Joined
·
24 Posts
Does anyone still know if I can get this somehow?
Technical Data Package?
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Joined
·
4,927 Posts
Joined
·
363 Posts
The engineering drawings and specifications needed to make the rifle.
Joined
·
6,481 Posts
You really DO NOT want the Technical Data Package. These things can run into several dozen volumes of two inch binders, as most specifications and drawings refer you to other documents that are also part of the TDP. You want just this item:
Drawing (19204) F7267000 - Rifle, 7.62mm, M14
And, maybe MIL-R-45012 - Rifle, 7.62mm: M14.
MIL-R-45012, the actual specification for the M14, refers you to:
Drawing (19204) EPL 8413866 - Engineering Parts List - Equipment, Manufacturer Installed
Drawing (19204) IEL 7314350 - Index of Inspection Equipment Lists
MIL-P-116
MIL-W-13855
MIL-I-45607
MIL-S-45921
MIL-STD-105
MIL-STD-109
as well as the listed drawing.
If you dig into it, the listed specifications further refers you to:
L-P-378
O-T-236
O-T-620
P-C-436
P-C-444
P-C-535
P-D-680
QQ-A-1876
TT-T-291
VV-L-800
PPP-B-636
PPP-B-640
PPP-C-1752
MIL-B-117
MIL-B-121
MIL-D-3464
MIL-E-6060
MIL-C-11796
MIL-G-12803
.
.
.
.
I think there are about 180 other specifications, standards or related drawing packages, referenced or cross-referenced.
Drawing F7267000 , refers you to, and is comprised of, all of the drawings of the sub-assemblies, components, and piece parts that make up the M14, commonly referred to as the "Drawing Package". The Drawing Package also includes the specifications for the raw material, which is itself a good binder or two worth of stuff.
Drawing (19204) F7267000 - Rifle, 7.62mm, M14
And, maybe MIL-R-45012 - Rifle, 7.62mm: M14.
MIL-R-45012, the actual specification for the M14, refers you to:
Drawing (19204) EPL 8413866 - Engineering Parts List - Equipment, Manufacturer Installed
Drawing (19204) IEL 7314350 - Index of Inspection Equipment Lists
MIL-P-116
MIL-W-13855
MIL-I-45607
MIL-S-45921
MIL-STD-105
MIL-STD-109
as well as the listed drawing.
If you dig into it, the listed specifications further refers you to:
L-P-378
O-T-236
O-T-620
P-C-436
P-C-444
P-C-535
P-D-680
QQ-A-1876
TT-T-291
VV-L-800
PPP-B-636
PPP-B-640
PPP-C-1752
MIL-B-117
MIL-B-121
MIL-D-3464
MIL-E-6060
MIL-C-11796
MIL-G-12803
.
.
.
.
I think there are about 180 other specifications, standards or related drawing packages, referenced or cross-referenced.
Drawing F7267000 , refers you to, and is comprised of, all of the drawings of the sub-assemblies, components, and piece parts that make up the M14, commonly referred to as the "Drawing Package". The Drawing Package also includes the specifications for the raw material, which is itself a good binder or two worth of stuff.
Joined
·
846 Posts
The TDP in it's entirety is no longer available on C-folders. There are a few electronic versions floating around though. Several components that are still being procured through DCMA are on c-folders, and contain the sub-assembly TDP as it was in the 60's including specifications, drawings and gages.
Joined
·
24 Posts
So what would I need to do to get the Drawing Package? Do I need to do a FOIA or is it already fully released?
Joined
·
363 Posts
Frist you are going to need the drawing numbers and titles of the drawings you want. Then submit your FOIA request to the U. S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (http://www.ardec.army.mil/).
A then wait for the rejection. The government has gotten a lot more tight about releasing technical data these days. Back in the late 1980's early 1990's I requested and got some M14 drawings (I should have requested more). They came in the form of 35 mm aperture cards (how many people know what those are?). Today if you get the drawings they will be emailed to you as a pdf file (after you pay the cost of doing the FOIA search). Drawing number and titles can be found in the -35 TM. If you have specific questions PM me. I have the FIOA route before. By the way here is the email address for the FOIA office at ARDEC: usarmy.pica.ardec.list.pica-freedom-of-info[email protected]
Joined
·
3,839 Posts
Do you really need the entire package? Are you going to manufacture complete rifles from scratch?
If there are only certain parts you are interested in, you may be able to find the drawings you need just by asking. There are a lot of the drawings already floating around in the wild.
The hardest set to find seems to be the receiver drawings.
If there are only certain parts you are interested in, you may be able to find the drawings you need just by asking. There are a lot of the drawings already floating around in the wild.
The hardest set to find seems to be the receiver drawings.
Joined
·
24 Posts
Well probably not, but I'd still like have it all lol. I think there ought to be a sticky with the available drawings at least.
Joined
·
6,481 Posts
You can get almost all of the non-drawing part of the TDP, just google "MIL-R-45012" and read through it and then google all the references, then repeat with each of those...
Joined
·
137 Posts
I used to work in configuration management. Among other things we dealt with the preparation, duplication, submittal of the various drawings, etc., that went into the technical data package of our products. It was never really submitted as a separate and complete discrete package but was sent in running submittals as the products were developed and put into production although I suppose we could have taken that filing cabinet full of fiche cards (also mentioned above) and copied every single one of them at great expense. That was years back and before things became so heavily digital as we have them now. A rifle would be relatively simple compared to a more modern electronic product of any complexity.
I'm going to guess that even back during the time the M14 was developed and in production, the contractors and subcontractors probably didn't get a real, complete, technical data package. Many of them probably already had significant portions of it already on hand or would get the specific documents needed. For example, MIL-STD-105 (mentioned above) was a standard that provided procedures and tables for sampling by attributes for quality purposes. As in, when in production, for a certain gross quantity, how many individual pieces would be picked and inspected fully. So your typical contractor already had it and was familiar with the requirements. Likely there are also embedded documents which tell how piece parts are preserved, wrapped, packaged, etc. And the standards, specifications for the preservatives, the wrapping, the boxes, the marking, and all of that.
It's a massive amount of detailed drawings and related documents treeing down through all of the parts and back to the raw materials. Paint used to mark the sights? Types of steel used in parts? The stock? Specs for the wood, inspection details, shape, size, weight disqualifying characteristics, finish method, specs for the "finish." Or for the fiberglass, all of the materials, the manufacturing process, the painting process.
Oh, and just for fun. It's all old. I'd bet many of the documents have been superceded although theoretically a later version of a standard should not conflict with earlier versions.
I'd suggest sticking to the top level documents and then deciding if you really want to pursue going for the whole thing or just getting some of the drawings.
I'm going to guess that even back during the time the M14 was developed and in production, the contractors and subcontractors probably didn't get a real, complete, technical data package. Many of them probably already had significant portions of it already on hand or would get the specific documents needed. For example, MIL-STD-105 (mentioned above) was a standard that provided procedures and tables for sampling by attributes for quality purposes. As in, when in production, for a certain gross quantity, how many individual pieces would be picked and inspected fully. So your typical contractor already had it and was familiar with the requirements. Likely there are also embedded documents which tell how piece parts are preserved, wrapped, packaged, etc. And the standards, specifications for the preservatives, the wrapping, the boxes, the marking, and all of that.
It's a massive amount of detailed drawings and related documents treeing down through all of the parts and back to the raw materials. Paint used to mark the sights? Types of steel used in parts? The stock? Specs for the wood, inspection details, shape, size, weight disqualifying characteristics, finish method, specs for the "finish." Or for the fiberglass, all of the materials, the manufacturing process, the painting process.
Oh, and just for fun. It's all old. I'd bet many of the documents have been superceded although theoretically a later version of a standard should not conflict with earlier versions.
I'd suggest sticking to the top level documents and then deciding if you really want to pursue going for the whole thing or just getting some of the drawings.
Joined
·
363 Posts
Think Ford Pinto!
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
