They purchase their parts from a manufacturing source.
Printable View
They purchase their parts from a manufacturing source.
I'm with you on this one. I may not be a LEO/MIL, or even a hard use competitor, but all of my firearms decisions end up being stuff I feel I can depend on if I were to run em hard. I own stuff like Noveske, Colt, GLOCK, and so on....see what I mean? I want to depend on what I shoot, not just now, at my weekly or monthly range trips, but down the road as well, even if my needs change.
I don't think we are comparing apples to apples here..
I never said, "a company would only buy C158 if they had a large customer base or a large amount of contracts" . I apologize if I did not fully articulate my words.
BM,DPMS,OLY,etc. do not make all of their own parts in-house. They use outside vendors and buy what they need to fill their specific specs/demands.(Which is totally ok)
Buying a full lot of "raw" C158 is different from buying a finished part machined from C158.
Hate to bring up a month old post, but the only items on an Olympic AR that are outsourced at present are springs and pins. Everything else is produced by Olympic Arms. The plastic parts are not made at the Oly plant, but they are made in Washington State on Oly designed molds...My source for this info is Oly's marketing honcho.
All this means is that agencies/individuals purchase based solely on price point, not quality.
Every class I've attended, where someone was running an Oly/DPMS etc, they had some type of reliability issues.
These days, you can purchase a quality weapon from a reputable manufacturer without breaking the bank (BCM comes to mind).
Yeah - I know... Here's how it went:
First, bo-hoss said:
Then I said:Quote:
Originally Posted by bo-hoss
Then he said:Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainDooley
Which is really where that part of the convo should have ended. Since then people have assumed I meant we should all buy BM, Oly, and DPMS - which I didn't. My point was the crap manufacturers have enough of a client base to support buying C158 to put in their bolts (whether they build it themselves or source the parts doesn't matter) and that the cost of buying a batch is not a valid excuse since they could easily plan how many bolts they'd sell and they should (especially the Cerebus companies) have the capital to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by bo-hoss
I'm not sure what any of those documents prove?
Buy a mill run of steel from any manufacturer worth their salt and you will get a cert stating that their steel composition is what you actually paid for. What is the Mil-Spec for heat treat (pre/post plate)? Hardness? Concentricity? Tolerance Grade? Engineered chrome deposition requirement? Etching solution/method? Nickle base over substrate?
The ballistic test data is clearly not M197 and the NDT shows no reference to the requirement of the M16/M4 TDP (your local muffler shop or Harley Davidson dealer may have magnetic particle inspection equipment but that doesn't mean they are testing in compliance with a Mil standard).
As for the bolt assembly CoC, it simply states that they are complying with what was requested in the purchase order submitted to them--how does this translate to conforming with an undisclosed "Mil-Spec"? Assuming that we are dealing with Carpenter Technology No. 158 case hardening alloy, what base form is utilized (cold drawn, billet, forged)? What heat treat recipe is used/specified? Machined pre or post carburizing? Tolerance? Ra surface finish?
I'm not knocking Paul or BCM, I'm just pointing out that most of this is meaningless as it pertains to Mil-Spec and the "TDP". Personally, Paul's reputation and customer support means a lot more to me than any such data posted by any manufacturer. I don't care if certain manufacturers post documents showing that their parts are made from unobtainium--some companies just don't deserve my patronage.
And as far as the "list" is concerned, if I built guns (;)), I would hope to hell that my junk didn't make the list--I'd want my self guided specs and processes to exceed what that group represents and offer a product beyond "Mil-Spec" so my customers would have the choice to buy the best.
It proves a lot of things.
You are correct. You can call up several different steel companies and get a cert for the correct steel and even "pretend" that is the steel you are using. This is where independent destructive testing comes into play.Quote:
Buy a mill run of steel from any manufacturer worth their salt and you will get a cert stating that their steel composition is what you actually paid for. What is the Mil-Spec for heat treat (pre/post plate)? Hardness? Concentricity? Tolerance Grade? Engineered chrome deposition requirement? Etching solution/method? Nickle base over substrate?
The heat treat/hardness rating is also checked by BCM (FYI). The thickness of the chrome and how it was applied also has a standard (that BCM specs out when they order their barrels).
Correct (not M197) and nor does it need to be (as the TDP allows for another option). BCM cannot show what the TDP calls out for obvious reasons. Again, this comes down to how one writes the purchase order and what they specify they want. So when BCM writes out a PO, he uses the TPD guidelines for the NDT lab to follow.Quote:
The ballsitic test data is clearly not M197 and the NDT shows no reference to the requirement of the M16/M4 TDP (your local muffler shop or Harley Davidson dealer may have magnetic particle inspection equipment but that doesn't mean they are testing in compliance with a Mil standard).
Same as above. PO's are written to what the TDP calls out. What the TDP says cannot be listed on the errornet.Quote:
As for the bolt assembly CoC, it simply states that they are complying with what was requested in the purchase order submitted to them--how does this translate to conforming with an undisclosed "Mil-Spec"? Assuming that we are dealing with Carpenter Technology No. 158 case hardening alloy, what base form is utilized (cold drawn, billet, forged)? What heat treat recipe is used/specified? Machined pre or post carburizing? Tolerance? Ra surface finish?
It sounds like you are trying too, but don't fully grasp that the questions you are asking would do the following things:Quote:
I'm not knocking Paul or BCM, I'm just pointing out that most of this is meaningless as it pertains to Mil-Spec and the "TDP". Personally, Paul's reputation and customer support means a lot more to me than any such data posted by any manufacturer. I don't care if certain manufacturers post documents showing that their parts are made from unobtainium--some companies just don't deserve my patronage.
1. Get BCM sued.
2. Give his competitors the jump they need to catch up to him and the program he has established.
3. Show the world that he has access to sensitive data.
So what it means is that BCM knows that you cannot just order a certain barrel steel, bolt steel or have just have something MPI'd. You HAVE to write out the specifics so you get exactly what the TDP calls out. I am sure everyone would love to see the documents, but just cannot happen on open forum.
You are right though when you say that just because a company follows the TDP and produces a quality gun does not mean that you should give them your business. Cost, CS, reputation all play into it. Giving people a look down the rabbit hole sure goes a long way though. ;)
That's great! There are MANY ways to exceed the TDP. At this time, no company does it.Quote:
And as far as the "list" is concerned, if I built guns (;)), I would hope to hell that my junk didn't make the list--I'd want my self guided specs and processes to exceed what that group represents and offer a product beyond "Mil-Spec" so my customers would have the choice to buy the best.
C4
What you evidently fail to see is how few (meaning virtually none) actually do exceed even meet those standards, let alone exceed them.
You sound like you maybe have some engineering or machining knowledge and you're trying your best to apply it, but I think it's getting mis-applied and I think you're totally missing the point of both this thread and the Chart.
Olympic makes great hay out of this "fact", the problem is that it doesn't matter. Would you rather have a gun I make from scratch in my garage on one that Colt assembles from parts made to the mil-spec and assembled in accordance with same?
Oly loves to shout from the rooftops "we make all our own parts!" but what gets missed is that this is meaningless. This morning I made all my own ingredients for a shit sandwich, but that doesn't mean I want to eat it.
The documents only prove what the documents show; the rest you are implying/inferring.
Again, the documents shown do not support this assertion beyond one bar tested in 2006.
Prove it. I find no exception to M197 anywhere within the TDP or drawing set. Furthermore, the documents shown do not support your claim that the purchase order specifies Colt intellectual property.
Are you claiming that BCM holds proprietary and confidential data obtained illegally, by fraud, or contract breach of a third party?
Same as above.
