Mil spec

[MistWolf]

Milspec isn't always the minimum standard but it is always the standard. When I worked as a contractor maintaining Army helicopters, any work I performed had to meet the specifications and standards without deviation to ensure safety of flight and best performance and reliability of the aircraft.

Let's look at some of the specs of the military M4-
-Forging produces stronger, lighter receivers and 7075 is a better alloy for the job than 6061. 7075 is tougher and more rigid. Forging 6061 can cause intergranular corrosion. 7175, the alloy Armalite forges their AR10 receivers from, is a bit tougher than 7075 but is it worth it for the AR15?

-Barrels are made from 4150 CMV. It's not the cheapest or the lowest quality steel but one of the best steels that meets all the requirements. 4150 isn't used because 4150 is specified, it's used because it meets all the specifications for the barrel. Not 4150 CM or 4140 or even 4130 which are all good barrel steels, but 4150 CMV due to it's wear properties, heat dissipation and machineability

-REs are made from 7075 extrusion. Again, 7075 is tougher and more resistant to bending (6061 extrudes just fine. In fact, it's better suited for extruding than 7075 but it bends easier)

-Barrel length is 14.5" Profile includes M203 cut outs. For civilian use, the profile makes no sense (although it's still usable) and the length is less than the legal minimum

-Fire Control Group is three round burst and isn't civilian legal (full auto for the M4A1)

-Grip is A2, stock M4. I don't remember if the round handguard is standard and the RIS is an acceptable substitute or what

-Gas system is carbine length

-Flash suppressor is the A2 birdcage

When I built my 16" middy AR carbine with the civilian legal FCG, Magpul furniture and stainless steel barrel, I deviated from milspec. Receiver dimensions (with the exception of the pin hole allowing the installation of the milspec FCG) are good and material & method of manufacture and anodizing are up to snuff. Bolt & carrier are correctly made. Whether or not everything was inspected using milspec methods, I don't know. Bolt was subjected to HPT/MPI but I'm not convinced that's important or even desirable. What's important is that the bolt was shot peened and was properly made and has the correct dimensions.

What's better about my carbine?
-It's legal

-Better trigger pull and no three round burst clutch

-Magpul furniture is more comfortable to me

-Handguard is longer

-Less muzzle rise from the Battlecomp than the A2 birdcage

Where is my carbine inferior to the milspec M4?
-Stanless steel isn't as durable for high volume fire

-Does not have the 3 round burst or full auto FCG

What would I change to bring my carbine closer to milspec? Nothing, unless I could legally install a full auto FCG.

The point is, the milspec for the M4 isn't there to let contractors build the cheapest rifle possible because most of the specs are excellent. Money could be saved by changing material type but it would reduce service life.

I've got a good quality carbine that doesn't follow the milspec but it does follow it in the important areas- material type and construction processes for bolt & receivers and critical dimensions

 

[cfullgraf]

Can you explain/be specific about what you mean here?

There are hand guards, barrels, stocks, smooth side uppers, muzzle devices, and sights, no name a few items, made for the AR-15 that are excellent parts but do not meet military specifications.

For instance, I doubt there is a military specification for my 26", 204 Ruger, AR-15 barrel.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Milspec isn't always the minimum standard but it is always the standard. When I worked as a contractor maintaining Army helicopters, any work I performed had to meet the specifications and standards without deviation to ensure safety of flight and best performance and reliability of the aircraft.

(Lots of good stuff removed for space.)

The point is, the milspec for the M4 isn't there to let contractors build the cheapest rifle possible because most of the specs are excellent. Money could be saved by changing material type but it would reduce service life.

For those who don't understand the purpose of milspec and think that it somehow means "minimum spec" or "cheapest spec", this posting pretty fairly hits it on the mark.

Milspec is THE spec. It's there for a reason and that reason is because this is what the MILITARY wants. Bidding for contracts to build equipment is another matter, and this is where the money part comes it. But, regardless of who wins the bid, the equipment MUST be built to the SAME milspec.


Used to be a time when "milspec" didn't really exist, per se. The Navy would say "I want a controller to perform this function" and a contractor would be paid to manufacture it. The contractor, not knowing any more than that, would build said controller and the Navy would install it on their ships. Where it would corrode excessively, come apart at the seems, rip out cables from entryways, or otherwise fail because it was built to specifications that work fine in non-moving, dry buildings on land but not on mobile, sea-going combat weapons platforms in the middle of a stormy salty sea duking it out with the enemy.


The REASON for milspec is to meet the physical requirements the MILITARY has, for whatever reason(s).

And those reasons may not be applicable to civilian use just as civilian reasons may not be applicable to military use.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

First its not milspec without the inspector's marks on the paperwork.

Second, blind obedience to milspecs is why Uncle Sap ends up buying $400 toilet seats and $600 hammers.

No, this is not why "Uncle Sap" ends up buying $400 toilet seats and $600 hammers. There's a lot more that goes into this than "blind obedience to milspecs".

The PROCESS of how things are done has to be factored into this, as well. How the tooling requirements came about, how much equipment is required, whether or not commercial-off-the-shelf equipment will work, supply and support for the equipment over the expected lifespan of the ship or system, and more.

There is a required inefficiency built into the process when it comes to control and documentation. I can, in fact, as an engineer working in a shipyard get a package of 100 screws for $3.00, for example. I do it all the time and front-load material for planned jobs routinely.

However, when a deficiency is found during work that requires more material, or the initial quantity is insufficient due to expanded work (or lost screws), then there is an added expense that drives the cost of those screws from $3.00 to hundreds of dollars. Let me give you an example:

- Shop finds a deficiency which requires more screws. They must document this deficiency in order to both track it for repairs and to obtain the required material. This requires time for the shop to process the paperwork.

- Shop sends the paperwork to the Work Processing Center and goes back to work on what they were doing.

- WPC receives the paperwork, enters it into their tracking system, identifies the cognizant engineering code and forwards the paperwork to that code.

- The engineering code receives the paperwork and an engineer reads through the deficiency. Then the engineer goes directly to the job site and physically inspects the deficiency to ensure he fully understands the scope of the deficiency and what's required to repair it.

- The engineer completes any additional research required to correctly identify the correct repair parts via technical manuals, drawings, etc.

- The engineer processes the paperwork required to obtain the needed $3.00 diollars worth of screws and walks it through the supply people.

- The supply people do their magic, process the paperwork into documents which will obtain the needed material and return the paperwork to the engineer.

- The engineer drafts up the corrective actions required to conduct the repairs and includes in these actions the directions required to obtain the $3.00 worth of required screws to perform the work. Then sends the paperwork to WPC, who will package everything and get it ready for shop pickup.

- The $3.00 worth of screws is received in the shipyard and processed for pickup for that particular job.

- Shop picks up the paperwork and material and fixes the deficiency. Signs off the paperwork as complete and returns it to the inspectors and WPC.

- The inspectors and WPC do their jobs to ensure the work is completed satisfactory and the paperwork is closed out.


OK, I just bought a package of 100 screws for $3.00 to perform the required work. How much do you think it cost in manhours just to GET that $3.00 worth of screws, not to mention the manhours required to track this job throught to completion? Manhours that people are getting PAID for?


And there are reasons why the individual cost of any individual item may, indeed, be significantly higher than what YOU may pay as a civilian. For example, if a particular part is required to repair a given item and that part is required to be maintained in the stock system so that it will be on hand for repairs to that particular military system, there is an inherent cost to obtaining sufficient quantities of that item and then processing it for packaging, marking, handling, and storage into the stock system so that it will actually BE there when a combat vessel NEEDS it NOW for repairs.


A lot of military systems and ships aren't built and maintained like civilian systems and vehicles, and for good reason. I seriously doubt, for example, that you will EVER see in our lifetimes automobiles deliberately built and intended for 30 to 50 year operational lifespans, with full maintenance and repair support throughout their entire design lifespan.


Yes, there is waste in the system. Yes, I'm sure some of it is fraudulent. But it ain't all nearly as simple as many people would make it out to be.


'nuff said...I've already wandered too far off topic and I apologize.

 

[W L Johnson]

Mil Spec is another way of saying Min. Spec

IMHO

 

[Warp]

There are hand guards, barrels, stocks, smooth side uppers, muzzle devices, and sights, no name a few items, made for the AR-15 that are excellent parts but do not meet military specifications.

For instance, I doubt there is a military specification for my 26", 204 Ruger, AR-15 barrel.

When people talk about a rifle having 'mil spec' parts, or not...they aren't talking about handguards or stocks.

Come on now. No need to play these silly games.

 

[MistWolf]

Whether or not people are talking about handguards & stocks when they say "milspec", it still covers what handguards and stock are acceptable. That's not a silly game

Mil Spec is another way of saying Min. Spec

IMHO

Are you saying all M4 specs are minimal and can and should be raised? Or are you saying the specs are the minimum acceptable standard and make a good rifle?

 

[Warp]

Whether or not people are talking about handguards & stocks when they say "milspec", it still covers what handguards and stock are acceptable. That's not a silly game

In no thread I have ever seen on any forum where people ask about rifles, and discuss mil spec, has anybody ever cared about the handguard or stock meeting a spec.

If you want your input to be meaningful and useful it's probably better to talk about the barrel, upper and lower receivers, bolt, carrier, receiver extension, buffer, FCG, FSP, etc.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Mil Spec is another way of saying Min. Spec

IMHO

Then define what "Min. Spec" means, please. The way you post this, you make it sound like it means "lowest quality".

 

[MistWolf]

In no thread I have ever seen on any forum where people ask about rifles, and discuss mil spec, has anybody ever cared about the handguard or stock meeting a spec.

If you want your input to be meaningful and useful it's probably better to talk about the barrel, upper and lower receivers, bolt, carrier, receiver extension, buffer, FCG, FSP, etc.

Some shooters do care about milspec furniture and want or need milspec furniture for their purposes.

I agree it's good to know what we're discussing so it's helpful if a shooter has a question about an AR meeting milspec, enough is known to give a useful answer.

When I built my AR, I wanted a milspec RE and a stock designed to fit it although I did not want a milspec M4 stock. I wanted hanguards to fit my mid length upper, so milspec M4 handguards would do me no good as they are made to fit carbine uppers. In this case, I need to know what I'm talking about if I were to solicit opinions

 

[Warp]

Some shooters do care about milspec furniture and want or need milspec furniture for their purposes.

I agree it's good to know what we're discussing so it's helpful if a shooter has a question about an AR meeting milspec, enough is known to give a useful answer.

When I built my AR, I wanted a milspec RE and a stock designed to fit it although I did not want a milspec M4 stock. I wanted hanguards to fit my mid length upper, so milspec M4 handguards would do me no good as they are made to fit carbine uppers. In this case, I need to know what I'm talking about if I were to solicit opinions

In that case all you truly need to know is that a carbine length gas system requires a carbine length handguard and a mid length gas system requires a mid length handguard.

 

[Mike1234567]

I didn't vote because I'm clueless... but I'm sure as heck watching!!

 

[mljdeckard]

Mil spec has little to do with MY spec. I have had a issued gas key come unstaked. So much for mil-spec.

 

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

While a few parts like the stripped upper, hand guards,buttstock, sights and bolt carrier can be Mil-Spec. The barrels((unless pinned) lower receivers, trigger groups and such cannot be. If so they would be classified as machine guns. The extra hole in the lower, the cam mechanism and the shortened barrel are all left off for us civilians. So the fact that unless you have a pre 84 AR with a tax stamp, you don't have a true mil-spec rifle anyway.

Mil spec is the bare minimum that the government accepts as what will work for them. There are better and there are worse. Remember this is built by the cheapest bidders that can do the job like other contracts. Some special forces use LWRC,HK, etc , they aren't stamped by Colt or FN, but are just as battle worthy.

