Nice 5 shot target - but, as I alluded, it's not milspec. . . .
What started the "milspec" focus was an expansion of sales on parts and completed guns using "non-milspec" standards. The average buyer couldn't tell one part from another, so various parties stepped up to inform the public just how important the differences were.
One concern is milspec vs commercial buffer tubes. That alone underscores how the aftermarket can go "wrong" with changing the dimensions, materials, and the very important "how" one is made.
No tests seem to exist to demonstrate which is more reliable or accurate. It's merely assumed by their differences that the military grade buffer tube must be superior because it's more likely to have a higher material yield point and more consistent dimensions.
If you aren't going to fall on it, buttstroke an adversary, or team lift another soldier in full field gear over a wall or into a third world window, then that incremental difference means nothing. And there's the flip side of the coin - buffer tubes that aren't milspec are the backbone of AR pistol builds, they are usually thicker with more material. No clue if they are actually stronger than the straightwalled thin GI tubes.
As for the EXO coating, the military DID adopt a dry lubricant process they coat the interior of issue uppers. They do respond to what is available on the market. They didn't adopt the EXO, tho, did they? Why not?
Goes back to cost vs benefits. If you are required to clean and lube your AR daily in combat, even more if it gets coated with the environment, again, then why bother? The coatings purpose is to shed dust, debris, and gas residue because you DON'T clean it. And yet the "mispec" on
maintenance already covers that. You clean it more regularly than a 3Gun competitor. You have to.
If you aren't going to neglect your gun and force the improved coatings to do their job, then why bother spending money on it? The mean rounds between failure with milspec maintenance is acceptable.
It's the public responding to the hype of an improved product that must have highly superior reliability against the M16's legendary fast buildup of gas residue that sells the extra bling coatings.
In reality, the M16 is only incrementally dirtier than any other self loading rifle after 300 rounds - at which point the soldier is required to clean and lube it. Long before it's demonstrated MRBF is reached.
Shoot a HK91, Garand, M1A, AK47, whatever your favorite self loading action is, then tear it down to the gas cylinder rings and clean it. There's plenty of pics online to show they can each get decidedly nasty. Foreign ammo tends to have even more residue than US.
Why does the M16 get so much blame? Well, if you look into the causes, which the military has been doing for decades, it's based on three things - ammo, magazines, and user error. The Army fixed the first, they make their own ammo, and they don't make plinker. It's full power hot NATO spec rounds all the way. Second, mags. The M16 doesn't share the robust magazine design that others do, like the AK. Different design philosophy - the AK is issued in countries that give their soldiers three for the duration of their enlistment, the US issues magazines somewhat like candy. What they initially intended was to shoot them and then discard them on the battlefield to issue new, fully loaded magazines. It turned out that wasn't a sustainable logistic decision, and until we get away from the flimsy design, we will suffer certain downsides. It forced us to reacquire new mags over and over, face that their is a problem, adopt new technology like polymer, and accept that other cartridges like the 6.8 couldn't without enlarging the mag well.
So - why haven't we done that, milspec? Well, there are other irons in the fire, like LSAT, which sidestep the entire issue.
Lastly, of course, there is user error. All to many think the AR15 is capable of continuous full auto fire, when that was never intended. What the design team was trying to do was get more bullets in the air, because that would make more hits beyond the normal effective range of 150m. It was found that a lot of hits on the enemy were created by bullets never intentionally discharged at them specifically. They were hit by moving into that path or were standing behind someone else as an unintended back stop. Regardless, shoot more bullets, you get more hits.
That doesn't translate into much the average civilian shooter can use, tho, and it even runs contrary to the intent of our peace oriented safety and sportsmanship rules. So it means that those who purchase a weapon with even higher capabilities than milspec are either planning to use it for an intense combat scenario above and beyond the average soldiers experience, or, they just want to have something they can brag is better.
My money - the latter. We as humans, and more specifically, males, are always trying to one up the other guy to establish our superior ranking in society. In that regard, Noveske trumps Colt trumps S&W trumps Remington in the AR wars. And the Remington is milspec issue, even they are building to contract.
Like that means anything to the LWRC six8 owners who are in a higher class altogether. Another "milspec" issue AR, just to a foreign country.
