I am not talking about changing material or deviating from print tolerances.  There are other factors that govern quality, a big one in workmanship.  One of the things tracked by Government procurement is quality, companies with better "quality report cards" can get contracts over companies with lower scores on their "report cards" even with slightly higher prices.

Competitive contracts are not issued solely on "the lowest cost", they are issued on a balance of lowest cost and likelihood of best quality.

There never was a mil-spec for "bathroom tissue" as far as I know.  There was a Federal specification, but that was dropped in favor of a "Commercial Item Description", which is merely a list of minimum acceptable attributes of a commonly available commercial item, for federal procurement.

One could exclude those different parts, and still claim MIL-SPEC compliance on the remaining parts. I don't believe Colt has ever done so, however.
Companies make claims all the time, typically for marketing purposes. They are largely irrelevant unless independently verified by a disinterested third party.

That merely cancelled the CONTRACTOR INTEGRATED TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE (CITIS).
TDPs get downloaded from websites now.

who's got the chart is it 2004-06 all over again.

So let's say for example....

A bolt is made in the Colt factory and a shipping error occurs where instead of being sent to an Army weapons depot, it is re-routed to me (let's say I'm just a civvy).  Is that a milspec bolt?


Okay.. let's say a bolt is made from DRMO'd broken USMC property bolts that were broken after some PFCs used them as hammers to get into the latest shipment of crayola crayons (are crayola crayons milspec or no?).  The obviously milspec steel is melted down, and remanufactured to the same standards and the same finishes applied.  This bolt is then bought on the civilian market.  Is it milspec?


Is any of this changed if Larry Vickers gives it the thumbs up?  

What if I order a milspec bolt from Stag arms, but I'm an active duty USMC rifleman?

What if the same thing happens, and I already have my DD214 and discharge?

What if it's a Colt or FN Herstal bolt?


Asking for a friend, thank you for your time.

Not this crap again.  

Buy from someone you trust, and call it a day . . .

Yes. The bolts in Colt's commercial models are probably all MIL-SPEC as well.


If it meets MIL-SPEC then that's what it is.


Nope. 


We hope Stag ships you a MIL-SPEC bolt, but you won't know if they don't since you're a grunt. 


Same answer, except you might know from reading forums or conducting your own meticulous testing.


Colt and FN are required, under contract, to deliver MIL-SPEC bolts to the USG. They are not required to sell them to you. Do they produce commercial bolts to MIL-SPEC all the time? I don't know. I suspect Colt does. FN is widely known to produce parts for other re-sellers. Maybe they even sell parts (or lots) which failed military QC to some of those same re-sellers. I don't know. You won't know either just by looking at it and/or using it.

Looks like they did. 

This is marketing. It does not mean that it is completely factual. Most guys buying ARs have no idea as to what mil-spec is or what it entails. They are easily suckered in by fancy marketing ploys. Colt banks on the ignorance of the consumer in that they rely on their name to sell firearms and not so much being 100% honest about what they sell. Of course, other companies do the same thing. Mil-spec is the buzz phrase than many companies use to sell some of the products they carry. many of them do not disclose the specifications on these products.

I know. Colt was way late to the game with that catch phrase in firearm marketing.
Do you think Colt holds their commercial parts to a lower standard?

milspec,

Lowest bidder for the lowest acceptable quality.  milspec, does not mean the best spec at all.

If mil spec is crap made by the lowest bidder using the lowest acceptable quality then what spec should our military style rifle be made to?
I remember when Mil spec was a mystery and commercial spec sucked.

There seems to be some misconception that military specifications have something to do with bidding.

Military specifications detail the requirements and how adherence to these requirements will be measured by the procuring agency.  In a way specifications may be regarded as “the lowest acceptable quality, that will ensure the item will perform as required”.

People seem to forget the last part of that sentence.

As to bidding - Would you rather pay the highest bidder that makes parts?

When one buys parts that are made to military specification, you know exactly want the part is capable of.  For example:

If I have a box of ammunition made to MIL-C-9963, I know that the velocity at 78 feet from the muzzle will be 3165 +/- 40 fps, with a standard deviation of 40 fps, it will have a mean radius smaller than 2.0 inches at 200 yards, it will have a chamber pressure that will average 55,000 psi, a port pressure between 12,400 and 16,400 psi, and not decrease velocity by 250 fps or increase chamber pressure more than 2000 psi at the extremes of -65 degrees F or 125 degrees F.

