AR Sponsor
Posted: 4/6/2010 6:35:30 PM EDT
| What does that mean? I've run across threads wherein rifles manufactured by companies such as LMT and Noveske as being "military grade" and then talking about other manufacturers rifles as though they are something less. What is it that makes one rifle "military grade" and the others not? |
|
"Mil-Spec" is a very overused term that many manufacturers claim to help sell their products. Colt is the only AR manufacturer that is truly "mil-spec" in every sense of the word (except for no select-fire for civilians), but don't let that discourage you from buying another manufacturer's product if it better suits your need and budget.
"Mil-Spec" includes features such as: buffer tube size, parkerizing under FSB, barrel steel, rifling twist, extractor spring, buffer weight, and bolt carrier key. For the average user, most of these things are nice to have but not essential. (Exclusions IMO would be the proper extractor spring/insert and a properly-staked carrier key.) Someone compiled a list of features from leading AR manufacturers and created "The Chart," which rates each manufacturer by the number of "mil-spec" features each includes. I believe it's posted up at M4Carbine.net. In short, there are several other AR manufacturers making rifles that are very close to true "mil-spec," if not better. These include Bravo Company Manufacturing (BCM), Spike's Tactical, LMT, and Noveske. My opinion: Decide what features are important to you, and buy from a reputable manufacturer. Don't look too closely at whether a particular rifle is marketed as "mil-spec" or not, because again, that term is misused in abundance. |
|
Thanks for the response. I have a few ARs and have built a bunch and I've never really paid attention to such things except to try to get good parts. Bolts are carriers from BCM and Spikes were my biggest priority, misplaced or not. I use buffer tubes from ACE, because they are strong and I like the T markings on them (are they T marking if on the buffer?) and always paid attention to anything having to do with extraction/ejection. Otherwise, I just went with name brands for uppers and lowers and whatever I could get a good deal on for barrels, within reason.
All of my rifles have run 100%, after a few stumbling blocks were over come due to miscellaneous out of spec parts like gas tubes and blocks. I just saw the posts and it made me wonder if I was missing anything. With your response, I realize that my rifles are probably more true to "mil spec" than I knew. Thanks. |
|
Quoted:
"FN is also a truely Mil-Spec rifle" I would say so since they have the M16A2 contract. They also provide M16A4 to the government. Indeed. I considered including them above, but chose to omit them and instead specified "AR manufacturers" versus "M16/M4 manufacturers." I omitted them because a) they do not produce a civilian rifle available for sale in the US, and b) they do not sell parts to civilians. I know FN parts can be found on the civilian market, but I felt that would be a bit too off-topic. |
|
Take the words "mil-spec" with a grain of salt. A gigantic one.
For a civilian market rifle, the term "mil-spec" is definitely more a marketing term than anything else. Makers get to charge extra, people think it's better, and that's all fine and good. People like to forget that anything truly "mil-spec" is only good enough for the military, at the time that specification was written. This means it probably won't be bad per-se, but a 60's "mil-spec" AR part won't be the same as a 90's "mil-spec" AR part, because the spec changed, and they don't tell you which spec. You can take this to mean it won't be "the best on the market today." This isn't bad - it's just that like any large, bureaucratic organization, they can't just change the specs for things the same year new metal alloys turn out to be a better material for making barrels, but the specs change, and spec changes are a political, not a technical process. Simply looking at barrel specifications, companies like Sabre Defence and others use metals with significantly better properties than the steel specified by the military. They're more corrosion-resistant, higher tensile strength, more heat stress resistant, and as a result last a lot longer than the military standard barrel. Nitriding as a surface treatment is another area. You can get stainless, very hard stainless, and nitrided barrels for AR rifles these days, and BCGs that are chromed, nitrided, and what-have-you. As proven by Glock, nitrided surfaces are some of the most durable available today when it comes to firearms, and can be used in places where parkerizing can't. Is it mil-spec? No. Again, mil-spec isn't the worst, but it's not always the best either. |
|
Quoted:
FN is also a truely Mil-Spec rifle, and there are others in superceded specs. This is not exactly true. FN might make a mil-spec rifle for the military, but they don't sell to civilians, so anything that reaches civilian hands is either stolen military merchandise, illegal importation, or non-standard production (and therefore can't be verified as mil-spec). There might be very few exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions, and not the rule. The commercial weapons they do produce do not fall under military production, so they cannot be guaranteed to be mil-spec. The same goes for Sabre Defense - they make M16's for the military, but their commercial weapons are NOT fully mil-spec. The only companies that make fully mil-spec commercial AR's to date are Colt and BCM. Noveske is mil-spec in materials and construction, except that they use batch testing for HPT and MPI. Daniel Defense is virtually perfect mil-spec as well, except that they issue single heat shields with their M4 handguards (instead of double). Aside from the above, you'll find major discrepancies between other manufacturers and mil-spec requirements. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
"FN is also a truely Mil-Spec rifle" I would say so since they have the M16A2 contract. They also provide M16A4 to the government. Indeed. I considered including them above, but chose to omit them and instead specified "AR manufacturers" versus "M16/M4 manufacturers." I omitted them because a) they do not produce a civilian rifle available for sale in the US, and b) they do not sell parts to civilians. I know FN parts can be found on the civilian market, but I felt that would be a bit too off-topic. To be fair, Colt does not sell Mil-Spec rifles to the civilian market either. You can only buy them in semi-auto, without the full auto and 3 round burst features. So a semi-auto AR from Colt would be as close as you can get, but not 100% built to current US military specifications. |
|
Quoted: Colt is the only AR manufacturer that is truly "mil-spec" in every sense of the word (except for no select-fire for civilians) Not true, Sabre Defence also has a contract to make M16A4 and M16A3 rifles for the Navy and Marine Corps. And they make rifles for the civilian market. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Colt is the only AR manufacturer that is truly "mil-spec" in every sense of the word (except for no select-fire for civilians) Not true, Sabre Defence also has a contract to make M16A4 and M16A3 rifles for the Navy and Marine Corps. And they make rifles for the civilian market. Actually, he's correct. Sabre Defense's commercial/civilian rifles are NOT mil-spec. Colt's are. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Colt is the only AR manufacturer that is truly "mil-spec" in every sense of the word (except for no select-fire for civilians) Not true, Sabre Defence also has a contract to make M16A4 and M16A3 rifles for the Navy and Marine Corps. And they make rifles for the civilian market. Actually, he's correct. Sabre Defense's commercial/civilian rifles are NOT mil-spec. Colt's are. You have to add this: "except for no select-fire for civilians" as they are not 100% Mil-Spec. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Colt is the only AR manufacturer that is truly "mil-spec" in every sense of the word (except for no select-fire for civilians) Not true, Sabre Defence also has a contract to make M16A4 and M16A3 rifles for the Navy and Marine Corps. And they make rifles for the civilian market. Actually, he's correct. Sabre Defense's commercial/civilian rifles are NOT mil-spec. Colt's are. You have to add this: "except for no select-fire for civilians" as they are not 100% Mil-Spec. No, you don't. Mil-spec doesn't mean "it's exactly like the military counter-part." It means that it was produced in accordance with the manufacturing and testing methods required by the military. This is the ONLY thing mil-spec means. You can have a mil-spec Springfield Armory M1A that is identical internally to an M14, but it will never be an M14 - that is model designation. Select-fire or the lack thereof are model designations (e.g. M4A1 vs M4, etc) and have NOTHING to do with "mil-spec." Tell me, what part of "mil-spec" calls for 3-round burst? Or what part calls for full-auto? You won't find it - those are the requirements for each individual MODEL. A mil-spec AR-15 simply means every component of the weapon met military requirements for materials, production, testing, and assembly, as well as post-assembly testing. The same goes for every other weapon. |
|
There is a specification for the holes to be drilled into the lower to accept the sear pin. That spec will be location, size, ect.. There is a print with this spec that the military has approved. When the Gov calls up Colt and says we want to place an order for another 100,000 M16A4's, to be made in accordance to current spec XXXXX, Colt knows that part of that spec is to machine the hole and add full-auto parts. Let's say Colt sends them a bunch of Semi-Auto rifles...guess what? They get rejected for being not as per-spec. Let me assure you, there is a military specification for every dimension including pin holes and auto-parts. You either meet ALL of them and have a Mil-Spec rifle, or you don't... and sort of have a somewhat mil-spec rifle with exceptions to the current Military specification. I have about 10 years of experience working with military prints and specifications in the aircraft industry. I have worked with classified and non-released prints as well (Just like the specs of the current rifle systems) and there IS a specification for everything from finish, to heat treat, to machining and overall tolerances. Those auto parts dont just happen to be in there, nor are they made in Bubba's garage...They are there because the Military Specification calls for them.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– I agree with what you are saying with model designation. But isnt that the point? Olympic can say that thier pistol grip screw is mil-spec. But to stretch that and say because the screw meets spec then the whole rifle is mil-spec is incorrect. My point is, a Colt AR15 commercially available for civilian purchase is not the same, and does not meet every spec required by the military. Its close, and as close as you can get, but to say its Mil-Spec is a bit misleading for many. Some parts and processes are Mil-Spec, but some have been omitted. |
AR Sponsor