The Chart

MWL

MWL

Regular
Rating - 100%
42   0   0
Location
Canada
There has been a lot of discussion about this in a couple of recent threads. In the end, the discussions have generally sunk to the level of snide comments and name calling (and yes, I admit that I was part of it) that have somewhat derailed the threads.

However, the chart exists, and clearly some discussion is warranted regarding its usefulness, what it means, and how to use it.

Before replying to this thread, please go here:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pwswheghNQsEuEhjFwPrgTA#gid=2

and actually read the latest version, including the links.

Then come back and contribute to this discussion in a meaningful way. If you have issues, or find errors, please back them up with facts from an independent and verifiable source. Provide photos if necessary.

I will not be offended if you can show where it is clearly wrong, it is not my chart, and I have had questions in the past about its accuracy which I ended up researching myself and contacting Rob about.

Lets try and keep the name calling and unsubstantiated opinions to a minimum.

Regards.

Mark
 
I think the chart is outdated and does not provide a correct picture of what makes a quality AR - for example, nothing on nitrocarburization and cold hammer forging.

Also, the tolerance and QC for each individual manufacturer/contractor are much more important.

There is nothing on Fire control part QC and hardness.

These things are more important than taper pin vs straight pin, or for most users whether the barrel is proofed and MPIed.
 
Even in its day the chart did not give a good depiction of the brands.

There are a lot of products that supercede the TDP in terms of performance -- remember the TDP for the M4 uses processes from the 50's from the M16...

Better coatings, better steel alloys etc.
 
I had a conversation maybe a year ago with Rob, the guy who put that chart together.

IIRC he commented that he almost wished he hadn't done it at all because people had so badly misinterpreted it. It was never meant to be a be-all-end-all ranking system, just a comparison of several common rifles on the basis of the TDP.

I am sure that the author would agree that the TDP is the MINIMUM standard and that companies which deviate from it in the KAC direction are not getting progressively worse!

But what is a bit informative I think is that most of the companies which are deviating from the TDP are not doing it to build better guns but to build CHEAPER ones, ones which don't even meet 1950s or 60s spec.

My understanding is that there was simply a limited way to create measurable hard data on AR builds, and this is the closest the author could get using only objective information.

As I have said before, you could have a 90 degree bend in your barrel from the factory and the chart would say nothing about that. On the other hand, it will at least tell you that some of the big manufacturers have skimped out obvious bits.

The only thing I can think of offhand that is at all a measure of the quality of the build process - and it's indirect and pretty f'ing inexact - is the "parked under FSB or not", I guess the assumption there being that a company which cares enough to park first and assemble later will be doing a better job overall. Well, I guess the proofing section as well. I agree that individual MPIing and pressure testing is overkill for users like me; that doesn't mean it is not a measure of anything, though, or a way to rank builders.



If there was a way to objectively assess fit and build quality and so on, it would be great to see that on a chart. But I think what you would see would be a ton of people saying stuff like, "the fit and finish on my Olympic is ####ing awesome! This is totally wrong LOL!!!"

Whereas at least they can't say, "but my Oly DOES have a 4150, chrome lined barrel and it WAS individually MPI'd...this is wrong!"
 
Actually, I used that chart 6 weeks ago when I was first in the market for an AR. I knew very little about them, having only shot one in my life (my friend's Bushmaster, which he said worked perfectly every time).

He actually directed me to the M4 chart, and it was really illuminating. I did take the time to read the explanations and qualifiers for all the metrics, and then looked at how they stacked up. The way the chart was organized then put a clear picture in my mind of the relative gradient of quality of the various manufacturer's products, and I have seen this gradient expressed in dollar values on retailer's websites, and the EE here. Colt's cost a fortune, and DPMS's are cheap.

I also checked the source; the chap from TacticalYellowVisor seems to be exceptionally well-qualified to make these ratings. Certainly, as well-qualified as anyone I personally knew, so I attribute some gravitas to his opinion. Even better, he is C/NLE like me, so I knew we'd be doing similar things with our guns.

In the end, I used the chart to find the intersection of quality and my budget, and bought a Stag from Arms East (great buying experience, altogether).

I wish the chart was still up in its original form, but I get why it isn't. Still, it is still full of information that I often go back to refresh my memory with. The technical details, found in one manageable place such as they are, are superb.

I don't begrudge the chart, or anyone who has capitalized from it. I certainly did.
 
Guys,

Thank you for the (mostly) useful replies to the thread so far. They are pretty much what I was hoping for when I started this. Input from industry professionals and SMEs; as well as personal experiences from shooters who had looked at the chart in order to begin educating themselves, and decided whether or not to use the information it contained, and just as importantly, how they used it and why.

I know that the chart is somewhat out of date, not only with regards to manufacturing and materials, but was (there is currently no manufacturer information) also a bit dated on what the various manufacturers were putting out. I corresponded with Rob on this some time ago, and he acknowledged the same.

I would appreciate it if you could provide links to sites and documents that detail newer, and alternative, manufacturing processes, materials and finishes. Comparisons between the various alternatives would also be useful.

If we can agree that the chart is a basic tool for examining the fundamentals of what goes into manufacturing an issued M4, then there is no reason why we cannot update the information it contains, and expand on it as well. This could be a useful educational resource for people who want to know more about their AR/M4gery, or what to look for when purchasing one.

Regards.

Mark
 
Last edited:
I think the chart is interesting and of some use when making a purchasing decision but a prospective buyer (especially those on a budget ) also needs to think carefully about what he or she wants to use the AR for. For the majority of us it will be exclusively a range gun - are you going to use it to compete, shoot every weekend or is it an occassional piece. When you have answered those questions you are better prepared to make a smart purchase. For example I have an LMT MRP which, considering it is only an occassional use toy, is significantly overbuilt for the purpose to which I put it. For my usage a Norc M4 ( used to own one and really think they are good dollar value ) would be more than adequate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom