"Mil Spec" vs. Civilian--Which Grass is Greener?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cosmoline

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
23,646
Location
Los Anchorage
Since jumping into the world of AR's I've noticed a great deal of what I can only call fixation among some to have a "mil spec" firearm. This also seems to come up with other firearms and equipment such as "sniper rifles." Some folks--quite a few actually--apparently want something that's exactly like an M4 or very close to it. Even though the actual specs may be pretty broad and permit considerable slop so contractors can stay within budgets.

Yet ironically the military folks seem drawn to the CIVILIAN models, with flat tops, big rails, and lots of gewgaws attached. Look at the special forces dudes. While all these civilians want to be like them, they're out there wearing hockey equipment and growing beards.

So what's going on here? Is this just a case of the grass being greener?
 
When I think mil-spec, I think of chrome, forged, proper finish....

I'd be supprised to hear a lot specops guys fancy up a carbine too much (although a GB buddy of mine complained that he couldn't have a gangster-grip like everybody else because he was the one sporting the 203).
 
Last edited:
The soldiers I know personally that have served a lot of time, say that if they had a Colt 6920 with a new "Aimpoint" , that it would be an upgrade...
 
When you see pictures of SOF types with the ninja gear bolted on an M4, are these the guys they show in the catalog pictures? I ask this because all the ones I knew down range did NOT have all that stuff on their rifles. A 68, Eotech or ACOG any maybe a light but that was about it. What people forget is that every doo-dad adds weight and weight in the field is your enemy. During my last trip down range, I used nothing more than our issue M4 with an ACOG on the top and a Vickers sling. I had a light I carried in a spare parts pouch that was in the up-armor but unless I needed it, I kept the thing off the weapon.
 
i'm not sure what would cause anyone to say the mil-spec permits considerable slop.

beyond that, i think your observations are amiss

There are some simple facts that could help illuminate a discussion, though it is unlikely:

The mil-spec is a MINIMUM.
"Civilian models" are not held to a spec beyond voluntary compliance to individual standards.
"Civilian models" could be much better or worse than the mil-spec.


Thus, it seems OBVIOUS that many cost-conscious civilians purchase the cheapest AR15 they can find, and those are rarely superior to the mil-spec. From that perspective, the mil-spec is something to be desired.

It further seems obvious that some vendors with reputations for quality and innovation make items that exceed the mil-spec (e.g. better materials), or render it irrelevant through innovation (e.g. gas-pistons). Thus, "special forces dudes" may prefer civilian versions.

Your post makes it sound like 5th group is mostly using del-tons
 
When people say Milspec they are talking about a standard by which a part should meet or exceed. If the part exceeds that standard than it is good. The problem is that many manufacturers cant even meet that standard.

My Noveske isnt Milspec but it exceeds the standard where it isnt.
 
i'm not sure what would cause anyone to say the mil-spec permits considerable slop.
Click to expand...

For example, my understanding (could be totally wrong) is that the actual military specifications for the M-4's they order requires 2MOA accuracy. There are many varmint or even just floated AR-15's that can best this.
 
Grunt said:
When you see pictures of SOF types with the ninja gear bolted on an M4, are these the guys they show in the catalog pictures? I ask this because all the ones I knew down range did NOT have all that stuff on their rifles. A 68, Eotech or ACOG any maybe a light but that was about it. What people forget is that every doo-dad adds weight and weight in the field is your enemy. During my last trip down range, I used nothing more than our issue M4 with an ACOG on the top and a Vickers sling. I had a light I carried in a spare parts pouch that was in the up-armor but unless I needed it, I kept the thing off the weapon.
Click to expand...
This should be read again. SOF type guys dont dress up their stuff to be cool, they add things that are needed. The SF group I worked with a bit in 05 used fairly plain jane M4s (M68, light, sling, laser) and even carried....GASP, Beretta 92s!!!
 
Cosmoline said:
For example, my understanding (could be totally wrong) is that the actual military specifications for the M-4's they order requires 2MOA accuracy. There are many varmint or even just floated AR-15's that can best this.
Click to expand...
The standard M4 isnt made to be super accurate. 2 moa is still good enough to get solid hits at 500 meters.
 
That makes perfect sense, but it begs the question of why "mil spec" seems to be such a holy grail particularly in the AR crowd.
 
Cosmo
Because reliability is more important than the difference in 1 and 2 moa. The things you have to do to improve accuracy usually reduce reliability. And if you took a half moa civilian gun and put 20000 rnds through it over the course of 20 years it would be a 2 moa gun for most of it's life
 
Well, that was quick spam removal, it disapeared while I was reporting it, lol. Good job, mods.

Anyway, the receiver extension is a good example of mil-spec vs commercial. To the untrained eye, they look the same. But the mil spec part is forged and has rolled threads, so its strong enough to take some abuse. The commercial part is typically a capped extrusion with cut threads, so its cheaper to make and good enough for most weekend shooters.
 
Originally Posted by Cosmoline View Post
For example, my understanding (could be totally wrong) is that the actual military specifications for the M-4's they order requires 2MOA accuracy. There are many varmint or even just floated AR-15's that can best this.
Click to expand...


The standard M4 isnt made to be super accurate. 2 moa is still good enough to get solid hits at 500 meters.
Click to expand...


Don't forget that you are only using half the mil-spec standard. Rifle must shoot 2 MOA with mil-spec ammo. M193 and M855 are not know for being very accurate out of any rifle. I have 2 "mil-spec" A2 style that will shoot sub inch with my handloads.
 
