Question about mil-spec...

[SwissArmyDad]

I have no bias either way (mil-spec or not), but I was reading an article that spoke about the "true" nature of a weapon's adherance to "mil-spec" standards.

Basically put, the author asserted that TRUE military specifications for say, an AR15, are in fact only communicated between the military and the contractor supplying the parts or the complete rifle.

If a non-contracted company claims to have "mil-spec" parts, they have, in fact, reverse engineered their product to closely resemble military-grade hardware. (Some being closer to the mark than others, with respect to dimensions, finish, materials, heat-treating, etc...)

Would you fellows generally agree with this as a point of fact?

I hadn't heard this before.

 

[rcmodel]

Well sorta.

The military contract specs for the M16 is pretty widely known.
Anyone can get them and follow them.

But unless the part manufacture has a government sub-contract to make parts of complete weapons made by either Colt (M4) or FNH (M-16).
(and a short list of other contract companies who have made M-16's)

It isn't truly mil-spec to me.

At least the government inspectors & gages were not on hand or employed to insure they passed mil-spec inspections.

One could also argue if an M4 doesn't have a 14.4" barrel & a full auto switch, it isn't mil-spec either.

rc

 

[Z-Michigan]

For the M16, M4, and most modern military weapons, there is a "technical data package" (TDP) which has ALL of the information on how to build the weapon. Every last detail of materials, heat treat, machining, etc. Far more than just dimensions. For a weapon to be truly mil-spec, you need the full TDP. For the M4 pattern rifles, only Colt has it. FN USA has the TDP for the M16, but does not sell any AR-style rifles to civilians.

For all the other makers that are considered top tier, they have acquired as much as they can of the TDP through various means, such as public information (like Army manuals), probably reverse engineering, and probably having individuals who worked in positions where they saw more of the TDP than what is public. I'm just guessing on the last two.

People have asked essentially the same question on another forum where the TDP is worshipped, and I have yet to see a complete and straightforward answer.

 

[Z-Michigan]

I should add that if you're willing to do take the time and effort, you can build a terrifically high quality AR-pattern rifle with only publicly available information. You will not have something 100% faithful to the mil-spec, but it may even be better. A BCM or Daniel Defense probably doesn't follow every TDP detail that a Colt 6920 does, but they probably follow more than enough. But if you want the most faithful to the mil-spec (TDP), Colt is it.

 

[SwissArmyDad]

Very interesting!

Like I said, I've got no bias. (not trying to troll or anything )

I've certainly seen some very nice rifles (mil-spec or otherwise) do some amazing things. I'm a firearms/military tech enthusiest, foremost, and was surprised that I hadn't heard that before.

 

[txgunsuscg]

I believe I read somewhere that the TDP was actually released to competitors on accident by the Army when they were looking at a second contract...

 

[Z-Michigan]

I believe I read somewhere that the TDP was actually released to competitors on accident by the Army when they were looking at a second contract.

Haven't heard that, I have heard somewhere that Bushmaster was given it at one time in some sort of mistake, and then had to return it and not use any of the information in it for any other purpose. This could be urban legend of course. I can tell you that Bushmaster's typical products do not meet the TDP.

If anyone knows the full and complete story of how BCM, Daniel Defense, etc. follow the TDP I would be interested to hear more.

 

[Sam1911]

Some may also point out that the TDP is a snapshot of military armament technology and opinion at a certain date.

In very real terms, that specification of what was required the day that a design was finalized, often years (decades, even?) ago remains as a bit of a millstone around the necks of manufacturers who need to (or choose to, for marketing reasons) follow it even though technology and design has progressed to surpass it.

Sometimes the reason a manufacturer doesn't go "mil-spec" is because they want to cut corners and save money in areas where they think the civilian buyer won't notice. Sometimes the reason is quite the opposite -- the manufacturer has identified or developed a better material, finish treatment, geometry, tolerance specification, etc. and the military-specfied way of doing things is sub-optimal.

 

[Tirod]

Milspec is official standards formalized in contract documents. When Colt sends a shipment they include a weighty package of documentation that each bolt was MP inspected, etc. When all the t's are crossed, and i's dotted, plus actual function testing of the gun(s), then the inspector accepts it in behalf of Tank and Armament Command.

NOTHING is milspec unless the SN/Lot Number is on the paperwork. ALL commercial "milspec" AR's are just that, commercial. If it's not a Government owned (not necessarily marked) weapon purchased thru a contract and accepted, it's not milspec.

Whether "milspec" is worth the effort is somewhat questionable. Milspec states a barrel alloy, button rifling, and chrome plating the bore. Euro battle rifles have been hammerforged nitrided since the '70's, and those familiar with them say they are more accurate and will last longer. Since most of the milspec is negotiated between the maker and the DOD to meet not only performance standards but also an environment of "low price bidder," milspec is really a thumbwrestling match between DOD and the industry to at least protect the soldier with adequate gear and get the taxpayer their money's worth.

Don't forget, milspec also sets 2MOA as the average accuracy, and uses 10 shot groups to prove it with milspec ammo. It's not all about material specifications, it includes performance, too.

 

[txgunsuscg]

Update to my earlier post, from the audit undertaken after the TDP was released by the Navy to 21 contractors. "The Army and Navy had inadequate controls to safeguard Colt's proprietary data. As a result, the M4A1 Carbine TDP was inappropriately released to contractors for purposes outside the scope of the license agreement. However, we were unable to determine what, if any, effect this disclosure may have on Colt's future M4 carbine business position." You can read the complete report at http://www.dodig.mil/audit/reports/fy97/97-165.pdf. Supposedly, "the TDP, in August 1996, was not completed and could not yet be used in competitive procurements."

 

[medalguy]

All good information and accurate. I owned a company that made parts for DOD (admittedly not weapons but the information is still valid) and we were required to follow military specifications in every aspect of production. I suppose a subcontractor, or anyone for that matter, could make a part to specific dimensions, and phosphate finish it, and call it milspec, but there's a whole lot more to it than that. Milspecs cover every aspect of the product, from the exact metallic composition, country of origin of the material, hardness, dimensions, thickness of finish, temper, and much, much more, even the type of packaging, thickness of paper wrapping or plastic film, type of plastic, and so on.

I really hate it when some jackleg company offers parts as "milspec" and they are obviously lower quality than what the specs call for. I see this everywhere and I usually just pass this junk by. Buy parts from reputable suppliers, and don't hesitate to return them if they are not what they should be, as best you can determine. It's really hard to tell just what you're buying from a lot of suppliers today.

 

[Tirod]

The worst case scenario for not complying to milspec would be like the supplier in Galena, KS who bid to supply o-rings to the .Gov. And they weren't, resulting in 1) the loss of a fighter aircraft, and 2) extensive work recalling them from around the world. Plus the conviction and incarceration of the owner.

There are very good reasons to have strict standards. But, in some cases, the material quality or rate of failure isn't top of the line, simply because the costs involved are more than the loss incurred. These things are actuarially driven. And regardless of all the posturing, our soldiers are NOT supplied with the "best" we can give them. They get the most cost effective.

That's one reason why optics are now issue - the cost to improve target acquisition and increase hit probability is less than having them practice to the same level of proficiency.

 

[SwissArmyDad]

Thank you all for the great replies. I appreciate the education.

 

[Onmilo]

The point I like to make with guys who go on and on about how "Mil-Spec" their rifle or carbine is, is to poit out that unless that rifle incorporates a selective fire control group, be it full automatic or burst fire, it is emphatically NOT "Mil-Spec".
There are many manfacturers that produce parts and assemblies that now EXCEED military specifications in regards to composition of materials, fit, finish, and overall quality.

If you really want a semi automatic rifle that is as close as you can get to "mil-spec" in assembled form, simply buy a Colt.

 

[Z-Michigan]

There are many manfacturers that produce parts and assemblies that now EXCEED military specifications in regards to composition of materials, fit, finish, and overall quality.

Without having the TDP, how do you know?

Anyway, I see the opposite end: the huge number of companies that proclaim they are making and selling milspec, when in fact they are just selling something with parts of the same shape and dimensions as the military spec, and without the same materials, process, or quality control.

 

[wally]

Blind obedience to "mil specs" is how the taxpayers end up buying $400 toilet seats and $600 hammers!