Advice on my first AR
- Thread starter Terentius
- Start date
I don't know what you own, it's not really any of my business. But last I checked carbine length gas on a 16 inch barrel is "mil-spec". So you're ranting about the importance of meeting specs, but then telling us that the specs are stupid. You're telling this guy his Colt Expanse is junk because it's not mil-spec. Is a non-milspec BCM or LaRue also junk?
Last edited:
Carbine gas on a 16" is not milspec. The M4 has a 14.5" barrel, and if you want to reference the Colt Canada version it has a 15.7" barrel which is absolutely absurd how they came to that magical number but I digress. You are partially correct as I own several mid length rifles and the mid length gas system is not milspec. It is however the optimal gas system for 16" barreled AR rifles. A 16" AR with carbine gas does work there is no question about that. The problem lies in the performance column where carbine gas is well known to be grossly over gassed increasing recoil and wear on the rifle.
It's not a double standard, the gas position is about optimal gas pressures and reduced wear on parts. The quality of the gas block, gas tube etc is not in question as it is in fact milspec. A softer recoil impulse while reducing wear has no negative effect on the reliability or durability of the rifle, quite the opposite. Sub standard finishes or barrel steel will have a negative effect on durability and possibly reliability, see the difference??
- Location
- Nipissing, Ontario
Since norinco makes the weapons for the Chinese Army, does that mean their products are also 'mil-spec'? 
Since norinco makes the weapons for the Chinese Army, does that mean their products are also 'mil-spec'?
If you knew what milspec was and the TDP that goes along with it you would understand how stupid your comment really is.
Again... The benefits of a midlength gas system are well known and documented which is why those with a basic understanding desire them. If you can find me a milspec requirement for a midlength I'm all ears. The system works and with benefits over the carbine system. The core of milspec requirements has to do with what materials are used their manufacturing process and the acceptable tolerances. Other than gas block location a midlength rifle from a reputable source adheres to all milspec requirements. It's no different than changing the handguard or muzzle device, neither have a negative effect on performance or reliability.
core of milspec requirements
Pretty sure the requirements are in place so supply management is much easier because you can purchase parts from any manufacturer using the same standard and will work with any combination of parts from different manufacturers. And you know that the products are tested and built to said standard. Not to mention so all friendly nation's use same parts so once again supply management is much easier.
Pretty sure the requirements are in place so supply management is much easier because you can purchase parts from any manufacturer using the same standard and will work with any combination of parts from different manufacturers. And you know that the products are tested and built to said standard. Not to mention so all friendly nation's use same parts so once again supply management is much easier.
Since norinco makes the weapons for the Chinese Army, does that mean their products are also 'mil-spec'?
"Mil spec" is a minimum set of requirements that, when adhered to, guarantees consistency in performance for the end user. If the export models meet the Chinese Military Specifications then yes it is "mil spec" per the Chinese but it may not meet the US military's "mil spec". Or maybe it does meet the US mil spec - but I am doubtful they would go through that expense without a guaranteed return. And given that their rifle are inadmissible for sale in the US, I suspect it's unlikely they are adhering to the letter of the military specification as they would be wishing to produce to a price point to be able to entice non-US buyers. From what I see, they have been very successful in exporting to a fair number to despots and other questionable regimes - mil spec or not.
The US Armed forces do not have a patent on the word "mil-spec" although in primary US based firearms forums and media "mil-spec" is colloquially used to reference military specifications as it pertains to the US armed forces. The term is widely used in other countries as well and firearms manufacturers typically tailor their wares to the governing mil specs of the buying country. A good example would be the LMT MARS-LSO rifle that is tailored to NZDF's mil specs and hence incorporates modifications far beyond those required by the US mil spec.
PS. I'm not Chinese or from China. lolz.
Last edited:
You're right, milspec is a MINIMUM, but it is a standard. Without meeting milspec there is no way any manufacturer can say they make the best rifles or great rifles or even good rifles. You must have something to test or gauge said quality.
I refer to milspec as the US military TDP requirements. The original specs set out by the original purchaser of the AR15 family of firearms. What other third world hack countries/manufacturers refer to as milspec is of no concern to me.
China doesn't sell their wares to the US not because of poor quality, they are banned from being imported as an attempt on gun control.
- Location
- Nipissing, Ontario
Normally I steer very clear of online bullying and some of the misinformation bantered around on these threads. I happen to be one of the mindless gnomes tasked with writing specifications for military procurement. I am sitting on a military base as I write this, so, I might actually know a bit about the term milspec.
The term milspec is a short form for military specifications and only pertains to a particular tender or supply contract. If there was a need for C7 (AR) trigger parts made out of rubber for, say, training of weapons techs, the specifications would call for just that. The supplied components would then have to meet that 'milspec'! Therefore rubber triggers would actually comply with a specific military specification. Another department may have a need for a trigger group made from unobtainable hybred materials that needs to perform under the most harsh of conditions in real world applications. Those too would be supplied to a different milspec. So, basically a rubber trigger AND a indestructible trigger could both be milspec. Just calling it milspec is meaningless!
Now back to reality and the original topic; if you are happy spending big dollars for parts for your toy guns so you can have the best of the best semi automatic 5 round civilian AR go for it! Our boys and girls in uniform are still getting shot at by cheap, unmaintained Chinese junk and apparently that is still pretty scary!
Thanks for that useless post about common knowledge. If you read my previous post you would understand that milspec as I see it with regards to AR15 rifles is referring to the ORIGINAL SPECS AS REQUESTED BY THE ORIGINAL USER, that being the US military. And again, I don't care what some third word sh* hole country or manufacturer deems to be milspec. I had thought that the term milspec was synonymous with the knowledge that it refers to US milspec requirements but I guess not.
As for your comment about being shot at with chinese junk. Yes it is still a problem, but it would be more of a problem if the equipment worked properly and the enemy were properly trained.
If you want to be that obtuse then anything outside of a 20" barrel A1 upper with rifle length gas is not milspec. I guess the Mk18 is a fraud as is the Mk12 or any handguard, stock, muzzle device, optic, or sling used that isn't listed in the TDP. Not sure how else to put it so you will understand that the important parts of an AR15 are in fact milspec, built to spec with proper materials and craftsmanship. A midlength system is superior to carbine and this is old news. Your attempt to discredit milspec standards by comparing gas systems is weak..
I'm not attempting to discredit milspec standards. I'm pointing out that your standards are of the double variety. This isn't a secret to anyone who's seen you post on AR's or pistols. Everything you like is the best, everything else sucks and you'll use whichever defense is the most convenient at the time even though those defenses will often contradict each other.
What double standard? There is no milspec requirement for a midlength but the data proves it to be superior to carbine gas. I really don't understand why this is so hard for your to comprehend? You realize the carbine gas length was first introduced with the CAR15 commando which had a 10" barrel. You can't go any longer on the gas system with such a short barrel. The addition of a 14.5" barrel was done without looking into the length of the gas system. Not saying a carbine gas gun doesn't work, just saying the recoil impulse is greater than it needs to be. If the rifle length gas is ideal and the carbine is less than ideal then it stands to reason that something longer than carbine would be closer to ideal than further.
Regardless of the logic above, there is no evidence to suggest a midlength gas system is less reliable than a carbine gas system. My primary concerns are reliability and durability and midlength offers an advantage in the durability category over carbine. A side benefit is a softer shooting rifle which equates to faster follow up shots. The increase in handguard length(assuming a fixed A2 front sight) means more room for accessories or simply a more comfortable grip on the rifle.
Not sure where you think my explanations are somehow contradictory? I support my decisions based on the intended use and my desire for the most durable and reliable firearms. A milspec AR is at the top of the list as far as a serious use rifle is concerned. Comparing a milspec AR to a hobby grade AR is no contest. Again, not saying a hobby grade can't work and last a lifetime. I'm saying the chances of such are much lower and the purchase is always a gamble. Without a scale to measure against there is no way to know if the hobby grade rifle is well made or not. Firing 200 rounds from the bench over an hour in near sterile conditions means absolutely nothing.
If you want to argue my choice in pistol then you're flat out wrong. There is no pistol on the market that offers the same advantages that a Glock does without paying the price in some other area. There are some striker fired guns that come close and there are absolutely zero hammer fired guns that do. Again.... It's about context with regard to intended use/role. Not interested in competition guns and not interested in what the plinker crowd enjoys.