That's some interesting info, but didn't the military specifications also mandate features such as the carry handle, standard front sights and old style hand guard that isn't floated?
 
Mil-Spec is not really the point. The point is to have a weapon system that is built to some specification other than, "As cheap as possible."

The M16A4 or M4A1 Technical Data Package is a pretty good standard for building a gun that works. You can depart from the TDP in order to improve some aspect of performance - a good example would be swapping a Mil-Spec barrel for a stainless cut-rifled barrel for better accuracy. A lot of manufacturers also depart from the TDP to cut costs, and it's pretty easy to end up with an unreliable rifle as a result.

-C
 
The preferences and therefore differences are driven by purpose. Regardless of the persons purpose and priorities there are plenty of manufactures that provide good quality AR's for serious use at decent prices.
The brand (outer shell) says very little about the quality and function. The internals is what matters.
Any AR dedicated for serious defense use should contemplate the following aspects. Sorted from most important to less important:
1- Quality BCG and bolt. MP tested, etc... M16 preferably. If piston is desired the Adams/Sabre piston shows no signs of stopping ever. This gives versatility if suppression is needed. Also inpigment with regulated gas block and in any case a well timed/gassed system.
2- Quality Barrel MIL-B-11595E or one of decent quality, chromed lined if long term durability over accuracy is paramount. Not many barrels are found with the chamber out of spec but a good quality make is desirable and this should be inspected.
3- Quality trigger group, parts that doesn't have to be expensive but well assembled and functional.
4- Optionally a floating handguard is desirable but not mandatory. There are many unexpensive US made quality makers that make these with small foot print, light and durable.
5- A simple stock like tapco T6 o magpul MOE will do the trick for most use but the options are endless.

If the lower and upper billets are up to spec all should fit nicely together and provide the popular AR accuracy with excellent reliability.
Ars like to run clean and wet.

If you want to accessorize and lowers with fancy names and skulls then you have to pay for that. Same way folks tune their cars to have something more exclusive.

For long range target and hunting a high end match barrel is paramount with a match chamber.

Cheers.
E.
 
I think Cosmo, you havent fully divested yourself of the original idea of what "mil spec" is.


Let me make a graph.

The Military Specification
-----------------------------------------------------|

MOST Civilian Guns
----------------------|

A SELECT few Civilian makers...like maybe 3.
----------------------------------------------------------|
 
Mil spec is a series of codes that are required for parts specification that include materials, tolerances and inspection.
Given that the parts meet tolerances and meet or exceed materials specifications (many makers use parts from same mills) then the rest is to the proper assembly and inspection.
Colt 6920 sets the bar for nr. of inspection points as they have to demonstrate they go through the checklist. This adds to pay roll and therefore adds to the final bill. Noveske, LMT and Charles Daly are also at the top.
This doesn't mean that other makers do not use the same parts or do not go through an extensive checklist they might have even a better process but they do not have to document this.
There are many "lower-tier" brand makers (LOL! whatever that means) that are showing same mill parts and great quality assembly for serious use. Not all but more than what people imagine.
A thorough and detailed analysis was provided by Rob Sloyer at http://www.m4carbine.net/.
It can also be found in the combat tactics magazine form Sept.2010.
Cheers.
E.
 
There are a number of companies making ARs of superior quality to mil-spec. Most AR manufacturers are making stuff that is lower quality than mil-spec. The lower quality guns won't go the same distance as Colt or FN weapons built to the the gov't TDP. The higher quality ones will probably still be going when the .mil weapons choke.

Edit to add -- Doesn't make much difference at all if you're a civilian shooter who does occasional range sessions involving a couple hundred rounds. If you have a need for a weapon you can beat up and neglect and still get reliable performance and good accuracy, may be a bigger deal.
 
Colt is having a lot of problems with the QC lately so it is good that other makers are not following their foot steps.
I am in weekly communication with a couple of Marine armorers (deployed) and they have to go over many of the new components due to larger than average nr. of malfunctions, specially in the last two years.

As I said the brand is not always a sign of quality. I a few cases yes, brand are what they are but the internals is what matters.
I exclude all the cheap kits because many folks do not know how to bring an AR up to spec.

Regarding FN they treat you like a God when you are in the service or LEO but when you retire they treat civilians like 'chit'.
I have a few FN systems and after all the aggravations lately I am done whit them.
 
Gents, I'm new to the AR world, too, but are there certain mil-spec items that are not necessary or even desirable on a civilian firearm? For instance, I've heard some people say that the m4 style feed ramps are better left off a civilian semi-auto weapon.

Oh, and I use the term civilian loosely, as in the recreational shooter, not some dude that rolls around in the sand at the local scrap yard, firing thousands of rounds or brown bear ammo between cleanings and even practicing butt strikes and bayonet assaults (cause you never know, right?). No offense if that is recreation to any fellow high roaders! ;)
 
m4 style feed ramps help feeding. End of the story there. Everything is a myth. Regarding 'civilian' use that is a good question because I shoot more these days than many periods of time I was in the military so this is not the correct designation.
Whatever the shooting purpose a good put together AR is a good put together AR. today is occasional plinking but tomorrow might suddenly be saving your life. If you have a good AK close by it doesn't hurt neither. LOL!
 
I mainly went "mil-spec" just because that's the easiest (for me, at least) way for me to enter the AR world. Buffer tube sizing differences aside, it just seems that "mil-spec" is the easier way to shop around for what you need (or want) given the way things are advertised.

This is a good thread, thanks guys.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top