Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 104

Thread: Do you know the definition of quality?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,519
    Feedback Score
    2 (75%)
    Quote Originally Posted by militarymoron View Post
    the problem is that the people looking at the cheapest cool looking gun still expect it to function/perform, and are surprised when it doesn't.
    Those people are ****ed up.

    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    As we all know, people use AR's for lots of things. Some of them include:

    1. Target shooting
    2. Hunting
    3. Gun Games
    4. Plinking
    5. LE/MIL
    6. Self Defense
    C4
    I would classify them into 3 different classes:

    1. Fun guns (including target shooting, hunting, gaming, plinking)
    2. Self defense/general LE
    3. Military/SWAT

    I think the differences in application between 2 and 3 are significant enough that they'd require different specifications but none that IMO would compromise the reliability of the weapon system. I realize that's probably a hard sell to folks that carry guns around everyday that they'll probably never use (myself included).
    Last edited by Sry0fcr; 04-30-12 at 19:32.
    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.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    59
    Feedback Score
    0
    Couple of points. The TDP has substantial value and represents millions of dollars of R and D. It is the only known quantity in the AR world.
    To make a change from the TDP is to depart from the known.
    For even a modestly complex mechanical device like an AR, there may be no single individual that is qualified to determine if a change is technically "superior" to the TDP. For example, is Ferritic NitroCarburization (nitriding) a barrel superior treatment to chrome lining? Barrel life, corrosion resistance, throat wear, thermal resistance, treatment processes, accuracy, steel compatability, only exhaustive testing beyond the reach of an individual could truly and comprehensively answer this question. Bolt steel, barrel steel, carrier weight, gas system length, fire control groups, gas blocks, chambers, it is all just a guess. An individual can make a fairly educated guess, but adhearance to the TDP can provide the best answer to many of these questions.

    None of my own personal ARs are made to the TDP, non standard gas systems, fire control groups, barrel length and contour, stocks, handguards, calibers.... for everyone of these changes I am making an educated guess, that it will be superior to the TDP for my use, but I realize that I am flapping the butterfly's wings and I am potentially compromising some aspect of performance down the line, and I won't truly know until I have expended the weapon's life.

    As far as not exceeding a specification, many specs are for performance. I've spec'ed out a number of vehicles for purchase with a minimum gas mileage number. If a vehicle has a higher gas mileage, are they exceeding the spec?

    To the OP, it sounds as if you've got some sort of internet Ax to grind or you want to start an arguement, if you don't intend to sound that way, then you must be an engineer.... jk

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    600
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quality is much like pornography. I can't clearly define it, but I know it when I see it.
    I'm an FFL/gunsmith, not the holster company. We specialize in subsonic ammunition and wholesale rifles.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,420
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    The TDP is the minimum acceptable standard. What many forget is that is also the maximum acceptable standard. To deviate in any way from the stated specifications requires that the deviation is allowed as a suitable substitute. Otherwise it's out of spec.

    On the AH64, the two engines are each de-rated to run at half the horse power it can safely put out. So if I supply the Army with engines that run at three quarters power, that's better than spec, right? Wrong. That would result in 50% more power than the airframe is rated for and cause accelerated wear that may lead to a catastrophic failure before the planned inspection cycle can find and prevent it.

    Before futzing around with the TDP, first you have to understand what standards affect safety of flight and what is cosmetics and it's not always what you think it is. Most folks would think it doesn't make a difference what type of tape is used to seal the sidewalls of the cargo bay of a 737 or even that the tape is needed. In the normal everyday operation of the aircraft, it's true. But what if there is a fire? If the wrong tape is used, it won't be fireproof and will let smoke into the cabin and injure or kill the crew and passengers. Oxygen can be sucked in to keep the fire going and reduce the effectiveness of the fire detection and suppression systems. Fire will not be contained and spread before it can be suppressed. All because the wrong tape was used or not installed correctly.

    Same with the M4. While the presence or lack thereof of the M4 barrel notch will not affect the day to day operation of the AR carbine (unless needed for the mission), a larger or smaller diameter gas port, out of spec bolt or leaky gas key will. A bolt that's too soft will peen; one that's too hard will crack. Too little leade in the chamber will result in pressure spikes. Too much could have a negative affect in accuracy and velocity.

    The example in the first post about receiving Colts when the order is for Bushmasters as being out of spec is absolutely correct, even of the Colt is a better rifle.

    But keep in mind this- The Colt M4 carbine built for the military has something the Bushmaster does not and maybe something the civilian Colt M4 does not. It's certified to meet the standards Colt was contracted to deliver
    Last edited by MistWolf; 05-01-12 at 04:48.
    INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    186
    Feedback Score
    0
    A perfect example of people getting what they do not need is the M4 barrel profile itself. Heavier barrel with a notch cut for a grenade launcher. The Military version is a 14.5" barrel while the civilian is 16".....even heavier. And, this added weight is out front were you feel it most. I guess people think it looks cool when actually, the lighter pencil barrel is so much better in just about all civilian scenarios.
    Last edited by sr71plane; 05-01-12 at 09:13.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    796
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Based strictly on compliance with the TDP or even a couple TDPs depending on scope or focus, wouldn't it be safe to say that aftermarket furniture and some operating items (like charging handle for example) from Magpul, Troy, VTAC, DD, BCM etc. do not meet TDP standards, and thus are inferior?

    Yet there's alot of folks pushing for BCM Gunfighter version X charging handles, Magpul MOE handguards or free float rail Y from DD or Troy, handstop Z from Tango Down and so on and so forth.

    This even though the items do not (AFAI aware of anyway) do not meet the TDP for the military M16/M4 family of small arms.
    They are accepted for use on a unit level, but aren't specifically called out in TDP.

    However KAC does have a TDP compliance with thier RIS, RAS and whatever other alphabet item they produce for the military.

    Does this make thier items so vastly superior that no other should be accepted if one were using mil-spec TDP as the minimum standard for parts and assemblies?

    No dog in the fight, just had this pop into my head as one of the glaring examples that TDP might not always be the ideal as based on an individuals need.

    Like it or not, such sub items are pertinant to the function of the weapon system as a whole, yet if the TDP is unquestionably followed the example items are sub par and unacceptable for use or substitution.

    Which is kinda where I believe the OP is coming from in the 1st post as defined by later posts.
    Last edited by GTifosi; 05-01-12 at 09:10.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,714
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    is there better than milspec???

    https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=88634

    I think there is... as long as the material and tolerance specs of the TDP is used as a minimum dimension, why would it not be better to knowingly deviate in certain aspects when a "better" alternative for the application exists?

    IIRC, there is no commercially available gun which is compliant. even the Colt 6920 is not TDP due to the 16" barrel. so what does that say for the strict adherents?
    Last edited by ra2bach; 05-01-12 at 09:24.
    never push a wrench...

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sr71plane View Post
    A perfect example of people getting what they do not need is the M4 barrel profile itself. Heavier barrel with a notch cut for a grenade launcher. The Military version is a 14.5" barrel while the civilian is 16".....even heavier. And, this added weight is out front were you feel it most. I guess people think it looks cool when actually, the lighter pencil barrel is so much better in just about all civilian scenarios.
    Most of us have tolerated the M4 barrel profile because it was a compromise we were willing to accept to get what we otherwise wanted. Even then, I went to the trouble of buying 6520s and changing out the A2 upper to a flattop because I didn't need the M4 profile.

    I think the only reason we got the 16" M4 profile at all is because the various manufacturers simply assumed that what everyone wanted was a gun that looked just like what we saw on the nightly news.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    61
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Sry0fcr View Post

    Can you quantify why it's the minimum standard other than it's existence?
    Its the minimum standard because its the standard that they (the military) chose/developed and ultimately, employ. If there were 30 other specifications in existence that outlined differing requirements for fighting carbines, the "minimum standard" for the military would be whichever of those standards they adopted and employed. It only makes sense though that the military is the only entity with enough experience to produce a standard for these weapons. That might explain why the mil-spec standard is the one and only (that I know of).

    Minimum standard is ultimately decided by the customer. The military, as a customer, dictates the criteria for the finished product that they are buying and the manufacturer that supplies them must follow those guidelines. That criteria is based on the weapons intended use and has been established by years of use and abuse and high dollar investments into R&D, etc. If you, as a customer, have varying criteria for your weapon/toy/paperweight (whatever it ends up being classified as) for your intended use, that is totally acceptable because you are the customer. Perhaps in your opinion, a 416SS Middy with a LITE rail "exceeds mil-spec" but the fact is, that is now a rifle built to your specification and no longer acceptable per mil-spec. The idea of your specification exceeding another customers specification is irrelevant because as customers your intended use MUST be different or you wouldn't have deviated from the military's specification in the first place. Of course, technology (whether it be manufacturing methods, metallurgy, dimensions, inspection technology, etc) that the military finds as being superior to what is outlined in their specification may be adopted and the specification will evolve.

    In my industry the customer employs a specification to build or repair a piece of equipment to, and in many cases they will adjust the criteria of that specification to meet needs that they feel need to be met. Those original specifications are the industry standard but each customer that employs those standards commonly deviates from them to make up for, in their opinion, short comings of the original specifications. These deviations usually result in large investments of time and money to prove that the deviation they are making is acceptable.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sry0fcr View Post
    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?
    The TDP is written for either the M16A2/A4 or the M4. One has a rifle length gas system and a 20" barrel and the other uses a carbine gas system and a 14.5" barrel.

    None of the guns mentioned above can be measured against the TDP as they use a different gas system and or barrel lengths. So it’s kind of like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.

    The term "suitable" is going to be best defined by the end user (in their opinion and for their needs). The question I have to ask is, are those guns listed above superior to the TDP? Are they equal to what the TDP calls out?

    The honest answer is that we do not know. In a perfect world, we could run the .Mil testing on a gun following the TDP and one that does not and then field said gun(s) and watch how well they do over the span of say 5 years (or more). This would THEN tell us which one is better or more "suitable" for a defensive roll.

    Until the above happens, all discussions on the topic are purely hypothetical at best.


    C4

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •