line with the mil-spec then buy what they buy if it falls well short then that Bushmaster might work out for you, if it's somewhere above and beyond I'm sure Grant could accommodate you.
variablebinary
11-02-10, 14:09
Some of the M16A2's in my units armory have been around since Reagan was president, and I've yet to see one blow up, or fail miserably in competent hands.
This is after tens of thousands of rounds and over 20 years of service. Call me when brand X gets to even half that level of performance, and then I might consider their "improvements"
No, shooting from a bench twice a year wont cut it either.
Military weapons aren't used for picking your ass and showing off to your brother in-law. They are tools that can dictate life and death. You don't want to dick around with those standards without a vetting process that extraordinarily extensive and expensive. Anyone can print up a brochure and claim whatever. That is a far cry from proving your mustard in the shittiest conditions on the planet.
You're weird. BCM doesn't advertise the gimmicky double chrome lining, only Noveske. BCM just offers cold hammer forged barrels. Hey, you know who else offers that as standard issue? Colt Canada. You know who has tried to make cold hammer forged barrels part of the M4 carbine but has been shot down by .gov bean counters? Colt Defense.
Because the Canadians want it and the Americans don't.
It's not a bean counter issue, really, as the equipment should definitely have been paid for by now.
The reason for the rejection of hammer forged barrels in the 70s was accuracy.
justin_247
11-02-10, 14:25
scottryan and MK18Pilot,
Everytime I see you guys, you're out bashing anything that isn't produced by Colt Defense. Is it your contention that the current designs produced by them are perfect and impossible to improve upon?
That's what it seems like to me.
Because the Canadians want it and the Americans don't.
It's not a bean counter issue, really, as the equipment should definitely have been paid for by now.
The reason for the rejection of hammer forged barrels in the 70s was accuracy.
Is it essential? Nope, might it be better and actually more cost effective? Probably so. Given that logic will our military adopt it? Nope.
P.S. Check your IMs on ARF, slacker. :p
You're weird. BCM doesn't advertise the gimmicky double chrome lining, only Noveske. BCM just offers cold hammer forged barrels. Hey, you know who else offers that as standard issue? Colt Canada. You know who has tried to make cold hammer forged barrels part of the M4 carbine but has been shot down by .gov bean counters? Colt Defense.
You should really know your shit before you stick your foot in your mouth. http://m4carbine.net/images/smilies/new/jester.gif
No foot in mouth problems here Joe. Just tired of the nonsense. Its a carbine, not a machinegun and it doesn't need a machinegun barrel.
wolf_walker
11-02-10, 17:32
it doesn't need a machine-gun barrel.
Overkill is consistently more fun. :cool:
The_Hammer_Man
11-02-10, 19:18
Overkill is consistently more fun. :cool:
Amusing as heck. Like asking an EOD guy if he has enough C-4. (the answer is always a resounding NO!)
wolf_walker
11-02-10, 20:27
Amusing as heck. Like asking an EOD guy if he has enough C-4. (the answer is always a resounding NO!)
Yep. I'm a technician. I've been pushing buttons and taking things apart since I was in a walker and diapers. Engineering-minded people will always, always, always look at a machine and start looking for ways to make it better, in one respect or another. Over the long term this creates progress, and ruffles peoples feathers about what is proper and right for a thing. You get used to it.
We wouldn't have the DI setup at all if people like ole Stones hadn't looked at the machine and said "I bet this would be better if.."
Some stuff works, some don't, it get's sorted out over time.
It is impossible to "exceed" Mil-Spec because the Mil-Spec isn't a measure of quality.
If the Mil-Spec for a cookie says that it will have 22 chocolate chips, then one with 23 chocolate chips has failed Mil-Spec, as has the one with 21 chips.
.
Well, I guess my question was kind of misunderstood. Maybe it is me and my Southern drawl? But from what it looks like, if some of you guys were in design and procurement for a military rifle, the armed forces would still be using Trapdoors.
It seems a lot of people think that Eugene Stoner came up with using Carpenter 158 for bolts, chrome-lined 4150 barrels, collapsible stocks, folding sights, 1/7”, quad rails, Vortex FH, etc. From quite a few posts, some people think the AR (or M-16 or M-4) cannot get any better, it is at its apex.
At some point in the past, someone came out with a 4150 barrel and I’m sure some guy said, “That barrel is crap, I was in Vietnam and used my pewter barrel and killed a million Cong!”. Are you being that guy now?
Sure the new “whatever” needs to be T&E’d ... that’s kind of a “duh” statement. But someone (or some group) has to see a value in the "improvement", nut up and run it to see what it’ll will do. I'm sure at first, it will be some competition guy or some training school but someone has to run it before the troops get to try it out.
It’s like Grant stated, “There are some gun companies that are doing things above the TDP standard (in some ways), but that is generally only one or two items.” and that the “…TDP is a living document and is always evolving.”
So, let me restate what I am curious about, "What current “accessories” and “parts”, do you think are good enough today to possibly be included in a “future” mil-spec (or TDP) revision?"
.
scottryan and MK18Pilot,
Everytime I see you guys, you're out bashing anything that isn't produced by Colt Defense. Is it your contention that the current designs produced by them are perfect and impossible to improve upon?
That's what it seems like to me.
they are just immune to the snake oil that seems to be dripping off of every product that hits the market lately and have their bullshit meters calibrated weekly...
i agree with pretty much everything they've said in this thread...
- centurion and noveske put double the chrome lining and market as double good and people eat it right up
- cold hammer forged barrels are nice to have not a requirement
- failzero bcg's are nothing more than a coating and don't address functional issues that arise with aftermarket bolt carrier groups
- geissele triggers are special purpose items and from a reliability standpoint aren't better than milspec
wolf_walker
11-02-10, 21:24
- failzero bcg's are nothing more than a coating and don't address functional issues that arise with aftermarket bolt carrier groups
I've heard this twice now, it may or may not have been from you both times. What are they, semi-auto BCG's? Seems like they'd coat the same old M16 BCG's everyone uses, no? I've heard from more than one independent mouth of very high round counts with no lube and no problems, surely this is worth pursuing if the coating enables that, even if they are coating sub-par parts, no? Many other machines in high stress environments have been using "space-age" ;) coatings to reduce friction and extend service life and deal with heat for many years now. It's legitimate and mature technology. If you have a reasonably new automobile of any quality, you may have pistons skirts or tops coated with such right now. This is one of those things that has a proven track record in many, many applications for a very long time now. It seems like a no-brainer to apply it to this old gun. Why not?
they are just immune to the snake oil that seems to be dripping off of every product that hits the market lately and have their bullshit meters calibrated weekly...
i agree with pretty much everything they've said in this thread...
- centurion and noveske put double the chrome lining and market as double good and people eat it right up
- cold hammer forged barrels are nice to have not a requirement
- failzero bcg's are nothing more than a coating and don't address functional issues that arise with aftermarket bolt carrier groups
- geissele triggers are special purpose items and from a reliability standpoint aren't better than milspec
Then maybe they should try to explain their position instead of making flippant statements.
It is impossible to "exceed" Mil-Spec because the Mil-Spec isn't a measure of quality.
If the Mil-Spec for a cookie says that it will have 22 chocolate chips, then one with 23 chocolate chips has failed Mil-Spec, as has the one with 21 chips.
Bingo! Mil-spec is simply what the Military wants, nothing more nothing less.
From Noveske..."Made of Mil Spec M249 Machine Gun barrel steel, with heavy M249 Chrome Lining, (appx. 2 times as thick as an M4 or M16)"
It is not double chrome lined as stated above.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think about military contract suppliers in terms of bolt carrier group desirability? Edit - AO Precision, for example.
They are fine and I am aware they make BGCs for other companies.
Stop trying to pin me into a corner because you are never going to be successful.
I'm also tired of the circle jerk over the latest $100 muzzle devices. Typically a muzzle brake which is inappropriate for use on an assault rifle unless you are participating in some type of competition.
Larry Vickers even had to bring this up on Tactical Arms about the SIG517.
wolf_walker
11-02-10, 23:32
I'm also tired of the circle jerk over the latest $100 muzzle devices. Typically a muzzle brake which is inappropriate for use on an assault rifle unless you are participating in some type of competition.
I imagine the vast majority of people here either are or aspire to be shooting in competitions. The one's that are doing real work probly ain't playing with fancy muzzle dealys, unless they plan to shoot for sport later. Which they probly do come to think of it. Hmm..
Why is this a bad thing again?
I'll toss one more thing before bed. Even if all this stuff is junk. Even if it's all marketing lies and BS and of no use at all and everyone is brainwashed and crazy. Even if. It's still good for the economy. We need people buying stuff, American made stuff, which a lot more of this is than other "hobby" items. Good on it. Buy $150 muzzle brakes for a gun that get's shot once a month. Who cares, it's money in circulation and keeping things going. I could have bought another AK and stoked Saiga a bit, or another couple old milsurp bolt guns and lined who the hell knows pockets, or I could have put it off again and bought a new laptop from China or another old car and spent a fortune in Europe. Instead I have put a couple or three grand in Americans pockets in the last few months getting into this AR stuff. And maybe somewhere along the way somebody will stumble across something that's an actual, genuine, bonifide worthwhile innovation. Maybe.
Eventually. :)
I imagine the vast majority of people here either are or aspire to be shooting in competitions. The one's that are doing real work probly ain't playing with fancy muzzle dealys, unless they plan to shoot for sport later. Which they probly do come to think of it. Hmm..
Why is this a bad thing again?
I don't know. I see alot of these brakes on guns that are geared toward fighting.
wolf_walker
11-02-10, 23:48
I don't know. I see alot of these brakes on guns that are geared toward fighting.
All these guns are geared toward fighting with very few exceptions, mine is and the likelihood is tiiiiny that I'll ever do so with it. I enjoy it's purity of purpose, just like a zippo lighter. It's a hobby, and I'm lucky I have the luxury of it being so(and being able to afford it, mostly). If I was going to buy a gun to hunt or shoot targets it darn sure wouldn't have been an AR, ya know? Same goes for fast cars, tiiiny percentage of owners put them on the track and actually use em, but people enjoy building and having them anyway. Is how I see it at least. The car guys keep me in gun-money. :cool:
Typically a muzzle brake which is inappropriate for use on an assault rifle unless you are participating in some type of competition.
Perhaps that is because combat gear almost always lags behind, and is very often derived from, competition gear.
Our troops would be missing a lot of items from their tool bag if it weren't for the competition world.
Top end competition gear doesn't have to conform to a "mil-spec" (which is mostly based off of existing products and isn't generally intended to advance technology or push the envelope); it's never made by the lowest bidder, and it has the freedom to try new ideas. Competition is the proving ground for ideas and technology that then trickle down to combat applications and are modified to fit combat specific purposes.
Do you honestly think that a future "mil spec" won't call for a compensator type muzzle device that reduces recoil and muzzle rise and reduces flash while providing minimal increased blast?
I would bet a lot that such an item isn't too far off for being considered "mil-spec"; at least its as "not too far off" as anything can be considering the glacial pace at which the military moves on such things.
