I'm looking to build or buy a new AR15. I keep seeing manufacturers claim their ARs are "mil spec". Where can I find the true military specifications?... or, which mfr's really ARE mil-spec? I'm upgrading and don't want to fool around with "Jim Bob's gun company". Thanks!
Where do I find "Mil spec" parameters?
- Thread starter nittany31
- Start date
- Status
OldBrownDog
Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 335
Colt 6920. They build (or built) the real deal for the military.
Just because something is not mil-spec does not always mean it is inferior. Mil-spec just means it was built to military specifications. Mil-spec contracts still go to the lowest bidder. Some manufacturers build stuff better than mil-spec. At other times the military may require something that is completely unnecessary. Leaving it out saves money and does nothing to lessen quality.
This is a very complicated question. It used to be that the Government owned the technical data packages, now that is no longer true. The Government would require articles to pass environmental tests, troop tests, all sorts of tests. The winning design would be delivered to the Government with the drawing package. This would ensure that subsequent articles would be made to the exact standards in terms of materials, dimensions, coatings, etc, as the articles that passed the Government tests.
Now the Government buys things by performance specs. The item simply has to shoot so many bullets so many times and it passes. (simple version) The contractor promises that all subsequent items will do so similarly, but the contractor is free to make hardware changes as the contractor owns the drawing and manufacturing packages. The amount of freedom to change will vary by contract requirements.
Unless it was procured under a military contract and accepted by the Government, it is not “mil spec”. The rifle could be made to the same standards, on the same production line, but since it was not bought by the Government, you really don’t know if they held the rifle to the same specifications as the ones bought by the military. All you have are claims that you cannot verify. One should always be skeptical of advertizing claims.
I would recommend buying by reputation rather than claims of "mil spec".
Now the Government buys things by performance specs. The item simply has to shoot so many bullets so many times and it passes. (simple version) The contractor promises that all subsequent items will do so similarly, but the contractor is free to make hardware changes as the contractor owns the drawing and manufacturing packages. The amount of freedom to change will vary by contract requirements.
Unless it was procured under a military contract and accepted by the Government, it is not “mil spec”. The rifle could be made to the same standards, on the same production line, but since it was not bought by the Government, you really don’t know if they held the rifle to the same specifications as the ones bought by the military. All you have are claims that you cannot verify. One should always be skeptical of advertizing claims.
I would recommend buying by reputation rather than claims of "mil spec".
45_auto
Member
slamfire1 said:
Interesting theory.
Suppose I'm a subcontractor who has 100 each, part #12973012 (made from QQ-A-250/12 and finished per MIL-A-8625F Type 3, Class II per the drawing) on the shelf and I receive a government contract for 10 of them.
How do I know which 10 to send to the government if all 100 of them aren't equally "mil-spec"?
Anyone who buys one of those upper receivers (12973012), government or civilian, will receive the exact same part made to the exact same military specifications. It is "Mil-Spec" since it was manufactured to the military specifications.
Every single part on an M-16 has a drawing number (specification). That drawing will specify material, tolerances, finishes, acceptance testing criteria, etc, all to government (military) specifications. Any part made to that drawing will by definition be "mil-spec". If it doesn't meet all the requirements of the drawing, it's not "mil spec". Since there is no such thing as a military AR15, there is no mil-spec for it. However, there IS a mil-spec for the M-16, and any part made for it must individually be "mil-spec".
Last edited:
Since you are a subcontractor you do not have a contract direct from the Government. The first person to ask this question is the Contracting Officer from your Prime Contractor. Explain that you don’t understand the terms of your contract, that you would like to submit what is potentially non conforming material, and want to get paid.
dfariswheel
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 6,656
Colt is the only maker who uses 100% mil-spec standard parts in their commercial rifles like the LE6920.
As above, technically the Colt commercial rifles are not really "mi-spec" since they aren't US government issue rifles.
However, Colt doesn't run two supply chains or two production lines, one for commercial and one for military sales rifles.
They use the same parts in both, so if you buy, as example, a Colt LE6920 M4 carbine, you're getting a rifle with the same parts as used by the military full-auto rifles.
In effect, when Colt does the final assembly on a commercial M4 and a military M4, the exact same upper receiver, barrel, bolt, bolt carrier, etc are taken from the same stock and assembled to a lower.
The military lower will be a full auto, the commercial will be a semi-auto, but other than the full or semi parts, everything is the same.
With the possible exception of the new commercial FN made rifles, no other maker uses 100% mil-spec standard parts in their rifles.
Some builders may use some parts that are better then the military specification, but only in major parts like the bolt or bolt carrier.
In the Colt, EVERY screw, pin, stock, bolt, barrel, trigger, and every other part, no matter how minor is made to the mil-spec standard.
This doesn't necessarily mean the Colt is better than any other brand of rifle, but you do have some "yard stick" to measure them by
We know what the Colt is made of and that every part has to meet a standard.
With other brands you have to go on their word. Since they don't have to meet any standard other than their own, their rifles can have cheap parts made in China from soft metal with a painted finish. Point is you have no way of knowing other than what they tell you.
Colt also gives you their word about meeting mil-spec standards, but since they use exactly the same parts for all their standard rifles, and could be sued for fraud by telling you their rifles are made of mil-spec parts when they weren't, you have a standard you can measure them by.
Mil-spec means that whether Colt makes a pin or they buy it from a third party contractor, Colt MUST furnish to the government legally verifiable documentation that each and every part is made to that standard right down to heat treating and even the type and quality of finish.
When a contractor supplies a part to Colt, they have to include official lab tests and documentation that the part is made to the spec.
If they instead furnished some cheesy non-spec Chinese part, that would be a criminal offense.
As above, technically the Colt commercial rifles are not really "mi-spec" since they aren't US government issue rifles.
However, Colt doesn't run two supply chains or two production lines, one for commercial and one for military sales rifles.
They use the same parts in both, so if you buy, as example, a Colt LE6920 M4 carbine, you're getting a rifle with the same parts as used by the military full-auto rifles.
In effect, when Colt does the final assembly on a commercial M4 and a military M4, the exact same upper receiver, barrel, bolt, bolt carrier, etc are taken from the same stock and assembled to a lower.
The military lower will be a full auto, the commercial will be a semi-auto, but other than the full or semi parts, everything is the same.
With the possible exception of the new commercial FN made rifles, no other maker uses 100% mil-spec standard parts in their rifles.
Some builders may use some parts that are better then the military specification, but only in major parts like the bolt or bolt carrier.
In the Colt, EVERY screw, pin, stock, bolt, barrel, trigger, and every other part, no matter how minor is made to the mil-spec standard.
This doesn't necessarily mean the Colt is better than any other brand of rifle, but you do have some "yard stick" to measure them by
We know what the Colt is made of and that every part has to meet a standard.
With other brands you have to go on their word. Since they don't have to meet any standard other than their own, their rifles can have cheap parts made in China from soft metal with a painted finish. Point is you have no way of knowing other than what they tell you.
Colt also gives you their word about meeting mil-spec standards, but since they use exactly the same parts for all their standard rifles, and could be sued for fraud by telling you their rifles are made of mil-spec parts when they weren't, you have a standard you can measure them by.
Mil-spec means that whether Colt makes a pin or they buy it from a third party contractor, Colt MUST furnish to the government legally verifiable documentation that each and every part is made to that standard right down to heat treating and even the type and quality of finish.
When a contractor supplies a part to Colt, they have to include official lab tests and documentation that the part is made to the spec.
If they instead furnished some cheesy non-spec Chinese part, that would be a criminal offense.
Last edited:
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,130
dfariswheel said:
NO. Military M4 and M16A4 rifles are not full auto, instead they use 3 round burst. Even using burst is a rarity in the military.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that there were only two differences between the Colt 6920 and the real military M4: 1) No Burst switch as I mentioned 2) and the 6920 uses a different coating or finish from the M4.
Panzerschwein
member
Being in the service I can personally vouch that all things "mil spec" are not neccessarilly better. Sometime, it is worse!
Some parts of mil spec are good, some are not and some depend on intended use.
Non milspec parts can often be better for you because you can make it yours, that's what's great. I may get flame sprayed, but companies like Rock River Arms have a dedicated following and they are not milspec, they are great shooting rifles and are in service with the DEA and US Marshal service.
Non milspec parts can often be better for you because you can make it yours, that's what's great. I may get flame sprayed, but companies like Rock River Arms have a dedicated following and they are not milspec, they are great shooting rifles and are in service with the DEA and US Marshal service.
My advice:
-Read those 'mil-spec' claims VERY CAREFULLY. Lots and lots of manufacturers and retailers use phrasing that makes it sound like they are claiming it is mil-spec, when they aren't.
-Never trust that something is actual to any spec unless it specifically states that materials, etc, that are used. For example, Primary Arms constantly advertises "mil spec" buffer tubes/kits that are not. They flat out lie. And they aren't the only ones.
-This is a good thread. Finding out what the specs are, what they mean, what they do or don't do for you...that's the ticket.
Here is a short list of the best AR manufacturers (that produce enough rifles you are likely to come across them somewhere)
Knights Armament Company (KAC)
Lewis Machine and Tool (LMT)
Noveske
Daniel Defense
LaRue
Bravo Company (BCM)
Colt
Spikes Tactical
S&W M&P
Personally, what I would not buy, includes RRA, PSA, DPMS, Bushmaster, Olympic, and many others
M4 is a 14.5" barrel, the 6920 (which is roll marked M4 actually) is a 16" barrel.
Make no mistake, "mil-spec" isn't necessarily the best. What it is, is a standard. If something deviates from that standard, you should ask "Why?". Is it because it is better, or is it because it is less expensive? Most companies take the less-expensive route. Some take the better route.
Bullet points I look for, personally, when evaluating specs of a rifle:
1:7 or 1:8 barrel twist
Shot peened, HPT/MPI bolt made from Carpenter 158
7075 buffer tube of mil spec diameter
H buffer (for a typical 16" carbine or mid length)
FULL STRENGTH hammer spring/FCG, checking reports to see about light primer strikes (RRA, DPMS, and many others fail this test)
You can pretty much tell the overall level of a rifle using those. I believe the three most important parts are the barrel, the bolt, and the FCG (fire control group)
Bullet points I look for, personally, when evaluating specs of a rifle:
1:7 or 1:8 barrel twist
Shot peened, HPT/MPI bolt made from Carpenter 158
7075 buffer tube of mil spec diameter
H buffer (for a typical 16" carbine or mid length)
FULL STRENGTH hammer spring/FCG, checking reports to see about light primer strikes (RRA, DPMS, and many others fail this test)
You can pretty much tell the overall level of a rifle using those. I believe the three most important parts are the barrel, the bolt, and the FCG (fire control group)
Since FN doesn't hold the TDP, they have to produce their civvi ARs on a different line using different parts. Reviews I've read have been very underwhelming...too bad.
With current AR prices being so low, a Colt 6920 for around $1k is hard to beat. As noted above, other good brands are BCM, LMT, DD. Noveske, KAC cost more but are arguably better still.
IMO, really knowing what's what comes in at the under $1k class. You can spend $800 on a DPMS or RRA and get ripped off. You could spend the same $800 on a particular Spikes or certain PSA models and get way better quality for the exact same $.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,130
CSC_Saint said:
Ah yes. There are variants of full auto M16/M4 in the military, a caveat I intentionally left out. Since I have been in, I have never seen one as they are reserved for specialty purposes above my pay grade. Ironically many M4s I have been issued were stamped M4a1 but were still 3 round burst. Since there are procedures to change NSN/nomenclature/serial numbers of certain sensitive items it was hard to tell if the change to M4a1 was factory or done afterwards.
Warp said:
I will take your word for that. I have yet to take a measuring tape to any of my issued rifles.
Warp said:
Best advice so far on this thread. I got into a heated argument in my younger years with a retailer who not only claimed a rifle on his wall was Mil-Spec but had the same accessories issued to the military (sights, scope etc). I was a pretty fresh boot at the time so without saying I was enlisted I tried to convince him he was wrong. There is a huge appeal in the civilian market to advertise military grade or military spec to civilians. Some are telling the truth, some are making it up for dollar signs.
NWcityguy2
Member
Since none of us truly have the TDP, the term Mil-spec has come to mean several different things...
1. The parts are built and tested to the same standard that can be found on Colt ARs. As others have mentioned there are parts difference between civilian and military M4s but the various parts all have the same quality. The best examples here are the bolt and the barrel. Not only are they made from the right type of materials but they are also individually HPT/MPI (high pressure tested/magnetic particle inspected), just like the military requires.
2. The parts are built to the same standard but not tested to the same standard. Bolts and barrels are also be best example of this. They are manufactured the same as above but no tests were conducted, or perhaps only batch testing was done, to verify their quality.
3. The parts are the same dimensions as Mil-spec. With these you are looking at different materials, different methods of manufacture but at least they remain parts compatible.
And then there are parts which aren't mil-spec because of some key difference. Melonite treated barrels, piston driven uppers, polygonal rifling, different twist rates, free float tubes, commercial buffer tubes, plastic lowers, etc. There are too many examples here to list and you will see them at all price points.
