Mil-spec

An AR-15 is a commercial sporting rifle. Never has been 'milspec' and never will be either. The internal dimensions are smaller than military issue M16 series battle rifles.
An M4 is a U.S. military issue battle rifle. They can't be anything but U.S. milspec. Commercially made M4 style copies aren't milspec either. Those are modified AR-15's.
 
And some how the insidious lack of 'mil spec' hardware in Canada, avail to the masses, seems to suffice for 5 rounds at a time on a 50 yard target from a bench
 
sunray said:
An AR-15 is a commercial sporting rifle. Never has been 'milspec' and never will be either. The internal dimensions are smaller than military issue M16 series battle rifles.
An M4 is a U.S. military issue battle rifle. They can't be anything but U.S. milspec. Commercially made M4 style copies aren't milspec either. Those are modified AR-15's.
Click to expand...

Correct, if not somewhat over simplified. For instance the newer Colt 6920s with small axis pins have all the parts of a mil-spec gun save for the lower dimensions and full-auto parts, however the Mil-spec quality controls are all there...the parts testing and dimensional checking is all done as per mil spec. Not saying mil-spec is the end all, but atleast it is a set of standards that is followed. For me it is less about staked receiver tubes and gas keys(which can be done at home) than it is the billions spent in destructive testing and quality control, something many commercial guns do not get or only receive batch testing. At the end of the day it really doesn't make much practical difference unless you use your gun for shooting smelly bearded men in the face.
 
The AR-15 was originally a selective fire rifle.
The first rifles purchased by the US Gov't. - USAF issue - were AR-15s.
The AR-15 Sporter was derived from the selective fire AR-15.

In addition to the spreadsheet posted above, go to the thread about the Italian commercial M-14s which may become available, and read Claven2's post about what the term milspec means.

Use of high quality components could contribute to the assembling of a quality piece. But not all high quality parts are necessarily milspec.

Lots of the tactikewl aftermarket parts aren't going to be milspec because there is no milspec standard for them.
 
There have been several very good articles on the "Milspec" topic written over the years. One of the best I've read is in the current (Sept 2010) issue of Guns & Weapons for Law Enforcement (volume 22 number 6), page 50.

The article was written by Rob Sloyer and he deals with the topic in an easy to understand and concise way... enough technical detail to make the necessary points, but at the same time in easily understood language that even a beginner will understand.

True Milspec is defined by the US Military... there will be a detailed "Milspec" for each and every weapon system purchased by the US Military... in the case of the M4 (and M4A1) it's a Technical Data Package of @ 58 pages (each) and it's proprietary. (The M4 is MIL-C-70599A and M4A1 is MIL-C71186).

Because the Military Specification (Milspec) for these firearms includes select fire (3-shot burst for the M4 and full-auto for the M4A1) none of "us" civilians can own a true Milspec M4... it's as simple as that. In Canada it's a Prohibited Firearm and we can't own it.

But there is much more to Milspec than just that and the above mentioned article does an excellent job of defining how the Milspec applies to 4 main categories when talking about the "AR-pattern carbines"...

  • First, is the list of measurements, radii, offsets, and other technical dimensional information
  • Second, is the material specifications for the raw material that make up the parts, finishes and surface treatments (for EVERY part in the gun)
  • Third, is the assembly methods such as torque values and other criteria for assembly. Every screw and fastener has a specified method of installation
  • Fourth, is the testing criteria for parts and assemblies.

There are 2 main reasons (as I see it) that all AR manufacturers don't build their guns to meet the entire Milspec (less the select fire trigger group):

  • First is that getting the actual TDP isn't that easy and as said before it's proprietary
  • More important is COST... even if a manufacturer has the details of the Milspec or even the majority of it... few manufacturers are willing to spend the money necessary to build the gun to that standard... and few customers are willing to spend the money to buy that standard when they see what it actually costs.

So manufacturers make lots of decisions on what is "important" and where to cut costs so that they can build a good quality product but do so at a cost that the customer is willing to pay. It's a balancing act and every manufacturer makes different choices... and frankly we consumers often have no way to actually get details on what those choices have been.

You don't know if a manufacturer used a softer metal in some of the components in your gun... or if the surface treatment is not as deep as the Milspec calls for... just to mention a couple of areas that are totally hidden.

Even when a company tells you they MP tested their barrel or their bolt... you have no idea what that means because "testing" something only has value when you know what "standard" was used to then accept or reject the tested part... and you don't know. You "assume" that every company that MP tests their barrels does so to the Milspec standards (there is a Milspec standard for everything)... but reality is that commercial companies don't have access to that data and even if they did you are just assuming that a barrel that doesn't "pass" the standard is rejected... but that is NOT the case for many manufacturers. Many people are buying barrels which would not pass the Milspec testing but because the barrel is stamped MP they think it has... think again.

I highly recommend that you read the article mentioned above... this will give you a better understanding of what trade-offs are being made and why some guns cost more than others. You don't need (or necessarily want) a true Milspec gun... a lot of foreign governements as well as the US Military have been quite satisfied buying LMT carbines which DO NOT have front taper pins and are NOT parkerized under the front sight base... but the LMT that you buy commercially is the EXACT same gun (except for select fire trigger group) that is supplied to Military contracts... the same material quality... the same surface treatments... the same assembly protocols... testing protocols... rejection protocols, etc..

Many companies that supply government/MIL contracts actually have two different assembly lines and the product they build/assemble for commercial sale is NOT the same as the product they build for MIL/LE. Don't just assume that the COLT you buy is the same COLT supplied to MIL/LE. Don't just assume that the parts inside that gun are the same parts that are used for the MIL contracts... it's not always the case.

There's a lot more to the "Milspec" topic than meets the eye ;)

Just my 2 cents worth...

Mark
 
Questar said:
[*]More important is COST... even if a manufacturer has the details of the Milspec or even the majority of it... few manufacturers are willing to spend the money necessary to build the gun to that standard... and few customers are willing to spend the money to buy that standard when they see what it actually costs.
Click to expand...

You're make the assumption "milspec" is more expensive...
In my book "milspec" means.. "Built by the lowest bidder"

Sure the .gov buys their gear in vast quantities, but last Time I checked Uncle Sam paid under $600 each for their standard issuue rifles
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom