C4, you're losing me on this. You keep referring to other companies following the TDP. Some elements of the TDP are proprietary, owned solely by Colt, shared with FN as 2nd source manufacturer. No other company can "follow" the Colt TDP. Colt would own them in court if they did.
Well, yes (in theory). The problem is that there are many "black market" copies of it. It is impossible to prove whether a company reverse engineered a product or has the official specs. In fact, I can pick up the phone right now and get any info I want from the TDP.
TDP is a gov't contracting term meaning "A collection of product related data comprising .... data related to the design and manufacture of the item or system." It might surprise you to know that EVERY manufacturer of complex items, especially when they contract to build for an outside source, has a similar document. This document can specify any number of process specifics relating to incoming material standards, process times/temperature ramp & dwell, chemical/gas flow rates, power settings, hi-vacuum settings, process step testing/sampling, rework/scrap specifications, deviations, etc. And, yes, many of these process steps will be proprietary.
No it doesn't surprise me as I do this for a living. Before that, I was a DoD contractor managing contracts for the USAF. So I have lots of experience with this type of work.
You stated it was simple - Colt is superior because they follow their own TDP. Therefore every other AR manufacturer is inferior to Colt, be it Noveske, Larue, BCM, Remington, or S&W. You dismiss as no consequence hundreds of years of weapons manufacturing.
Yes and no. The TDP is written for a FIGHTING gun (not a target, hunting or plinking gun). So if the AR manufacturer is making a target or varmint AR, the TDP (for the most part) is irrelevant IMHO (so buy what you like).
But, when we compare guns that are designed to fighting, then the TDP comes into play.
Does S&W know a lot about manufacturing guns? Yes. I have been to their plant, had meetings with their engineers and helped on projects. When they started out, they knew ZERO about the AR15 weapon and consequently had some serious issues. So no, those hundred + years of manufacturing did not help them on a new platform that they had no prior experience with.
I really would like to know why Colt is considerd by some as a superior weapon.
I'd hoped to hear from you that Colt is more accurate, barrels last longer, has fewer FTF's or FTE's, and so on, with data to back that up. I've previously been offered The Chart, now you've offered TDP, and I still see no empirical data to back up the Colt superiority claim.
I think I explained this already. Apparently I was not clear so here it is again. Colt
HAS to follow the TDP. This document defines
EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of the gun. Part used, testing done, what type of high pressure round is to be used, how hard the anodizing is, even the color of the thing. Colt also has .Gov inspectors checking everything they do. No other companies has this.
While the above (TDP) is very important, the next part is equally important and that is how the guns are built. An AR built with quality parts won't run if it isn't assembled properly. That means everything from knowing/using the proper torque values on everything to staking the castle nut. Colt does all of this correctly.
So what does all of this mean? Well you asked about fewer FTF/reliability and the above procedures means that the Colt is LESS likely to have a malfunction VS a company that does NOT have to follow the TDP and made up their own armorers manual.
I understand that you are a numbers guy and want to see something like this:
Brand XYZ: 10,000rds fired with 400 FTF and 100 FTE
Brand ABC: 10,000rds fired with 200 FTF and 300 FTE
There is really nothing like this on the commercial side and only the Govt performs these tests. With that said, the most recent M4 contract had two companies in the race. Remington and Colt. If it was so easy to produce an M4 (and per you, that they are already building guns that would pass .Gov inspections/equal to Colt), wouldn't more companies like S&W, Armalite, BM, RRA, etc have gone after this contract??? The answer is that these companies all know that it would take a massive change in how they do things in order to even compete in this type of competition and is why they don't do bid on these types of contracts. This is a clue.
BTW, have you read No Easy Day, the 1st hand story of the raid that killed bin Laden? The author was carrying an H&K416. Do you suppose he knew his weapon was not manufactured with Colt's TDP and is, by your definition, inferior?
I am very familiar with the 416 and consider it the best of the piston guns. A tier 1 group recently completed testing for a replacement to the 416. Companies such as LT, LWRC, Colt, Remington, etc, etc all competed. The 416 beat them all (by a lot). With that said, there are some negatives to the gun. They are heavy, expensive and have more felt recoil than a DI operated weapon.
The main reason for a piston operated weapon is if one of these categories is needing to be met:
1) Do I need a barrel length shorter than 14.5 inches?
2) Do I need to run my gun suppressed a lot?
3) Do I need to shoot a lot of full auto?
4) Do I need to shoot a wide variety of ammo?
For most Civy's none of this is needed or even a possibility but in certain .Mil groups this is a priority.
So back to your question, is the 416 superior to the M4? Yes and no. Is it a more reliable platform? I think so, but at a penalty of 3 times the cost. So IMHO, it is not a fair comparison and equates to racing a Ferarri against a Ford Taurus.
Last, but not least I can see that some people think I am making up my involvement with S&W. Below is payment I received after helping them write the armorers manual they use to teach LE how to work on their AR's. It is a S&W custom shop 3953 and there are only three in existence.
Further proof, I am a S&W LE Dealer. You can see my company listed under Ohio:
U.S Law Enforcement Dealers - Smith & Wesson
C4