Too many get hung up on the use of Mil-spec in AR rifles... I have a Colt 6920 and if anyone can get it to shoot the same groups as my RRA 24" Varmint, I welcome the chance. My RRA is under 1/2 MOA. Now I know that comparing apples to oranges but my Colt has an expected life expectancy of 8000-20,000 rounds. My HK is guaranteed to exceed 35,000 rounds. I have seen colts with a hundred plus thousand rounds, I have also seen an HK 416 that went throught 40,000 rounds of full auto fire over a weekend and it still shoots within military specs. Some break and some survive. Mil-spec parts are just a good all around minimum for BCG's and such. They are made to withstand full auto abuse.

I honestly think it is a term to sell guns. Because on that note Colt,FN, LaRue, Knights Armament and Hk are the only Mil-spec makers. (There might be a couple more but my old memory fades me). Most civilians will never put a gun through the abuse a battle rifle goes through. It is just people wanting to have the best they can, and I understand that. Just don't overlook good manufacturers because they aren't used by the military...

But there are cheap-o no good AR15's that should be used as boat anchors too. Buy a good brand name with a good warranty and be happy. Colt is one of the best and most affordable "good tier" rifle.

 

[Warp]

Mil spec has little to do with MY spec. I have had a issued gas key come unstaked. So much for mil-spec.

I think it's a given, and everybody ought to know, that nothing...not one dang thing...is 100%.

If anybody believes that having the right equipment and even using it the right way guarantees literally zero chance of something failing, malfunctioning, or breaking, that person is in for a serious reality check when they enter the real world.

 

[holdencm9]

I voted that I like it, but go away from it for cost and functionality. This is an important distinction from the other option that said "prefer better" since I think that suggests that the mil spec is a minimum, which I don't think it is. In some cases it it probably overkill (trigger, steel type, barrel profile). And better is always up for interpretation. A certain barrel steel or treatment may be better for heat resistance during high volume fire, but worse for accuracy, etc. The standard combat trigger may be able to ignite the hardest primers on the planet, but my Giessele has never had a misfire with anything. As has already been said, it is a good baseline though, especially for the components of the BCG (gas key staked, steel type, weight/profile, HP/MP test of bolt, etc).

Regarding the furniture is mil-spec discussion, are we sure there isn't a spec somewhere for type of plastic (ABS? PVC? what?) and perhaps the heat shields? I can't be certain, but I agree with Mist that some people are particular about the hand guards and do want to know what is on the military weapons.

 

[Welding Rod]

Personally I am not too much of a Milspec guy when it comes to ARs. I would much rather have a Wilson or Gieselle (Sp) trigger, a LaRue med contour barrel and quad, a Magpul Stock, and so on. I think an AR like the 6920 includes some very undesirable component selection, close to milspec or not.

That said, a real eye opener for me about "Milspec" v. commercial has been comparing Garands to M1As. Years ago I read a post stating the Garand was twice the rifle a M1A was. I was skeptical. After owning and handling plenty of both, now I believe it. The Garand was built to be a fine rifle, the M1A is built to appear to be a fine rifle.

 

[Warp]

Personally I am not too much of a Milspec guy when it comes to ARs. I would much rather have a Wilson or Gieselle (Sp) trigger, a LaRue med contour barrel and quad, a Magpul Stock, and so on. I think an AR like the 6920 includes some very undesirable component selection, close to milspec or not.

That said, a real eye opener for me about "Milspec" v. commercial has been comparing Garands to M1As. Years ago I read a post stating the Garand was twice the rifle a M1A was. I was skeptical. After owning and handling plenty of both, now I believe it. The Garand was built to be a fine rifle, the M1A is built to appear to be a fine rifle.

There are plenty of things out there that are better than simply being milspec. Examples include Geissele FCG's, some premium barrels, different furniture, as you say.

 

[hatt]

Then define what "Min. Spec" means, please. The way you post this, you make it sound like it means "lowest quality".

Minimum spec you want. You can come up with all sorts of minimum standards but the one that took years and millions of taxpayer dollars seems like the best one. And it's common. So we can say a 158C bolt is the min spec or just start making pot metal ones and work our way up to a good one. Former sounds easier.

