Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 104

Thread: Do you know the definition of quality?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    800
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sry0fcr View Post
    None, but I have seen members deride a company that didn't meet the TDP specs for deviations that, truth be told are inconsequential for the intended purpose.
    That is most likely due to the common mindset (or at least commonly desired mindset) that m4c is not for your average "100 rounds a year at most from a bench rest" shooters. And the deviations from the tdp are ones that impact combat quality rifles. Do you have any posts where someone derided a company for deviations from the TDP that have zero affect on combat reliability? Or are you arguing that m4c should shift the focus to include users that just want to piddly fart around at the range once a year and show off their tacticool ar15 rifle to friends?

    If it is the later I take serious exception to that assertion and hope m4c is always dedicated to those with a combat mindset.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sry0fcr View Post
    I may be challenging dogma but I'm not playing games. It's a serious question. Is the TDP the minimum standard because it's the the "best" standard or because it's the only one published? Also, is it possible to build a "good" carbine that doesn't necessarily meet the TDP?
    It is the BEST standard that we currently have for a fighting weapon.

    To my knowledge, some AR's MIGHT be better in one or two areas, but as a whole package, they do not supersede the TDP.

    One example of being a "better" AR would be a middy gas system because of the ability to use a longer rail.





    C4

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,646
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    The TDP is a set of build standards and requirements, anything that deviates it is not necessarily bad but different. Everything that deviates IS however out of spec.

    For the companies that cannot or will not adhere to the TDP, some do it because of cost, some do it because they think they've got something better, but nobody does it for both reasons. Hence the TDP, a meshing of cost & quality. Generally speaking if something does not adhere to the standards and requirements in the TDP, it is rightfully viewed as lacking quality. That has been the historical trend and for the most part, it's been dead on. The few exceptions would be things barrels that maintain integrity and longevity, or maintain a better MOA, or enhanced features like midlength gas systems, or possibly the SR-15 E3 bolt, etc.

    But these things aren't standardized in a coherent document relating parts to processing, testing and certifications. The TDP is.
    Ken Bloxton
    Skill > Gear

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    whoring myself to an NFA examiner
    Posts
    859
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)
    Its the minimum standard of a PROVEN platform. Proven in the worst possible environments.... open armed combat. There may be a better wheel out there or a better way to get from point A to B but it's always going to be judged against what is a known commodity.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    240
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Sry0fcr View Post
    I may be challenging dogma but I'm not playing games. It's a serious question. Is the TDP the minimum standard because it's the the "best" standard or because it's the only one published? Also, is it possible to build a "good" carbine that doesn't necessarily meet the TDP?
    I think I see what you're getting at. Is the TDP the best standard or the best that is currently available? To take a step further, why does the industry default to that standard?

    Like many standards, there are often areas where those who are writing or developing the standard do not agree and what results is a middle of the road or good enough metric or standard. I am a structural engineer by trade and have been involved in the development of a few standards in the industry and that is exactly how it works. It becomes a judgement call that both sides agree to as acceptable, but neither agree that the agreed upon standard is best.

    However, testing of the standard is the key and that takes money. Perhaps there is a better overall standard for fighting rifles, but how are they going to prove or document such results. The military/gov has done tons of testing and trials and effectively put the guns through rigorous testing on top of extensive use in the field. I am not sure how much of the results from the trials go back into modifying the TDP, but guns built with the TDP as a standard are tested extensively in both trials and actual field use.

    That happens in the building industry. A product needs testing to prove that they have the capacity listed in their product literature in order to be approved by many building departments. Those tests cost thousands upon thousands of dollars and while some of these companies may have potentially better products that what is currently available and approved, they have not been tested sufficiently to warrant their acceptance.
    Last edited by drck1000; 04-30-12 at 18:42.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NW Florida
    Posts
    2,553
    Feedback Score
    41 (98%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sry0fcr View Post
    None, but I have seen members deride a company that didn't meet the TDP specs for deviations that, truth be told are inconsequential for the intended purpose.
    While I don't doubt that this has happened, I believe that the prevailing mindset at M4c is one that is generally capable of distinguishing between deviations from the TDP that are shortcuts or cost-saving measures that compromise reliability and/or functionality and deviations from the TDP that have x benefit to the non-military end user. Also, there is something to be said for a dose of healthy but respectful skepticism towards new processes or technologies that have not been vetted by time and quantity.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    1,151
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    5. LE/MIL
    6. Self Defense
    C4
    This is what it's all about. I have a 90 year old .22 bolt action that still works fine, it works fine because it was made of quality gun steel of it's day, but it's a hunting/target rifle and was not meant to do the job of 5 & 6.

    I recently had this very discussion on a car forum and told them that they wouldn't buy a PC, TV, or Corvette without knowing the specs so why would you buy a rifle for 5 & 6 use without knowing the specs?

    I have no doubt that an AR made from quality gun steel could last a long time doing 1-4 but I wouldn't trust it for 5 & 6.
    Todd
    Colt/BCM

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Northern Command
    Posts
    1,897
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Piss off.

    You can use all the fancy talk you want, but your Bushamster still sucks!






    Last edited by Cameron; 04-30-12 at 19:14.
    Quote Originally Posted by Failure2Stop View Post
    In case anyone is keeping score, Cameron just won.
    Quote Originally Posted by Magic_Salad0892 View Post
    Cameron won again.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sry0fcr View Post
    I'm questioning whether or not you and others actually understand the specs in the TDP and whether or not you've evaluated them to know if they meet your requirements?
    It's starting to sound like you have some sort of personal ax to grind. Allow myself to quote.... myself
    Without the information in the explanations below, The Chart(s) that appears at the bottom of this page is all but worthless. It is critical, when considering an M4-pattern carbine, to ensure that you understand the list of features and can figure out for yourself if a specific feature is applicable to your intended use. If a sufficient number of the features below and on The Chart are not applicable to your use, then perhaps an M4-pattern carbine is not the right choice for you.



    And what's wrong with that? If they're requirement is for a cool looking gun that's as cheap as possible a HK716 probably isn't the right answer is it?
    If that's their stated requirement they're not going to get an argument from me. But that's not how it goes. The way it goes is they go on and on about how they need a fighting rifle for home defense ans SHTF and training and competing and hunting and... then they go buy a product with a set of specifications that have proven to lead to unreliable operation. Examples include sub-standard bolt steel, failure to test for flaws in said bolt, failure to stake carrier keys, failure to stake receiver endplates, chamber other than that ammo which will perform best for those stated uses, springs which do not function for as long as those spec'd, etc.

    I think you're confusing me with the people that use my work product to justify their own purchases. I'm no more a fan of them than I am of those who hate the Chart. It's a collection of data. It's up to the reader to interpret the data, and I've made that clear almost from the beginning.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,519
    Feedback Score
    2 (75%)
    I'm not saying at all that the need for a standard doesn't exist. I'm saying that the standard may not be the best for all purposes. Some things that are completely application dependent include:

    Barrel steel = should be determined by firing schedule
    Gas port size = should be tuned for the intended ammo
    Buffer weight = should be tuned for the intended ammo
    Chamber = should match the intended ammo

    IMHO HPT/MPI of individual BCG's and barrel is unnecessary. Batch testing is completely acceptable. KAC has even taken this position on thier BCG's and I believe that they also opened up the port on the SR-15 to allow for a wider range of ammunition to be used reliably instead of being optimized for M855.

    I would also submit that you can't exceed a technical spec, again, it's either to spec or not to spec. Off the top of my head the new S&W Magpul MOE Mid, the new AAC carbines and the KAC SR-15 are 2 examples of guns that aren't just not meeting TDP requirements, they're not really following it at all. Are these carbines not suitable for serious purposes?
    Last edited by Sry0fcr; 04-30-12 at 19:53.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaykayyy
    And to the guys whining about spending more on training, and relying less on the hardware, you just sound like your [sic] trying to make yourself feel superior.

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •