Mil-Spec as applied to currently produced 1911-A1 clones is manufacturing jargon. In order to be Mil-Spec all parts would have to be to Mil-Spec drawings with tolerances and materials specified per those documents.
For a M1911 I would agree, the pistol would have to be built according to the military technical data package and meet whatever product specifications there are on the M1911. A bud of mine was able to get M1911 drawings, he said, through the freedom of information act!. Anyway, according to bud, the drawings had dimensional errors! I don't doubt it, back in the day when draftsman inked drawings, dimensions in part drawings often were off, and if you added all the lengths of sub tier parts, often the total length was longer or shorter than the OAL of the end item! Modern CAD software shows dimensional intolerances today, but back then, you had to manually add them up.
Mil spec is a highly mis used advertising term. Since Clinton administration Version 1.0, the Department of Defense made a deliberate decision to go with "Performance Specs" instead of "Product Specs". Product specifications were basically, build to print. Performance specs are "I want something that does this", "weighs no more than this", "shoots this well", etc. The Government is supposed to test the item to see that it performs as required, and if so, and the item is put into inventory, assigned a NSN, it is now "mil spec". It is possible for an item to meet the requirements of a performance spec, but unless the maker shows test data that it did, whatever claims about "mil-spec ness" are all advertising hype.
Advertisers are able to get away with their claims because of the ignorance the American public has about Department of Defense Acquisition. Just as Hillary Clinton is getting away from criminal prosecution by claiming that her classified emails are being "
retro actively" classified. The American public has no clue about the classification process, and does not know that her emails are only classified if the State Department Classification guide says they were classified. They were classified if the content met the classification levels listed in her Classification Guide and have been classified ever since she wrote her emails. Apparently she was too stupid to know she was sending out state secrets over an open network. Since the vast number of Americans are as ignorant of the classification process as Hillary, they believe that going back and determining that the lady was putting out classified material in an unclassified format, is unfair and "
retroactively" classifying her emails. This of course, is stupid, and if a little person did the same, they would be in jail, depending on the severity of the security leak.