To me the perfect example of this is the RRA rifles. They look at the Colt 6920 and look to improve the trigger pull with their 2-stage NM design, while it is a better feel than the standard GI setup, it is a problematic design that is documented to have problems. So while the feel is an improvement to the hobby shooter, there is a sacrifice of reliability which in a hard use/duty gun is not acceptable.
They also use non CL barrels in most models to improve accuracy over the milspec Colt. Once again they are giving up properties that are valued by the serious shooters to appeal to the hobbyist.
As far as the TDP goes, it depends. When I was working as a contractor providing maintenance on AH64-A Apaches and AH64-D Longbows, the TDP belonged to the contracting company and it was well guarded from competitors. When a new contract company took over the contract, they used their own TDP. We still provided the same quality maintenance but certain details about how we went about our business changed as a result
Yeah, I’d echo IG’s comment, that your experience comes from a field where conservative, religiously followed preventative maintenance is the norm, and a lot of the TDP data content which was deemed sensitive had to do with the huge sums of money required to determine the expected mean lifetime, approximate low end 3 sigma lifetime, and testing procedures to ensure that parts fall within spec. It’s a completely different QA regime, where there are plenty more correct answers because of the redundancy built into systems as well as the massively improved documentation and PM protocols in place.
Take those same airframes, give them to a third party nation, with the knowing expectation they’ll put crap fuel through it, provide lax PM for it, and you’d start to see that the most conservative TDP far outstrips the more feature laden options. Simply put, firearms are more common, receive poorer documentation, and mostly get ran harder in worse conditions with the expectation that they work above minimum anyway.
There was a discussion awhile back about it. The DoD or the Army gave a package to FN so they could bid on making M4s. Part of that package was the TDP which Colt owned as they are the ones who developed the M4 to begin with. Colt took it to court and as I recall, they settled on having the right to be the sole provider for the M4 (which expired a few months ago) and would be paid a set price for each carbine for the life of the contract.
A company with a .gov contract must have a set of documents outlining and detailing how they will conduct business. The documents cover just about every aspect of the services to be provided including how the company will assure material, parts & processes used will meet the requirements the .gov has set. Because of the nature of the relationship our contracting company had, it also included pay rates, benefits, training and working conditions of employees. We learned a lot about the TDP we were working under and were not allowed to share any of it because the information would allow a competing company to know how we were doing business and figure out a way to out-bid us.
Aircraft companies often have a similar agreement with the FAA. It’s called a Letter Of Agreement. A company will write a letter outlining how they plan to do business based on the FARs and other FAA regulations and submit it to the FAA. If the FAA agrees, they sign off on it and the company is legally bound to follow it. Sometimes, what’s in the LOA doesn’t match the regulations (due to unique circumstances and/or outdated regs) but if the FAA accepts it, it’s binding. TDPs sometimes have agreements that deviate from the original contract or specifications to streamline and improve services provided
I don’t know if there was a “TDP” back then, but a a good example of a company needing to protect their intellectual property is the story of the jeep. The American Bantam Car Company, on their own initiative, did much of the development work on what was to later become the jeep. Later, when the Army finally recognized the need for such a vehicle, took Bantam’s drawings and specifications of the Bantam to Willys-Overland, giving them a leg up in the design process. Bantam laid the groundwork for what was to become a key machine in winning the Second World War and the most iconic automobile in history, yet made no profit from it, simply because the technical data they developed for it was not protected
I am not referring to the suit, but the fact that it wasn’t allowed to be given out. I was under the impression that there are circumstances where the Army was allowed to do this.
Seems kind of weird since Colt is now making M240’s and they would need the TDP to build them.
The Navy inappropriately gave FN Colt’s M4 TDP. Colt sued and won.
Fast-forward and the Army solicited bids for another M4 contract, as Colt’s was at capacity. Remington won it. Colt bitched and asked for a review.
Colt won the Government review. The M4 contract was bid again, and FN won.
When the Government solicits a request for bid they send a copy of the TDP to all qualified bidders so they can figure their ability to meet MILSPEC, delivery numbers and rate, and costs and profit margin. If for any reason an outfit wthdraws, or if they lose the bid, they are required (by agreement with the Government) to return the TDP and all data.
The origin of the “M4 Addendum” traces back to the improper release of the M4 TDP by the US Army’s Rock Island Arsenal to the US Navy’s NSWC-Crane in early 1996. NSWC-Crane had requested a copy of the M4A1 TDP to support the solicitation of accessories for the M4 SOPMOD kit. While soliciting an adaptor for training ammunition, NSWC-Crane provided the M4A1 TDP to 21 vendors in August/96. As one of the potential bidders, Colt was very much surprised to receive a copy of their own TDP drawings, and gave notice that the terms of the 1967 Licensing Agreement had been breached. NSWC-Crane quickly attempted to recover all copies of the TDP and sent out non-disclosure agreements (NDA) to the other 20 vendors. All of the vendors except FN Manufacturing complied. FN Manufacturing officials had balked on one of the five terms of the NDA, refusing to state whether they had safeguarded the TDP while it was in their possession. Instead, they provided a letter asserting that they had not improperly used the data.
Rock River has US Government contracts but the performance metrics are based on the DEA’s specs, not military nor the Colt TDP. Those carbines meet the DEA’s original requirements and nobody else’s.
It depends on the contract agreement. If the contract stipulates the company holds the rights to the TDP, the .gov cannot just give it to anyone
Seems kind of weird since Colt is now making M240’s and they would need the TDP to build them.
Colt would have received the basic TDP or an outline of what was expected to be in the TDP but not any part that was proprietary to FN. Colt, being experienced in delivering arms to the military, would have had little trouble developing a TDP that matched their business model and was acceptable to the DoD or whichever entity is in charge of the contract.
An example would be the granting of contracts for the M14. The M14 was developed by the government run Springfield Armory and TRW, Winchester and Harrington & Richardson were contracted to produce them. Each company received the drawings and specifications but each had their own approach as to how they’d make the rifle. TRW installed all new machinery and used updated manufacturing processes and TRW M14s are reputed to be the best quality. Winchester started with existing machines & processes based on their experience making Garands. The TDP of each would have been changed to reflect that to ensure parts interchangeability and that quality standards were met
So should we apply this TDP to our working Pistols as well? So everyone here uses nothing but TDP standard pistols for working guns?:rolleyes: This whole BS standard for AR’s is just that BS. I have 3 AR’s and would use any of them as working guns and yes I trust my life to them working when needed- end of story. As I do for all my firearms. Everyone I own. So tell me which police department shoots thousands of rounds on a weeekly basis in the line of duty? Other then front line troops in combat do you really need that capability. Tell me which AR’s made for civilian use wouldn’t work for SD/HD situations most of us would encounter? For the life of me I haven’t seen all these subpar AR’s blowing up on a daily basis. Unless some fools feed them an overpressured round- an alot of those were the so called TDP standard guns!
I’m not sure why you’re trying to bait us, do you own three Stags that’ve never given you trouble after 1000 rounds each or something? PDs don’t need to shoot at asymmetric warfare deployment work ups to see S&Ws, bushies, RRAs, etc shit the bed on them. Hell some just fail initial inspection and get sent back right away. Whether or not a TDP meeting/exceeding gun matters to you or not has no baring on whether or not one is essential to others.
Tzintzuntzan
Well the TDP obviously doesn’t matter to PD’s either cause if it was the criteria for purchase then why have they and still do buy non TDP compliant AR’s? As do other Federal agencies. If all AR’s needed to be TDP compliant the market would force all manufactures to be TDP compliant would it not? Or is that the purpose of the majority of this board to force all manufactures to comply? As we see with all the so called compliant makers this means extra cost/ higher prices for AR’s.
I thought to myself, what is this guy talking about? Then I realized you must be coming at this from the perspective that the cheapest commercial AR available must be the baseline price for an AR, and that everything else is “more expensive.”
Interesting point of view… but it generally isn’t going to net you quality property.
Dead Man
Quality is a relative term. I haven’t had anything break on my AR’s.
Hadn’t had to send any back for warranty work. So I guess they are quality made AR’s then wouldn’t you agree? Now I don’t run thousands of rounds through them every year/week. I don’t go into combat on a daily basis, or weekly or monthly. Don’t run them in 3 guns, classes etc. So no I don’t need to spend thousands on a TDP compliant AR like a DD, Norveske, KAC. And yes two of them cost less then a Colt 6920 .
Purchases made by PDs aren’t usually the highest measure of quality. The fact that a manufacturer’s delivery of rifles can routinely fail the inspection criteria for officers who might only put 100 rounds a month through a carbine is a big clue as to how well built those rifles are. Whether or not a rifle passes however depends on how knowledgeable the department and officers are about ARs in general. Those aren’t quite the best odds since dollah, dollah signs are generally the first thing looked at.
As far as the Feds go, you need to look at it in one of two ways. Which Federal agencies do the most hands on work? Which units do the most hands on work in a governement agency? Why do they almost all run Colts if they meet one of these two criteria? The only odd cases here are DEA, USSS and HRT if you trust Wikipedia that far. DEA ditched quite a few RRAs after shooting them but picked up on LWRC for both tactical and patrol units and hasn’t had many regrets for the 5.56 guns. I hear the early REPRs were a nightmare though since they were built around a shitty C-Prod mag that wasn’t even original AR10/SR25 pattern. Secret Service I don’t know much about but supposedly they run KAC carbines. Allegedly HRT uses some HK416s but I don’t know that for sure and would guess that they still have some SBR type DI rifles from Colt in use as well since they can still be made to run.
Also, you lost me at needing to pay thousands of dollars for a DD, unless you mean the ISR
Lastly, if none of this matters to you, because it does to “us”, then why keep baiting us to try and get people agitated?
I don’t know this, but I would imagine these agencies are buying based on cost, not performance. I’m quite sure the Secret Service has a significantly higher weapon budget per agent than the DEA.
As far as DEA and FBI are concerned the LWRC and Colt guns meet their criteria, whatever that is. For USBP and other units it is a Colt carbine or what have you. Whether or not this means they have “the best” or a “budget fitting measure” is to be decided but considering that they haven’t had a recent search for a new service rifle I would expect they are at least doing okay, if not admirably. Whether any of those rifles float your boat or not is not up to them.
So tell me which police department shoots thousands of rounds on a weeekly basis in the line of duty? Other then front line troops in combat do you really need that capability. Tell me which AR’s made for civilian use wouldn’t work for SD/HD situations most of us would encounter? For the life of me I haven’t seen all these subpar AR’s blowing up on a daily basis. Unless some fools feed them an overpressured round- an alot of those were the so called TDP standard guns!