Military spec is basically an advertizing term. It used to have meaning, there was a time when the Government designed and built equipment inhouse. That is no longer true, the Government does not design or build hardware with Government employees. These functions are contracted out. Contractors are paid to design and build the hardware. There are minimum requirements that hardware has to meet, but that depends on what the Major Command (MACOM) thinks is important. Tactical equipment, in theory, is tested in severe environments, such as sand, dust, hot, wet, shock and vibration. That is all good, but what you also find, if the equipment fails a test, the MACOM will “waiver” the hardware.
The Government used to own designs, the documentation was and is called a technical data package (TDP). On commercial off the shelf, such as the SAWS, the Government basically buys a built weapon, like you buy a car. The Government did not design the thing and does not control anything to do with part dimensions or materials. What the Government will specify is “performance criteria” : it has to fire our ammunition, maybe the sling swivels have to fit our slings, can’t rust in the rain, but that is about it. Performance specs for armor plate would be things like has to stop a 50 cal round and bolt up to a vehicle. If armor plate is not too heavy, stops the bullet, and is painted the proper shade of Army Green, and the manufacturer is the low Native American bidder , the Government will buy. Performance does not mean what steel, how it is heat treated, materials used, etc. The Government has no idea of what goes into armor plating and what it is made of. Armor plate cannot be hazardous if eaten, has to be made in an environmentally responsible fashion, preferences are given to minority and handicapped contractors, and it has to fit its vehicles. If the armor plate does not bolt up, then there will be a hissy fit, and the Government always ends up paying more for less.
Even if the Government owns the design, characteristics that don’t effect (for example) ammunition, magazines, or slings, are not controlled by the Government. The Government got out of TDP approval decades ago, and got out of manufacturing data package approval before that. Today, the Government is only interested in getting involved if the product does not meet the performance spec that the equipment was purchased under. The Government is sort of like a food critic, can’t cook but can eat. So, whatever cake is placed in front of the Government, what is in that cake is based on what the contractor decides needs to be in cake. The contractor is free to change the recipe up to the point the Government barfs.
Basically the Government has gotten stupider over time, it lets contractors decide what it needs, wants, and they build it for the Government.
However, designs that have been thoroughly tested and used in military environments for decades are more likely to function than designs that are new. Hopefully everyone understands that being the beta tester means you are going to have a lot of system crashes. It is better to let the Government be the beta tester on firearms and spend the money to fix the things that break.
But that does not mean someone can't copy a M1911, AR15 use different materials, and not have a pretty reliable mechanism. What you can be assured is that the further these copies get from a mature TDP the riskier it becomes for you whether the thing will work. What you find is that many commercial manufacturer’s still follow General Motor’s philosophy of “
Marketing sells it, manufacturing makes it, and Customer Service makes it work”. (And anyone from the 70's remembers that GM almost went bankrupt when consumers switched to cheap, reliable Japanese cars) Basically they do very little testing and the thing breaks in use.
My Bud bought this carbon-carbon fiber lower. I commented at the time about the risk of changing material technologies (aluminum to carbon resin) and not seeing changes in external part dimensions. This receiver was not properly designed as there was no reinforcement made into the polymer cast receiver and it cracked under the weight of the buttstock.
In a very real sense, my Bud was the beta tester.
I covered up the name because the manufacturer replaced the lower and my Bud does not want to get yelled at.
