Differences in ARs?

I got this from the AR15armory. Written by the guys at Bravo Company USA. I think it is important because of the mil-spec claims of some companies.

"What is Mil Spec ?

What does that term mean to you ?

It is an overused term in this industry (and at times, I have been as guilty as anyone).

I think the term and its honest definition has evolved over time.

In order to understand how it is used today, I think we need to take a look back at the civilian/commercial AR industry in its' relative infancy. In the days where there was only Colt and a bunch of low budget copies.
If we look back about 15-20 years ago, the quality of the average parts offered on the market was significantly less than what we choose from today. If you picked up a parts kit or complete rifle, chances are your set up included such products like:
-Cast front sights instead of forged
-Roll pins used instead of steel dowels to pin a front sight
-Sling swivels with no rubber sleeve
-Washers for flash hiders that came straight from a hardware store
-Plastic handguards with no heat shield or if they had them – plastic
-Plastic delta ring
-Receivers that an inferior plating (Not HC anodized)
-Chrome molly was presented as chrome lined
-Lower parts that were probably reject scrap M16 parts that were sloppily cut and reparked
-A buffer and spring not fit for an airsoft rifle

Then as the market grew, so did competition. Competition spurred strategies such as “our parts are better than your parts because of . . . “. Which led to a slow influx in higher quality parts and rifles. In many ways (as I remember it) Bushmaster (aka Quality Parts Inc.) led this charge with a article in Spring 1992 Soldier of Fortunes “Fighting Firearms”, titled Bushmaster Builds a Better M16. At the time Bushmaster was the only major company making a rifle with a chrome lined bore, correct trigger and takedown pins, and a bayonet lug,

As the market and competition grew, the term Mil-Spec became one of the most popular descriptions in the industry. It was a term used to define a difference between some lower quality materials and some new higher quality materials.
Its my opinion that an honest use of the term "Mil-Spec" in that context was to say, our delta rings are not plastic but are made of aluminum – just like the military version.
Or our front sights are not cast, but forged like the M16 would have. In that it described the use of materials and manufacturing that are generally consistent with the military issued version.

Well with the current continuing growth of the AR industry coupled with the powerful tool of the internet, information (and sometimes mis-information) can be disseminated at a rate never before imagined. With this, terms and expectations have changed dramatically to the sophisticated consumer.

So what does Mil-Spec mean today ?
My $.02 - In its most technical and literal sense it means as defined by the TDP (TDP is Technical Data Package, an acronym I learned from JLM). As I understand it the TDP would be all of the manufacturing dimensions, material and manufacturing specifications, quality control testing, and tolerances (+/-) as set forth by Colt for the production of the parts and complete rifles as delivered to the US Military. This information is owned by Colt and is very purposely not released for public consumption. (FN now leases this info for the US M16 rifles it produces) Which really means that by a strick literal definition none of us really know what the true 100% Mil-Spec is. Or you could say there are a very small handful of people in the world that do – and they ain’t talking. Although I do like the Colt product (not the political BS), the above paragraph should not be taken as an advertisement for civilian Colt. Because I personally do not believe that true 100% Mil-Spec QC is anything civilians or LE will get from a store bought AR15. My personal belief is that a true 100% Mil-Spec carbine can only be acquired (indirectly) through your local military recruiters office. (i.e. – enlistment or re-enlistment). But that debate is perhaps a different topic?

The Colt TDP is to say that every other AR has been reverse engineered. Which really does not directly translate into a bad thing. There are thousands and thousands of private security, law enforcement, and other non-military personal that are fighting for their lives and our freedoms with a DPMS, Bushmaster, Rock River or Armalite rifle – all over the world, and they are doing quite well with it.

So back to the topic at hand – the contemporary definition of Mil-Spec. If the sophisticated consumer defined true 100% Mil-Spec as the TDP, and none of us consumers will have the TDP and therefore can not confirm that a product complies to the TDP, then the term can only be used in reference to a military context discussion about an issued rifle.

I feel the honest contemporary definition of Mil-Spec in the context in which we use it would be “Mil-Spec” is short for “Mil-Spec feature”.
Some examples:
To describe a Mil-Spec trigger pin or take down pins, is to say they are the standardized and not the oversized type.
To describe a Mil-Spec front sight, is to say that it is forged and a taller “F” to be barreled to a flattop and the shorter to be barreled to an A2 upper.
To describe a Mil-Spec M4 profile barrel, is to say that it is 4150, chrome lined, and 1/7 twist. Or even to say regarding chrome molly/chrome lined vs. chrome molly, where chrome lining is Mil-Spec.
To describe a Mil-Spec stock, is to say that the dimensions are compatible with Colt stocks as opposed to the large OD of various commercial units.

It is my opinion that this is the current definition of the term Mil-Spec (Mil-Spec = Mil-Spec feature)."

http://www.ar15armory.com/forums/Mil-Spec-t557.html&mode=threaded
 
For that budget, you will end up with a CQ or with something very used and no room for modifications. US made AR start at $1,500 plus tax, modifications, etc, so $3,000 seems to be a more realistic budget.

In regards to resale value, if you buy a CQ today for $900, you will maybe loose a few hundred $$ if you gonne sell it in 2/3 years. A $3,000 AR will bring you maybe $2,000. The more you spend, the more you loose, meaning you have to be sure what you want and keep it.

I know it is not an AR, but read the current review of the CZ2000 in "Combat Arms" magazine and maybe the CZ858 might be a good choice for you. Czech made is NOT comparable with China made. Add a few goodies like here:http://www.israeli-weapons.com/store/index.html and for under $1,000 you will have a good start. Unless AR means firing small bullets to you, hehe, kidding.

.
 