Now with all that said, here is my most important contribution to this conversation... Most of the quality differences are heavily over analyzed by people trying to buy their way into being a better or more serious shooter. This is true for gun ownership in general but especially true for any aspect that mimics military trends. This single reason is why everywhere you look you will see people selling functional, lighty used equipment. That's because people are constantly trying (and failing) to change who they are by changing what they shoot. And the reason I say this is because you mentioned...
Why are you upgrading? What are you upgrading from? Are you experiencing problems with what you currently own? Are you upgrading because you are already doing something where your equipment is holding you back? Or... Are you upgrading because of something you heard or read?
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"Where can I find the true military specifications?"
You pay for an industry subscription. The entire purpose of MIL-STD documents is to ensure suppliers deliver what the purchaser ordered --that's the stated purpose. The secondary purpose is to funnel all the government's work through approved channels in the name of increased effectiveness, but with the real-world result of anti-competitive exclusion. Companies stand to bank big if they can get their product military-approved, but this very often comes at extreme initial expense, just to get a foot in the door (a burden borne easily by large, established players)
FWIW, there's a military specification document for Spanish 6-string guitars. Yes, "wood; straight grain, clear of defect" and "dark contrasting neck finish" and "durable polyurethane varnish resistant to water and UV". Not a single line about how well it can stay in tune last I checked (though they do specify the key of C, IIRC). That should tell you everything about mil specs. Their purpose is so the USO doesn't get a shipment of Flying-V Double-Necks or Keytars instead of dignified wood-finish acoustic strummers.
We use MIL-STD parts in designs at work because it's too much work, expense, and liability to evaluate and approve non-MIL parts. You could buy a tow-cable from Lowe's that would work just fine or even better than the MIL part, but without that "MIL" piece of paper, we aren't allowed to rely upon it's stated strength or anything else without costly testing, and even then, the burden is on us if something eventually goes wrong (even if it would fail the MIL part, too). Many times the customer will require MIL parts blindly as their own CYA when negotiating contracts. This artifact of military procurement is largely responsible for the 500$ toilet seats you hear about --they really do cost that much after all the approvals and desks they must pass over to be sourced from an 'unapproved' supplier.
TCB
You pay for an industry subscription. The entire purpose of MIL-STD documents is to ensure suppliers deliver what the purchaser ordered --that's the stated purpose. The secondary purpose is to funnel all the government's work through approved channels in the name of increased effectiveness, but with the real-world result of anti-competitive exclusion. Companies stand to bank big if they can get their product military-approved, but this very often comes at extreme initial expense, just to get a foot in the door (a burden borne easily by large, established players)
FWIW, there's a military specification document for Spanish 6-string guitars. Yes, "wood; straight grain, clear of defect" and "dark contrasting neck finish" and "durable polyurethane varnish resistant to water and UV". Not a single line about how well it can stay in tune last I checked (though they do specify the key of C, IIRC). That should tell you everything about mil specs. Their purpose is so the USO doesn't get a shipment of Flying-V Double-Necks or Keytars instead of dignified wood-finish acoustic strummers.
We use MIL-STD parts in designs at work because it's too much work, expense, and liability to evaluate and approve non-MIL parts. You could buy a tow-cable from Lowe's that would work just fine or even better than the MIL part, but without that "MIL" piece of paper, we aren't allowed to rely upon it's stated strength or anything else without costly testing, and even then, the burden is on us if something eventually goes wrong (even if it would fail the MIL part, too). Many times the customer will require MIL parts blindly as their own CYA when negotiating contracts. This artifact of military procurement is largely responsible for the 500$ toilet seats you hear about --they really do cost that much after all the approvals and desks they must pass over to be sourced from an 'unapproved' supplier.
TCB
Honestly I'd not worry about it. Buy a rifle, or parts, from reputable makers and you will be fine.
Willie Sutton
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,025
"As above, technically the Colt commercial rifles are not really "mi-spec" since they aren't US government issue rifles"
Uhh... no.
This line of reasoning is incorrect, and shows a basic lack of understanding of the term SPECIFICATION, (speaking as a prime contractor to the DOD myself).
Military SPECIFICATION is a DESCRIPTION to which items sold to the military must precisely conform to. The SPECIFICATIONS are precise descriptions that can be qualitatively compared to an object received from a vendor, and which is used by the accepting authority within the military system to determine if the item is excactly what was askedc for (specified), and if the supplier should be paid.
It's a DESCRIPTION, not a part, and if 10,000 widgets are made the same, to the same description, they are "Military Specification" no matter who buys them.
The document that specifies the object can be small or huge. Some are generic and are published (IE: paint color codes, etc), and some are arcane and are part of the specific bid document put forth by the soliciting agency. Some of it is open, and some is confidential or classified. There's no "one spec" that's applied.
To the OP: You're not going to find the exact specs, and even if you did, unless you're a mechanical engineer with a specialty in materials and manufacturing tolerances they are going to be absolute gibberish anyhow.
Lastly, MILSPEC does not meen "Excellent Quality", as anyone who's used US Army Toilet paper can attest. It's just a specification.... it's easy to make things better, even in the AR world. Once it's "different", no matter better or worse, it's no longer milspec. It can be as simple as a bolt carrier that's polished better, or a rifle with a better trigger pull.
Willie
.
Uhh... no.
This line of reasoning is incorrect, and shows a basic lack of understanding of the term SPECIFICATION, (speaking as a prime contractor to the DOD myself).
Military SPECIFICATION is a DESCRIPTION to which items sold to the military must precisely conform to. The SPECIFICATIONS are precise descriptions that can be qualitatively compared to an object received from a vendor, and which is used by the accepting authority within the military system to determine if the item is excactly what was askedc for (specified), and if the supplier should be paid.
It's a DESCRIPTION, not a part, and if 10,000 widgets are made the same, to the same description, they are "Military Specification" no matter who buys them.
The document that specifies the object can be small or huge. Some are generic and are published (IE: paint color codes, etc), and some are arcane and are part of the specific bid document put forth by the soliciting agency. Some of it is open, and some is confidential or classified. There's no "one spec" that's applied.
To the OP: You're not going to find the exact specs, and even if you did, unless you're a mechanical engineer with a specialty in materials and manufacturing tolerances they are going to be absolute gibberish anyhow.
Lastly, MILSPEC does not meen "Excellent Quality", as anyone who's used US Army Toilet paper can attest. It's just a specification.... it's easy to make things better, even in the AR world. Once it's "different", no matter better or worse, it's no longer milspec. It can be as simple as a bolt carrier that's polished better, or a rifle with a better trigger pull.
Willie
.
Last edited:
NWcityguy2
Member
It's a disservice to the conversation to ignore the #1 reason parts are "different" and that's to drive down the price. But even with that said just because the price is lower it doesn't mean the performance is lower. Or even that the lifespan is lower.
Willie Sutton
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,025
^^ At times, and your point is well taken, however there are many rifles of premium quality that are not "milspec" due to being improved in quality, finish, materials, and design.
It's pretty clear that you can use price as a basic guide: A $500 AR isn't going to built using 100% MILSPEC parts (save for the obviously not MILSPEC semi-auto parts), and neither is a $2000 one.... and both will likely shoot just fine.
It's really irrelevent to any civil user in any event, as being "in spec" doesn't mean a thing to anyone other than a government inspector. It's neither terribly good, nor terribly bad. It's just "Military Issue" vanilla stuff. Makes great advertising though.
Willie
.
It's pretty clear that you can use price as a basic guide: A $500 AR isn't going to built using 100% MILSPEC parts (save for the obviously not MILSPEC semi-auto parts), and neither is a $2000 one.... and both will likely shoot just fine.
It's really irrelevent to any civil user in any event, as being "in spec" doesn't mean a thing to anyone other than a government inspector. It's neither terribly good, nor terribly bad. It's just "Military Issue" vanilla stuff. Makes great advertising though.
Willie
.
If given a choice between two rifles of similar $1000 price, if one details all the materials demensions and inspections done per milspec and the other glosses over the technical details, I'll take milspec. Is milspec the be-all end-all of AR's? No. It's simply a baseline that I prefer to follow. Manufacturers deviate from milspec for two reasons, to build to a price point (bad idea) or to adapt newer materials/finishes/designs in an attempt to improve upon the base design (possibly good).
Quote from NWcityguy2: Why are you upgrading? What are you upgrading from? Are you experiencing problems with what you currently own? Are you upgrading because you are already doing something where your equipment is holding you back? Or... Are you upgrading because of something you heard or read?
Well, I have an Oly plinker flat top right now. It's been just fine, but I hear rumblings that they have a short life span, and will eventually develope problems. A lot of people much more experienced than I, hate Olympics.
Well, I have an Oly plinker flat top right now. It's been just fine, but I hear rumblings that they have a short life span, and will eventually develope problems. A lot of people much more experienced than I, hate Olympics.
How many rounds through it?
When you say "it's been just fine", does that mean you have had zero malfunctions?
- Status