What can you positively state about a box of Federal American Eagle .223 Remington?

Similarly, if you have a true mil-spec bolt, you know that the material it was made from, the dimensions it is made to, the heat treatment it was subjected to, and the protective finish applied have been tested and found reliable, and of adequate strength.

If a bolt is not “made to Mil-Specs”, do you know it works properly and reliably?  You might, or you might not.

Do Military specifications mean “the best”? no, of course not.  But, they do allow you to know what you are getting.

Of course all this only applies to stuff that is actually made to “military specifications”, not stuff advertised as “mil-spec”. . . .

Commercial Item Descriptions are a relatively new innovation.  There IS a military standard/spec for floor wax, ash trays, butt cans, brooms, paint brushes (wide, "artist's", chip, etc.), and more.  And there probably was one at one time for TP.  Somehow, somebody in DoD finally figured out that specifying details that commercial product manufacturers already manage quite well wound up costing more money than just buying shipping containers full of generic, industrial (and cheap) TP (as well as most other things).

Yes, MIL-SPECs (and MIL-STDs, MIL-G, etc.) establish minimum acceptable quality, tolerances, production methods, and so on.  Sometimes these minimum levels are pretty broad (like with floor wax), and other times they're precise and critical (such as with some aviation electronic components).  These standards also prescribe testing protocols and acceptable levels of deviation from the standards; HERE is where these standards really become important.

In the AR world, since "MIL-SPEC" is not a well controlled term, vendors toss it around for advertising and "cred," even when they can't really spell MIL-SPEC.  (Pro tip: it's spelled with all caps...)  Knowing what these specifications mean is critical for the consumer to understand when they're being offered higher quality stuff, and when they're being fed a load of BS.  

Simply knowing that a MIL-SPEC receiver extension must be made from a specific alloy, offer a specific number of adjustable stock stops, and have a particular type of threading allows you to weed through most poser ads, and ads for "mil spec size" tubes.  Is it important to the casual shooter that the product's 7075T6 alloy is substantially tougher than 6061 alloy aluminum?  Probably not.  Is the fact that MIL-SPEC tubes have rolled threads important?  It could be, since rolled threads are both tougher and stronger than cut threads.  But knowing that something meets the standards that are implied by advertising that something as "MIL-SPEC" makes a big difference.

I think we should lobby the industry to standardize what they mean when they say (like in the Colt ads) that something is made to MIL-SPECs.  Something like "this product contains civilian legal parts that are made to the same levels of performance, quality and testing standards as their military counterparts" would go a LONG way toward running the charlatans and knock-off artists out of business...

You mean the same industry who wants to make non-milspec ARs and sell them to all of us?

It's an interesting idea, but only a handful of manufacturers would support it.
Who would enforce it?
What other potential enforcement could that open the door to?

I mean the industry leaders who value their brand name recognition and reputation.  Like Colt...fix that ad to say what you mean (my suggested wording), and we can get started.

I would really like the big names to lead the industry instead of falling down to the lowest level with all the craptastic parts sellers.

They only want to lead in sales. 
I think educating consumers goes a long way toward running the charlatans and knock-off artists out of business, but I can't make anyone care.
Most people are content buying crap, so most sellers are going to move crap, although the AR market has significantly improved in the last 20 years. So has consumer knowledge, I think, largely due to forums like this one.

It's possible that you're right, and that American Business has turned into "short term profits are the only goal" turds.  But I think that some businesses are better than that, and that even if it's minor, some businesses will work toward what our economy was originally based on: finding and fulfilling a need, where producers and customers were "partners" in what products had what features.  It worked pretty well until the 1980s, and I don't see why (except for people with money and zero attention span who want profits today not next week) it can't work again.

I refuse to be entirely cynical about this.  Yes, a lot of companies are driven by MBAs that can't spell MBA, but consumers are the ultimate ruler of businesses.  If we demand something and don't get it, we take our dollars elsewhere.

Some do. Most do not, unfortunately.