Such an item (in this one narrow example) is of course a competition technology (muzzle brake on an "M16 assault style rifle") that is then modified for a combat specific purpose (reducing flash like a current flash hider).
There are of course exceptions, and this idea applies really to small arms, more to handguns but long guns as well. It of course doesn't apply to certain technologies that are .mil specific like FA guns.
Where do people think red dot sights on military rifles come from? Red dot sights reliable enough for use on a firearm were developed and proven in IPSC competition on handguns in the very late '80s and early '90s. That technology then trickled down to the military and was adapted for use on rifle applications.
The "Mil-spec" doesn't drive innovation and new ideas; what it does is drive existing ideas to be adapted and improved for greater reliability.
wolf_walker
11-03-10, 07:12
Perhaps that is because combat gear almost always lags behind, and is very often derived from, competition gear.
Good morning logic and good sense. :)
It is zero difference from the automotive industry. Experiment and try new things on the track, incorporate what works into production over time. This is how machines used by humans evolve.
RAM Engineer
11-03-10, 07:30
- failzero bcg's are nothing more than a coating and don't address functional issues that arise with aftermarket bolt carrier groups
It is a coating that even Colt themselves saw as a useful addition to their SCAR candidates.
Perhaps that is because combat gear almost always lags behind, and is very often derived from, competition gear.
A muzzle brake has no use on an assault rifle designed for combat. The commerical SCAR and the SIG .308 are pefect examples of this. Having a muzzle brake opposed to a flash hider is a liability in the fight. I don't give a damn where it "came from" or how it was developed. They belong on very large magnum rifles and for competition and have no other use.
it's never made by the lowest bidder,
All these other companies incapable of making the product to the minimal accpetable standards.
It is a coating that even Colt themselves saw as a useful addition to their SCAR candidates.
I'm not buying an aftermarket BCG just to get a finish. If AO makes fail zero BCG then well fine. But I can't be assured of that when I buy one because the BCG has no manufacturer markings.
No foot in mouth problems here Joe. Just tired of the nonsense. Its a carbine, not a machinegun and it doesn't need a machinegun barrel.
Who said it needed one???
The issue is whether there are barrels being offered that exceed the requirements of the TDP, and the answer is YES.
Do you assert that any of the following is false?
Our chrome lined barrels are cold hammer forged and made with the material callouts and manufacturing process for the M249 Machine Gun barrel. The cold hammer forging process work hardens the steel around a rifled mandrel, which creates the lands and grooves. These barrels are chambered in 5.56mm NATO. The barrel is then chrome lined to the spec for a M249 Machine Gun barrel, which is about twice as thick as that of an M4 barrel. The end result is a rifle that can be run hard day after day. Having been part of many excellent training opportunities, I have seen how a barrel may experience serious trauma from high rates of fire and sustained high temperatures. For any high round count, high temp, heavy shooting, I recommend our chrome lined barrel.
http://noveskerifleworks.com/cgi-bin/imcart/display.cgi?cat=106
Or this?
16"inch mid length, light weight
* -cold hammer forged
* -M4 extended feed ramp
* -1:7 right hand twist with 5.56 Chamber
* -taper bore
* -HP/MPI tested
* -Extra thick Chrome lining
* -Mil Spec Phosphate finish
-***Service life three times a standard barrel***
-1lb, 9.9oz. stripped / 1lbs, 11.8oz with pinned Centurion Arms gas block
Wt with FSP 1lbs 14.6oz
http://www.centurionarms.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage_images.tpl&product_id=45&category_id=17&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=47
I'm not buying an aftermarket BCG just to get a finish. If AO makes fail zero BCG then well fine. But I can't be assured of that when I buy one because the BCG has no manufacturer markings.
I tried asking questions about the BCG under the finish, to include materials, testing, shot peening, etc. and it wound up getting me in a lot of trouble. I took that as a clue as simply answering my questions would have resulted in MUCH less drama.
- geissele triggers are special purpose items and from a reliability standpoint aren't better than milspec
Perhaps. But then again, they certainly are no worse in the reliability department.
They just happen to be a damn sight better in the quality of the trigger pull. YMMV depending on your point of view of what you like in a trigger. Some people prefer a rock to a sharp knife too.
wolf_walker
11-03-10, 13:46
I'm not buying an aftermarket BCG just to get a finish.
I think this is why so many people want them to coat there own supplied parts. I wouldn't argue with an unknown quality part that's being coated, but you can't argue with the effectiveness of the coating.
re: the barrel thing. It isn't that complicated, and the people that "get it" have done so from the get-go and the people that don't never will.
If you have a barrel that will last 30K rounds, and one that will last 50K rounds, for instance, with no appreciable loss of accuracy for the increased durability, it's a better barrel. Period. If it's not mil-spec, then I don't want to have a mil-spec barrel then myself. And M1 Garand was "mil-spec" and while I love the things and learned to shoot on em, they aren't my choice for a defensive rifle now because time has passed and things have changed. I'll never understand why some people have such a hard time with this.
On an analogous note, I sell Porsche parts and do some service and builds. I run across old guys all the time that are either "if it's not air cooled it's crap" and/or "if it's not bone stock original it's crap", this is the exact same attitude we are seeing here transferred to a gun. With the car guys I just smile and nod and take there money, that works with other stuff too.
RAM Engineer
11-03-10, 13:57
I'm not buying an aftermarket BCG just to get a finish. If AO makes fail zero BCG then well fine. But I can't be assured of that when I buy one because the BCG has no manufacturer markings.
OK, I'm tracking now. And in 100% agreement.
From what I've learned on this site, it's pretty much mil-spec or better if you're looking to buy an AR15.
It doesn't matter if a person doesn't need "double chrome lined MG barrels". If it meets or exceeds mil-spec, good shit. You can afford the extra cost? Good shit.
Same goes for mid lengths gas systems, m4 feedramps on an M16, o-rings, and so on.
Anything that helps the system work is a good thing no matter if it's mil-spec or not.
A muzzle brake has no use on an assault rifle designed for combat. The commerical SCAR and the SIG .308 are pefect examples of this. Having a muzzle brake opposed to a flash hider is a liability in the fight. I don't give a damn where it "came from" or how it was developed. They belong on very large magnum rifles and for competition and have no other use.
Of course a true muzzle brake doesn't belong on an assault rifle, I didn't say it did.
What I said was a compensator, which is a muzzle brake (competition tech.) that is modified to fit combat needs (by incorporating flash suppression), would have a place. Particularly on something like the M-4A1 that uses FA. Anything that can keep a greater number of hits on target without creating a major compromise in another area is useful in a combat application.
All these other companies incapable of making the product to the minimal accpetable standards.
Are you seriously suggesting that only the companies currently supplying Mil-Spec parts are capable of doing so. There are lots of companies that produce products that could exceed Mil-Spec in quality but are not intended for military applications. As a general rule, top competitors will be running gear that is of much higher quality than what the average military guy gets precisely because it doesn't have to conform to a "mil-spec".
There are plenty of companies out there that can meet or exceed the mil spec but choose to concentrate in other areas of the market.
m4 feedramps on an M16
Nobody is arguing about the reliabilty of this. I would prefer M16s to have M4 ramps as then I can buy 1 type of flattop upper and not spend $400 for a rare Colt M16A4 receiver when I want to assemble a full size rifle. But it currently isn't that way and there is nothing anybody can do about it.
We are stating that a manufacture cannot make M16s with M4 ramps and be a USGI manufacturer. After I bring up this point which contradicts the opposition, then I get this reliability arguement instead of them just admiting defeat on the point the manufacture is not making real USGI weapons.
A muzzle brake has no use on an assault rifle designed for combat.
I love false blanket statements. That's right on up there with "laser engraving on uppers is not milspec."
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y95/jerrellwise/Gun%20Pics/PolishAKMS-47-6.jpg
Moose-Knuckle
11-03-10, 16:07
There are a couple of things in this thread that don't jive. One BCM does not advertise their barrels as being CHF. They do however offer a CHF barrel and complete uppers for a little more than their non CHF barrels and complete uppers.
Second, the Russians have been using muzzle breaks on their assault rifles for decades.
These modern $150 breaks (PWS & BC) are the first to combine flash suppression and gas dispersion in one package.
I like the previous comment about how the military lags behind in relation to the private sector. DOD for years now has been playing catch from everthing from acquiring modern specialized ammo from manfactures such as Black Hills to obtaing kit for the ECWS from outdoor adventure companies such as Patagonia.
Second, the Russians have been using muzzle breaks on their assault rifles for decades.
Which is a flawed infantry doctrine.
justin_247
11-03-10, 16:34
Which is a flawed infantry doctrine.
How so?
It is impossible to "exceed" Mil-Spec because the Mil-Spec isn't a measure of quality.
.
It is possible to make a part which lasts longer than the milspec part or otherwise performs better than the milspec part.
But regardless, the OP asked about parts that are "better" than milspec, and there are plenty of those.
Stop trying to pin me into a corner because you are never going to be successful.
For a fellow who is always Right you sure are wiggling a lot.
justin_247
11-03-10, 16:39
A muzzle brake has no use on an assault rifle designed for combat. The commerical SCAR and the SIG .308 are pefect examples of this. Having a muzzle brake opposed to a flash hider is a liability in the fight. I don't give a damn where it "came from" or how it was developed. They belong on very large magnum rifles and for competition and have no other use.
So it has no use on a MK12? A Battlecomp is useless, despite the fact that it hides flash just as well as a GI flash hider?
All these other companies incapable of making the product to the minimal accpetable standards.
DD, BCM, and Noveske can't meet your standards (which are pretty low, since apparently your highest standards are the same as the government's lowest)?
Thomas M-4
11-03-10, 17:01
How so?
Because you get shot at night because of the muzzle flash.
Just because the Russians did it doesn't mean it wont get you killed.
Because you get shot at night because of the muzzle flash.
Just because the Russians did it doesn't mean it wont get you killed.
A2 flash-hiders don't remove all of the flash, yet they're mil-spec. According to that argument, using an A2 will get you killed.
justin_247
11-03-10, 17:06
Because you get shot at night because of the muzzle flash.
Just because the Russians did it doesn't mean it wont get you killed.
I don't disagree that it causes more muzzle flash, but for the Russians they've decided that recoil control is more important than muzzle flash... they really don't use flash hiders and never have. I disagree with their philosophy.
But these guys tried to use that analogy to rule out things like the Battlecomp.
Thomas M-4
11-03-10, 17:09
I don't disagree that it causes more muzzle flash, but for the Russians they've decided that recoil control is more important than muzzle flash... they really don't use flash hiders and never have. I disagree with their philosophy.
But these guys tried to use that analogy to rule out things like the Battlecomp.
Thats because they don't give a squat about individual life.
And besides doesn't the krinkov have a flash hider or what about the SVD.
justin_247
11-03-10, 17:09
A2 flash-hiders don't remove all of the flash, yet they're mil-spec. According to that argument, using an A2 will get you killed.
Exactly! If muzzle flash is their concern, then they should be attacking the current standard weapon and requesting the adoption of Vortex or Blackout flash hiders.
But, of course, according to them there is nothing to improve on the current design. It's perfect in their minds.
justin_247
11-03-10, 17:17
Thats because they don't give a squat about individual life.
And besides doesn't the krinkov have a flash hider or what about the SVD.
The Krinkov and many of the newer AK models have the flash hider / brake combo that you're thinking about... I have no idea how good of a job it does since it's playing two roles. But the 107 and 108 have straight out muzzle brakes.
Thomas M-4
11-03-10, 17:28
But, of course, according to them there is nothing to improve on the current design. It's perfect in their minds.
Never said its perfect never said it couldn't be improved.
JMHO when you start changing to after market parts you should ask yourself what are you gaining and what are you giving up? Muzzle Brake better recoil control but what are you giving up? You now have less concealment at night and the muzzle blast. 1step forward 1 step back
Moose-Knuckle
11-03-10, 17:32
The term flash hider is incorrect, it's a flash suppressor as it does not eliminate flash but mearly redirects it so as to reduce one's flash signature. Same as how a sound suppressor does not silence a rifle's report. This is getting old fast. . .
justin_247
11-03-10, 17:36
Never said its perfect never said it couldn't be improved.
Every component that people assert is an improvement is immediately rejected by scottryan and MK18Pilot as not being an improvement. Literally everything. So, yes, those two are basically saying it's perfect.
JMHO when you start changing to after market parts you should ask yourself what are you gaining and what are you giving up? Muzzle Brake better recoil control but what are you giving up? You now have less concealment at night and the muzzle blast. 1step forward 1 step back
Here's two videos of an AK-74 brake and a Krinkov-style brake. They seem to work pretty darn well...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f-xdt8Stqc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THfdRT1zC0U
What I'm saying is that there are muzzle devices that are better than a USGI flash hider. That would be an improvement, in my humble opinion. If muzzle flash is your priority and you're in a non-CQB heavy environment, then a Vortex or Blackout is much better than the USGI. If recoil control is your priority and you're in a CQB environment, the Battlecomp can help out tremendously with pretty much an equivalent amount of flash as the USGI.
justin_247
11-03-10, 17:38
The term flash hider is incorrect, it's a flash suppressor as it does not eliminate flash but mearly redirects it so as to reduce one's flash signature. Same as how a sound suppressor does not silence a rifle's report. This is getting old fast. . .
Correct, but I'm not the only one who gets this wrong. BCM gets it wrong, too. You know what I'm talking about.
AAC calls their suppressors "silencers," too. Maybe you should e-mail them and complain.
Now back to the subject at hand.
Edit: Surefire uses the term "suppressor" and "silencer" interchangeably. Maybe you should e-mail them, too.
Thomas M-4
11-03-10, 17:48
Every component that people assert is an improvement is immediately rejected by scottryan and MK18Pilot as not being an improvement. Literally everything. So, yes, those two are basically saying it's perfect.
Here's two videos of an AK-74 brake and a Krinkov-style brake. They seem to work pretty darn well...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f-xdt8Stqc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THfdRT1zC0U
What I'm saying is that there are muzzle devices that are better than a USGI flash hider. That would be an improvement, in my humble opinion. If muzzle flash is your priority and you're in a non-CQB heavy environment, then a Vortex or Blackout is much better than the USGI. If recoil control is your priority and you're in a CQB environment, the Battlecomp can help out tremendously with pretty much an equivalent amount of flash as the USGI.
Dude don't let the Colt Nazi's get you worked up.:sarcastic:
Moose-Knuckle
11-03-10, 17:48
Correct, but I'm not the only one who gets this wrong. BCM gets it wrong, too. You know what I'm talking about.
AAC calls their suppressors "silencers," too. Maybe you should e-mail them and complain.
Now back to the subject at hand.
Edit: Surefire uses the term "suppressor" and "silencer" interchangeably. Maybe you should e-mail them, too.
Maybe you and a few others in this thread should not take things so personally in a technical sub-forum. ;)
Heavy Metal
11-03-10, 18:05
The purpose of a flash suppressor is to prevent the operator from becoming flash-blinded by his own muzzle flash in low light, not to make you invisible Ninja.
Thomas M-4
11-03-10, 18:13
The purpose of a flash suppressor is to prevent the operator from becoming flash-blinded by his own muzzle flash in low light, not to make you invisible Ninja.
I will remember that thanks HM.
variablebinary
11-03-10, 20:03
How so?
Take a look at FM7-8 and that will give a few reasons why you wouldn't want to be directing muzzle blast to sides of your weapon.
wolf_walker
11-03-10, 22:31
The purpose of a flash suppressor is to prevent the operator from becoming flash-blinded by his own muzzle flash in low light, not to make you invisible Ninja.
This is my understanding as well. And it makes some of the arguments in the last page or two laughable at best.
FWIW, from the pretty good video coverage of the battlecomp, including night firing, in both straight vision and under NV, it don't look like it flashes any worse than a plain A2. I can't fathom how anyone in there right mind would object to no increase in flash, from either end, and a decrease in POA altering muzzle rise. Weirdness.
I think you need to look at how muzzle devices affect long term reliability and installation simplicity as well.
The military often has different priority from competition/sport shooters.
Plus, changing even the smallest thing takes an immense amount of effort, and can possibly jeapordize what already works. Trust me, conservatism in arms acquisition is better than the alternative.
wolf_walker
11-03-10, 23:34
I think you need to look at how muzzle devices affect long term reliability and installation simplicity as well.
The military often has different priority from competition/sport shooters.
Plus, changing even the smallest thing takes an immense amount of effort, and can possibly jeopardize what already works. Trust me, conservatism in arms acquisition is better than the alternative.
This is true, but it does not change the fact that it works. They haven't officially adopted p-mags either but I hear a lot of GI's talking them up from on the job use. I heard they have an NSN number, but I don't think that equates to "adopted" exactly. But I'd expect nothing less than extensive testing in the lab and in the field over a long period of time before adopting anything. All that being said, it works as advertised by all accounts I see, it does "good things", and isn't causing any catastrophic failures so far. Would whoever decides such things ever spend the considerable amount of money on them for wide spread use is another story, I'm thinking not.
Can you imagine the cost and logistics of fitting a new muzzle device to however many M4/M16's are in use? It would have to walk and talk to make it worth it. This does not mean, in my eyes, that it isn't good enough or useful, just that it's not practical on such a scale. I suspect a lot of things fall in this category. I'm glad I only have to worry about my stuff.
Magic_Salad0892
11-04-10, 04:09
THB I don't think a compensator has a real place on a combat rifle that isn't using a suppressor either.
If I was building a defensive gun that would be seeing the majority of it's shooting unsuppressed it would wear a KAC FH/Suppressor adapter. (Partially due to being a KAC fanboy, and partially due to having it be compatible with my suppressor.)
I understand where scottryan is coming from, even if I don't agree with it 100%.
BTW: Laser engraving isn't milspec, as it's not mentioned anywhere on the TDP. But also doesn't make a gun not milspec. You're both right.
But I have no problem with people using Battle Comps on combat rifles, as I consider them an upgrade from the USGI A2 Flash Suppressor.
justin_247
11-04-10, 05:03
THB I don't think a compensator has a real place on a combat rifle that isn't using a suppressor either.
As far as muzzle devices are concerned, I completely agree with this. You won't ever see me advocating putting something like a Titan, JP, or an MSTN on a combat weapon. Even an FSC556 or an MB556K is questionable to me.
A KX3 or Triple Tap are probably OK... I'd like to see them in action first.
Like I said earlier, the only muzzle devices I think would be acceptable in place of a USGI are the Battlecomp, Vortex, or Blackout.
Magic_Salad0892
11-04-10, 05:36
I don't believe that the KX3 has any place on a tactical weapon.
A2 FH (Suppressor capable), and Triple Tap are the only muzzle devices I'd advocate for a combat rifle.
Add Battle Comp for rifles that don't have any possibility of sound suppressors.
I view a fighting gun like this.
The base gun
the BUISs
The Aimpont and its mount
The white light
Adjustable 2 pt Sling like the BFG
Muzzle device compatible with a silencer if one is going to be used, otherwise an A2.
The rail (optional)
A stock or grip with storage (very optional)
Stuff like enhanced finishes, aftermarket triggers, CHF, have an measureable gain that is very limited, insignifcant to non existant, IMHO.
I'd rather see someone spend the money on more magazines, ammo, or another gun.
With respect to the title of this thread, and the discussion, I have a question; Did the Viet Nam era ammo that had ten times the amount of Calcium Carbonate needed in the new (back then) ball powder used in M16's meet mil-spec?
If it did then it was an example of something meeting mil-spec that certainly could have been better than mil-spec.
So it has no use on a MK12? A Battlecomp is useless, despite the fact that it hides flash just as well as a GI flash hider?
The MK 12 also uses a set screw gas block (which is also unaccetaple now) and was developed 15 years ago when like two companies made stuff like this, one company made acceptable silencers for the rifle, and nobody knew any better. They didn't have the choices we do today for the muzzle device.
If the MK12 program was done today, it would have a AAC blackout flash hider with the corresponding AAC silencer, not Ops Inc product.
So it has no use on a MK12? A Battlecomp is useless, despite the fact that it hides flash just as well as a GI flash hider?
I am asking this because I truly don't know, so don't think I'm just ****ing with you, but was this measured/quantified somehow? Have a link?
justin_247
11-04-10, 12:56
I am asking this because I truly don't know, so don't think I'm just ****ing with you, but was this measured/quantified somehow? Have a link?
I originally remembered watching examples on the flash signature on a Battlecomp promotional video, and it appeared to be the same. However, while searching for it I found a video by 87GN of the Vuurwapen blog and it appears to be more significant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggfyDANbD6U
Based upon that video, it appears that I was wrong. Now I'm starting to rethink the Battlecomp in a combat situation.
justin_247
11-04-10, 12:58
The MK 12 also uses a set screw gas block (which is also unaccetaple now) and was developed 15 years ago when like two companies made stuff like this, one company made acceptable silencers for the rifle, and nobody knew any better. They didn't have the choices we do today for the muzzle device.
If the MK12 program was done today, it would have a AAC blackout flash hider with the corresponding AAC silencer, not Ops Inc product.
Agreed. But that just goes to show that there are systems out there better than mil-spec.
Crow Hunter
11-04-10, 13:34
I think the problem here is that there are people trying to "quantify" mil-spec like a tolerance. + milspec / -milspec.
But you can't do that. It either meets milspec or it doesn't. You can't "double MPI" something so it is 2x better. It is either MPI'd or it isn't. There isn't a tolerance range for milspec, it either meets it or it doesn't.
To Scott's point, unless the "better than milspec" component has a defined specification that has been shown through extensive testing to be superior to a part meeting the mil-spec, I would say it is suspect. Doing something that has been shown over 40 years as giving a defined benefit is always better than doing something that looks good on paper but doesn't have much history. Especially in something you are potentially going to be staking your life on.
Crow Hunter, do you know if the Viet Nam era ammo that had the then new ball powder met 'mil-spec'?
It was awful ammo.
If it met mil-spec then it is an example of something that maybe met mil-spec but should have been better and cost a lot of lives and there were far better alternatives. Just not in the quantities needed.
If the MK12 program was done today, it would have a AAC blackout flash hider with the corresponding AAC silencer, not Ops Inc product.
But Scotty, AAC isn’t being used by the military. How can you advocate that as being quantifiably better than mil-spec when the current product being used is the Ops-inc brake? Also, how you can you argue that they can make a product that is mil-spec when they don't have any contracts with the government? Scotty, what I have noticed about you, in all the posts I have read of yours over the months I have lurked, is that whenever you find yourself cornered you slowly begin to edit your position just enough to avoid being wrong.
Anyway, while I’ll agree that some of the things that are advertised today remind me of snake oil, there are many advances that are making their way into the AR pack. Cold Hammer forging might be only a minimal advance, but it is still an advance and may be the foundation of the next great shift in AR barrel making. Not everything in this world is black and white Scott and you need to realize that.
With that, I and my Colt Sporter are going to go retreat back to our corner and lurk until I see another thread worth commenting in, or I finally decide to take the M4rgery plunge and get a BCM (87, you may remember me from AR15.com, you originally advocated getting the BCM. However, in the end they had a Colt Sporter at the shop that I fell in love with and got that instead. Just thought you'd want to know what I chose in the end.).
wolf_walker
11-04-10, 14:03
Cold Hammer forging might be only a minimal advance, but it is still an advance and may be the foundation of the next great shift in AR barrel making.
And it's a serious case of "catching up" as well, CHF is oooold tech. And good tech still.
Crow Hunter
11-04-10, 14:19
Crow Hunter, do you know if the Viet Nam era ammo that had the then new ball powder met 'mil-spec'?
It was awful ammo.
If it met mil-spec then it is an example of something that maybe met mil-spec but should have been better and cost a lot of lives and there were far better alternatives. Just not in the quantities needed.
I would assume that it did. I don't know for sure but I would imagine that the mil-spec of the time was related to bullet construction/powder/case annealing/etc.
Usage in a weapon not designed for it would not have been part of the mil-spec. I have never seen any serious specifications written related to usage, too hard to define and measure accurately.
No doubt there are other processes/materials/designs that will have superior performance characteristics compared to current milspec parts within specific defined parameters. The question is, how rigorously have they been tested/evaluated and how well do they work within the system overall.
Take for instance, MPI. It is a very old visually controlled test method. At best 85% effective. There are technologies out there that will find material imperfections much more accurately much quicker that don't rely on the human eye to detect defects. There are also design criteria and statistical process controls that can be used to control a process to the point that 100% inspection is a waste of resources. However, that will not meet milspec, and milspec parts perform to an acceptable level.
There still isn't such thing as +milspec/-milspec. :p
I would assume that it did. I don't know for sure but I would imagine that the mil-spec of the time was related to bullet construction/powder/case annealing/etc.
Usage in a weapon not designed for it would not have been part of the mil-spec. I have never seen any serious specifications written related to usage, too hard to define and measure accurately.
No doubt there are other processes/materials/designs that will have superior performance characteristics compared to current milspec parts within specific defined parameters. The question is, how rigorously have they been tested/evaluated and how well do they work within the system overall.
Take for instance, MPI. It is a very old visually controlled test method. At best 85% effective. There are technologies out there that will find material imperfections much more accurately much quicker that don't rely on the human eye to detect defects. There are also design criteria and statistical process controls that can be used to control a process to the point that 100% inspection is a waste of resources. However, that will not meet milspec, and milspec parts perform to an acceptable level.
There still isn't such thing as +milspec/-milspec. :p
I understand your point.
I also understand the point that others are making that items can be far better in quality and usefulness than something that meets milspec.
justin_247
11-04-10, 15:33
But Scotty, AAC isn’t being used by the military.
This isn't exactly true. There is limited usage, although not nearly as much as the Gemtech, Ops Inc, or KAC suppressors.
Take for instance, MPI. It is a very old visually controlled test method. At best 85% effective. There are technologies out there that will find material imperfections much more accurately much quicker that don't rely on the human eye to detect defects. There are also design criteria and statistical process controls that can be used to control a process to the point that 100% inspection is a waste of resources. However, that will not meet milspec, and milspec parts perform to an acceptable level.
I have to disagree. I've worked with several MPI shops and we have one in our unit, and I think you'd be shocked if you saw how effective it is. We do heavy aircraft maintenance and use MPI for a many, many parts, aircraft structures, and welds. Generally on this forum, I advocate the effectiveness of MPI absent of any stress applied to the material. So I ask: what testing method would you using suggest instead of MPI?
The closest thing I can think of would be some kind of ultrasonic testing. Eddy currents wouldn't work too well on barrels, I don't think...
Crow Hunter
11-04-10, 16:46
Eddy current was exactly what I was thinking of.
We used them alot on roll form joints on bearings. It would work well for the bolt, not so good on the barrel. However, ultrasonic (ping) testing should work very well on the barrels, probably much better/quicker than MPI since you could just ping it and get a response output without have to pick it up and manipulate it/make sure you didn't miss anything. Those are the only 2 that I have experience with, some of the foundrys that we used had X-ray inspections but I think that also relies on visual identification.
MPI is 100% effective at finding cracks/deformities. Unfortunately humans are only 85% (at best) on visual inspections and looking for a dye penetrant is 100% visual. It works good when a very well trained person has time to do a through examination.
I don't disagree with you about the effectiveness of MPI, it works very well, I just wouldn't want to setup a production line and try to make a rate with it. Too operator dependent. I don't know any high volume production companies that are using MPI other than gun companies, but I am limited to Automotive experience so I defer to your knowledge in Aerospace.
Agreed. But that just goes to show that there are systems out there better than mil-spec.
Who said the MK12 was better than mil spec?
It uses an outdated silencer and gas block.
Both the M4A1 SOPMOD and SCAR program use a better silencer.
I would say the MK12 is worse than the current standard.
But Scotty, AAC isn’t being used by the military.
It won the SCAR program for the silencer side of the program and are issued with the SCAR. So you are wrong.
is that whenever you find yourself cornered you slowly begin to edit your position just enough to avoid being wrong.
You are trying to tell me how wrong I am but you don't know what the current military silencers are.
.
How "good" would FPI (fluorescent particle inspection-I think) work in place of MPI for barrels and bolt inspections. I know GE is using it more to replace MPI for turbine blade inspections.
.
justin_247
11-04-10, 17:21
Who said the MK12 was better than mil spec?
I don't know! It wasn't me. If you read what I said, you would see that.
This isn't exactly true. There is limited usage, although not nearly as much as the Gemtech, Ops Inc, or KAC suppressors.
This is the most rediculous bullshit ever.
The three silencers that have real contracts are:
Ops Inc (MK12)
KAC (MK11, M4A1, MK18)
AAC (SCAR)
Gemtech silencers are not in use and I challenge you to post government documentation detailing contracts that show otherwise.
You are uncredible and there is no need for your posting in the thread.
justin_247
11-04-10, 17:40
This is the most rediculous bullshit ever.
The three silencers that have real contracts are:
Ops Inc (MK12)
KAC (MK11, M4A1, MK18)
AAC (SCAR)
Gemtech silencers are not in use and I challenge you to post government documentation detailing contracts that show otherwise.
You are uncredible and there is no need for your posting in the thread.
Don't make me start listing all the lies and absurdities that you've posted in this thread so far... just like how Colt isn't the pinnacle of firearms design, you're not exactly the pinnacle of intellect.
Suwannee Tim
11-04-10, 18:03
Addressing mil specs in general, they don't always make sense or result in the best product. I built ceramic capacitors for a time and mil specs required a 40 pound lead pull on a certain part which we were barely able to achieve. The pull was affected by the ratio of glass to silver in the termination, more glass, stronger, more silver, more conductive but weaker. We wanted to increase silver and reduce glass to improve the electricals and cut the lead pull in half. It took a long time and a lot of effort to convince that the powers that were that it was a good trade off. We got no complaints about the lower lead pull after the change.
.
Thanks for the good point Suwannee Tim.
But....Golllly!!!....some of you guys...Come on!
It's a simple question stated two ways:
"What current AR components are considered to actually exceed mil-spec?"
AND/OR
"What current “accessories” and “parts”, do you think are good enough today to possibly be included in a “future” mil-spec (or TDP) revision?"
Quit comparing weenies... There ain't no right or wrong answer....maybe a stupid one but it ain't wrong...:sarcastic:
So, what do you "think" in regards to the question(s)?
.
Suwannee Tim
11-04-10, 18:23
Working in electronics subject to mil specs, we would NEVER have used a potentially destructive test on parts intended for sale even if we might be able to weed out the damaged parts with a subsequent test. The requirement that bolts be subjected to a potentially damaging proof test then the damaged parts weeded out with MPI tested not make sense to me. I speculate that a bolt not subjected to proof testing might be superior to one that has. Try getting that mil spec changed!:sarcastic:
I've heard this twice now, it may or may not have been from you both times. What are they, semi-auto BCG's? Seems like they'd coat the same old M16 BCG's everyone uses, no? I've heard from more than one independent mouth of very high round counts with no lube and no problems, surely this is worth pursuing if the coating enables that, even if they are coating sub-par parts, no? Many other machines in high stress environments have been using "space-age" ;) coatings to reduce friction and extend service life and deal with heat for many years now. It's legitimate and mature technology. If you have a reasonably new automobile of any quality, you may have pistons skirts or tops coated with such right now. This is one of those things that has a proven track record in many, many applications for a very long time now. It seems like a no-brainer to apply it to this old gun. Why not?
Failzero is the exact same coating system made by UCT that Colt was monkeying around with back in the LE1020 days. Both the coating and the piston system were abandoned by Colt because they sucked ass. Coatings will always fail the cost/benefit test, period... :big_boss:
Suwannee Tim
11-04-10, 19:10
Coatings will always fail the cost/benefit test, period...
You mean like Parkerize?
....abandoned by Colt because they sucked ass.
Can you be more specific?
You mean like Parkerize?
Parkerizing, anodizing, and bluing are not coatings.
Suwannee Tim
11-04-10, 20:03
Parkerizing, anodizing, and bluing are not coatings.
What are they? Ain't plating. I worked in PVD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_vapor_deposition), CVD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_vapor_deposition), sputtering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputter_deposition), plating and thick film in the electronics industry and don't ever recall any one quibbling over the definition of "coating". I know this is just Wikipedia but they say it is a coating: Parkerize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkerize)
Parkerizing, bluing and NP3/UCT are conversion coatings. Much different than PVD/CVD. Unlike nickel boron/nickel phospate products, parkerizing is a sacrificial finish which has excellent break-in properties and reduces wear on moving surfaces. Parkerizing is heavier and coarser then nickel finishes. It is more absorptive and retains oils, rust preventives and lubricants better than nickel based coatings.
The whole "no lubrication needed theory" is just asinine. It doesn't need to be lubricated because it can't retain any lubricant. Whats the point in "coating" the entire bolt group when only four thin rails, three gas rings and an 1/8 inch journal on the bolt have metal to metal contact?