 

[mljdeckard]

Warp, all I'm saying is, people imagine 'mil-spec' to be some magical standard to aspire to. Yes, they fail eventually like everything else does. I just go batty watching people nit pick over things like whether or not the key is staked properly, as if that means that it is some manufacturing step that will prevent it ever failing.

In any event, I absolutely trust commercial demand to drive quality more than governmental standards.

 

[PabloJ]

Mil-Spec....you mean Military Speculation?
Dan

Mil-Spec seems to mean it meets US Military standard. Faith sells mounds of inventory. To me Mil-Spec means suitable for storage in tool box.

 

[ugaarguy]

I absolutely trust commercial demand to drive quality more than governmental standards.

I don't, and with good reason: Look at all the commercial rifles made with materials and assembly that are inferior to even military specifications. The M16 and M4 TDPs prevent manufacturers from cutting corners when building for the military. You have to research commercial rifles to make sure they even meet those minimum specs.

Mil spec has little to do with MY spec. I have had a issued gas key come unstaked. So much for mil-spec.

And how much more quickly would that gas key have come loose if it wasn't staked?

 

[rule303]

Mil-spec can mean very different things depending on who is using the term. For any gun not actually fielded by the military, there is no mil-spec, period. Some in the AR crowd get so hung up on the term, that they will not purchase a part that isn't "mil-spec", even if that part may be drastically better than others on the market. There have been many inferior weapons designs over the years that met military specifications, but were total failures in the field. Keep in mind also that a mil-spec part just needs to meet a minimum performance specification, at the price agreed upon by the supplier, there may be better choices on the open market.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Minimum spec you want. You can come up with all sorts of minimum standards but the one that took years and millions of taxpayer dollars seems like the best one. And it's common. So we can say a 158C bolt is the min spec or just start making pot metal ones and work our way up to a good one. Former sounds easier.

"Minimum spec you want. You can come up with all sorts of minimum standards but the one that took years and millions of taxpayer dollars seems like the best one."

Thank you, hatt. THAT I will accept for "Min. Spec". Because it's actually accurate, meaningful, AND realistic.

If you (the generic "you") want somebody to build something, then you give them drawings, material, and specifications. Those specifications are, by definition, the minimum required for the job. In fact, they may be EXACTLY what is required OR they may be the MINIMUM that is required, depending on how the specifications are written.

But in no case is the contractor allowed to deviate from those specifications without authorization.

There may be better specifications, there may be better tolerances, there may be better materials...but they can't be WORSE than what is specified.


What problems, for example, could the Navy POSSIBLY have if they contracted out the fabrication of submarine high pressure air bank flasks to be made of (X alloy steel) and the contractor, having problems obtaining sufficient quanties of the steel required by the milspec, substituted an alternate (Y alloy steel) with the same or higher tensile strength characteristics?

What problem, indeed! Like maybe Chloride stress cracking/corrosion that the other steel is susceptable to but the milspec steel is not? Sucks for a strategic ballistic missile submarine on nuclear deterrent patrol with 150 men and 24 strategic nuclear weapons when one or more of those flasks ruptures and the ship cannot perform an emergency blow of all main ballast tanks at test depth. Kinda hard for 150 dead men to perform their job while sitting on the bottom of the ocean with 24 nuclear missiles scattered all around them.


A milspec is no different than any other engineering specification elsewhere...it's just called "milspec" because it's (insert drum roll here) MILITARY RELATED.

 

[Warp]

Warp, all I'm saying is, people imagine 'mil-spec' to be some magical standard to aspire to. Yes, they fail eventually like everything else does. I just go batty watching people nit pick over things like whether or not the key is staked properly, as if that means that it is some manufacturing step that will prevent it ever failing.

In any event, I absolutely trust commercial demand to drive quality more than governmental standards.

Of course being properly staked doesn't mean it is impossible for the gas key to come loose. But properly torqued bolts and proper stakes ought to reduce the chance of it coming loose, which is why people tend to prefer the bolts be staked.

I wouldn't call staked gas keys nit picking.

I might consider requiring parkerizing under the FSB to be nit picking.