Taken at face value, these documents show: the composition of steel as allowed by MIL-B-11595E, material specs for one bar of steel tested in 2006, what ballistic test data looks like for a generic .223 proof load, that 454 gun barrels of unknown steel were subjected to NDT via Magnaflux method (results unknown), and a manufacturer certified that they did what they were told for a 440 piece HP MP bolt assembly.
And despite your assertion otherwise, there is absolutely zero evidence here that BCM is writing specifications for parts vendors based on Colt's TDP any more than they are copying Oly's proprietary build data. Or that they are even complying with the sampling rates as required by MIL-B-11595E.
Now, before you guys pop a blood vessel, I'm playing Devil's advocate here. Obviously if Paul has somehow managed to get his hands on Colt's data, he cannot possibly prove any of the above. But that's where I think you're doing a disservice to BCM with this.
For example, let's take Shitcan Rifle Company, the hypothetical equivalent to Vulcan or Hesse. Shitcan who sells complete "mil-spec" M4 clones for $600, goes on TOS, and claims with nearly identical documents to what you've presented here that finally there is evidence and proof supporting their claim of adherence to Colt's TDP and full mil-spec compliance. Would you take the same documents at face value from Shitcan Rifle Company? And if not, then you're only reading the tea leaves to arrive at a foregone conclusion. That's not presenting objective data, that's called being a salesman. Trust but verify you said.
I reject the notion that no manufacturer exceeds Colt, FN, or Sabre's product. One could argue that Noveske's rifles exceed the M4 in many aspects, some DD's too, as does KAC's SR-15 series. I think BCM, depending on the model, exceeds it as well (I'm very fond of the GF4; all my rifles wear them).
I definitely agree that there is more junk out there than real quality. And I appreciate the efforts of guys like Paul who strive to offer the best product they can produce for a reasonable price. I have a great deal of respect for what he has accomplished and by no means am I saying that BCM weapons are not everything you claim and more. I purchase from Bravo regularly, their customer service is first rate, and I'll continue to send them my money for quality goods--that's the best endorsement a consumer can give.
ETA:
Let me add that Paul doesn't need to prove anything to anyone. He's earned his reputation in this industry. If you produce an inferior product and make great claims to the contrary it will catch up with you. But give people their money's worth and exceed their expectations and you'll have what BCM enjoys right now. I don't expect any manufacturer to disclose proprietary information. I'd rather see BCM stick with their established marketing and leave this document can of worms alone.
This is where common sense, and an understanding of what the TDP calls out comes into play. Meaning, that you cannot put together a program like BCM has without this understanding. This is why you have NOT seen ANY other company put out documents and info that BCM has on their rifle program.
How many documents would it take then? All of them? The reason why certain dates were chosen was because they wanted folks to realize that BCM's dedication to producing quality and following the TDP spec goes way back.Quote:
Again, the documents shown do not support this assertion beyond one bar tested in 2006.
Would love to, but cannot as the document is controlled (and yes I have the ability to read and or get info about any section of the TDP I so desire). I am sure that won't be good enough for you (which I am fine with). The fact remains that there are two ways to skin this cat and the TDP DOES ALLOW for variation/options.Quote:
Prove it. I find no exception to M197 anywhere within the TDP or drawing set. Furthermore, the documents shown do not support your claim that the purchase order specifies Colt intellectual property.
Are you claiming that BCM holds proprietary and confidential data obtained illegally, by fraud, or contract breach of a third party?
I make no claims as too what BCM has or does not have. Read my first post about common sense and applying logic to these documents.
Again, common sense comes into play here. BCM can only state so much without showing their hand. Any company that would show PROOF that they have full access to the TDP is a fool. Now some companies can and will try and follow this logic when they attempt to convince the public that they have the same quality as BCM. The main way to catch them playing the "mil-spec game" is in how they write out their program details. Meaning, if you happened to read the long thread that Paul wrote on TOS and on his forum here, you would quickly realize that he knows exactly what he is doing, how much labor went into the development of his program and where he got the details from.Quote:
Taken at face value, these documents show: the composition of steel as allowed by MIL-B-11595E, material specs for one bar of steel tested in 2006, what ballistic test data looks like for a generic .223 proof load, that 454 gun barrels of unknown steel were subjected to NDT via Magnaflux method (results unknown), and a manufacturer certified that they did what they were told for a 440 piece HP MP bolt assembly.
And despite your assertion otherwise, there is absolutely zero evidence here that BCM is writing specifications for parts vendors based on Colt's TDP any more than they are copying Oly's proprietary build data. Or that they are even complying with the sampling rates as required by MIL-B-11595E.
Yes, you have to play connect the dots a little, but the truth is easy to figure out.
A lot companies claim "mil-spec" for their AR's. None have submitted one single document to this fact. BCM has lead the way and will continue to do so.Quote:
Now, before you guys pop a blood vessel, I'm playing Devil's advocate here. Obviously if Paul has somehow managed to get his hands on Colt's data, he cannot possibly prove any of the above. But that's where I think you're doing a disservice to BCM with this.
Paul and I are big fans of educating the consumer. Paul has been shown this thread and he approved of what I have written in it. So from BCM's POV, no disservice has been done.
To have a mil-spec rifle program, you cannot JUST list documents. You have to give details as too what you are doing and why. As I said earlier, if you had a chance to read Paul's lengthy thread about their program, you come away with the realization that he knows EXACTLY what he is doing and why. I am sure that some companies will list all kinds of paper work in the future to support their claims. This is where the informed consumer comes in and asks "WHY?" Why do you do it that way? What drove you to use that steel? Or why did you have this lab do that MPI and not another one or why do you have to black out your Purchase Orders?Quote:
For example, let's take Shitcan Rifle Company, the hypothetical equivalent to Vulcan or Hesse. Shitcan who sells complete "mil-spec" M4 clones for $600, goes on TOS, and claims with nearly identical documents to what you've presented here that finally there is evidence and proof supporting their claim of adherence to Colt's TDP and full mil-spec compliance. Would you take the same documents at face value from Shitcan Rifle Company? And if not, then you're only reading the tea leaves to arrive at a foregone conclusion. That's not presenting objective data, that's called being a salesman. Trust but verify you said.
Personally I would be suspicious of ANY AR manufacturer that did not black out certain details. Reason being is because if they REALLY KNEW what they were dealing with, they would guard it like gold.
When we talk about creating a weapon that exceeds the TDP, we have to look at the ENTIRE document (not just parts of it). So yes, some companies do use a better made barrel than what is spec'd or use a better bolt/barrel extension. As a whole though, are their ENTIRE rifles superior to what the TDP calls out? Nope. They would need to update EVERYTHING on the gun, right down to the springs and detents.Quote:
I reject the notion that no manufacturer exceeds Colt, FN, or Sabre's product. One could argue that Noveske's rifles exceed the M4 in many aspects, some DD's too, as does KAC's SR-15 series. I think BCM, depending on the model, exceeds it as well (I'm very fond of the GF4; all my rifles wear them).
Luckily people are different. Some are fan boys and will buy whatever that manufacturer puts out (no matter the quality). Still others will buy from a manufacturer based 100% on cost, availability, CS or if they think the product will impress their friends.Quote:
I definitely agree that there is more junk out there than real quality. And I appreciate the efforts of guys like Paul who strive to offer the best product they can produce for a reasonable price. I have a great deal of respect for what he has accomplished and by no means am I saying that BCM weapons are not everything you claim and more. I purchase from Bravo regularly, their customer service is first rate, and I'll continue to send them my money for quality goods--that's the best endorsement a consumer can give.
ETA:
Let me add that Paul doesn't need to prove anything to anyone. He's earned his reputation in this industry. If you produce an inferior product and make great claims to the contrary it will catch up with you. But give people their money's worth and exceed their expectations and you'll have what BCM enjoys right now. I don't expect any manufacturer to disclose proprietary information. I'd rather see BCM stick with their established marketing and leave this document can of worms alone.
For me, I look at the specs first. If the quality is there, then CS, availability and cost matter little to me (as I most likely won't need or be concerned about any of those things).
BCM's marketing is about education of the consumer and they are the ONLY company sticking their neck out there to do it. This is not a "strategy" but a better way to do business.
C4
Thanks for the serene reply and though we don't necessarily see eye to eye, I think we can simply agree to disagree on many of the points discussed.
Regardless of that, best of luck to Paul and BCM.
Well, since you put it that way, we disagree that the documents shown prove anything other than what they show. We disagree that you have verified anything asserted, and we disagree that so-called marketing data requires more than blind faith. We disagree about what the TDP calls out for proof loads, and because of that, we must disagree that you've actually seen it. And we obviously disagree that there is another way for a manufacturer to legally and ethically acquire Colt's intellectual property without theft, third party contract breach, or US Government contract award.
I guess since we don't have to agree to that, we just plain disagree!
Have you ever looked at the TDP? If you have not, then how could you disagree with anything (as you don't know what you don't know)?
You disagree with what I have verified and stated because you are trying to play devils advocate and ignoring all common sense. So in that case, don't waste any more BW and keep out of my thread (as you are wasting everyones time).
As far as an illegal TDP, I would guestimate that 80% of all AR manufacturers and AR part manufacturers have a copy of it in some form or another (FYI). It is easy to reverse engineer most of it (if you are willing to spend the money and time).
C4
I just cried. There are 16 x AR15s in my safe, and only three of them measure up. Two are high power match guns so they don't count. Some are stainless spr type guns, so they don't really count either although now I feel they are inferior compared to the Noveske 416R barrels described above. 6 which are inferior are non-mil spec CL barrels. Dang! Now I am on a mission to upgrade... :laugh:
Thanks for the great info.
Does anyone have the specs for M249 barrel steel for comparison?
I hope our discussion hasn't been a waste of folk's time; I've learned quite a bit in the course of it. And as far as not knowing what I don't know you must have misread my original comment regarding Colt's TDP but it doesn't really matter. I see where you're coming from so we're all good. Thanks for your time.
guys i want to apologize for my comments. i was and am misinformed and the lack of me being able to put into words what im thinking makes me look and feel like an ass. i apologize to who i offended, and to grant for making ASSumptions.
This thread is about BCM rifles and the importance of knowing what you're buying, ie, being an informed consumer. It is not a Spike's gripe thread. This has been discussed time and time again on this forum, and that discussion is over. Go and read the thread on it, and if you are unhappy with the results of that discussion you may contact the individual in question via private message.
It's people like you who have given Spike's a bad reputation to some on this forum. Please be constructive or go somewhere else.
You are missing the point.
For something to be accepted by the military it has to pass quality control inspections and tests. That requirement is not present with businesses that market directly to the civilian market, unless they choose to. The companies that are recommended are those that impose a higher standard on themselves, and it shows through performance.
If you are alledging that every reputable instructor, every moderator, every Indusry Professional and SME, and every high-volume shooter are shills for BCM, you need to reflect on the plausability of that accusation.
We also recommend Noveske, KAC, Colt, and others. We let people know what we see and can prove. If you think that a company/product is equal to or better than what we recommend, please step forward with your proof. We have no interest in closing businesses down, we have no grudge, we simply recommend that which works consistently to our standards. Not everyone has our standards or breadth of data, which is why there are lots of people that are completely satisfied with their Olys/BMs/DPMSs/etc.
