Great article. Everyone should read this.
Printable View
Great article. Everyone should read this.
Thank you for providing this information.
Thank you. I always appreciate the wealth of information on this site.
You are welcome.
C4
Great discussion. Thank you for having this debate. Very informative.
This really is a great discussion. What I find amazing are the companies that produce sub standard equipment...It may sound naive, but why bother? especially when all it takes is a little bit more effort to manufacture something you can be proud to put into the public arena...That's my opinion and yes I know that the almighty dollar trumps quality too often but I don't have to accept it. And I certainly don't have to buy it, so thanks to you folks that give a shit and thanks to the OP for putting light to it.
I was just part of a thread covering this which was eventually locked due to number 3 (another forum). A poster compared his DPMS to his Colt saying that he could see no difference b/w the two. When asked how he was able to make that judgment considering his shooting habits a defensive shit storm followed.
I also am a strong believer that they (the manufacturers) are very aware of what it takes to build a quality product but refuse due to the majority of consumers being as described in 3 and the fact that it would cut into their profits.
It doesn't take much effort to search out enough information to know better.
I'm sure that some companies know or at least have an idea of what it takes to make a solid AR, but my guess is that many manufacturers just don't know and probably don't care. Their goal is to sell guns and make money, as long as they can do that, then why change?
A similar argument can be made with Colt, every rifle they make for the government is bought before it's made and they are giving the customer what they want. So why change? It just so happens that Colt makes what we consider good stuff while other companies don't.
Useful info. Thanks grant for sharing.
I went Daniel Defense and never looked back.
Ok.. I ocasionally look over my shoulder to take
a quick peak at that PWS mk114 lol :D
Good info, thank you very much for contributing. Many of us just get gun crazy and want to buy the first thing we see, then there are those who just want a cheap gun :rolleyes:
As someone who's torn things apart and put them back together just to see how they work since childhood, information like this is nice to see.
While I'm sure you have to at least be a manufacturer and sign and an NDA (plus other legal requirements), it would be nice if someone could
view the TDP with a simple NDA. Something about being sued for everything you own and possibly jailed has kept me in compliance with
several NDAs over the past 20 years.
The science and specs behind the TDP would be very cool to understand as a whole. Thank you for an informative thread.
great post, thanks...:agree:
This is a very informative thread and I thank you. I've just gotten interested in the AR-15 platform and wanted a well tested and meets all MilSpec; have been doing some small research and have narrowed my decision down to three manufacturers and rifles: the LWRC M6 IC, BCM M4 Mod 2, and Knight's Armament SR-16. And since I'm on a budget, I've decided for the BCM M4, but I'm not going to purchase it right off the bat before I do some more research on the mechanical parts and gas pistons (my preference)...
I have many questions that I cannot think of but one. After looking and learning from BCM's version of their "fact" sheets and the requirements for military standards, if I were to invest on a rifle with a different manufacturer would I have to request that kind of information to make sure that my rifle is MilSpec unlike BCMs?
To most manufacturers, the term "mil-spec" simply means that you can take their parts and they will fit in say a Colt. So the question to ask a company is if they follow the TDP.
In regards to needing a piston, read Larry Vickers comments in his SME on this subject.
C4
I guess I am having a little problem understanding the TDP and how that applies to the consumer for our purchases and comparing products.
I understand that it is the minimum acceptable military standard. I understand that it is a propriety set of material specifications, schematics for design and testing procedures. I understand that it evolves.
I understand that some aspects of it are common knowledge such as bolt and barrel steel.
Since the TDP is not public knowledge how do we know a rifle is built to it?
I also understand that just because it is different than the TDP, doesn't mean it is worse. It could be better of just different.
In the case of many manufactures it is worse (they are maximizing profit) and uniformed consumers don't realize any different.
In other manufactures they may just be making things different to meet different needs or making things better. Examples might include things like the "double thick chrome lining" or maybe a lower with a built in trigger guard.
Correct me if I am wrong then, but this boils down to:
Ask a manufacture if the meet the TDP - but you have to trust them because there is no way to be sure.
Ask them where and how they vary from the TDP and why.
Evaluate their answers to the previous question and make a decision if that is in fact an improvement over the TDP. Which clearly may be outside of my skill set.
Since it is outside of my skill set, TDP is proprietary information, and it is the minimum standard, doesn't that leave me with trusting the collective experience of other informed shooters on boards such as this and trusting the manufacture?
Is the TDP only relevant for things that are not up for debate? Examples such as do they HPT, MPI, shoot peen etc. Things like barrel steel etc are not relevant if it meets the TDP as they may be using something better?
Does the TDP cover everything? For example, I assume a 6920 doesn't meet the TDP as it is semi auto. Is there a TDP section that covers the charging handle for example? And therefore what many would consider an upgrade of a BCM charging handle doesn't meet the TDP?
Given that example I don't know if other than design changes the BCM charging handle meets other aspects of the TDP, for example is it made out of the right material? It isn't anything I stress about don't get me wrong. I have had great success with the BCM charging handle and don't think I have ever heard a disparaging word about them - isn't that more relevant than the TDP.
Sorry for all the questions I am just trying to wrap my head around the relevance of the TDP.
A better way to look at it as A Standard.
There are lots of black copies roaming around. The TDP is a living document though so it does get updated.Quote:
I understand that some aspects of it are common knowledge such as bolt and barrel steel.
Since the TDP is not public knowledge how do we know a rifle is built to it?
Yes, it covers EVERYTHING for the M4 and M16. With that said, I would not get too excited about a charging handle not being EXACTLY like the one Colt uses. Certain things in the TDP are to be followed and others are simply personal opinion. The key is to know the difference between the two.Quote:
Does the TDP cover everything? For example, I assume a 6920 doesn't meet the TDP as it is semi auto. Is there a TDP section that covers the charging handle for example? And therefore what many would consider an upgrade of a BCM charging handle doesn't meet the TDP?
C4
Tagged for future. Thanks Grant.
Thank you for the great info. I haven't read every single post on this thread as I am new, but perhaps someone would be kind enough to answer a question that nags me.
Living in NY, I've been stuck with the "post-ban" version of the AR carbine, a Bushmaster in my case. eg. No collapsible stocks, no bayonet lug and no flash hider (just a cut and crowned barrel that creates the fireball from hell).
Now that my son is a Marine and is in flight school in Pensacola, he was easily able to find me a carbine I really wanted. He got me a flattop DPMS, with the A2 flash hider, a Mil-spec Magpul 6 position stock etc. I had & will continue to use an EOTech 552 with Magpul BUIS front and rear. I got an aircraft grade aluminum quad rail and the Magpul AFG, which I like better than a vertical grip.
My question is about DPMS. I hear the name all the time, but have never owned one and don't know much about the quality of the rifle. My Bushmaster went through cases of ammo beautifully and worked well clean and dirty, if you can believe it.
Thing is, I don't have the DPMS, as it is not legal under my states AWB, although I sold my house and we are closing in the next couple weeks. Haven't even decided where to move yet! Anyway, without being able to give it a good working over, I don't know what I have.
What's the consensus on what I have and are there things (e.g. parts) I should change on it?
Thanks guys, in advance, for your advice.
Reading here https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=7376 and here https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=7009 would be a good start. Good luck with your new AR and welcome to the forum! :)
Wow very informative.
Something must be very wrong with my non Mil Spec rifles, like my SKS, my AK-47 and my non Mil Spec AR-pattern rifles. They all work. Oh, right right right, they are non Mil Spec so of course I should never trust my life to them. They are to be treated as garbage, plinking toys at best. I get it. So happy to see the light now.
Please don't attempt to show your ass by making an ignorant post.
1. AK's do have problems, especially ones that have a mixture of parts from U.S/ foreign sources.
2. Most SKS rifles are in fact surplus and MILSPEC. I have seen very few of them that didn't run.
3. Comparing AR's to the above weapons is silly.
I have enough experience to vouch that this is FACT. Truth be told I had so many problems with 922(r) compliant AK's that I no longer consider the civilian version of the AK to be a viable platform.
I also have had enough issues with non-milspec AR's to want to believe every caution spouted by a knowledgeable member on this site.
I can't calculate the thousands of dollars M4Carbine.net saved me by steering me away from junk.
I'm proud that I believed people with greater experience than me and I went right to the "best": BCM, Aimpoint, Daniel Defense, Surefire, MI, Vltor, Vickers Tactical--but you get the idea.
Strange: none of it has failed me yet. I cannot say that about Bushmaster, Streamlight, and other lesser brands I've owned.
Sometimes people really do know what they're talking about on the untrustworthy innernetz.
I saw AK's in Iraq and Afghanistan that were used and abused beyond imagination. I remember seeing the mismatch of parts, some AK's had parts from 3+ more countries mixed into them. Most of them ran, but not always.
The ones that never seemed to have real issues were those that were still ORIGINAL and used proper mags and ammo.
Very few AK's on the U.S market are worth a shit. Based on experience alone the only ones that come to mind are Arsenal.
Unfortunately, not even them. If you got an early milled 922(r) compliant SA M7 they were every bit the legendary civilian-legal AK that was famed of song and story. And around 2002-2003 you could get one for around $650. Sure you had to tolerate the shark-gill muzzle brake and no bayo lug, but the fit and finish was nearly handmade. I loved mine.
As Arsenal's costs went up and quality went down, I watched internet gripes that included: canted sights, MIM hammers that would shatter, unreliable feeding in .223 offerings, mag wells machined off-center (in guns converted from Bulgarian single-stack rifles), paint jobs that would melt with any real powder solvent, and other problems. I even quit following the internet problems with them around 2008.
The sad thing is the $650 rifles were better than the $1,400 rifles.
I sure wish I had my ban-era SA M7 back, but I wouldn't give you the cost of a DPMS rifle for any current Arsenal even if they worked the bugs out.
I am convinced that the only really well-done civilian-legal AK's were the IMI Galils. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone having a problem with one--maybe because there were so few.
Guess I already did. So what?
Oh, I see. Mine fits that category. Something is messed up with it, though. It always works. Go figure.
Didn't compare. Spoke of the various weapons in the same sentence, yes. That's not comparing.
I'm simply roundly mocking you "me so Mil Spec" guys.
It's easier to get a rise out of you than I thought it would be.
Is that the only reason you're here? If so, just slink on back to ARFCOM before the ban hammer and quit wasting everyone's time.
I was shooting Colts before a lot of you guys were in diapers. Consider not taking yourselves so seriously.
I had a Bulgarian Arsenal milled gun, but I sold it. What bothered me was the cheap, crappy FCG that Arsenal shoe-horned in there to meet 922r. I replaced it with a Tapco G2, but the seeved pin and questionable quality still bothered me. In the end, I bought a Daniel Defense 300 Blackout to handle .30 caliber intermediate cartridge duty, and sold the AK.
That, and the rattle-can "finish". I mean, a park job wouldn't have been too much to ask for four figures...but runny (literally) black spraypaint looking stuff? CLP is the only approved lube for a reason on that gun. Dust it with gun-scrubber and you will be a sad panda.
I didn't say the Arsenal was the best thing since canned Cheese. I said that it was probably one of the better ones on the market, unless you spend a lot of money on a Saiga Legion conversion or something worked over by Krebs.
I also don't care about stuff like the finish. Many of the AK's I used had no finish left. If I was getting an AK it would be for shooting shit, not entering it into a gun porn contest.
The AK is the only gun in my opinion that looks better as the finish wears off and has that "bastardized" look.