Another potential NON-Restricted .308 semi coming to Canada - Radical RMR10

Bile said:
Aren't we all. To be the devils advocate, I still want to believe the junk floating around is just "friday gun" syndrome. The past decade seems to be the decade of junk production and all it would take is to actually DO the QA that companies "say" they do. Everyone is already tracking nearly nothing off of a regular production line goes through a real QA process anymore. It only takes one desk jockey crunching numbers to cause a shipment to bypass QA, and firearms business is loaded with desk jockeys.

Recap finer points such as made in Houston. Billet bolt catch. Billet receiver? Texas is the state every province should strive to emulate IMHO. Neat.
Click to expand...

I can tell you for a fact that Colt Canada does their QC. My employer makes parts for them 100% CMM inspection on every part. No I can't tell you what parts.
 
mg4201 said:
I can tell you for a fact that Colt Canada does their QC. My employer makes parts for them 100% CMM inspection on every part. No I can't tell you what parts.
Click to expand...

but you just said "every part" ;)

The more options we have in the NR realm, the better!

One thing I dislike is when the manufacturers make trigger guards that you can't change... I really don't like that style like they have on the rifle in the video. :( (I know it's a first world problem)
 
Those NR imitation AR rifles ar OK, i own one of those NR ( i will keep the make silent )and i feel it is a pleasant rifle to shoot, i also own a KAC SR25.

While shooting them you can see that these simili AR rifles will never be as good as a KAC SR25 or any good quality AR.
The fact that it is NR lead you to make some big compromises.

I still prefer to shoot a SR25 at the range than shooting an imitation AR rifle in the field.
 
mg4201 said:
I can tell you for a fact that Colt Canada does their QC. My employer makes parts for them 100% CMM inspection on every part. No I can't tell you what parts.
Click to expand...

I can attest that ANYTHING Colt Canada produces with an NSN under their NCAGE is 100% inspected, not just sample tested. Interestingly, this is NOT because of Canadian contracts - Canada specifies sampling of statistical batches for most parts (things like bolts are 100% tested), and the DND QA program audits those results (i.e. DND QA people don;t witness the actual tests most of the time these days, provided proper records are kept by the mfgr). Colt Canada also sells most of the milspec items they produce to various US Gov entities, and they (so far) don't rely on ISO processes and batch sample testing, they still demand 100% QA/QC - it's horendously expensive, but Colt just does it everywhere because it's easier than having different processes for different clients.

As someone who has worked in the industry, I will say that 100% dimensional, NDE, etc. testing of MOST components is no longer cost effective or a best practise. To be frank, if you use proper CNC machinery, follow ISO processes, and test a statistically significant percentage of production parts, you get the same outcome for much less money. In the event any odd parts with issues squeak through, they should be picked up on assembly or end-product function testing via visual or actual fit indicators. But whatever - some people are willing to pay for the whole 9 yards (i.e. the US Gov).

If CGNers had to pay US Gov QA/QC rates, you'd all riot over the cost increases - so let's be a little realistic folks.

Remember this next time you look at a Colt Canada AR and wonder why, say, a Stag or S&W AR is so much less money. The Colt isn't necessarily better, but a lot more labour went into producing it.
 
tharkhold said:
hear hear, promote this person! :)

I wonder how many CC 'defective' parts squeak by and end up with the end-user... it's probably the inverse of the BCL rate %.
Click to expand...

To be frank, I have no idea what BCL's QA/QC regimen is. Their website's splash page videos show someone improperly using various micromerters on various parts that don't require manual measurement, so that's clearly for marketing "show". In a real volume production environment, you don't use tool room manual measuring devices. You would use either automated dimensioning systems (like optical lasers) or, if you go low-tech, you would use custom gauging fixtures designed to be used over and over for a specific measurement that is part of a formal QA/QC checklist. That is how parts interchangeability is assured. These production gauges would then be periodically checked with toolroom micrometers or master gauges for wear. Typically you only check dimensions where tolerances impact fit and function and the gauge sets would include minimum and maximum fixtures (i.e. think go and nogo chamber gauges - same principle)

Their video doesn't show ANY magnetic particle inspection, dye penetrant testing, or any other NDE besides dimensional. Hopefully they also do destructive testing on a sampling of production parts and the source materials (think charpy, izod, brinnell, mass spectometry, etc.), though I unfortunately have seen no evidence to say they do that stuff.

I would expect a company with their product line and market targets to be, at a minimum, ISO 9001 certified, but if they are, they aren't advertising that fact. I suspect that if they WERE ISO certified they: 1) would advertise it prominently, and 2) they would have few rifles leaving their factory with issues.

I used to know a little about NEA and had a passing acquaintance with the owner (i.e. we worked on a couple part prototypes together that didn't reach production) - we haven't spoken in years and I have no idea how BCL does (or does not) relate to what NEA was.
 
Last edited:
tharkhold said:
hear hear, promote this person! :)

I wonder how many CC 'defective' parts squeak by and end up with the end-user... it's probably the inverse of the BCL rate %.
Click to expand...

I sure hope not. My guess would be close to 50% of BCL parts should have been trashed but of those probably 50% actually cause issues due to tolerance stacking and whatever other factors.
I can only recall maybe a couple times on this site I've heard of someone having an issue with CC products. I would guess they are up where I wish all manufacturers were and they're probably around 98% of their products are built as they should be.
Everyone makes a mistake from time to time but it almost seems like an accident when BCL makes a rifle with no issues at all.
 
cr5 said:
I sure hope not. My guess would be close to 50% of BCL parts should have been trashed but of those probably 50% actually cause issues due to tolerance stacking and whatever other factors.
I can only recall maybe a couple times on this site I've heard of someone having an issue with CC products. I would guess they are up where I wish all manufacturers were and they're probably around 98% of their products are built as they should be.
Everyone makes a mistake from time to time but it almost seems like an accident when BCL makes a rifle with no issues at all.
Click to expand...

I suspect Colt's parts reject rate is much less than 2%. It's probably in the 10th of a percent range. FWIW. They also fail parts for things like uneven anodizing, though those parts aren't always scrapped. They are sometimes sold as seconds to non-gov't clients (disclosed properly).

I have ZERO idea what the failure/reject rate is in BCL parts. Any guess on my part would be 100% speculation. Some people here complain about their stuff, but we have no idea how many rifles they sell and what percentage of those buyers have issues. In general, people who get lemon products are quick to complain, while people without issues generally don't go on forums to praise the manufacturer in large numbers.
 
Claven2 said:
Their video doesn't show ANY magnetic particle inspection, dye penetrant testing, or any other NDE besides dimensional. Hopefully they also do destructive testing on a sampling of production parts and the source materials (think charpy, izod, brinnell, mass spectometry, etc.), though I unfortunately have seen no evidence to say they do that stuff.
Click to expand...


Unnecessary to perform charpy, or spectrometry, or other destructive testing if you have material/process certs from AS or ISO suppliers or vendors. They aren't aging the aluminum to T6 condition, and even then, it's the HT facility that is responsible for this cert. NDT performed on aluminum components machined is also rare in aerospace/defense let alone a bush league manufacturing outfit (compared to AS shops) unless there are areas that run risk of cracking which should not be the case if the design is good and the machining process isn't ####ed up. We do FPI/XRay on welds, on chrome, HVOF, or cladded or similar coatings after grinding, but extremely rare to perform this testing after machining on aluminum. In fact after engineering hundreds of parts going on fighterjets or commercial landing gear, I haven't seen one that gets FPI'd because of machining. Hell these things aren't even shot peened, there's no need, the QA requirements aren't even in the same league let alone ballpark. If you mean things like the Bolt, then thats another story and these should be MPI tested but charpy isn't needed if following the proven HT methods using AS/ISO certified vendors.

With regards to in process inspection, it depends on the size of the outfit and the qty being machined. No shop is going to outfit themselves w optical measurement feeding SPC for a run of 600-800 receivers which is basically what it works out to from experience. You'll ideally be using gauging (snap, plug, ring, block, etc) and equipment that makes financial sense and has a level of risk mitigation built in. For Diemaco/Colt however, a true SPC gauging setup is ideal, however optical measurement fails often and is always backed up by analog measurement as alternate so there's little point in this sort of volume where PMM isn't a thing (its not automotive, vomit). When I was process engineering for a landing gear manufacturer we avoided as much CMM and optical measurement as possible as the repeatability for a lot of dimensions was poor compared to analog measurement where allowed (IE scanning a bore on an average CMM will result in differences of tenths using same program and not moving part, the accuracy of most CMMs are +/-.0002 which surprises people reading the product data vs actually running the equipment) so I wouldn't judge a shops lack of this equipment as the reason for QA escapes, but rather their process, QC strategy, and what D-Key dimensions they are inspecting to begin with.

Their failures have more to do with their design, and QA than it does lack of CMM or sending certified material out for testing. I also don't doubt they are using measuring equipment wrong, which for guys like us makes us cringe!
 
Last edited:
AFisher said:
Unnecessary to perform charpy, or spectrometry, or other destructive testing if you have material/process certs from AS or ISO suppliers or vendors. They aren't aging the aluminum to T6 condition, and even then, it's the HT facility that is responsible for this cert. NDT performed on aluminum components machined is also rare in aerospace/defense let alone a bush league manufacturing outfit (compared to AS shops) unless there are areas that run risk of cracking which should not be the case if the design is good and the machining process isn't ####ed up. We do FPI/XRay on welds, on chrome, HVOF, or cladded or similar coatings after grinding, but extremely rare to perform this testing after machining on aluminum. In fact after engineering hundreds of parts going on fighterjets or commercial landing gear, I haven't seen one that gets FPI'd because of machining. Hell these things aren't even shot peened, there's no need, the QA requirements aren't even in the same league let alone ballpark. If you mean things like the Bolt, then thats another story and these should be MPI tested but charpy isn't needed if following the proven HT methods using AS/ISO certified vendors.