Being a site sponsor does not save the company from criticism either. There are plenty of threads about EoTech, POF, Wilson, Lancer, etc in which Staff and Mods will recommend different products or criticize oferings from those companies. You want to know why? Because we aren't whores. We want to share our knowledge and experience with the community. We don't get paid. All we get is some miniscule amount of satisfaction and lots of angry PMs.
So take your accusations and shove them up your nose.
how do i give spikes a bad name. i own a spikes m4 and a bcm m16 clone. and if you call any manufacture that is worth a grain of salt they will produce so called tech documents. guess i pissed the fan boys off
How? You made a technical thread (about educating the consumer) into a pissing match between two AR manufacturers!
The definition of a fan boy is one that goes into a thread (that is not a comparison thread) and attempts to push their favorite brand.
In case you did not realize it, that would be you.
C4
guys i want to apologize for my comments. i was and am misinformed and the lack of me being able to put into words what im thinking makes me look and feel like an ass. i apologize to who i offended, and to grant for making ASSumptions. this is the qoute from grant that made me realize he wasnt about just bashing a product,
Originally Posted by SuppressingFire
I have to say that after the amount of pages this thread took up, I'm extremely disappointed there is no conclusive proof to support anyones point here. Grant, I appreciate your latest message but if the barrel did not do well during testing, I think you are obligated to let us know so nobody makes a mistake and purchases an inferior or dangerous product. At this point I don't care about the debate, I just want to know if the materials are quality and as claimed. I say this because obviously throughout this thread people have purchased products from this company regardless of not knowing what was what. I appologize for putting you on the spot, I just really want to know if I should look elsewhere to buy my next AR.
I understand your POV, but I ask that you understand where I am coming from. The MIL-B-11595E spec (for instance) has something like 40 different requirements. So if the barrel steel lines up with the compounds spec'd out, it might fail the other 39. The fight would never end and a winner would never be identified. It is a lose lose situation for all parties involved.
Let me state the following for you. Would I take a ST AR over 80% of what is on the market? Yep, sure would. Is buying a ST AR going to put you in danger? NO.
Buy a ST product because you like the company, their CS, their pricing or how they build their products. If you have questions about how they are building their AR's, call them and ask them for the certs, specs or whatever will satisfy you. I am responsible for me and my company. Not for Tom and his company. So no, I am not obligated to anyone for anything (sorry).
i really thought you were being unbiased but after reading 60 some pages i really think you are speking from experience
Disregard; PM's inbound.
ETA: PMs traded. My issue was getting hung-up on Colt's M4 TDP, the many that erroneously claim to have it, and worse the ones who might call attention to the significance of M197 being the only option. We see and submit variance requests/approvals all the time at our shop but even when granted do not typically make a permanent change to the formal spec. My point was that for Colt's M4 data pack, you won't see such a variance. Just because a military contractor has been granted one for another platform doesn't change the as-specified requirement. Likewise, it doesn't mean the variance is somehow inferior or less significant, it's just another option. Besides, when it comes to proof rounds I'm partial to Black Hills any damn way.
As I mentioned to Paul, and hopefully he won't mind me repeating here, his professionalism, service, and reputation mean so much more than simple documents offered to pacify the naysayers. It's just that the tiny details, when not presented accurately, can cause credibility issues even when there's no need.
I have no idea what you're talking about concerning SBRs but I'd be happy to discuss theory anytime, just not in this thread. Send me a link via PM and we can discuss in the relevant place.
ETA: SBR Thread https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=3637 regarding legal comments from 4(!) years ago (well before ATF consolidated rulings/opinions on their website), along with my knowledge base explained via PM.
To answer Austin_Nichols question, the answer is simple. One of the current .Mil Contract holders does NOT use the M197 load. There is variant that is allowed. This is why BCM does not use it either.
C4
The real issue here isn't technical. Some people simply refuse to believe that the time and effort people like Paul at Bravo Co. put into their product will ever manifest itself. We can talk about performance all day long and they'll just rationalize or stick fingers in their ears.