Again, it depends on what you want - if you're looking for a rifle to take to the range and put holes in paper (and learn how to use an AR - always a handy skill) there's nothing wrong with the Norc. They shoot reasonably well, let you get a feel for the rifle and in my experience are dead nuts reliable. I was in the process of building an AR when they hit the market, I had a completed Armalite lower, assembled using a Stag LPK, Magpul stock, tube and buffer and Hogue grip. When I looked at the cost of buying a complete upper with the features that the Norc has; chrome lined barrel, 14.5 inch with a 5.56 chamber, Full Auto bolt carrier group, taper pinned front sight, thread on Flash Hider etc, I realized I was going to be looking at a good chunk of change more than buying the complete Norc. So I picked one up. I do have to admit that if there's a weakness with the Norc, it's the lower - I'm pretty sure the uppers come straight off the military production line (it's the issue weapon of Paraguay, they also use it in Venezuela and Iran) while the lowers are made somewhere else that was cheaper. I say this because the quality of the machining on the lowers isn't equal to the uppers at all - you'll find tool marks and rough finishing. My answer was to put the Armalite lower under the Norc upper, works perfectly feels great and it still cost less than I would have spent buying a complete upper. The real problem you'll find with the AR is that they eat money like Oprah eats cheesecake, and you're never 100% satisfied. You can throw 500 rounds downrange in an afternoon (at 50 cents a pop), spend more on accessories than you did on the gun - and we won't even get into optics and mounts. I guess what I'm saying is the gun is the easy part, the AR is like having a super hot woman in your life - they aren't satisfied until they have all of your money and all of your attention. Just one guy's opinion, your mileage may vary. But don't say I didn't warn you.
 
In my opinion the 16" is quite good. With the heavy barel it displays the same accuracy as the 20" (at least in the milspec version anyway)
 
Gunnut2 said:
In my opinion the 16" is quite good. With the heavy barel it displays the same accuracy as the 20" (at least in the milspec version anyway)
Click to expand...

I have a Sabre hybrid-composition, than, as the upper/barrel/bolt assembly are all mil-spec but the lower is of commercial dimension specifications though made of the exact same material as the down-sized "milspec". So, taking all things in consideration, there are many layers to the whole mil-spec vs commercial controversy than simply being just this or that.

Basically, as few patrons mentioned, the differences between the two product groups is very marginal. It's something that was never standardized due to the many consumerism implications. Like the "brand name wars" all to common in any consumer demand industry.
 
thanks for your responses all, i think i'm gonna go with a dlask (buy canadian!). and yes, i will be spending more than my originally budgeted $1500... but we all only live once!
 
With the heavy barel it displays the same accuracy as the 20"
Click to expand...

Accuracy has very little to do with barrel length. On iron sighted rifles the longer barrels allow the front and rear sights to be farther apart thus creating a longer sight radius and allowing for improved accuracy in aiming. On a scoped rifle, barrel length allows you to push the bullet faster thus lessening wind deflection at range.
 
scianna54 said:
For that budget, you will end up with a CQ or with something very used and no room for modifications. US made AR start at $1,500 plus tax, modifications, etc, so $3,000 seems to be a more realistic budget.
Click to expand...


I disagree. there are plenty of low mileage name brand ARs for sale right now and its the buyers market. Alot of the country has had a tough year and needs to liquidate assets....my .02
 
i have just ordered the last parts for my dlask lower build with a stag 16" upper total cost is under $1450. nm rra parts kit and stock. all part new and shipped to my home. got the lower new from dlask and all my part on gunnutts. this is my first ar type rifle. my le6940 is on its way:)
 
My Take:

For recreational shooting - almost all will do.

Upper:
-Most companies had got their gas systems right in the last few years and that knowledge seems to have trickled down to everyone (like copying the people that got it right....) 5.56 chamber, tapered pin front site tower, parkerization of the barrel under front site towner and chromelining are important features that separate the most milspec oriented offerings that the cheaper ones. I will leave the debate of 4140 vs 4150 CMV alone - since recreational shooters won't be able to tell the difference. For many users, getting the real mispec steel is a premium.

Bolt Group:
Some manufacturers have higher failure rates than the others - and testing procedures are related to filtering out these failures. That is part of the premium.

Lower:
The most important thing is the dimension of the lower - such as the tolerance of the magazine well. In the past, some manufacturers apply surface finishes that are too thick, which affect the dimensions of the magazine well and fire control holes. Another detail - the fire control parts themselves. Some manufacturers have more failures than the others.

Some advertise "billet" upper and lower - they generally "look" nice and have some more special markings. However, functional-wise they are no different from those made from forgings.

Vintage:
In general -if you buy a Colt, the quality(excluding the "cosmetic stuff") is consistent over the years - like the last 20 years.

However, if you start thinking buying non-colt, you have to start paying attention to when they were made. Some rifles made in certain years are dogs. For example, near Y2K......some manufacturers learn over the years. Some of the recent production may work better than something they made in the 90's.
 
I've come to the conclusion that the AR is the Fender bass of the rifle world: Everyone's making one, and though some are better than others, they all make good noise.

I guess I've sort of settled on Rock River or Stag for when I finally have some AR bucks together, but if the convo were to get really technical, I couldn't defend the choice as well as some here could.

...now, if we were talking about *basses*...
 
sphincter### said:
if norc is taken out of the equation, is there a noticeable/practical difference between the manufacturers?
Click to expand...

I can not speak for all manufacturers, but there IS a difference in tolerances and in some cases the material used and the finish between makes.
In the case of our lowers the aluminum alloy we use is a couple of steps above the industry standard. Does this make a real difference to most shooters, probably not, but it makes me happy to know there is no better made AR lower available on the market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom