Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 74

Thread: What exactly is in the Colt TDP

  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sry0fcr View Post
    I don't think that's necessarily true. I know I'm nit picking here but I hate the word "better" when talking about specifications. Something either meets requirements or it doesn't. Or it meets it enough that your customer accepts it anyway because you've justified to them that the deviation would not impact fit, form or function.

    If Colt is deviating because they found a "better" way, they should be revising their specification instead of repeatedly asking for waivers according to ISO 9001:2008.


    *Disclaimer: I'm a certified ISO 9001:2008 lead auditor.
    Isnt that what they do? When they find a way to improve the system, thy then have to get it tested by the army or whoever and then it becomes a part of the TDP? Correct?
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Colt builds War Horses, not show ponies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    This is 2012. The world is going to end this December and people are still trying to debate the merits of piece of shit, cost cutting crap AR's. Really?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    41
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    I've been kicking around a build sheet for an SBR. I have my trust completed and I am just dotting the eyes and crossing T's and trying to figure out exactly what I want before I cut the check and send the documents out.

    I want this build to be solid and have been looking at receivers (upper and lower) and barrels from Noveske and Ranier specifically. I believe these makers to be of a higher standard or quality than the majority of other options available.

    I like building rifles, but I am not against the idea of buying a complete rifle or upper to fit my needs. I idea of buying a 6920 only to strip it down and have it sent out to get the barrel chopped and gas port played with. This leaves me with the idea that the whole reason for buying a Colt is the TDP and the chop and port work is kinda counter productive to the TDP standard as it will now be changed.

    With that said, do I just buy a barrel that is already short and the port modified to work with the shorter barrel from a reputable barrel maker. Like a FN barrel as they have access to the TDP but are they allowed to use that same recipe in producing consumer option barrels.

    I know I am probably over thinking this, but I work graveyards and have plenty of time to dwell on things

    By the way, I am also certified ISO 9001:2008 ever since the company I work for began using that standard of metric (wayyyyyy back). I understand the idea of rigid standards and practices.
    Last edited by balloo93; 10-19-12 at 16:52. Reason: more info added

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alabamastan
    Posts
    393
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sinlessorrow View Post
    Isnt that what they do? When they find a way to improve the system, thy then have to get it tested by the army or whoever and then it becomes a part of the TDP? Correct?
    Not really. Colt owned the TDP as a whole prior to 2009. In 2009 the .Mil took control of the TDP, but still has to pay a share per weapon manufactured under the TDP guidelines if manufactured by someone other than Colt. No matter who manufactures the weapon, it still has to be in compliance with the Mil regs to a tee or it will not pass muster.

    Don't think of it as a stone tablet of commandments, but rather (as Grant once put it) as a living document that can and does change.

    Also keep in mind that it is a Technical Data Package for the specific weapon in question. There is no TDP anywhere (afaik) covering AR civilian offerings in any way. It simply behooves Colt to use the same components as they are on-hand anyway. They could manufacture AR's out of plastic and horsehair without violating their Mil contracts in any way.
    Last edited by nineteenkilo; 10-19-12 at 16:53.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Quote Originally Posted by nineteenkilo View Post
    Not really. Colt owned the TDP as a whole prior to 2009. In 2009 the .Mil took control of the TDP, but still has to pay a share per weapon manufactured under the TDP guidelines if manufactured by someone other than Colt. No matter who manufactures the weapon, it still has to be in compliance with the Mil regs to a tee or it will not pass muster.

    Don't think of it as a stone tablet of commandments, but rather (as Grant once put it) as a living document that can and does change.

    Also keep in mind that it is a Technical Data Package for the specific weapon in question. There is no TDP anywhere (afaik) covering AR civilian offerings in any way. It simply behooves Colt to use the same components as they are on-hand anyway. They could manufacture AR's out of plastic and horsehair without violating their Mil contracts in any way.
    Colt did not lose the TDP, the Army gained the ability to bid the M4 contract but the actual TDP is solely Colts until 2050.
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Colt builds War Horses, not show ponies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    This is 2012. The world is going to end this December and people are still trying to debate the merits of piece of shit, cost cutting crap AR's. Really?

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Fayettnam, NC
    Posts
    341
    Feedback Score
    0
    Let me try to put this into a better focus.

    Yes Colt came up with the TDP.... No mystery.

    Why it is so valuable is because COLT and allegedly FN, and some other are the only ones to see it. It IS the "milspec". Military's Specification.
    Meaning that the .mil decided that colt produced a rifle and SET(Key Word) the miltary's Minimum Specification for what a M4, M16 rifle has to have.

    Now what does that mean? Look at it from a cost POV. Colt can produce the cheapest rifle by building it to the TDP and save some pennies by staying as close to that minimum Spec that they can in order to save and pinch those pennies. The TDP covers not only materials but building methods. Manufacturing methods, Quality testing methods is probably all in the TDP. So a company can yes go above and beyond that. However it is almost pointless for a company to try and outdo Colt for the simple fact that they set the bar. Colt also has the ability to change the TDP with the approval of DOD. Making it a living document. Let me summarize this paragraph even better.

    Colt will always make the best rifle for the cheapest. Everyone else can make a rile no doubt but is it better than colt? Probably not. However some are right on PAR. Which is why we here are called snobs for DD, LMT, BCM, and Colt.

    You want to shoot a piece of shit go ahead. No one here will argue. Just don't try to piss on our heads and tell us its raining. Stop with "this just as good as" self fulfilling garbage.

    Hope that cleared it up a little.
    "I know enough about a lot but enough to get me in trouble none the less." Me

    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post

    Believe me, I know about not doing the "popular thing." Be a gear and gun dealer, go onto a tactical gun forum and tell folks to STOP buying crap they don't need.


    C4

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    1,688
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Sry0fcr View Post
    If Colt is deviating because they found a "better" way, they should be revising their specification instead of repeatedly asking for waivers according to ISO 9001:2008.


    *Disclaimer: I'm a certified ISO 9001:2008 lead auditor.
    Maybe their quality process is defined to allow deviations from TDP? ISO9001:2008 is interested if they follow process as defined, not how actual product comes out.

    You surely know, that most common misconception about ISO9001 is that it ensure quality of product or service. It is not. It just says that company has (in scope of certification) set procedures to follow. Those procedures can be set to make crap and be correct by ISO9001.

    Bottom line - ISO certificate sounds good and says nothing about final product.
    Montrala

    I'm sponsored competition shooter representing Heckler&Koch, Kahles, Hornady and Typhoon Defence brands in Poland, so I can be biased

    http://montrala.blogspot.com

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alabamastan
    Posts
    393
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sinlessorrow View Post
    Colt did not lose the TDP, the Army gained the ability to bid the M4 contract but the actual TDP is solely Colts until 2050.
    Sorry. That didn't come out right. I meant they had to let the mil use it for other manufacturers as long as they got their cut.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    41
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by montrala View Post
    You surely know, that most common misconception about ISO9001 is that it ensure quality of product or service. It is not. It just says that company has (in scope of certification) set procedures to follow. Those procedures can be set to make crap and be correct by ISO9001.

    Bottom line - ISO certificate sounds good and says nothing about final product.
    Kinda sorta. Where I work there are rigid specs that are to be followed. The largest part of the ASO9001 is that there are specs to be followed and that everyone is following them. To that end, our specs are constantly being updated and modified and there are required sign offs for each change that is made no matter how small that change may be.

    The LQRA audits are in place to ensure that all spec changes are being signed off and that any employee that is asked will tell you the same thing in response to the same question.

    Any deviation from the spec makes you 100% liable for any issue that arises. I would believe that Colt uses the same or similar methods with the TDP.

    Another question has been brought up in regard to the fact: Does Colt use a different TDP for consumer rifles? Obviously they would in regard to the fact that civi rifles are semi-auto but does it extend to anything else beyond that. Due to the differences, there would be a separate spec to follow for assembly of semi-auto rifles.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Southern Indiana
    Posts
    16
    Feedback Score
    0
    I don't know what ISO 9001 has to do with any of this, but there is absolutely no requirement at all to have any specifications for anything, nor it there a requirement to revise a spec versus get a waiver.

    4.2.3; 4.2.4; 8.2.2; 8.5.2; 8.5.3. Those are the only portions of the standard the require any documentation and a company can make registration (and I have, twice) with just those. Records of design & development related processes, don't have to include specs. Having worked with several different registrars I judge it likely that I could make registration without any of them, with the right auditor registrar and checkbook. ISO 9k is a joke.

    Which isn't to say any standard is necessarily not a joke. Even following the TDP comes down to trust.
    Last edited by Tucker; 10-19-12 at 22:03.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    186
    Feedback Score
    0
    I wonder if it is just a matter of time until Colt starts cutting corners and no longer follows the TDP on their "Made for civilian AR's".

    After all, they are the ones that in the past have put in sear blocks, changed sizes of pin holes, have had three different bolt carriers, made sure that many AR's had unshrouded firing pins, used over-sized front pivot holes, left the "Bird Cage" around the mag. release unfinished, taken off bayo. lugs, and flash hiders, etc, etc. They did not care about the TDP in any of these instances. And, something like a unshrouded firing pin can effect reliability.

    And now, it looks like they have lost another military contract ........... so, to make up the difference they are starting to sell to the likes of Walmart. Dont think that after a year or so that Walmart will not begin chiseling them down on "Their" price.

    Something will have to give......... it might just be the TDP in the Civilian rifles.

Page 3 of 8 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
  •