I’d rather this thread didn’t go this direction. If you want to discuss things at this level, or maybe actually explain why your prefer the system you have in more than one-line posts, how about starting another thread?
This thread is for status updates on the new Chart.
To bring this back around but on the subject of bolts…
The new version of the Chart has much more information about bolts. Material, treatment, method of treatment, testing, etc. Not every little detail can be on there, but it certainly has more detail than the old version.
There may well be “better” ways of doing things. It may well be that current metallurgy negates the need for HPT and MPI, but the Chart is about comparing things to a known standard not about believing claims of “better” made by manufacturers.
Ok. I was just saying our decisions are based on science and engineering and would hold up to an engineering design review. HK and Swiss Arms made the same decision.
Let’s take the discussion here
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=81215
Rob, thanks for making the original chart, and thanks for undertaking the whole painstaking process AGAIN to produce the upcoming new one. I can’t imagine how much back-and-forth email tag and phone tag it must take to communicate with all those different companies. I also think it’s commendable that you’re taking such pains to be objective, while allowing the companies to answer in their own time and as they see fit.
As for companies demanding that you don’t even mention their name, I think that’s just retarded. There’s nothing libelous about adding a column title with the company’s name, and leaving everything below it blank. It’s better to be candid. Mention the company name and leave the rest blank. Unless the company is named Rumplestiltskin or Beetlejuice, simply stating their name causes no harm.
It has been pointed out to me that many of the companies who are holding out or who have not replied have Facebook fan pages. Those who are members of Facebook and wish to see their responses to the new Chart may consider attempting to goose them with posts on their site. Please refer back to the first post in this thread outlining who has, and who has not, replied. It would be non-productive to inadvertently harass a company that has already submitted their reply.
My suggestion would be to provide a link back to the first page of this thread in your wall post.
You may also consider thanking those that have taken the time to reply.
Thanks for the updates and for doing the research. Participation is looking better than I had expected – too bad Oly is not into it but I certainly understand their reluctance.
Looking forward to the new chart.
It’s interesting to me the manufacturers who won’t respond or participate at all. Maybe a footnote could be placed at the bottom of the new version of the chart listing the manufacturers who refused to participate. The fact that they won’t provide any information says more about them than if they participated and wound up at the bottom of the pile.
I guess I had mistakenly assumed that non-participators would be listed as you describe.
Or you might simply note… ‘No information’.
No criticism there, just no info. And, who knows, maybe the person who needs to authorize the release of information was never made aware of the request.
I will most likely reserve rows for “non participators” and simply leave them blank at such time as I publish.
While I do not like that Oly has refused, at least they had the decency to reply. I have heard over the years that many of the makers want to “set the record straight”, yet here they have the chance and they do not respond.
Maybe goose them on their arfcom industry pages?
I may not have goosed them, but a few may feel a little bit of discomfort.
ETA: All 4 threads have just been deleted.
The empty columns will call them out just the same. As long as there is something there that informs the person reading the chart that certain manufacturers would not (for whatever reason) provide any information tells the reader all they need to know.
Thanks Rob for all the work you have put into this. It will really come in handy for my next build.
You’ve got to hand it to the manufacturers that reply even though they probably know the outlook isn’t so good for them. Hopefully that will encourage them to raise their quality standards.
Not sure this point has been made but the price difference between a questionable manufacturer and some top-tier manufacturers is really not that great. I wish I had done my homework on my first build.
The question then becomes, is it an angry little penguin that deleted them, or each of the manufacturers. I bet I know the answer…
:ph34r:
Nah, back up and running. I mistakenly linked my thread to a hostile site.
Wow, look at 'em squirm! Good job keeping it civil and on-topic. I’ll be impressed if those threads don’t get locked, deleted, or go quite sideways.
I love how the chart is bashed as “subjective” and “that guy’s opinion” when “that guy” is soliciting the data directly from the manufacturers.
Why do I need “mil-spec” when I can have something that doesn’t meet that standard for the same money?
I don’t wish for them to squirm, I just want an answer. The chart is a good tool to decide what you want/need. It clashes with the mindset of some, but if Joe Schmoe doesn’t need a 14.5" midlength with a pinned Battle Comp and only needs a used Olympic to shoot 20 rounds a year, go for it. That being said, I am 100% honest when I ask them and suggest that it would be a great tool for the user to decide what they want and need. This assumes they can read…
To be clear, I don’t wish for them to squirm either and would really like some answers. An interesting effect of today’s information technology is that the big players no longer can count on dominating the message. In our case, some manufacturers seem very uncomfortable that there is a credible alternative to their spin and loctite.
I thought RRAs complaint that the previous chart represented only one of their models was an interesting one. The information will obviously be limited if they don’t provide it.
Thinking of Stag’s new “Plus” offering, it would be an interesting and pragmatic development if more of the lower tier manufacturers started offering a few mostly-TDP-compliant models for those buyers who seek such specs, while continuing to offer hobbyist guns for those buyers who decide that it meets their needs. Doing so could conceivably satisfy both serious users and the “good enough” crowd and broaden a company’s market share.
However, the value of a resource like the chart would be diminished if a company provided specs for only some kind of premium flagship model, creating the impression that their entire product line also had the right boxes checked.
But it’s not like the chart can include each manufacturer’s entire product line anyway. It would be an even more amazing resource if it did, but my hearsay understanding is that Rob actually has employment, family, perhaps even friends (!!!), and other aspects of a life outside of this project.
Interestingly enough, a gentleman from RRA has provided an e-mail contact for Rob.
On the other hand, in the Armalite thread there are some who seem to think that Rob intentionally misrepresents Armalite on the chart to make them look bad. Or at least that’s the impression I get from some of the posts in that thread.
Edited to remove live e-mail address.