With regards to in process inspection, it depends on the size of the outfit and the qty being machined. No shop is going to outfit themselves w optical measurement feeding SPC for a run of 600-800 receivers which is basically what it works out to from experience. You'll ideally be using gauging (snap, plug, ring, block, etc) and equipment that makes financial sense and has a level of risk mitigation built in. For Diemaco/Colt however, a true SPC gauging setup is ideal, however optical measurement fails often and is always backed up by analog measurement as alternate so there's little point in this sort of volume where PMM isn't a thing (its not automotive, vomit). When I was process engineering for a landing gear manufacturer we avoided as much CMM and optical measurement as possible as the repeatability for a lot of dimensions was poor compared to analog measurement where allowed (IE scanning a bore on an average CMM will result in differences of tenths using same program and not moving part, the accuracy of most CMMs are +/-.0002 which surprises people reading the product data vs actually running the equipment) so I wouldn't judge a shops lack of this equipment as the reason for QA escapes, but rather their process, QC strategy, and what D-Key dimensions they are inspecting to begin with.

Their failures have more to do with their design, and QA than it does lack of CMM or sending certified material out for testing. I also don't doubt they are using measuring equipment wrong, which for guys like us makes us cringe!
Click to expand...

You might misunderstand my post. NDE = Non Destructive Examination. In military contracts it's a ubiquitous term from the mil-stds. No military contractors I work with use the NDT acronym anymore, but for most intents and purposes, they are the same thing.

I'm also not saying every test i referred to is appropriate to every component, but i will tell you a real story.

We once did an entire production run for a military contract with iso certified HY-80 steel. Except it wasn't. Turned out to be mis-papered 1018. People almost died, and since then, we started testing raw materials where composition affected safety. It happens.

We also destructively test items subject to work hardering faults, improper heat treatment, etc at the batch level.

I have no idea if most non-govt contractors even test their bolts at all. Most bolts are not marked in any way that could be matched to objective quality evidence documentation. I find this rather risk tolerant.

Totally agree with your observations on measurement, and bcl's video shows someone clumsily fumbling with digital micrometers on curvedd parts. Totally faked for the camera. All I'm saying is they have done nothing to show a robust quality program on their website.
 
The tier 1 contractor (DND/DOD product) I engineered for still called it NDT back in 2015 so maybe it changes depending on where you sit. We did DT when we questioned material, sent it to exova and got results, but it's super rare, and we made multi-million dollar systems in aerospace. I'm just saying we can't expect BCL to send out each lot and have it tested, when it isn't even done for commercial landing gear (last job was in this field as a mfg eng, then a QA manager). Bear in mind we set up vendors using end user supplier approval process (you know the deal, audits etc) But yea, mistakes do happen, and I have some stories that i can't share as you probably have similar. With regards to bolts, I worked with the engineering team that figured out that 17-4 at H900 could 'explode' due to hydrogen embrittlement, so everything going into, say Boeing gear, is pretty well tested. It's a heck of lot more expensive to fail commercial gear than military, since with mil its a loss and investigation, but with commercial it's that plus everyone suing! haha.

Makes sense to test at batch level depending on product. some of ours was 100% key with FPI, xray, etc, some was just batch. I've been fortunate to work on some amazing mil programs to gain this experience but I think it leaves guys like us jaded when it comes to everything else! Now that I'm out and doing my own thing, I'm trying to take these methodologies into what I do to make the best thing possible, but it's a pretty expensive venture to get everything i want for inspection. Once I'm into firearm components, it will basically be an AS9100 shop without the cert. Maybe I'll need more help by then ;)

Always a pleasure to talk to other industry folk.
 
Last edited:
Likewise, and I fully agree that small shops have a tough time implementing the methods that would improve quality, but it seems everyone on CGN expects milspec for "made in China" prices :)
 
I just gotta throw in one comment.

I find the idea that someone becoming ISO certified, being throw out as a catch-all to assure folks that they don't produce crap, to be laughable.

All they have to do is document their processes, and follow them, and be able to prove it. And pay for their Certification before they plaster their walls and advertising with it. Document producing crap, produce crap, done. Fifty grand or more down the shtter, a nice new banner, and the same old crap out the loading dock.

<sigh> bitter leftovers from spending FAR too much of my life trying to get through a badly implemented ISO-type process documentation exercise in a non-linear environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom