AR Sponsor
Posted: 1/2/2009 7:51:39 AM EDT
|
After reading numerous post and claims/counter claims of a given part being Mil-Spec or not is leaving me a bit confused.
I will not use any brand or manufacturer to start any arguments, just trying to clarify or understand peoples, and advertisements use of "Mil-Spec" parts. My understanding is this: Mil-Spec is a list of requirements including material used, heat treatment of those materials (if appropriate), acceptible tolerances, finish to be used, etc. Any testing protocol or inspection regime IS NOT part of a given item being considered Mil-Spec. This testing protocol or inspection regime is part of the Military Standard or Mil-Std. Of course for a product to be considered Mil-Std., it must first be Mil-Spec. This tells me that any barrel or carrier can be Mil-Spec without any testing completed. If a barrel, carier, or any other, part is tested by lot, or every piece, makes no difference to it being Mik-Spec. Mil-Spec is to insure every part is interchangable and will ease the availablilty of swapping parts for repair, etc. A Mil-Std. may be required for quality control and proof of quality. Am I way off on this assesmement? I see posts stating a given part is not mil-spec becasue every part is not tested or a particulat test is not perfromed. I do not believe this to be true. I look for mil-spec to ensure the part will function properly in my AR, then I need to do my "due-diligence" to make sure the part is of a high quality from a manufacturer with the reputation and history of producing quality products. And working in a manufactoring field as an Engineer, I understand no one has the time or money to put every piece through testing and testing per lot is the way things are done. This is a simple reality. |
IMHO The only real Mfg. who posts they are truly (Mil-Spec) are Mfgs who are building their products under a contract for the United States Military. Now people can say our product meets all of the requirements to be deemed (Mil-Spec) But unless it's inspected by the DOD and accepted it's just another good part. And there are many good parts.
|
|
Quoted:
IMHO The only real Mfg. who posts they are truly (Mil-Spec) are Mfgs who are building their products under a contract for the United States Military. Now people can say our product meets all of the requirements to be deemed (Mil-Spec) But unless it's inspected by the DOD and accepted it's just another good part. And there are many good parts.+1 The only true mil-spec rifles out there are ones that have been the property of the US military. And mil-spec is not the newest tech available. The 4150 barrel steel used in the M16A2 is spec from 1978. There are good parts out there and bad parts its just up to you to do the research and find what works for you in the situation you will use your rifle in most of the time. |
|
Military acceptance specifications (MILSPEC) are the MINIMUM acceptable for acceptance by the US military. In many ways they aren't that tough to meet.
The specs for the M16, M4, and M4A1 are already posted on the main AR15.com site. M4A1 http://www.ar15.com/content/manuals/m4a1milspec.pdf For an M4A1 a single carbine must go 6,000 rounds with a total combined 9 ammo or parts breakage failures (see page 12). Parts should go a minimum of 2,000 to 3,000 rounds. M4 http://www.ar15.com/content/manuals/m4milspec.pdf M16 http://www.ar15.com/content/manuals/m16a2milspec.pdf |
|
This is part of my question...
For an M4A1 a single carbine must go 6,000 rounds with a total combined 9 ammo or parts breakage failures (see page 12). Parts should go a minimum of 2,000 to 3,000 rounds. This is Mil-Std. and NOT Mil-Spec. being it is a testing protocol. And I agree Mil-Spec is not tha latest technology as far as the M16 is concerned. My only concern with Mi\lk-Spec is that it will function in my AR. I will always choose a better material or product. I really think Mil-SPec is anm often misused term and often incorrectly interchanged with Mil-Std. |
|
Quoted:
And working in a manufactoring field as an Engineer, I understand no one has the time or money to put every piece through testing and testing per lot is the way things are done. This is a simple reality. Incorrect. The real reality is that many parts are indeed inspected 100%, 100% with many inspection methods. I have been involved with many programs where hardware was 100% chemically certified (mass spectrometer), 100% physically certified (tensile test), 100%PT inspected, 100% x-ray inspected, then 100% visually inspected, 100% dimensionally (not all dims) etc... 100% inspection in not unusual. Edit to add: I agree with you that the term mil-spec it thrown around pretty loosley. |
|
Quoted:
I really think Mil-SPec is anm often misused term and often incorrectly interchanged with Mil-Std. It is not, because the distinction between milspec and milstd exists only in your mind. Under the guise of the Defence Standardization Program, the DoD used to issue a lot of standards. These were identified by the prefix MIL. People took to referring to them as MIL specifications or MIL standards, but it was an informal way of doing so. On paper, the standards have official titles like MIL-S-12345 for steels or MIL-G-54321 for greases or MIL-R-63331 for rifles. Whether you choose to slang that as a milspec or a milstandard is up to you. The situation gets muddier as time goes on, because the DSP now prefers to use commercial specs rather than writing its own. Thus, the active spec for heat treating aluminum which used to be something like MIL-QQ-4083, has been transferred to the Aerospace Materials Society (a division of SAE) who publish it as AMS-QQ-4083. Thus, a spec that was written by the SAE or ASTM is often referred to as a milspec. In terms of M16 rifles and M4 carbines, MIL standards exist for complete rifles, and for the raw materials and manufacturing processes that produce them. MIL standards do not and never have been written for parts. The great majority of all the text of any MIL document is testing and performance based. In the case of the M16, the only thing that is said about the manufacture is a single line that says, in essence, "make according to the registered drawing #456789". The whole rest of the document is testing and quality control. And for the guy that said the 4150 spec for the M16A2 was written in 1978? Ummm, no. The spec for 4150 barrel steel was written in about 1938 for the M1 Garand. The AR-15 was designed to use a Cr-Mo-V steel way back in 1957, and it is the only barrel steel they have ever used, so far as I know. ORD 4150 was obsolescent for barrels by the Korean War. |
|
Quoted:
I have been involved with many programs where hardware was 100% chemically certified (mass spectrometer), 100% physically certified (tensile test)... You have worked in an industry where 100% of produced parts are destructively tested? Here's a tip: don't buy into the stock options program! |
|
"MIL-C-71186(AR), 31 January 1994, MILITARY SPECIFICATION CARBINE, 5.56MM: M4A1
"This Specification is approved for use by the US Army Armament Munitions and Chemical Command and is available for use by all Departments and Agencies of the Department of Defense." "1.1 Scope. This specification covers the requirements, examinations and tests for a 5.56mm lightweight, air-cooled, gas operated, magazine-fed carbine designed for either full automatic or semi-automatic fire (see 6.1)." |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have been involved with many programs where hardware was 100% chemically certified (mass spectrometer), 100% physically certified (tensile test)... You have worked in an industry where 100% of produced parts are destructively tested? Here's a tip: don't buy into the stock options program! Here is a tip: In a foundry you have what are called "co-cast test bars" When the mold is being filled there is an offshoot in the risers which fill at the same time. The bars are then tensile tested (after HT). What you are refering to are called "cut bars" where one casting out of a chemically certified pour is sacrificed and cut into test bars. |
|
Quoted:
In a foundry you have what are called "co-cast test bars" When the mold is being filled there is an offshoot in the risers which fill at the same time. The bars are then tensile tested. True, but that is lot testing, meaning you take a sample and qualify the entire lot based on the results of that sample. To say parts are 100% inspected/tested/qualified means that each and every part is subject to that inspection/test/qualification. For example, ANSI B16.5 requires that pressure pipeline fittings be 100% hydrostatically tested. This means that if you produce 25 valves in a lot, All 25 need to be hooked up to a pump and internally pressurized to 1.5xworking pressure. You can't just pressure test one piece from the batch and label all 25 as being good. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
In a foundry you have what are called "co-cast test bars" When the mold is being filled there is an offshoot in the risers which fill at the same time. The bars are then tensile tested. True, but that is lot testing, meaning you take a sample and qualify the entire lot based on the results of that sample. To say parts are 100% inspected/tested/qualified means that each and every part is subject to that inspection/test/qualification. For example, ANSI B16.5 requires that pressure pipeline fittings be 100% hydrostatically tested. This means that if you produce 25 valves in a lot, All 25 need to be hooked up to a pump and internally pressurized to 1.5xworking pressure. You can't just pressure test one piece from the batch and label all 25 as being good. No, it is not lot testing. One bar from each pc shipped is to be tested. I have seen it on many parts. You are thinking of "seperate cast" test bars. Edit to add: check out the links for the type of castings I am talking about. I have never worked at this place but visited many times, years ago. High dollar stuff. http://www.hitchcockusa.com/photogallery/historical.html another http://www.haley.on.ca/prod_serv.html |
|
Quoted:
No, it is not lot testing. One bar from each pc shipped is to be tested. I have seen it on many parts. We may have to agree to disagree. I consider 100% testing to mean testing of each part being sold, not something representative of that part. I will recant some of what I said regarding the original poster's question. Looking through the list of MIL specifications, there are some that are listed as MIL-STD. They do appear to be entirely related to activities, usually inspection, as opposed to things. Here are some examples: MIL-STD-414(1) SAMPLING PROCEDURE AND TABLE FOR INSPECTION BY VARIABLES FOR PERCENT DEFECTIVE (S/S BY ASQC-Z1.9) MIL-STD-453C(1) NDTI INSPECTION, RADIOGRAPHIC (S/S BY ASTM-E1742) MIL-STD-636(4) Visual Inspection Standards for Small Arms Ammunition through Caliber .50 MIL-STD-644A(5) VISUAL INSPECTION STANDARDS AND INSPECTION PROCEDURES FOR INSPECTION OF PACKAGING, PACKING AND MARKING OF SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION MIL-STD-650(6) EXPLOSIVE; SAMPLING, INSPECTION AND TESTING MIL-STD-651(1) Visual Inspection Standards for 20mm Ammunition and Components MIL-STD-663B VISUAL INSPECTION GUIDE FOR FOOTWEAR UPPER LEATHER MIL-STD-753C CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL PARTS: SAMPLING, MIL-STD-849B INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS, DEFINITIONS AND CLASSIFICATION OF DEFECTS FOR PARACHUTES MIL-STD-1224 VISUAL INSPECTION GUIDE FOR PNEUMATIC TIRES (NONAIRCRAFT) (NO S/S DOCUMENT) MIL-STD-1231B SURVEILLANCE INSPECTION OF INDUSTRIAL STOCKS OF PROPELLANT IN STORAGE (NO S/S DOCUMENT) MIL-STD-1232 VISUAL INSPECTION STANDARDS FOR CUPS AND DISKS USED IN SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION MANUFACTURE Regardless, a MIL document such as the one for the M4 will reference all sorts of other MIL documents that must be complied with, including MIL-STDs, so I don't see the need to get all pendantic about the terminology. As I mentioned earlier, most of them have been cancelled and replaced with commerical documents anyway. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I really think Mil-SPec is anm often misused term and often incorrectly interchanged with Mil-Std. It is not, because the distinction between milspec and milstd exists only in your mind. Under the guise of the Defence Standardization Program, the DoD used to issue a lot of standards. These were identified by the prefix MIL. People took to referring to them as MIL specifications or MIL standards, but it was an informal way of doing so. On paper, the standards have official titles like MIL-S-12345 for steels or MIL-G-54321 for greases or MIL-R-63331 for rifles. Whether you choose to slang that as a milspec or a milstandard is up to you. The situation gets muddier as time goes on, because the DSP now prefers to use commercial specs rather than writing its own. Thus, the active spec for heat treating aluminum which used to be something like MIL-QQ-4083, has been transferred to the Aerospace Materials Society (a division of SAE) who publish it as AMS-QQ-4083. Thus, a spec that was written by the SAE or ASTM is often referred to as a milspec. In terms of M16 rifles and M4 carbines, MIL standards exist for complete rifles, and for the raw materials and manufacturing processes that produce them. MIL standards do not and never have been written for parts. The great majority of all the text of any MIL document is testing and performance based. In the case of the M16, the only thing that is said about the manufacture is a single line that says, in essence, "make according to the registered drawing #456789". The whole rest of the document is testing and quality control. And for the guy that said the 4150 spec for the M16A2 was written in 1978? Ummm, no. The spec for 4150 barrel steel was written in about 1938 for the M1 Garand. The AR-15 was designed to use a Cr-Mo-V steel way back in 1957, and it is the only barrel steel they have ever used, so far as I know. ORD 4150 was obsolescent for barrels by the Korean War. BattleRife.. what I meant by the 4150 steel was that it was layed down as spec for the M16A2 back in 1978. I know 4150 is alot older and has been in use before 1978. What I was trying to say was the spec for many of our rifles is not the latest, greatest stuff as far as tech goes. I dont know if spec has changed for barrel steel with the newer M4's though. |
AR Sponsor