RetreatHell
11-04-10, 20:57
I originally remembered watching examples on the flash signature on a Battlecomp promotional video, and it appeared to be the same. However, while searching for it I found a video by 87GN of the Vuurwapen blog and it appears to be more significant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggfyDANbD6U
Based upon that video, it appears that I was wrong. Now I'm starting to rethink the Battlecomp in a combat situation.
Here's a video recorded with Night Vision (which is probably very important for military consideration) from a nighttime range trip with thopkins22, myself and another friend. At 1:00 in, my friend is shooting his new Bushy ACR with custom cut-down 14.5" barrel and Battle-Comp muzzle brake. It's pretty damn "flashy," to say the least. Of course, ammo and barrel length will always affect results. He was shooting good ol' Silver Bear, which we all know is VERY high quality shit! (yeah right, LOL:sarcastic:)
Remember this is ALL UNDER NIGHT VISION, so obviously it picks up the flash signature a LOT more and looks brighter than it would to the naked eye.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN3IDH9FqjE
-The Battle-Comp on the 14.5" bbl had the WORST flash under NODs.
-My Surefire Flash Hider (the FH556-212A model) was unimpressive under NODs as well. HOWEVER, I was also shooting an 11.5" BCM short barreled rifle, too, which makes a huge difference. I was shooting Hornady 55gr Training ammo, which is actually pretty weak and low flash stuff.
-thopkins22's standard (mil-spec) A2 flash hider on his Daniel Defense M4 Carbine performed the best BY FAR. There's hardly any flash at all under NODs, compared to the Battle-Comp on my other friend's ACR and my Surefire flash hider on my BCM SBR. I was actually surprised how effective the thing was. Of course, he was shooting a 16" barreled gun, but still... I thought it was kinda cool.
....The three silencers that have real contracts are:
Ops Inc (MK12)
KAC (MK11, M4A1, MK18)
AAC (SCAR)
Surefire suppressors are in use as well. The Marine Corps' M40 (I'm assuming the latest model) uses them. I've also seen a (very) few number of pics of M4s with them over in what looked to be A'stan. I have zero clue how many are in use though, or who all uses them.
Magic_Salad0892
11-04-10, 21:01
KAC also had the XM9, the Mk. 23 suppressor, and I forgot who had the 9x19mm suppressor contract.
Was it Gemtech?
Coatings will always fail the cost/benefit test, period... :big_boss:
I wouldn't say that about coatings used in hi performance engines. Couldn't they be used to great benefit in other machines where friction and extreme heat are a concern?
The whole "no lubrication needed theory" is just asinine.
No kidding. There isn't a machine that exists that doesn't need lube and never will be.
A2 flash-hiders don't remove all of the flash, yet they're mil-spec. According to that argument, using an A2 will get you killed.
It can get you killed. I think the Vortex has been an authorized upgrade. It does a better job than the mil-spec A2 at flash suppression.
Also remember that the key word is flash suppressor and not flash eliminator.
wolf_walker
11-04-10, 23:13
Failzero is the exact same coating system made by UCT that Colt was monkeying around with back in the LE1020 days. Both the coating and the piston system were abandoned by Colt because they sucked ass. Coatings will always fail the cost/benefit test, period... :big_boss:
I don't dispute the cost/benefit bit, but you just sort of admitted there is benefit, right? Regardless of it's cost. As was mentioned a time or two, coatings to reduce friction and as heat barriers have been used in automotive applications for a loooong time, and you could buy a pile of rifles for what one of these motors cost. I have had pistons for turbo motors coated with a ceramic heat barrier on the piston top to isolate heat transfer, reduce hot spots and increase durability before. And piston skirts coated with friction reducing coatings as well. These are well documented, long tried tested and true technologies that work. No, they are not cheap. Sure you can do without them, but performance costs money. And as turn about is fair play, I'd love to read some documentation on cold abandoning bcg coatings and some technical info on them "sucking ass".
And with few, few exceptions, we are all "uncredible". If you want to talk about European cars, I'm a professional with a resume, gun wise most of us are just jerkoffs yacking on the internet man. :)
I would like someone to clarify if MPI is the same basic testing procedure as Magnafluxing, which is used in automotive shops to detect cracks in crankshafts, etc?
If so, it is certainly subject to human error and a rather time consuming process. Having said that, a barrel would be easier to test and inspect than a crankshaft.
Yes, this is my very first post here.
Working in electronics subject to mil specs, we would NEVER have used a potentially destructive test on parts intended for sale even if we might be able to weed out the damaged parts with a subsequent test. The requirement that bolts be subjected to a potentially damaging proof test then the damaged parts weeded out with MPI tested not make sense to me. I speculate that a bolt not subjected to proof testing might be superior to one that has. Try getting that mil spec changed!:sarcastic:
I do not think you understand the HPT/MPI process.
I would like someone to clarify if MPI is the same basic testing procedure as Magnafluxing, which is used in automotive shops to detect cracks in crankshafts, etc?
If so, it is certainly subject to human error and a rather time consuming process. Having said that, a barrel would be easier to test and inspect than a crankshaft.
Yes, this is my very first post here.
Yes, magnaflux is a type of MPI. However, when combined with HPT, I am told that it is pretty fricken good, because the HPT reveals the hidden subsurface anomalies that magnaflux doesn't.
I think that Rob_s is getting at with the above post, is that the HPT round doesn't exceed the steel's native elasticity, so it does not do any damage to good steel.
I would like someone to clarify if MPI is the same basic testing procedure as Magnafluxing, which is used in automotive shops to detect cracks in crankshafts, etc?
If so, it is certainly subject to human error and a rather time consuming process. Having said that, a barrel would be easier to test and inspect than a crankshaft.
Yes, this is my very first post here.
MPI and Magnafluxing are one in the same. It is actually a very quick process, both to perform and inspect the piece.
Failure2Stop
11-05-10, 08:40
A muzzle brake has no use on an assault rifle designed for combat. The commerical SCAR and the SIG .308 are pefect examples of this. Having a muzzle brake opposed to a flash hider is a liability in the fight. I don't give a damn where it "came from" or how it was developed. They belong on very large magnum rifles and for competition and have no other use.
I disagree.
While I am not willing to accept greatly increased muzzle flash or side venting in increase of the current A2 type, I am all in favor of flattening the learning curve and avoiding skill plateau.
Flash reduced powders can be improved, but the current M855 and Mk262 are pretty decent in the flash regard with 14.5 and longer barrels. Given that they could be improved to reduce flash with shorter barrels (as with more recent ammunition developments) this would further reduce my hesitation to put a purpose built comp on my fighting gun; especially if that gun was relatively lightweight and caipable of automatic fire.
Our current Nods are very tolerant of flash, many do just fine with multi-shot diversionary devices. Muzzle flash isn't much of a concern. Without Nods, in the dark, the flash doesn't matter much compared to the tac-light anyway.
When it comes to shooting at muzzle flashes, a slight increase or decrease in brightness doesn't matter all that much unless it is a drastic increase or total absence. Seen from Nods, all muzzle flash is readily apparent if in the open in the dark with minimal ambient illumination.
The rifle is a part of a system that includes optics, ammunition, feeding devices, along with several other components, to include the individual user. Tweaks can be (and have been) made to reduce or hide issues in a single component.
As far as exceeding milspec is concerned:
as long as adherance to standard is the measuring stick, nothing else will beat the current standard.
The only way to exceed standard is to first determine exactly what each individual weapon component does, and for how long. From there you will have several different data lines, each balanced against the others. Making the item excel in one or more areas will assuredly make it weaker in another, even if that single point is cost.
The only thing that one can embrace is improvement in regard to application.
It all comes back to this:
What do you want it to do and how much are you willing to spend?
Because there isn't just one answer.
Except for, "Get a 6920 and as much training as you can afford."
I would like someone to clarify if MPI is the same basic testing procedure as Magnafluxing, which is used in automotive shops to detect cracks in crankshafts, etc?
If so, it is certainly subject to human error and a rather time consuming process. Having said that, a barrel would be easier to test and inspect than a crankshaft.
Yes, this is my very first post here.
Yes, basically, but the TDP specs out the way that MPI is to be carried out and to what level. Meaning that the testing done in an auto garage isn't the same as it is done at a certified NDT facility.
Check this out: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=56063
C4
I disagree.
While I am not willing to accept greatly increased muzzle flash or side venting in increase of the current A2 type, I am all in favor of flattening the learning curve and avoiding skill plateau.
Flash reduced powders can be improved, but the current M855 and Mk262 are pretty decent in the flash regard with 14.5 and longer barrels. Given that they could be improved to reduce flash with shorter barrels (as with more recent ammunition developments) this would further reduce my hesitation to put a purpose built comp on my fighting gun; especially if that gun was relatively lightweight and caipable of automatic fire.
Our current Nods are very tolerant of flash, many do just fine with multi-shot diversionary devices. Muzzle flash isn't much of a concern. Without Nods, in the dark, the flash doesn't matter much compared to the tac-light anyway.
When it comes to shooting at muzzle flashes, a slight increase or decrease in brightness doesn't matter all that much unless it is a drastic increase or total absence. Seen from Nods, all muzzle flash is readily apparent if in the open in the dark with minimal ambient illumination.
The rifle is a part of a system that includes optics, ammunition, feeding devices, along with several other components, to include the individual user. Tweaks can be (and have been) made to reduce or hide issues in a single component.
As far as exceeding milspec is concerned:
as long as adherance to standard is the measuring stick, nothing else will beat the current standard.
The only way to exceed standard is to first determine exactly what each individual weapon component does, and for how long. From there you will have several different data lines, each balanced against the others. Making the item excel in one or more areas will assuredly make it weaker in another, even if that single point is cost.
The only thing that one can embrace is improvement in regard to application.
It all comes back to this:
What do you want it to do and how much are you willing to spend?
Because there isn't just one answer.
Except for, "Get a 6920 and as much training as you can afford."
But it's been a very interesting thread.
Suwannee Tim
11-05-10, 15:34
I do not think you understand the HPT/MPI process.
HPT subjects the bolt to unusually high stress then MPI is used to determine if the bolt was damaged by said stress. If there is something I don't understand maybe rob_s will 'splain it to me.
HPT subjects the bolt to unusually high stress then MPI is used to determine if the bolt was damaged by said stress. If there is something I don't understand maybe rob_s will 'splain it to me.
No. HPT will only exacerbate existing problems that would have popped up after a few hundred rounds (thus making them easier to find with MPI) - it does not create any out of thin air.
Suwannee Tim
11-05-10, 15:46
No what? No, HPT does not subject the bolt to unusually high stress? Or no, the defective bolts are not damaged by said stress? Or no, HPT is not used to find that damage?
Your post seemed to imply that HPT alone would be the source of damage which would be found with MPI.
Yes, HPT subjects the bolt to higher than normal stress.
Yes, defective bolts have their issues "highlighted" by HPT.
I wanted to clarify that HPT alone will not cause damage to a properly manufactured bolt.
Sorry if that's not what you meant.
Suwannee Tim
11-05-10, 15:54
Presumably there is a latent defect that the HPT/MPI reveals. I think if you are using this kind of testing something is wrong. A material problem, a manufacturing problem or a design problem. Seems like someone would have developed a solution in the last four plus decades. Fact is, HPT is a destructive test in that parts are damaged by the test. You should never use a destructive test on production pieces.
The test is no more destructive than a decent test fire on the part of the company selling the product.
Proof loads are still used by many manufacturers around the world. Check out the markings on a European firearm next time you see one.
You can state "facts" all you want, but your experience in another field is not relevant to this discussion.
HPT is one of the many - frankly, one of the last - "checks and balances" used by manufacturers to ensure that everything done until that point was done correctly.
Your assertion that a bolt that was not HPT/MPI'd is superior to one that was is laughable when one considers the fairly common occurrence of non-tested bolts (put out by companies looking to cut costs) that fail.
Fact is, HPT is a destructive test in that parts are damaged by the test. You should never use a destructive test on production pieces.
I do not have the expertise to offer any first-hand opinion, but there are respected names who seem to offer some support to that position.
If it is a otherwise quality bolt, pressure testing might not be a good thing. Some experts like Bill Alexander and Reed Knight believe it shortens the lifespan somewhat.
Suwannee Tim
11-05-10, 20:33
You can state "facts" all you want, but your experience in another field is not relevant to this discussion.
I have stated mostly opinions, I don't claim to have the answer. Here are some opinions: Any test that induces failures is a destructive test. If you apply a destructive test to a part, you scrap the part. If you are applying a destructive test to parts intended for sale then using NDT to cull out the casualties, there is something wrong. What's wrong is either material, processing, design or the test. I do know a bit about building high-rel parts. The way it is done is to use materials of appropriate quality, test the materials to verify they meet specifications, run them through a well designed, well understood, well monitored process. That done you apply destructive tests to samples which are scrapped and non-destructive tests to the rest which can be sold as high-rel. You do not apply destructive tests to parts intended for sale.
Your assertion that a bolt that was not HPT/MPI'd is superior to one that was is laughable
I made no such assertion. I questioned the wisdom of HPT/MPI for AR/M rifle bolts. Just because the military wants something done a certain way does not mean it is the smartest way. I gave an example with lead pull versus electrical qualities of capacitors. Big difference between capacitors and rifle bolts you will no doubt say. True. A $5 capacitor in a communications satellite which fails on orbit might cause the loss of the satellite at a cost of maybe $500 million. A failure of a capacitor in a D5 missile might result in the replacement of that part, and every similar part in every missile on every submarine in the fleet and a significant degradation in the US nuclear deterrent. The consequences of the failure of a rifle bolt are less dramatic. Having built capacitors for communications satellites and the D5 missile and other important programs, I know a bit about high reliability processes. Rifle bolts and capacitors differ in the details but not in the principles.
Proof loads are still used by many manufacturers around the world. Check out the markings on a European firearm next time you see one.
Proof testing is a relic of a bygone era when materials and processes were far less reliable and controlled than today. I offer as an example the "low number" model 1903 rifle. These guns blew up by the dozens, by the hundreds because of material and processing errors. If memory serves me, proof testing dates back hundreds of years. Times have changed. The vast majority of machine parts and machines are not subject to anything analogous to the firearms proof test. If you can think of any kind of non-firearm machine or machine part that is subject to some sort of proof test, please provide an example.
Any test that induces failures is a destructive test. If you apply a destructive test to a part, you scrap the part. If you are applying a destructive test to parts intended for sale then using NDT to cull out the casualties, there is something wrong. What's wrong is either material, processing, design or the test.
HPT is NOT a destructive test!
It only induces failure if there is latent flaw in the finished product. You are wrong on just about every point. You may want to quit while you have a head...
Suwannee Tim
11-05-10, 21:26
HPT is NOT a destructive test!
A test that damages parts is a destructive test. Q: If HPT were not a destructive test then why do they follow it with MPT? A: To weed out the damaged parts.
You are wrong on just about every point.
Give me an example.
You may want to quit while you have a head...
I'm not afraid of loosing an argument. I have never lost an argument but what I didn't learn something. I do hope that you speak metaphorically about my loosing my head. Right? Right? Insulting the M4, it ain't like I insulted The Prophet Mohamed after all. People loose their heads for insulting The Prophet Mohamed. But not for insulting the M4. Right? Right?
As I understand it HPT and MPI are a means of identifying defective parts. How is this not a good thing?
Suwannee Tim
11-05-10, 21:50
As I understand it HPT and MPI are a means of identifying defective parts. How is this not a good thing?
It is better to make parts that are not defective. It is much better to make parts with a combination of design, materials, processes, process controls and testing, both non-destructive (gaugeing for example) and destructive (tensile testing for example) that guarantee a reliable part without subjecting parts to be sold to destructive tests. This is the way the vast, vast majority of high reliability parts are made. In fact, I can think of no example of any high-rel parts subject to destructive testing other than these rifle bolts. Never heard of such a thing, best I can remember.
Every example I have ever seen of MPI, it is applied to used parts that may have been damaged by fatigue. This is the most important use of MPI. It is widely used when aircraft engines are rebuilt for example. Now, don't go saying "Suwannee Tim, you are full of shit, Pratt and Whitney uses MPI on brand new con rods!" I'm talking in general, in principle, in my experience, to my knowledge. And in general, it is much better to make parts that do not have latent defects than to make defective parts, then use HPT to magnify the defects, then use MPI to cull them out.
Dirtyboy333
11-05-10, 22:09
It is much better to make parts with a combination of design, materials, processes, process controls and testing, both non-destructive (gaugeing for example) and destructive (tensile testing for example) that guarantee a reliable part without subjecting parts to be sold to destructive tests. This is the way the vast, vast majority of high reliability parts are made. In fact, I can think of no example of any high-rel parts subject to destructive testing other than these rifle bolts. Never heard of such a thing, best I can remember.
I know most disagree but i think you have a really good argument. In fact, right when i was getting into AR's i wanted a high quality bolt and i was thinking the same way in that hp/mpi is usually only done by the higher end companies i might have rather bought my BCM bolt (that was made in the same exact way as their hp/mp bolts) that wasn't HP'd. I wouldn't want to redline my new Lincoln just to see if it will break even if an inspection afterwards showed no "DETECTABLE damage". Im no expert, its just a thought.
Suwannee Tim
11-05-10, 22:15
....Im no expert, its just a thought.
After you give it a little thought, it's just common sense. I'm glad someone agrees with me. I was getting a little lonely!
variablebinary
11-05-10, 22:28
I know most disagree but i think you have a really good argument. In fact, right when i was getting into AR's i wanted a high quality bolt and i was thinking the same way in that hp/mpi is usually only done by the higher end companies i would have rather bought my BCM bolt (that was made in the same exact way as their hp/mp bolts) that wasn't HP'd. I wouldn't want to redline my new Lincoln just to see if it will break even if an inspection afterwards showed no "DETECTABLE damage". Im no expert, its just a thought.
The process only exposes defects. If there is no defect, there is no damage to the bolt.
Stress fractures wont be induced, only revealed.
Then again, people will conjure up all kinds of nonsense to justify a shitty purchase, crap gear and Barbie doll mods of dubious value.
HPT is NOT a destructive test!
It only induces failure if there is latent flaw in the finished product. You are wrong on just about every point. You may want to quit while you have a head...
whoa, simmer down hoss... I think he really is trying to understand but his only point of reference does not correlate to what is happening here.
Tim, a PROOF load is an increased pressure load that is within the structural specs of the part but not within the operating specs. firearms are designed to handle pressures FAR in excess of what is recommended. a gun can safely fire proof loads and not blow up or crack, unless something was wrong in the first place. however, a steady diet of proof loads will lead to reduced life expectancy.
for instance, it was widely known and accepted that the early Smith and Wesson .357Mag handguns were designed to shoot full power magnum loads but a steady diet of them would lead to weakened cylinders, forcing cones, etc. but no one would claim that shooting full power loads in these guns was "destructive". it merely shortened their life.
or like the redline on an engine. this is an arbitrary number of revs that the designer has determined that continued operation will shorten life of the engine. it is not a line in the sand that if crossed will cause your engine to immediately destroy itself. it is perfectly OK to run up to, or even exceed this line occasionally. just not continually...
another example in the automotive world is tires. they are checked at more than double the pressure they are rated on the sidewall but you wouldn't want to run them like that on the highway. this isn't close to enough pressure to damage them but enough to expose most structural flaws. In fact, I heard that modern tires could be inflated to about 200 lbs psi before bursting. now that's destructive testing...
does this make sense???
Belmont31R
11-05-10, 22:33
It is better to make parts that are not defective. It is much better to make parts with a combination of design, materials, processes, process controls and testing, both non-destructive (gaugeing for example) and destructive (tensile testing for example) that guarantee a reliable part without subjecting parts to be sold to destructive tests. This is the way the vast, vast majority of high reliability parts are made. In fact, I can think of no example of any high-rel parts subject to destructive testing other than these rifle bolts. Never heard of such a thing, best I can remember.
Every example I have ever seen of MPI, it is applied to used parts that may have been damaged by fatigue. This is the most important use of MPI. It is widely used when aircraft engines are rebuilt for example. Now, don't go saying "Suwannee Tim, you are full of shit, Pratt and Whitney uses MPI on brand new con rods!" I'm talking in general, in principle, in my experience, to my knowledge. And in general, it is much better to make parts that do not have latent defects than to make defective parts, then use HPT to magnify the defects, then use MPI to cull them out.
What testing could be done on a bolt to reveal the same flaws as MPI/HPT without actually doing the MPI/HPT tests?
Basically how do you know the part is good without testing it with those means?
What damage is done by HPT that would cause a failure down the road?
Thomas M-4
11-05-10, 22:34
like the redline on an engine. this is the number of revs that the designer has determined that continued operation will shorten life of the engine. it is not a line in the sand that if crossed will cause your engine to grenade itself and it is perfectly OK to run up to, or exceed this line occasionally. just not continually.
This ^^
Even super modern $$$artillery gets a HP proof firing.
wolf_walker
11-05-10, 23:10
whoa, simmer down hoss... I think he really is trying to understand but his only point of reference does not correlate to what is happening here.
Tim, a PROOF load is an increased pressure load that is within the structural specs of the part but not within the operating specs. firearms are designed to handle pressures FAR in excess of what is recommended. a gun can safely fire proof loads and not blow up or crack, unless something was wrong in the first place. however, a steady diet of proof loads will lead to reduced life expectancy.
for instance, it was widely known and accepted that the early Smith and Wesson .357Mag handguns were designed to shoot full power magnum loads but a steady diet of them would lead to weakened cylinders, forcing cones, etc. but no one would claim that shooting full power loads in these guns was "destructive". it merely shortened their life.
or like the redline on an engine. this is an arbitrary number of revs that the designer has determined that continued operation will shorten life of the engine. it is not a line in the sand that if crossed will cause your engine to immediately destroy itself. it is perfectly OK to run up to, or even exceed this line occasionally. just not continually...
another example in the automotive world is tires. they are checked at more than double the pressure they are rated on the sidewall but you wouldn't want to run them like that on the highway. this isn't close to enough pressure to damage them but enough to expose most structural flaws. In fact, I heard that modern tires could be inflated to about 200 lbs psi before bursting. now that's destructive testing...
does this make sense???
This is a hell of a lot better explanation than anyone else has had. I had the same questions about HPT awhile back because the day to day reference on here and elsewhere is misleading to someone with a mechanical but not a firearms background. Dumb people don't ask this question, it's a part of learning and more importantly, thinking for one's self.
I'd still love to read some documentation on colt abandoning bcg coatings and some technical info on them "sucking ass".
.
I think there is confusion with the definiton of "destructive tests".
When we get new high-voltage cables installed, we have a "hi-pot" test run on the new cable. This test applies a voltage that is 2 - 5 times higher than the cable is designed for or will normally be exposed to. The cable fails when the insulation cannot contain the applied voltage, this also destroys the cable. If the insulation passes, the cable is put into service and the cable is no worse for wear. This test is called a "destructive" test but it only destroys flawed cables.
Years later, the cable may be retested. Generally, on these subsequent tests, only a small percentage above the normal voltage will be applied. Now we don't want to destroy the cable because we know it is good, we just want to see if it is deteriorating close to the operating voltage.
Tim, I tend to agree with you and wonder, like someone stated earlier, why Knight (and Noveske) don't HPT their Bolts. Evidently, it isn't a sign of poor quality control.
I had either read or was told that the reason Noveske doesn't HPT their Bolts is because the Bolts are tested in a Test Barrel and not the actual barrel and components that the Bolt would be used with. That it was better to have very tight tolerances and inspections than to subject the Bolt to a HPT. ???
.
After you give it a little thought, it's just common sense. I'm glad someone agrees with me. I was getting a little lonely!
I appreciate your input. I found it to be both articulate and insightful.
Dirtyboy333
11-05-10, 23:34
The process only exposes defects. If there is no defect, there is no damage to the bolt.
Stress fractures wont be induced, only revealed.
Then again, people will conjure up all kinds of nonsense to justify a shitty purchase, crap gear and Barbie doll mods of dubious value.
I understand and im not one of those trying to justify a shitty purchase as i bought the BCM bolt....I know that the process of HP/MP is probably the best route and is why the quality companies test each and evry 1. Like i said im no expert im just saying that Tim has a good point for example: If you have a run of BCM bolts that are all HP'd except for 1. I would think that the non-hp'd bolt would be in SLIGHTLY better shape in terms of wear or maybe damage that the MPI didnt pick up due to human error or whatever. Now, if your saying that the HP load absolutely cannot produce any extra stress or fractures that could possibly slip through the MPI then nevermind as im not familiar with how it works. FWIW I would always buy the HP'd bolt due to safety and assurance of quality. I'm just saying that as small of a deal it is, i think tim has a point. ymmv
Dirtyboy333
11-05-10, 23:45
whoa, simmer down hoss... I think he really is trying to understand but his only point of reference does not correlate to what is happening here.
Tim, a PROOF load is an increased pressure load that is within the structural specs of the part but not within the operating specs. firearms are designed to handle pressures FAR in excess of what is recommended. a gun can safely fire proof loads and not blow up or crack, unless something was wrong in the first place. however, a steady diet of proof loads will lead to reduced life expectancy.
for instance, it was widely known and accepted that the early Smith and Wesson .357Mag handguns were designed to shoot full power magnum loads but a steady diet of them would lead to weakened cylinders, forcing cones, etc. but no one would claim that shooting full power loads in these guns was "destructive". it merely shortened their life.
or like the redline on an engine. this is an arbitrary number of revs that the designer has determined that continued operation will shorten life of the engine. it is not a line in the sand that if crossed will cause your engine to immediately destroy itself. it is perfectly OK to run up to, or even exceed this line occasionally. just not continually...
another example in the automotive world is tires. they are checked at more than double the pressure they are rated on the sidewall but you wouldn't want to run them like that on the highway. this isn't close to enough pressure to damage them but enough to expose most structural flaws. In fact, I heard that modern tires could be inflated to about 200 lbs psi before bursting. now that's destructive testing...
does this make sense???
Yes, that makes perfect sense. Thanks for the lesson!!!......about the
redline, i know its not a cut off point where your engine would explode i just meant to say that its something i would rather not do considering its the outer limits and like you said especially not continually.
Your assertion that a bolt that was not HPT/MPI'd is superior to one that was is laughable when one considers the fairly common occurrence of non-tested bolts (put out by companies looking to cut costs) that fail.
I made no such assertion.
Fine, speculation. But I don't play games like that.
I speculate that a bolt not subjected to proof testing might be superior to one that has.
IMO, destructive testing destroys every item subjected to the test. I've come to believe that HPT/MPI is not any different than checking dimensions. Ra2bach's explanation, or some form of it, should be in a readily available sticky.
There is a possibility that HPT/MPI could be replaced with a good real time X-ray system. The good X-ray systems are very impressive, and getting better. It wouldn't be hard to test a hundred or thousand bolts/barrels. Number a 100 bolts, X-ray them, record the failures. HPT/MPI them, record the failures. X-ray them again, see if anything changed. If the correlation is good, do a larger test. You could untrasonic and eddy current test the same batch of parts before and after HPT/MPI as well.
Most engineers are the same, they are always looking for something better. I suspect the engineers at Colt and FN are constantly looking for the next reliable test/gage that will be better and cheaper than what they are doing now. By the time they get the TDP changed, it will be a well proven method.
Suwannee Tim
11-06-10, 12:24
Fine, speculation. But I don't play games like that.
I choose my words with care most of the time. There is a big difference between a flat assertion and speculation. I try to make clear either by statement or context whether I'm making an assertion or a speculation (but not trolling, I don't want you to know I'm trolling when I'm trolling!:D).
IMO, destructive testing destroys every item subjected to the test.
I don't think so but I can't remember the definition of "destructive test" though I have seen such a definition. I think the mere potential of damaging the DUT (device under test, thow a little electroncis industry lingo at you:D) makes the test "destructive".
The problem with ultrasonic, and eddy currents is they work best on simple shapes. The problem with X ray is lack of ability to resolve small defects, part complexity and thickness also complicate the problem.
As far as changing the spec, sometimes, even if you have a good change, it is just not worth a can of worms to try to get the change.
I'd like to know the nature and origin of these defects. I find it hard to believe the bar stock has defects. Without researching, I feel pretty confident that the metal is vacuum remelted under clean conditions. Such metal has no or virtually no defects. I think the problem is simply that the bolt is under designed and subject to too much stress.
So this is what happens when people know just enough (or think they do) to come to the wrong conclusions huh?
destructive testing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_testing) "tests are carried out to the specimen's failure, in order to understand a specimen's structural performance or material behavior under different loads. "
Christ, now we have not only a process that is completely misunderstood but then a term that is being misaplied. Ignorance abounds, followed by conclusions based on ignorance and incorrect assumptions. I have so much more to say but at this point I'd rather the blathering continue as this is becoming fodder for another article, for which I can get paid. :sarcastic:
Suwannee Tim
11-06-10, 12:31
.....Christ, now we have not only a process that is completely misunderstood but then a term that is being misaplied. Ignorance abounds, followed by conclusions based on ignorance and incorrect assumptions.....
You already pointed out my ignorance rob and, though I asked you to 'splain it to me, you won't. I guess it is just more fun to throw around personal insults huh?
Crow Hunter
11-06-10, 12:43
Try googling "pressure vessel testing."
I think that might help some with understanding. The rifle chamber at the moment of firing is acting as a pressure vessel. There are some engineering rules of thumb that have been developed over the centuries to ensure performance and safety.
It isn't really "destructive testing" as it is safety factor performance testing.
Hope this helps.
Failure2Stop
11-06-10, 15:50
There is no shortage of more interesting aspects ofthe TDP than proof loads and MPI of bolts, how about we move on before this thread becomes competely irrelevant and boring to knuckle-draggers like me.
Suwannee Tim
11-06-10, 16:25
....how about we move on....
Good idea.
One last point:
Try googling "pressure vessel testing."
Good example. Hydroing cylinders, "putting the squeeze" on boilers are two specifics.
Sooo...
Does anyone think there is any existing hardware, such as: BCG, FCG, HG, sights, RE, barrels, uppers, lowers, stocks, FH, or other accessories that might make it on a future TDP or Mil-Spec?
First off, I don't know if the TDP covers stocks, handguards, and grips, but I could see where the "MOE" gear is a big improvement in versatility and functionality over USGI. It has yet to be proven but it ain't like the existing stocks, HG's, and grips are "state of the art".
I've got a nephew in the Marines that called me a few weeks ago all excited about getting a VTAC sling with QD swivels. He's been 4-tours to the mid-east and he said he doesn't know how he survived without it. I told him I've been using one for a year and he was disappointed because he thought they got the first ones. :)
So, I could see a better sling and a better arrangement for a QD-type sling attachment system getting accepted.
.
.
wolf_walker
11-06-10, 23:54
that Colt was monkeying around with back in the LE1020 days. Both the coating and the piston system were abandoned by Colt because they sucked ass.
I am still waiting on info on how colt found it to "suck ass" exactly. I'd like to be a more informed consumer by taking advantage of there research and testing.
I am still waiting on info on how colt found it to "suck ass" exactly. I'd like to be a more informed consumer by taking advantage of there research and testing.
Call them, 1-800-241-2485...
wolf_walker
11-07-10, 00:24
Call them, 1-800-241-2485...
That was weak. But thanks for at least trying to be witty. I guess.
For future reference, if I ask for specific info on the other things you post here as gospel will you not be able to provide any real information on them as well?
If you can I'll ask now and then, if not I'll not bother.
So this is what happens when people know just enough (or think they do) to come to the wrong conclusions huh?
destructive testing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_testing) "tests are carried out to the specimen's failure, in order to understand a specimen's structural performance or material behavior under different loads. "
Christ, now we have not only a process that is completely misunderstood but then a term that is being misaplied. Ignorance abounds, followed by conclusions based on ignorance and incorrect assumptions. I have so much more to say but at this point I'd rather the blathering continue as this is becoming fodder for another article, for which I can get paid. :sarcastic:Ok Rob- I'm going to take you to task on this one. Wiki isn't the most reliable of information sources and Wiki doesn't write the standards to which NDI/Pressure Tests/Destructive Tests are defined or conducted.
I deal with NDI (Non Destructive Inspection) inspectors on a regular basis as they have to apply NDI methods to a variety of aircraft parts that I work with daily. None of the NDI methods applied cause any damage or failure to the parts being tested. They only reveal any damage already there.
I can't speak for the HPT process as I don't know the specifics but I am familiar with proof load testing and the results. Firing proof loads causes actual damage the barrel & related parts being tested. It's very slight, but still it's there. If this damage didn't occur, you could shoot proof loads all day long without worries. As it is, the barrel & related parts can only handle a limited number of proof loads before they fail. Proof testing reduces the life of the parts by one proof load.
Magnafluxing will show whether or not the proof load caused any fractures or shearing. If it was simply a matter of finding fractures in the material, magnafluxing would find them without firing a proof load. Of course proof loads will cause pre-existing fractures to enlarge and be easier to find. In some cases, proof loads will cause the pre-existing fractures to burst. What proof loads are used to find are intergranular irregularities that weaken the material.
