Mil-Spec vs Non Mil-Spec

[precision_shooter]

I may be about to open an can of worms but here goes...

What is the big deal with Mil-Spec?

Why is it that some many people won't buy an AR if it's not made to Mil-Spec standards? I see tons of posts on here about how great the Cold AR's are because they are made to Mil-Spec.

What makes a Mil-Spec rifle any better than one that is not? Mil-Spec does not automatically mean that the rifle will be inherintly more accurate. Actually, more often than not, (from the posts I've seen and my personal experience) non Mil-Spec's are more accurate. It also does not mean that it will function any better than some of the other "non" Mil-Spec AR's. I've seen Colt's jam just like any other AR.

I personally have RRA and would buy one again over a Colt. To me, it seems the term Mil-Spec is misplace and misused all too often. IMHO Mil-Spec (while referring to weapons) means that it is made with looser tolerances to allow for the firing of the weapon when it is dirty beyond the normal acceptable limits. This leads directly into why they use/choose stronger (Mil-Spec) parts. It is to allow a weapon, that would otherwise need to be cleaned to function properly, to be somewhat safely operated by a soldier without it blowing up or injuring the shooter in some other way. Why do you need that as a civilian? So you can be careless with the cleaning and maintenance of your weapons?

Now, please don't take this as a bashing to our U.S. Military. I have the utmost respect for our men and women in the armed forces. This is about Mil-Spec in the civilian sector.

Now that the can is open, what opinions do you have of Mil-Spec?

[Scorch]

People who buy Mil-spec parts or firearms are assuming, often incorrectly, that these are made to a higher standard of "quality". Mil-spec refers to many thing, among them finish requirement, dimensions tolerances, lot sampling, record-keeping requirements, operator training, and surface treatment of metals used in the manufacturing of parts for the US military. It's like any quality standard: you can make it to the quality standard and still be way off on quality, but it is within the published quality standard, and changing that standard is immensely difficult. As far as firearms are concerned, Mil-spec may or may not have any bearing on the final product quality, durability, or accuracy potential. Your example of the RRA is a good example: RRA rifles are made to very close tolerances by highly skilled tradesmen, and the finished product is often better than Colt's, but Colt can go back many years later and prove through documentation of production records, lot sampling, and laboratory tests that every firearm they produced met the current military specification at the time it was made.

[precision_shooter]

Thanks Scorch! I know it's not just me that feels this way and wanted to give others a chance to express their opinions in a broad sense of the term Mil-Spec rather than on a specific weapon. I used the AR's as an example as it is the most talked about Mil-Spec platform available to civilians.

[RT]

Parts that are Mil spec is the "minimum" I would want. Meaning MPI and HPT bolts and barrels, B-11595E barrel steel, 1:7 twist, FA BCG. Other stuff like gas key staking can be fixed but is kind of an indicator of overall attention to detail. I agree that some companies exceed the "mil spec"(Noveske barrels), but the military TDP is considered the reference standard.
Obviously,Your requirements for a rifle depend on the intended use of such rifle

[Abndoc]

Military specifications in a military application allows for part interchangability in like products. For example: a mil spec barrel will fit a mil spec reciever as will a mil spec magazine. You can see where this is an advantage to a military while it is in combat. When things are hard used, broken and blown up and in need of repair, mil spec simplifies your supply line and training requirments.

Military specification doesn't make a part better, but the military doesn't normally buy junk. I find it interesting that sometimes mil spec allows for looser tolerances and less accuracy than after market due to the nature of it's intended use. Can't have mud causing a malfunction.

[ThreeStepsAhead]

Let me make this grunt level for you, a lot of other folks went brainiac.

Milspec = if you're fighting the chinese on American soil and you need a magazine, you can ask SGT Jones and he'll probably have one.

You can also bum parts from them!

3SA

[AK103K]

A prime example of the difference for me was when I tried to put "mil spec" Larue and ARMS mounts on a "supposedly" mil spec Springfield SOCOM rail. The rail wasnt and the mounts either did not fit at all, or did not fit properly.

[Technosavant]

As said, milspec is a given standard. It's a known quality. Non-milspec (not talking buffer tubes here*) may or may not be of good quality. They may exceed milspec, they may be garbage. In order to be "milspec" there are certain things that must be done in terms of source material and quality control. Not milspec doesn't automatically mean junk, just like milspec isn't a guarantee of super awesome performance. For example, LaRue Tactical bolt carrier groups aren't milspec, but are reported to be every bit as good as the best anybody else has to offer.

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

* When dealing with buffer tubes (aka receiver extensions) on M4 style stocks, milspec and commercial mean different things. Milspec buffer tubes are smaller diameter than commercial tubes; it has to do with how they're made. Commercial tubes have threads cut into them, milspec tubes have rolled threads on a smaller diameter tube. There's a slight strength advantage to milspec buffer tubes, but not by any margin that you'd notice unless you used your rifle as a billy club. The only real difference is if you change out stocks, a commercial stock will have slop on a milspec tube and a milspec stock either won't fit on a commercial tube or it will get stuck on it. More something to be aware of than something to concern yourself with.

[Slamfire]

Mil Spec is now a marketing term.

For decades, the military had a specification database. You can most of the old military specifications at DoDiss. Just type in a number in quick search, and you will see what is there. http://assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/

Most of the stuff called “mil spec” were items purchased under “product specifications”. A product spec describes to the “Nth” detail, form, fit, function. In theory all the information, often manufacturing requirements too, were to be found in the product specification. Just hand the spec, the drawing package to a vendor, and the vendor would build to print.

There was also a type of specific called a “performance spec”. Just tell the vendor what you want, in broad terms, and the vendor would figure out how to meet the need. A need could be, “Quench thirst”. The low bid vendor gets to decide the method to satisfy that need. If your expectation was beer, wine, or something else, you would be disappointed because the vendor would be handing out cups of stinky, smelly water.

Al Gore and his acquisition ideologs obsoleted all product specs. The military was directed to use “commercial specs”. If a commercial spec did not exist, then the military could only use performance specifications. The vendor would figure out how to make something that worked for the absolute minimum, for the highest profits.

You will find that the Government no longer owns the drawing packages for new items. These are created by the vendors, who are free to change whatever, whenever they want.

As for the M4, Colt owns that TDP. The Government bought the M16 Technical Data Package (TDP)way back in the 60's, but I do not know who controls what on the thing today. It is probably obsolete in many, many details, and in the main, ignored.

Given that the path of least resistance is to let the contractor decide what to do, I suspect that for the M16, "mil spec" is whatever the vendor making the rifle considers "mil spec".

So really, down to the smallest detail, there aint’ nothing “mil spec”. It is all “contractor spec”.

And military spec is now only a marketing term.

[BuckHammer]

Last I checked, Mil-spec meant "made by the lowest bidder".

[RT]

Made by the lowest bidder.... that can produce a product that will meet all of the requirements in the contract.
For example: I am sure a Panther arms carbine is less expensive than a Colt but it doesn't meet the requirements for barrel/ bolt testing, barrel steel, etc; hence not mil-spec.
Does a non-LEO or military person "need" these features? I guess that is for them to decide.

[vranasaurus]

Those of us who have had to use military equipment know that milspec doesn't always mean quality. Often the standards set for equipment are'nt great which results in not so great equipment. In order to determine if a milspec piece of equipment is good or not one needs to look at the specification that was used for that particular piece of equipment.

The prime example of this is the rapid fielding initiative (RFI), where the militayr was purchasing and issuing a great deal of off the shelf items because they were superior to what was in the system.

[Chui]

They should pay me $250,000 per year to help create new specs for our small arms (pistols, carbines and rifles)...

[levrluvr]

Mil Spec is now a marketing term.

Although I'll agree with you as it pertains to what is being discussed in this thread- AR-type rifle parts, it's hardly true in one of the major areas where MS standards were first developed, which was aviation.
MS, AN standards are still adhered to and closely watched by the FAA and military on every piece of hardware or part that is manufactured and installed on aircraft today. These parts can only be made by those with a PMA, and the person installing them must ensure that said hardware/part meets those requirements.
In aviation, the quality and specs of the part/hardware is NOT set by the manufacturer. The manufacturer must meet or exceed the specifications, or the government will pull their PMA. Any tech that installs hardware or parts that do not come from a vendor with a PMA and meets the aircraft manufacturer's specifications (and gets caught doing it) faces suspension or revocation of his license.
You won't see any such penalties for claiming you have/produce MS parts in the AR industry, even when sold to the government. As you stated, the spec itself has been re-written, and in some cases polluted by the manufacturer of the part, and they can claim anything they want as far as specs are concerned.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Why is it that some many people won't buy an AR if it's not made to Mil-Spec standards?

Is that true? It seems to me that probably the vast majority of people who buy ARs buy ARs that don't meet the Technical Data Package for the M4 or M16.

I do see people insisting on things like 4150 steel, M4 ramps, staked gas keys, etc. that are part of the TDP; but are they doing it because it is part of the TDP or because they want that particular feature?

[strat81]

Certain mil-spec features for ARs are useless for the civilian semi-auto shooter.

4150 barrel steel, parkerizing under the FSB, and double-heat shield handguards are a few examples.

However, certain mil-spec features are important for reliability and durability such as chrome-lined bores, HPT barrels, MPI bolts, etc.

And yet other features depend on the mission and use of the rifle, such as barrel twist. 1:7 twist would suck for light varmint bullets. 1:12 would suck for heavy OTMs.

And then you have other features/accessories such as stocks, grips, muzzle devices, and rails that help tailor the rifle to the shooter.

[Mr Odd Six]

Mil Spec is now a marketing term.

Yup, just like assult anything

[30Cal]

Things are built against a drawing. The drawing calls out all the tolerances.

This is what most people think the word "Mil spec" means and that's how it's used for marketing purposes. Most people think that having a drawing in one's filing cabinet equates to a high quality product--it has the same features/dimensions (at least in their drawings) and materials as the one the military buys.


A Mil-Spec document merely references this magical drawing. The real meat; what made Mil-Spec so special, were all the testing requirements that ensured the product was BUILT TO PRINT. That system was almost completely abandoned in 1994 because it was too expensive for even Uncle Sam to afford.

[Slamfire]

In aviation, the quality and specs of the part/hardware is NOT set by the manufacturer. The manufacturer must meet or exceed the specifications, or the government will pull their PMA. Any tech that installs hardware or parts that do not come from a vendor with a PMA and meets the aircraft manufacturer's specifications (and gets caught doing it) faces suspension or revocation of his license.

Interesting contribution. Thanks.

I expect this strickness is because Congressmen don’t want the commercial airliner, or the MAC flight they are using for one of their junkets, to fall out of the sky.

But for the little people, when the trade off is dollars versus little people’s lives, dollars win.

A Mil-Spec document merely references this magical drawing. The real meat; what made Mil-Spec so special, were all the testing requirements that ensured the product was BUILT TO PRINT. That system was almost completely abandoned in 1994 because it was too expensive for even Uncle Sam to afford.

Costs may have been a stated reason, but one of the unstated reasons was that no product developer wants his system tested. It will break. The Product Office and the Vendor collude to get the system in inventory, and once in the system, the Government is committed to the item, and will pay even more to get it to work.

Which is exactly what happened to the M16.

And for every "Commerical Off the Shelf" item that I have ever heard of.

[30Cal]

Costs may have been a stated reason, but one of the unstated reasons was that no product developer wants his system tested. It will break. The Product Office and the Vendor collude to get the system in inventory, and once in the system, the Government is committed to the item, and will pay even more to get it to work.

Maybe so for systems. It sure was nice having mil-spec electronic piece parts though.

[Chui]

Certain mil-spec features for ARs are useless for the civilian semi-auto shooter.

4150 barrel steel, parkerizing under the FSB, and double-heat shield handguards are a few examples.

I could not disagree with you more. I am a civie shooter and I take mine to classes where it's run hard and put away dirty to be picked up and run hard again and put away dirty and repeated for a day or two more. So I need the proper steel, two classes were in torrential downpour and, yes, we did see corrosion on some rifles. Where? On the barrel around the FSB... If you're using Glacier Guards you're fine. Other single heat shield small handguards get warm if you run the carbine hard.

Now if you're speaking about the casual once-a-year plinker then "anything" will do.

[cornbush]

Precision Shooter......... I agree with you on the Rock River, I also have one and wouldn't trade it for a Colt. I have had zero problems other than some reloads of my dads that wouldn't chamber. There are 3 Colts, 1 Bushmaster and 2 Rock Rivers in the family. The RR's are more accurate. Unless they are squeaky clean the Colts (2 HBARs, SP1), are more picky on ammo than an M1A1. The Bushmaster will hold its own with the Colts on accuracy but is far more dependale to go boom. My RR has thousands through it with no break downs, not one. It doesn't matter if it is clean or if it has had 2500 rounds through it without a cleaning, it always works. Maybe I got lucky, and maybe some of the other ARs out there that don't say Colt, Noveske, LMT,etc. might actually work despite their inferiority because they aren't Mil-Spec.

[mcraig8377]

i was just reading an article from bob tooley/tuley. it stated that colt has a contract and has had a contract with the us military for ar15/m16/m4 rifles. it also goes on to say that there are far better rifles being used and with a military contract of course! by a little known company called bushmaster firearms/BFI. SORRY ROCK RIVER DID NOT MAKE THE CUT! if you are serious about knowing these things you need to look further than the internet. it does have alot of information but there are other ways of finding out information.

[Skunk Pilot]

I am interested in owning and building my first AR and was wondering about this myself. I assumed that Mil-Spec was like ISO 9003 or something like that and would last a lot longer than normal rifles. I still know very little but I'm learning.

Thanks for the responses.

[mcraig8377]

take care!