View Full Version : How does TDP info get out to the public?
This thread got me thinking.
http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=83917
"Adherence to the TDP" is a phrase commonly used here. If the TDP is protected intellectual property and only FN and Colt have a copy, how does its info get out for manufacturers like BCM, DD, Noveske, etc. to adhere to in the first place?
This thread got me thinking.
http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=83917
"Adherence to the TDP" is a phrase commonly used here. If the TDP is protected intellectual property and only FN and Colt have a copy, how does its info get out for manufacturers like BCM, DD, Noveske, etc. to adhere to in the first place?
Reverse manufacturing with very strict tolerances. If they take a Colt and measure everything and set their machines to work the same tolerances on the same materials, using the same testing then they technically have a Colt as a finished product.
Reverse manufacturing with very strict tolerances. If they take a Colt and measure everything and set their machines to work the same tolerances on the same materials, using the same testing then they technically have a Colt as a finished product.
I don't believe this is 100 percent accurate...The TDP allows for tolerances and let's assume the person copying the Colt rifle doesn't know what those tolerances are. They copy everything exactly on that Colt...well the Colt passed the QC check as it fell within a certain tolerance range. If it was on the high or low end of the tolerances set by the tdp and it was coppied you will have tolerance stacking and what results in that stacking is Bushmaster, Olympic Arms, CMMG etc...
I don't believe this is 100 percent accurate...The TDP allows for tolerances and let's assume the person copying the Colt rifle doesn't know what those tolerances are. They copy everything exactly on that Colt...well the Colt passed the QC check as it fell within a certain tolerance range. If it was on the high or low end of the tolerances set by the tdp and it was coppied you will have tolerance stacking and what results in that stacking is Bushmaster, Olympic Arms, CMMG etc...
Buy a few (hundred) and find the range of the tolerances. Then shoot for the middle.
This thread got me thinking.
http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=83917
"Adherence to the TDP" is a phrase commonly used here. If the TDP is protected intellectual property and only FN and Colt have a copy, how does its info get out for manufacturers like BCM, DD, Noveske, etc. to adhere to in the first place?
Everyone has friends in low places. At any given time, I can make a call and get exact info on what the CURRENT TDP says.
Many do reverse engineer things though.
C4
Many do reverse engineer things though.
C4
That's the word I was looking for.
The military technical data package and ordnance drawings are NOT classified. You can probably get a copy if you file a Freedom of Information Act request or just outright buy it through the Government Printing Office (if on file).
There are some items of information that are protected as "Unclassified - Sensitive" and "For Official Use Only."
Proprietary civilian packages (where companies designed and patented their intellectual property) are a different matter. The US Government got into hot water when a military entity gave proprietary commercial data to a rival, trying to get a better price.
Humpty_Dumpty
06-29-11, 07:23
The Navy inadvertently releases it to a bunch of other contractors?
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=7516
http://www.pepperlaw.com/publications_article.aspx?ArticleKey=198
The problem with those companies that you named actually has very little to do with tolerances. They use the incorrect materials and take simple shortcuts.
I'll bet if they used the correct materials, and they used 5.56 chambers and did the HP/MPI testing as well as few minor things they would more than likely have a successful build. But, they don't want to do it because they cater to the "I shoot paper zombies and dirt clod crowd".
I don't believe this is 100 percent accurate...The TDP allows for tolerances and let's assume the person copying the Colt rifle doesn't know what those tolerances are. They copy everything exactly on that Colt...well the Colt passed the QC check as it fell within a certain tolerance range. If it was on the high or low end of the tolerances set by the tdp and it was coppied you will have tolerance stacking and what results in that stacking is Bushmaster, Olympic Arms, CMMG etc...
[quote]Proprietary civilian packages (where companies designed and patented their intellectual property) are a different matter. The US Government got into hot water when a military entity gave proprietary commercial data to a rival, trying to get a better price.
And this is where the issue is. Colt wrote the TDP (from my understanding) so it belongs to them. The Govt then gave it to FN.
C4
[QUOTE=sinister;1034270]
And this is where the issue is. Colt wrote the TDP (from my understanding) so it belongs to them. The Govt then gave it to FN.
C4
And then FN gave it back to Colt and Colt was like....umm where did you get this because it's ours....
IG - Good point regarding the proper materials.
[QUOTE=C4IGrant;1034462]
And then FN gave it back to Colt and Colt was like....umm where did you get this because it's ours....
IG - Good point regarding the proper materials.
Sorry, was referring specifically to the M4 and not the A2/A4.
C4
Much of the information is publicly available all over the place. I think that for most people "TDP" is just a cool phrase to spurt out.
The US Army Specification for the M4 carbine and M4A1 carbine are MIL-C-70599A and MIL-C71186 respectively with the primary difference between the two being that the former is capable of three-round-burst fire and the latter is fully automatic. You can find both/either with a Google search. They, in turn, reference other military specifications for things like barrel steel, Magnetic Particle Inspection standards, etc.
Much of the information is publicly available all over the place. I think that for most people "TDP" is just a cool phrase to spurt out.
The US Army Specification for the M4 carbine and M4A1 carbine are MIL-C-70599A and MIL-C71186 respectively with the primary difference between the two being that the former is capable of three-round-burst fire and the latter is fully automatic. You can find both/either with a Google search. They, in turn, reference other military specifications for things like barrel steel, Magnetic Particle Inspection standards, etc.
I must have missed something here. The US Army specifications for the M4 and the TDP are one in the same?
I must have missed something here. The US Army specifications for the M4 and the TDP are one in the same?
No.
But much of the information that people like to attribute "the TDP" is readily available in the specifications. I fully believe that 90%+ of the people that toss around the term "TDP" couldn't tell you what the difference between the two is.
I have the specification, so that's what I refer to. I've never seen, and don't much care about, the "TDP".
Doc Safari
06-29-11, 09:38
So when a top tier manufacturer like BCM makes an M4, you're saying the data to make one correctly is readily available and they are not "guessing" at specifications, correct?
So when a top tier manufacturer like BCM makes an M4, you're saying the data to make one correctly is readily available and they are not "guessing" at specifications, correct?
What exactly does BCM manufacture?
Doc Safari
06-29-11, 10:01
What exactly does BCM manufacture?
Good point. I guess they just "assemble". But the question still stands for who manufactures the individual components.
Good point. I guess they just "assemble". But the question still stands for who manufactures the individual components.
Great question... It is extremely important to know what you don't know.
You will often hear that while Brand X doesn't manufacture anything in house, everything they sell is mil-spec. This is the Fat Tuesday Marketing plan. Throw out the fuliginous term mil-spec like beads at Mardi Gras on your price point gear, give away a bunch of said gear to a few mavens and walla, your gear is just as good as for half the price...
The MILSPECs are what the item has to meet -- material standards, performance and testing standards, etc.
The Technical Data Package consists of the drawings, dimensions, and tolerances for the machinists and production engineers.
It's not the tooling or machinery that decides what is accepted, rather, "These are the drawing and numbers -- what you submit will meet or exceed these (within tolerances)."
You can google those for the M1911A1 pistol rather easily -- they've been out for decades. The M16/M4 was controlled a lot longer since it's a relatively recent weapon (in military production time terms) since adoption in 1983 (M16A2, Colt), 1993-4 (M4/M4A1, Colt) and the M16A4 (2004-ish, FN - Colt), with only a few contractors (Colt, FN, Sabre).
TDPs were sole government property when the weapons were designed by the Army (Springfield, Rock Island, et. al.), however with the death of the armories and buying from industry manufacturers maintain sole rights unless the government buys the intellectual property (at fairly large expense).
In WWII this made sense because the government could farm out contracts to hundreds of prime contractors who could sub-out the parts.
So when a top tier manufacturer like BCM makes an M4, you're saying the data to make one correctly is readily available and they are not "guessing" at specifications, correct?
While I cannot go into details, trust me when I say that BCM has access to the TDP and orders parts made to it.
C4
The info/specs are out there. I've spent some time on site with a local AR manufacturer and have seen the US ARMY Prints/drawings for several parts to include Lower and Bolt which they use.
While I cannot go into details, trust me when I say that BCM has access to the TDP and orders parts made to it.
If BCM cannot admit to accessing the TDP, then their customers cannot confirm adherence to the TDP either. It's all heresay. "Trust me" doesn't mean shit by itself.
As long as the TDP remains proprietary/copyrighted, nobody but Colt and their customers will ever be able to verify and validate compliance with the TDP.
If BCM cannot admit to accessing the TDP, then their customers cannot confirm adherence to the TDP either. It's all heresay. "Trust me" doesn't mean shit by itself.
Well since it is a REALLY BAD IDEA to ackhowledge this in public (for fear of being sued into oblivion), I am sure their customers would understand that. If they cannot, then they can buy whatever they feel is better.
BCM (Paul) is one of the MOST trusted people in the firearms industry and is EXTREMELY well connected. When he says that he does things by the book, you can take that to the bank.
As long as the TDP remains proprietary/copyrighted, nobody but Colt and their customers will ever be able to verify and validate compliance with the TDP.
True, but those of us that have insider info, know how things really work, who follows the TDP and who says they do, but really don't. So knowing what I know, I would not put BCM below Colt in quality. YMMV.
Colt holds the TDP and is a VERY good option so the consumer cannot go wrong there.
C4
just so no one gets wrapped around the axle here but simply holding a copyright does not prevent anyone from examining a document or even copying the specifications in manufacture.
if anything a patent would be needed to protect the specifications from manufacture but I don't believe it would be possible to obtain one on this either...
Doc Safari
06-29-11, 12:51
I used to work for a military contractor and so-called proprietary drawings end up in the hands of competitors all the time.
True, but those of us that have insider info, know how things really work, who follows the TDP and who says they do, but really don't. So knowing what I know, I would not put BCM below Colt in quality. YMMV.
That's pretty good info, Grant. For anyone other than the DOD, the TDP spec really doesn't apply (in a contractural sense).
Having very strong and trustworthy HINTS that a company complies with the TDP does count for something, just not in a legal sense. :cool:
I used to work for a military contractor and so-called proprietary drawings end up in the hands of competitors all the time.
When the Govt open up a contract to bid, they will GIVE the companies that are competing the TDP so they can give an accurate price.
C4
Doc Safari
06-29-11, 13:22
When the Govt open up a contract to bid, they will GIVE the companies that are competing the TDP so they can give an accurate price.
C4
Yes, and this is what leads to everyone from typewriter manufacturers to genuine firearms companies making 1911's, for example.
It's not that big a deal, nor is it something sinister or opening up things for doubt.
The actual area that needs the scrutiny is how well the company adheres to the specs.
I have personally witnessed entire batches of parts being rejected by the government because they didn't meet just one criterion.
Yes, and this is what leads to everyone from typewriter manufacturers to genuine firearms companies making 1911's, for example.
The drawback being, when the typewriter company can get sued if they are not awarded the contract, and they start making commercial M4's using the proprietary data contained in the TDP.
To officially receive the TDP, you either have to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), be Colt, or be Uncle Sam. To officially claim your guns comply with the TDP, well, you pretty much have to be Colt.
To un-officially recall that page 123, line 7 of the TDP said to make part X exactly Y inches +/- Z thousandths of an inch... and to use that knowledge in your shop... well, as long as Colt can't prove it I suppose you're alright.
I have personally witnessed entire batches of parts being rejected by the government because they didn't meet just one criterion.
Yep, and that's one reason why V&V (validation and verification) is a big deal.
Doc Safari
06-29-11, 15:44
The real problem is when a company does not win the bid, but holds onto the drawings and specs.
Let's say a few years go by and the government revises some of those same specs.
Now let's say that the company that held onto the drawings all those years decides to start manufacturing the item commercially, but of course they weren't privy to the revisions, and so they end up making some of the components to an obsolete standard.
Now, suppose they only make some of the components and purchase the other components from a manufacturer who has been privy to the changes over the years. Now you have an item that is made partially with the latest specs, and partially with parts made to an older standard that are not necessarily simpatico with the new specs.
This leads to function problems, premature wear, and other deficiencies. I've seen it happen.
I cannot honestly say I know of examples where it exists in the firearms world, but in the industry I worked, it happened more than once.
...but of course they weren't privy to the revisions, and so they end up making some of the components to an obsolete standard.
Now, suppose they only make some of the components and purchase the other components from a manufacturer who has been privy to the changes over the years. Now you have an item that is made partially with the latest specs, and partially with parts made to an older standard that are not necessarily simpatico with the new specs.
This leads to function problems, premature wear, and other deficiencies. I've seen it happen.
I cannot honestly say I know of examples where it exists in the firearms world, but in the industry I worked, it happened more than once.
Amen, brother. I've seen the same problem happen in hydraulic equipment, software, electronics... just about any industry.
Makes you wonder if it's worth creating an unencumbered, open TDP that's not beholden to Colt and their lawyers. The spec wouldn't have the same track record as Colt's proprietary TDP, but if the industry as a whole got behind it and pushed smart specs that result in a reliable weapon... well, I could imagine it happening in an ideal world.
UC Berkley did the same thing with software in the 1980's, to get out from under AT&T's Unix patents. Where is AT&T Unix now? It's dead. Berkley Software Distribution is everywhere. They were even smart to permit people to add their own proprietary mods if desired, rather than forcing all users to share their mods. What this means is that a vendor can choose either (1) to ship with the well-proven, standard version of the software (and thanks to the open nature, anyone can confirm that it complies with the "TDP" so to speak).... OR (2) a vendor can add their own enhancements, compete in the free market, and not have to worry about somebody else ripping off those enhancements. Pretty smart, IMHO. Alright, sorry... I'm getting off the BSD soapbox.
Doc Safari
06-29-11, 17:03
So, where this is relevant to the topic is in whether Company X, which might have a copy of the TDP due to a competitive bid a number of years ago, is making an M4 to the proper TDP as is currently applied to freshly manufactured units.
I suppose to prove it one way or the other you would have to know when Company X got their version of the TDP, how many times and in what ways the TDP was revised since then, and whether Company X (or an employee thereof) is aware of the changes.
I know we may be talking minutiae, like what the formulation of the plastic in the pistol grip might be, but then again we might be talking a dimension change that enhances reliability.
If BCM cannot admit to accessing the TDP, then their customers cannot confirm adherence to the TDP either. It's all heresay. "Trust me" doesn't mean shit by itself.
As long as the TDP remains proprietary/copyrighted, nobody but Colt and their customers will ever be able to verify and validate compliance with the TDP.
Well said...
It may be hearsay and indeed does not mean shit, at least in a court of law. However, if Grant can vouch for Paul and BCM as a whole, that's good enough for me.
If BCM cannot admit to accessing the TDP, then their customers cannot confirm adherence to the TDP either. It's all heresay. "Trust me" doesn't mean shit by itself.
This pretty is much the point I hoping would be made. No one other than Colt may be able to officially claim adherence to the TDP but what happens unofficially is a different story. This is why track record and consumer verification is so important.
As long as the TDP remains proprietary/copyrighted, nobody but Colt and their customers will ever be able to verify and validate compliance with the TDP.
Is there any chance the TDP will ever become an open source document?
Doc Safari
07-01-11, 09:16
It may be hearsay and indeed does not mean shit, at least in a court of law. However, if Grant can vouch for Paul and BCM as a whole, that's good enough for me.
It's good enough for me too that an industry insider will vouch for them.
This pretty is much the point I hoping would be made. No one other than Colt may be able to officially claim adherence to the TDP but what happens unofficially is a different story. This is why track record and consumer verification is so important.
I agree. The TDP is not the whole story. A company can have the official TDP and yet have quality control problems. Just having the specs doesn't mean you always meet them.
I would rather have a properly made M4 from a company that "unofficially" has the TDP, rather than one full of warts by the company that supposedly owns the TDP.
And I'm not implying anything by that other than rules are nothing if they are not followed. I'm not intending to imply anything is wrong with Colt.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.