If the HPT process is the same as firing proof loads, the results will be no different. You've reduced the life of your barrel & bolt by one HPT.
Tim has a point- Testing with proof loads isn't Non Destructive Testing. When a part fails, it's because the proof load destroyed it.
It also does none of us any good to be disrespectful or unprofessional
Dirtyboy333
11-07-10, 04:45
Ok Rob- I'm going to take you to task on this one. Wiki isn't the most reliable of information sources and Wiki doesn't write the standards to which NDI/Pressure Tests/Destructive Tests are defined or conducted.
I deal with NDI (Non Destructive Inspection) inspectors on a regular basis as they have to apply NDI methods to a variety of aircraft parts that I work with daily. None of the NDI methods applied cause any damage or failure to the parts being tested. They only reveal any damage already there.
I can't speak for the HPT process as I don't know the specifics but I am familiar with proof load testing and the results. Firing proof loads causes actual damage the barrel & related parts being tested. It's very slight, but still it's there. If this damage didn't occur, you could shoot proof loads all day long without worries. As it is, the barrel & related parts can only handle a limited number of proof loads before they fail. Proof testing reduces the life of the parts by one proof load.
Magnafluxing will show whether or not the proof load caused any fractures or shearing. If it was simply a matter of finding fractures in the material, magnafluxing would find them without firing a proof load. Of course proof loads will cause pre-existing fractures to enlarge and be easier to find. In some cases, proof loads will cause the pre-existing fractures to burst. What proof loads are used to find are intergranular irregularities that weaken the material.
If the HPT process is the same as firing proof loads, the results will be no different. You've reduced the life of your barrel & bolt by one HPT.
Tim has a point- Testing with proof loads isn't Non Destructive Testing. When a part fails, it's because the proof load destroyed it.
It also does none of us any good to be disrespectful or unprofessional
+1 Thank you for ur input. thats what i was trying to say in a much less sophisticated way. lol
I had a whole post on this but I'm going to save it for an article.
F2S makes an excellent point. This is largely a pointless discussion of minutia by folks that don't understand what they're talking about and are not in any position to implement any kind of change anyway. We might as well be arguing about whether or not Pluto is a planet. :sarcastic:
As far as I am concerned Pluto is still a planet and St. Christopher is still a Saint!
Dirtyboy333
11-07-10, 20:17
Theres all kinds of pointless discussions on this site everyday. This is no diff. Nobodies saying there in any position to change anything. Just wondering "if" there is a better way. Hence the title.
There is no shortage of more interesting aspects ofthe TDP than proof loads and MPI of bolts, how about we move on before this thread becomes competely irrelevant and boring to knuckle-draggers like me.
==============================
So, definitely knowing more about the TDP than I do, you can't "think" of anything that is currently on the market that is better than or would be an improvement to the TDP?
Just wondering...
.
I can remember 15 or 20 years ago... I bought a Springfield Armory "Mil Spec" 1911a1 from Sports Authority or some place.....
From that gun... I thought "Mil Spec" meant CRAP!!! :sarcastic:
I can remember 15 or 20 years ago... I bought a Springfield Armory "Mil Spec" 1911a1 from Sports Authority or some place.....
From that gun... I thought "Mil Spec" meant CRAP!!! :sarcastic:
==========================
I made a comment a few weeks ago that I think most people interpret “mil-spec” to mean the dimensions are the same as a “real M-16” or just “interchangeable”.
Maybe that comes from junior high school American History where we were taught that Eli Whitney came up with American manufacturing of interchangeable parts on a government contract to make muskets?
So, whether it is because of “Eli” (I don’t really think so) or just plain ignorance (most likely), most people don’t think of metallurgy, surface treatment, assembly, etc. when thinking of “mil-spec”.
They just get all giddy and puff-out their chests when they hear that the parts to their DPMS are “interchangeable” with an M-16. I know I did with my first AR, which just happened to be a DPMS. :)
.
Suwannee Tim
11-09-10, 13:23
We know that mil specs require a shaven head and a shaven jaw.
And yet:
http://i886.photobucket.com/albums/ac61/gstuffnow/Temp/3256727.jpg
This guy has neither. So, what shall we conclude? That he is not a proper warrior? Or that mil specs are not God's revealed wisdom?
:sarcastic:
We conclude that that's a piss-poor attempt to make a point, since that guy's Australian, and that they have their own standards that don't necessarily apply to our own.
Might wanna let it go. It's a shit comparison, even if you did manage to get the visuals right.
He actually from New Zealand. :p
Suwannee Tim
11-09-10, 13:59
We conclude that that's a piss-poor attempt to make a point, since that guy's Australian, and that they have their own standards that don't necessarily apply to our own.
Might wanna let it go. It's a shit comparison, even if you did manage to get the visuals right.
He actually from New Zealand. :p
Actually from New Zealand but who am I to nit pick?
It's a joke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke) JSantoro. But I'm glad you liked it!:D I thought it was funny.
So, what shall we conclude?
I conclude that you wasted the time you spent looking for that picture since it would have been better spent educating yourself on the realities of HPT and MPI as they pertain to M16 and M4 barrels and bolts.
;)
If someone wants to use a part because it's up to the standards of the US military there's nothing wrong with that, personally "mil spec" means very little to me, I'm not equipping an entire fighting force, so I don't have to consider cost and politics in my decisions. Not using something because it's not "combat proven" however is ridiculous. If you were around at the time you probably heard the same things about reflex sights and PMAGs. "Nah that's just plastic stuff for civilians, I'll stick with aluminum GI mags and iron sights that are COMBAT PROVEN." You wouldn't give up your wife's gourmet cooking for MREs would you? To me it's no different, the civilian market is ahead of the game on many things, and ARs in my mind are definitely one of them.
Much truth to be had here.
Suwannee Tim
11-09-10, 18:20
I conclude that you wasted the time you spent looking for that picture since it would have been better spent educating yourself on the realities of HPT and MPI as they pertain to M16 and M4 barrels and bolts.
You have a real nasty streak rob_s. That's a game I don't play.
We know that mil specs require a shaven head and a shaven jaw.
Thats not entirely true.
The "mil-spec" for an 11B is different for an 18B.....so....
Bob
You have a real nasty streak rob_s. That's a game I don't play.
You missed his "winking" emoticon at the end... ;)
That meant he was joking with you.
Anyway, having studied the Roman empire, milspec is the way to go. Uniformity and regularity of product are how you ensure uniform and regular results. "Extra special" often results in "extra fail" when you don't know how it will perform under a variety of conditions.
Suwannee Tim
11-09-10, 19:20
We live in a highly technologically advanced society because of two forces, standardization and innovation. Standardization can become inertia and the enemy or innovation and often does with military organizations. An example is the very slow adoption of optics for the infantryman. A counterexample is GPS. The US military seems to have learned this lesson and are much less reluctant to use new technologies than before. The use by the military of COTS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_off-the-shelf) would have been unthinkable only 20 years ago.
Getting back to the original question- I believe what the OP wanted to know is, are there any parts, processes or designs, pertaining to the AR, that do not meet milspec, that are equal to or are an improvement over the milspec parts, processes or designs?
If so, what are they and why?
Anyway, having studied the Roman empire, milspec is the way to go. Uniformity and regularity of product are how you ensure uniform and regular results. "Extra special" often results in "extra fail" when you don't know how it will perform under a variety of conditions.
120mm
In 1990 I was a student in a class being taught first aid. The Sgt. Teaching the class designated me as wounded and was going to show the proper use if a tourniquet for my leg wound. He went to take my pants belt off and started swearing a blue streak. I then got to stand up as he chewed my ass for wearing some belt I thought was high speed and bought from Brigade Quartermasters or Siagon Sams
http://www.google.com/m/url?client=ms-android-verizon&ei=hPfZTLjmOdHwlAfvgLaHAw&gl=us&hl=en&q=http://www.saigonsams.com/&source=android-browser-type&ved=0CBYQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNFCiPKaWv34_i5-mEW_KBVghJcr1g
The point was quickly drilled home that I would have been ****ed because he did not know how to use my belt and could not have used it to save my life. He then demonstrated with another Marine wearing a standard issue belt. In this case better than mil spec was a serious issue and could have gotten me killed.
.
I think there has to be a difference in generic foods, drugs, etc.
For food, I think the popular brands are more consistent and could possibly (I’m assuming) meet tighter restrictions on allowable rat turds, better raw materials, tighter controls, better packaging, etc. than the generic food. I've tried generic granola bars and I swear they had splinters, stems, etc.
For medicines, yes, the active ingredient might be the same but the inactive ingredients such as the coating, taste, the speed to dissolve, etc. can vary considerably.
I know my brother was in line at a Taco Bell drive-thru a few years ago and saw a truck being unloaded. He saw boxes of meat products labeled, “Fit for Human Consumption” He got out of line and hasn’t been back because he said, “If it looks so bad that they can’t tell it is fit for consumption without a label, then I ain’t eating it.”
There’s a lot we don’t know about short cuts taken for generics. I hope they won't kill us but they also may not give us what we need.
But maybe it’s just me…
.
Optics have been in military use since the civil war, its only been recently that they have been made rugged enough for general infantry use.
GPS has been in use since the '90s, but we always had a map and compass.
lets not continue to make to general of a statement.
Bob
wolf_walker
11-09-10, 22:54
120mm
In 1990 I was a student in a class being taught first aid. The Sgt. Teaching the class designated me as wounded and was going to show the proper use if a tourniquet for my leg wound. He went to take my pants belt off and started swearing a blue streak. I then got to stand up as he chewed my ass for wearing some belt I thought was high speed and bought from Brigade Quartermasters or Siagon Sams
http://www.google.com/m/url?client=ms-android-verizon&ei=hPfZTLjmOdHwlAfvgLaHAw&gl=us&hl=en&q=http://www.saigonsams.com/&source=android-browser-type&ved=0CBYQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNFCiPKaWv34_i5-mEW_KBVghJcr1g
The point was quickly drilled home that I would have been ****ed because he did not know how to use my belt and could not have used it to save my life. He then demonstrated with another Marine wearing a standard issue belt. In this case better than mil spec was a serious issue and could have gotten me killed.
People can drive a chevy cavalier better than a Ferrari 430 but that don't make the Ferrari less or inferior in anything other than usability for normals. Your point is taken and valild, but it's a training issue, nothing to do with the quality of the belt, as a belt. They can't train for all belts, so have everyone wear one belt. No brainier.
My belt would have worked he just had never seen one and out if two hundred Marines in the room no one else bad either. Everyone in the room was so familiar with the issue belt they could have used it perfectly in the pitch dark or blindfolded. A rope and stick would have worked too my belt was just not uniform. I agree everyone can learn to use any belt.
Submariner
11-12-10, 09:38
I had a whole post on this but I'm going to save it for an article.
F2S makes an excellent point. This is largely a pointless discussion of minutia by folks that don't understand what they're talking about and are not in any position to implement any kind of change anyway. We might as well be arguing about whether or not Pluto is a planet. :sarcastic:
"If you're good at something, never do it for free." Joker
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.