"Mil Spec AR Only!"

Unless it's Colt or FN, then chances are it's made to mil-spec. Mil-spec requires it to go through the government testing, and I believe Colt is the only one who has that in house. The others may well be made too military specifications, but are not mil-spec.

Even with Colt, the chances of actual mil-spec in civilian hands is probably rare. Most manufactures just say "mil-spec" to make easier I guess.

The presumption is that mil-spec items and parts are made to meet certain tolerances, material and other factors spelled out in the technical data package. I worked for a defense contractor for 18 years, and can attest to the fact that in a lot of cases the "mil-spec" designation is not worth a hill of beans. However, there are certain requirements in a TDP that are paramont to the design functionality of a system. Parts interchangeability, while important, plays but a part in the composition of a TDP.

Ack! See what happens when you're both a gun nut and a gear head? lol

Click to expand...

Yep. Whenever someone says something about a CCW (Olds Custom Cruiser Wagon) at a b-body board I frequent, I have to read it twice. Do I know you from the Hot Rod Lincoln forum at FvC?

As far as ARs, quality, mil-spec, 'the chart', blah blah blah, I had a STAKED mil-spec gas key come loose. Cram your chart.

Click to expand...

Amen, brother.

Click to expand...

So a staked gas key came loose ergo, it would be better to not have staked gas keys? Or were you just pointing out the obvious that even after taking the precaution of buying better parts, things can and will still break on occasion?

As far as rifles go, I have my own set of requirements (which the M4 doesn't meet). Some of those I get from the government, because they have a lot of AR-type weapons and so they figure out what breaks and how to prevent it faster than I will on my own.

For me, Mil-Spec means minimum manufacturing standards. Commonality of parts is important to me because I replace things, swap things and add things. Without the Mil-Spec standard nothing would fit. For Example, with the new Gas Pistons. Many manufacturers but no standards. When a military standard is adopted what do you think is going to happen to those gas pistons that don't make the cut? Another benefit of meeting Mil-Spec is resale value or do you believe that a 5 year old Olympic carbine will sell for the same price that a similar LMT, Colt or Noveski will?

I'm not sure in the case of these rifles, but in many cases "mil spec" implies certain quality control and reliability measures. For example, the breaking strength of a part is implied by the physical description (materials, dimensions, etc.) but the spec may require that the actual breaking strength be established by testing a number of samples to destruction.

Generally anything other then "mil-specky" with Ar's, by a rule of thumb, is cheaper. Usually different and Ar combined equals cheaper quality. Tons of Ar parts and rifles that have cut corners with quality. So "mil-spec" is the bare minimum rule of thumb. Sadly its now a catch phrase.

Just do do your homework and you'll be fine.
Or just get a LMT or Colt, or better yet a LMT lower and a Larue upper.

Military Specification. Is a standardization objective. Standardization is beneficial in achieving interoperability, ensuring products meet certain requirements, commonality, reliability, total cost of ownership, compatibility with logistics systems, and similar defense-related objectives

Military Specification also means that a certain product passed a certain stringent testing. A lot of this testing are destructive and so more costly.

You can build a better product but not mil-spec.

The AR is a mature platform. A lot of vendors has capability to build very good rifles. Few are truly Mil-Spec. A lot have Mil-Spec materials but not the entire rifle. And some are building much more better materials that some of Mil-Spec materials.

I might be wrong but maybe just Colt MIL/LEO, KAC MIL/LEO and FN MIL/LEO weapons are truly Mil-spec. I have a noveske N4 and i don't think it is 100% mil-spec compliant. I might be wrong.

Bartholomew Roberts-

I'm mostly saying that a lot of people have this grand idea that parts made 'to spec' or a gun having all the right checkmarks on 'the chart' is vastly superior to others, and in my experience I don't usually find this to be true. I have found the differences to be subtle if noticeable at all, and irrelevant to the vast majority of AR owners. If you drive an AR hard enough, you will see soon enough which parts are subject to wear and replacement.