AR Sponsor
Posted: 2/12/2009 7:33:51 AM EDT
|
I am new to this forum and ARs in general. Been shooting, hunting and reloading for 35 years. Started with my dad who was retired USAF Col. and has passed a few years back. I currently have three black rifles on order and six 30 rd mags. Someone please confirm or correct my understanding of Mil spec. Here is what I understand about it.
Mil spec is a standard developed and adopted by the military in the 1960s during the early development of these weapons from combat experiences and failures. Once the military develops a "spec", it literally takes an "act of congress" to change the spec because all items in inventory must be updated to the new and improved spec. If that is so, then there are improvements in metals for parts such as bolts and other alloys for other parts that have been improved upon since the spec was adopted by the military and have not been incorporated into spec. A manufacturer cannot use improved materials for liability reasons because, in the event of a failure, they would be open lawsuit for not complying with spec and would be in violation of their contract with the military. The safe haven is the spec only, not spec or better. Is there a chart or something that rates various parts from various manufacturers as better or worse than mil spec assuming that as the basic standard? As a noob, I have read four books and sooo many posts on this forum to get up to speed, but there is too much information to really know what is best. The criticism comes fast and heavy on various manufacturers and their parts. Names such as Colt are thrown around as best but in the troubleshooting forum Colt shows up a lot. This maybe due to more rifles on the market? Just my hunch. Bottom line, Mils spec is a known level of quality but there are better parts. Is there a place for someone to go to get that information or is it just impossible due to opinion. Thanks for a great forum. |
| I am in the defense acquisition field, so I know a little about MIL-SPECS. It is not true that MIL-SPECs cannot be changed easily: it does happen regularly, but they don't change just for the sake of change, only when required. Also, it isn't necessary to upgrade existing weapons to the new MIL-SPEC if one comes out: newly designed items purchased AFTER a new MIL-SPEC has been released generally must meet the new spec, but older designs may be "grandfathered" to the old spec. And most of the time, a MIL-SPEC is a minimum performance standard: there is generally nothing that prevents a manufacturer from making something better than spec if the material and/or technology has been approved for use by the military. |
|
no noveske no care
|
|
That's the one Randall has on his site and the only version I could find quickly.
I gives a good overview of what's available. It is ~ 2years old. I've seen updates floating around. If anyone knows of the update please post. It's probably in the Uppers forum. I'm not sure how Noveske would figure in here, they generally assemble from other's parts and their barrels from what I can determine. They are in the quality tier. |
|
Quoted:
While what you say about the entire gun is true, there are many MIL-SPECs that apply to the manufacture of an M16. Individual components of an AR-15 may meet the requirements of the applicable MIL-SPECS for those components (like material, surface hardening, finish, etc.), and therefore it can be said that they meet MIL-SPEC.
If you go strictly by the mil-spec definition then AR & mil-spec are not interchangeable. It's mainly a marketing ploy. Only M16s & M4s that go to our mil are truely mil-spec. Don't read too much into the term. |
|
Quoted:
I am new to this forum and ARs in general. Been shooting, hunting and reloading for 35 years. Started with my dad who was retired USAF Col. and has passed a few years back. I currently have three black rifles on order and six 30 rd mags. Someone please confirm or correct my understanding of Mil spec. Here is what I understand about it. Mil spec is a standard developed and adopted by the military in the 1960s during the early development of these weapons from combat experiences and failures. Once the military develops a "spec", it literally takes an "act of congress" to change the spec because all items in inventory must be updated to the new and improved spec. Not true. Items accepted under old specs do NOT need to be updated to new specs. I work in military procurement. This is a fact. If that is so, then there are improvements in metals for parts such as bolts and other alloys for other parts that have been improved upon since the spec was adopted by the military and have not been incorporated into spec. A manufacturer cannot use improved materials for liability reasons because, in the event of a failure, they would be open lawsuit for not complying with spec and would be in violation of their contract with the military. The safe haven is the spec only, not spec or better.
The problem is "What constitutes better?" The opinion of the manufacturer? Specs are not (as you say) necessarily the "best." But they do represent the standard required. Keep in mind that milspecs usually specify tests and procedures, not parts themselves. The parts themselves are defined by the TDP (Technical Data Package). Modifications to the TDP require an "Engineering Change Proposal" (ECP) that account for cost, and evaluate any potential benefit of the "improvment." Names such as Colt are thrown around as best but in the troubleshooting forum Colt shows up a lot.
Really? I don't see it. And it's certainly not backed up by the experiences of pros I've heard from. Generally, Colt, LMT, and BCM (and maybe KAC but they don't have that many civilian rifles out there) are considered top of market, and there are some other good makers out there. Bottom line, Mils spec is a known level of quality but there are better parts.
If you're going to assert "better than spec," you'd better be able to quantify and qualify that. Better for what? Better how? Show your work. :) Is there a place for someone to go to get that information or is it just impossible due to opinion. Thanks for a great forum.
Keep reading. I suggest the "What parts break in a Carbine Course" thread as a real eye opener. |
|
Here's the link to Rob's updated chart. Keep in mind it's not a "quality ranking." Having said that, more than one instructor has mentioned that it's a pretty good predictor of which brands will have the most trouble when stressed.
THE CHARTtm |
|
Quoted:
Here's the link to Rob's updated chart. Keep in mind it's not a "quality ranking." Having said that, more than one instructor has mentioned that it's a pretty good predictor of which brands will have the most trouble when stressed. THE CHARTtm Where is Bravo on that chart? Oops... 
I do not subscribe to the "chart", but it is a good guide for the beginner. There are only a couple of those "mil-specs" that truly make a difference in function and reliabilty. |
|
Thanks for the replies from most of you.
Strongbow, you seem to be the most knowledgeable on this board but your tone stinks. I am trying to get information not talked down to. If you could temporarily remove your cranium from your posterior you might be able to educate someone who is new to this "stuff" and asking questions. I try to buy the best or better than average in all things because I have tried to cheap out in the past and it always comes back to product failure or "I wish I would have waited and spent a few more dollars" I am in my late 40s now and will be leaving my "stuff" to my 18 year old son when the maker calls. I want him to be able to pass my estate to his kids. I ain't buying cheap "stuff" because in the mean time, I want to enjoy my "stuff" with the least problems, hopefully. Your first statement and last were informative, the comments in the middle were challenging me and chastising me for my observations from this forum and the books I have read. This forum is rife with opinion and to a new member, it is hard to determine who is right. Names such as Colt are thrown around as best but in the troubleshooting forum Colt shows up a lot.
Really? I don't see it. And it's certainly not backed up by the experiences of pros I've heard from. Generally, Colt, LMT, and BCM (and maybe KAC but they don't have that many civilian rifles out there) are considered top of market, and there are some other good makers out there. Take a quick look at the trouble shooting forum and draw your own conclusion as to what name you see most and then reread my complete original comment after that. Bottom line, Mils spec is a known level of quality but there are better parts.
If you're going to assert "better than spec," you'd better be able to quantify and qualify that. Better for what? Better how? Show your work. :) Would you really like to read a report from a metallurgist on the comparative strengths and weights of various ferrous and non ferrous metals and alloys. Better can be scientifically proven. The problem is "What constitutes better?" The opinion of the manufacturer? Specs are not (as you say) necessarily the "best." But they do represent the standard required. Keep in mind that milspecs usually specify tests and procedures, not parts themselves. The parts themselves are defined by the TDP (Technical Data Package). Modifications to the TDP require an "Engineering Change Proposal" (ECP) that account for cost, and evaluate any potential benefit of the "improvement."
As stated, cost is considered for mil spec, I do not place that barrier on my list of selection criteria if I am trying to build rifle from the best of everything. I want to know what is the best part to use for the various items on these weapons. Your final comment is probably the most useful to achieve that end. As in racing best may also be a compromise and intended use will guide the decision making process while knowing what you are giving up for another similar use. Racing suspensions are fun on the street if you don't mind the kidney punching rough ride and rapid tire wear. If I took your tone wrong then I apologize, maybe we educated some other new people who are afraid to speak up with all of the testosterone on this board. I race sports cars as well and surprise, it is the same way at the track. Calm down and speak clearly. If someone does not speak english, talking louder does not help them understand what you are saying. Thanks to all, great forum, Ed |
|
Quoted:
It's mainly a marketing ploy. Only M16s & M4s that go to our mil are truely mil-spec. Don't read too much into the term. This. "My stuff is milspec!" That's how a manufacturer or retailer gets people who want to be pretend-commandos to buy their gear. It means next to nothing. The only time it really means something is when there are two specifications and one was used on the military versions of M16s or M4s while the other was not. An example is the collapsible stock receiver extension (buffer tube). The military ones are smaller in outside diameter and made in a different process. If you buy a commercial stock body, it will be floppy on your smaller "mil spec" extension. Thus, the need to use "mil spec" for the smaller extensions and stocks that fit them and "commercial spec" for the others. |
AR Sponsor