Quote:
Originally Posted by
Austin_Nichols
The documents only prove what the documents show; the rest you are implying/inferring.
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.
Quote:
Again, the documents shown do not support this assertion beyond one bar tested in 2006.
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:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, you have to play connect the dots a little, but the truth is easy to figure out.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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 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.
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.
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