AR Sponsor
Posted: 7/3/2010 11:46:34 PM EDT
|
I was reading This thread and thought of a question after the thread got locked for not being technical enough. So to make it more technical........
Some members in the thread were saying that there is always better than mil spec. What is a good example of a part on an AR that is BETTER than mil spec? Also, state who makes this part if possible... Thanks! |
|
Yea, here we go again, a bunch of puds who know nothing (oh, puleeez) about what mil-spec (or more correctly defense standard) means nor what Colt's M4 TDP is!
The mil-spec is basically an overarching technical requirements document...it contains performance, materiel, maintenance, interface, etc. requirements for an item (weapon, pen, tire, whatever). So, IN PRACTICE, it does represent the minimum allowable standard. This doesn't mean that the standard is low, but since a vendor doesn't really get anything for exceeding the mil-spec, they typically don't...in fact, doing so would probably hurt them in the acquisition process. A more expensive product that is better/does more than what the .gov/.mil is asking for is NOT what they are looking for. The nice thing about the mil-spec WRT the AR-15/M4 is that it creates a common base/reference for parts. Example: receiver extensions (buffer tubes). One is mil-spec, the others (commercial) aren't, but generally meet common dimensional requirements. Nothing wrong with commercial tubes, just have to know which you have when buying a stock, but look at the confusion in creates to new builders. Now imagine if all parts in an AR were that way. IIRC early commercial tubes/stocks addressed "shortcomings" with mil-spec stocks (example 4 position vs. more desirable 6). A manufacturer either meets the spec or s/he doesn't. Typically a manufacturer meets dimensional requirements (for parts commonality) while not meeting the mil-spec in areas where s/he believes s/he has a better design and//or process. Weather that makes his/her product better or worse than mil-spec is up to the consumer. Here's just a few examples of rifles/components which don't meet (i.e. exceed) mil-spec: LWRC, LaRue, Noveske, etc. Colt's TDP is analogous to a patent...they created a product (note I did NOT say invented, on purpose) and put all of the "secret" (technically yes, but in reality not really) technical details into their TDP which they would like to keep proprietary...nothing wrong with that, companies do it all the time. Now I am NOT saying Colts (or FNs) are crappy, but just to prove a point, can you think of a crappy product that has a patent? So when someone says no one but Colt and FN (Bushmaster by an accident/oversight since they received the TDP) can produce a mil-spec weapon, well that's partially true. Anyone CAN build a weapon that meets the public mil-spec, but no one but those mentioned above can build one to the TDP, which has Colt's proprietary data. That's my opinion of mil-spec and, since we can't seem to talk about one w/o the other, the TDP. I don't think I'm off track, am I? |
|
Quoted:
I was reading This thread and thought of a question after the thread got locked for not being technical enough. So to make it more technical........ Some members in the thread were saying that there is always better than mil spec. What is a good example of a part on an AR that is BETTER than mil spec? Also, state who makes this part if possible... Thanks! Noveske uses M249 machine gun barrel steel and 2x thick chrome lining barrels are also Cold hammer forged like HK and other high quality Europian mfgs. . This is far better tham Mil Spec. 
|
| One can use a CHF barrel with the proper steel, or one can use steel that is spec'ed for a harder use gun, such as my Noveske N4 light barrel. One can use a mid-length gas system on a barrel long enough for it, as it is better on the moving parts. One can change the grip to something nicer, you can also use a longer rail than what an M4 might be issued with. The point of mil spec debates it how sad it is that companies out there cant meet the lowest standard of a few years ago today even. |
| Orion I agree these days you have companies putting out stuff below minimum acceptance standards for parts and workmanship..Its like MP testing it means shit if the barrel wasnt high poressure tested before that process to see if anythings wrong with the steel.Its like Bushmaster they make a good barrel but MP testing 10 barrels out of a batch of 100 and no HP testing and then marking barrels as such is a bit mis leading.Bottom line know the product and specs of what companies put out and then make a good decision on what you buy or build with. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was reading This thread and thought of a question after the thread got locked for not being technical enough. So to make it more technical........ Some members in the thread were saying that there is always better than mil spec. What is a good example of a part on an AR that is BETTER than mil spec? Also, state who makes this part if possible... Thanks! Noveske uses M249 machine gun barrel steel and 2x thick chrome lining barrels are also Cold hammer forged like HK and other high quality Europian mfgs. . This is far better tham Mil Spec. http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm237/thefryzone/P1010002-1.jpg http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm237/thefryzone/P1010003.jpg Thats a good example Thefryzone, I agree those barrels are better. The only downside to Noveske barrels is that you couldn't use the M203 grenade launcher because it doesn't have the M4 cut notch near the front of the barrel. Which actually made me think of an example myself, freefloat rails could be considered better than the mil standard non free float RAS rail that are used. Not sure how much of a differece a free float rail would make, but i guess they could be considered better. |
|
Quoted:
a CTR stock is better than any M4 stock. Pmags better than usgi, IMOP lots of aftermarket stuff is better than milspec I think the CTR stock vs M4 stock might just be personal preference vs actually better. Also, aren't they using Pmags in the mil now? Not sure, maybe these guys just bought there own - PMAG TEST |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was reading This thread and thought of a question after the thread got locked for not being technical enough. So to make it more technical........ Some members in the thread were saying that there is always better than mil spec. What is a good example of a part on an AR that is BETTER than mil spec? Also, state who makes this part if possible... Thanks! Noveske uses M249 machine gun barrel steel and 2x thick chrome lining barrels are also Cold hammer forged like HK and other high quality Europian mfgs. . This is far better tham Mil Spec. http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm237/thefryzone/P1010002-1.jpg http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm237/thefryzone/P1010003.jpg Thats a good example Thefryzone, I agree those barrels are better. The only downside to Noveske barrels is that you couldn't use the M203 grenade launcher because it doesn't have the M4 cut notch near the front of the barrel. Which actually made me think of an example myself, freefloat rails could be considered better than the mil standard non free float RAS rail that are used. Not sure how much of a differece a free float rail would make, but i guess they could be considered better. How many people with N4 barrels do you know regret buying them because they cant use their M203? |
|
A good example of when the military desired more than mil-spec is the M4A1 bolt. When used by special forces, with high round counts and extensive use of FA fire, the M4A1 exerienced a much larger number of bolt failures. In that case, the best soultion was to strengthen the bolt and stress relieve the locking lugs - making it no longer mil-spec but much stronger and more reliable.
The problem is that the military is a bureacracy and woudl rather replace broken bolts or replace bolts more often than to add additional parts into the inventory. As such, just because soemthing is better does not mean it will become "mil-spec''. It has to be substantially better and resolve a problem that cannot be resolved otherwise. In this case, replacing M4A1 bolts more often is a solution that does not add new parts to the inventory. The SOPMOD accessories for the M4 are one of the ways that the special ops community has gotten around the normal military acceptaace and procurement channels to get mission specific equipment. The technical data package issue involves some give and take. Colt devloped the TDP for the M4 and then submitted it to the government for approval. However, if Colt wants to make any changes, they have to submit those changes to the government for approval before they can be included in the TDP. Also, the M4 TDP was determined in court to have been developed with Colt funds rather than government funds or a mix of private and government funds. If government funds are used, or if the government buys the TDP, then it becomes the property of the government who can then release it to other companies. This is actually the government (and taxpayers) preference as it avoids the need for or dependence on a sole source contract or supplier. In most cases, since the government is the big customer, it is in the interests of both the government and the supplier to negotiate for the purchase of the TDP by the government - usually as an addition to the price of X nunmber of weapons, after which the government then owns the TDP and can let RFP's for competitive contracts for future purchases. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was reading This thread and thought of a question after the thread got locked for not being technical enough. So to make it more technical........ Some members in the thread were saying that there is always better than mil spec. What is a good example of a part on an AR that is BETTER than mil spec? Also, state who makes this part if possible... Thanks! Noveske uses M249 machine gun barrel steel and 2x thick chrome lining barrels are also Cold hammer forged like HK and other high quality Europian mfgs. . This is far better tham Mil Spec. http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm237/thefryzone/P1010002-1.jpg http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm237/thefryzone/P1010003.jpg Thats a good example Thefryzone, I agree those barrels are better. The only downside to Noveske barrels is that you couldn't use the M203 grenade launcher because it doesn't have the M4 cut notch near the front of the barrel. Which actually made me think of an example myself, freefloat rails could be considered better than the mil standard non free float RAS rail that are used. Not sure how much of a differece a free float rail would make, but i guess they could be considered better. How many people with N4 barrels do you know regret buying them because they cant use their M203? This is about what is better than mil spec.... Along the lines of what the military could use that is better than mil spec. They could never use this barrel. This barrel is sacrificing one thing for another. The whole purpose of this thread was because people in the other thread were making it sound like mil spec was the cheapest standard to go by. Which made me pose this question of what they think is a better standard........... |
AR Sponsor