talking to a well informed employee at a local gun store and we were talking about MIL-SPEC. He told me that when it comes to gun makers especially the entry and lower level AR platforms that “MIL-SPEC” was not really MIL-SPEC. He said that the lower tier guns used MIL-SPEC dimensions on there upper/lower/barrel/BCG but not the proper material,heat treatment, machining technique etc. But they still somehow qualify as MIL-SPEC but not really!? Kinda like a $400 AR saying: “look at that $$900 AR over there, we look just alike”.He said a lot of brands are just guns assembled from parts manufactured by other companies and they can get around this as they will most likely never bid on a government contract and the fact that there is no committees that will audit there quality or investigate there MIL-SPEC claim. He told me that upper tier guns such as Noveske, LWRC, VLTOR and Wilson Combat have “above” MIL-SPEC standards while FN, Colt, Remington and Bushmaster are true MIL-SPEC. Can anyone shed the light on the subject. Is there is a “standard” in which we gauge guns and label MIL-SPEC or some NATO designation?
The tdp contains the entire specification. I think most companies use mil-spec to mean dimensions. Some include materials, others attempt to replicate the QA controls. The more expensive materials, and QA procedures add to cost.
Some companies use “milspec” and use milspec dimensions and materials but fail at assembling them together properly, which I’m sure is part of the specification, so they still fail.
The term, as used in the industry, has become less than worthless from what I can see, even though some still use it correctly. It’s like “ignorant”. When you use it correctly, your normal dude off the street has no clue what you mean… but I’m an industry outsider so take my opinion worth a grain of salt.
Sometimes I wonder if people even know what mil spec means.
Military specification.
In the literal sense, nothing is milspec that isn’t a select fire weapon issued to the U.S. Military.
Milspec is more than dimensions. It is material, assembly, processing, coating, etc. your gun store employee was quite well versed compared to most of what I’ve seen.
Ironically, what many consumers care about most is irrelevant to milspec. Things like color, fit and finish, and lack of imperfections such as scratches and scrapes.
People say “better” than milspec because they think of milspec as a linear progression. It doesn’t work like that. There is no better or worse than milspec. There just is and is not milspec.
The technical data plan and drawings specify how the item(s) must be made and from what materials.
The military specifications are how the items will be tested for acceptance. If the article(s) doesn’t (don’t) pass, then the items are rejected. The original contract specifies how many the government expects and the delivery schedule. If the vendor doesn’t or can’t deliver he defaults and the government can either penalize the vendor or cancel his contract and let it out to another vendor. Occasionally the government has several vendors (i.e., Colt, FN, Remington, Saber, KAC, etc.) so he can have an uninterrupted supply chain.
How many companies are licensed to build a “mil-spec” rifle and sell at a retail level? 1.
How many dishonest companies claim and hint that they are built to the TDP that is licensed by Colt to almost no one? A lot. Even if they did “peek” at the TDP, they are still using someone else’s proprietary information to build it and are scum.
Thanks. Our company manufactures hydraulic cylinders for the military, torpedo and bomb loading/handling equipment, missile erection and loading equipment and our products are MIL-SPEC, each item comes with 5-7 3" binders full of certifications and 3rd party audits. So that is why we were talking about the use of MIL-SPEC as a description.
So BCM, LMT and other companies that build duty ready carbines and sell to LE and civilians, have excellent customer service, and stand by their products 100% are “scum”. YEAH NO. We are fortunate to have the companies that follow the standards set forth in the TDP making weapons for us. Plus, more improvements (yes I think the AR platform has been improved past what was adopted into service with the military), more variety, more FUN.
You can stick to plain 6920s with KAC rails and matech buis. I will enjoy the great variety of quality parts available from the companies you are so quick to label as scum.
I dont care if every component on a weapon is “mil spec” as long as the changes and/or substitutions give a benefit to the product (mid length gas systems, short throw selectors, A5 buffer kits, ect).
Im not going to get into a pissing match about the TDP. Good companies follow it when it counts and differ when they believe it can be improved upon. You dont like it, DONT BUY IT. But to call them scum is nothing short of BS.
I know I’ve said this before but the TDP defines the processes, dimensions and materials necessary to make an M-16/M-4 that will meet the performance requirements and be accepted by DoD for purchase. I deal with TDPs all the time for various aircraft systems and the story is the same.
“complies with the TDP” is not synonymous with “best” especially since the DoD requirements the TDP was designed to meet include items such as cost that work directly against “best”.
If your requirements are breaking stuff and killing people in harsh environments at a reasonable cost, then TDP compliance is a damn good place to start. Rifles that comply have been doing that for 50 years now.
If you’re willing to expend more $, then you can for sure do better. If your personal requirements are totally different from DoD, say shooting eggs on a stick at 1000 yards, then TDP compliance might not be appropriate for your needs.
The particular specifications of a rifle can only be designated as good or bad when compared to your requirements.
well, this whole conversation first started when he told me the AR market was saturated and he had upwards of 20 manufactures begging them to sell there products. They only sell recognized brands ie. Colt, FN, Noveske, SIG, LWRC, ADCOR, Vltor etc.
I mean, there are a lot of parts in a gun, ejection port, forward assist, detent pins/springs, pivot/ taketown pins, buffer retention, safety selector, who makes those? For instance, does the gun manufacture, make 100% of its parts in house? or do they make the upper and lower and outsource the parts kit and barrel. Most new manufactures include magpul furniture on there new guns from the factory. It just seems like there is only 1 standard for the 556 platforms, which is MIL-SPEC otherwise its high end $2500 Noveske or a low end $480 DPMS and a lot of them are made in the USA. Should have an “actual” milspec certification and a “technical” milspec certification or as BSmith said an “almost an AR” certification which the lower and upper parts were made in China, barrel is made in Taiwan, upper and lower made from low grade aluminum and machined by a child.
And this doesn’t just appear in guns, you see it in tactical clothing, flashlights, shoes, backpacks and I have even seen $45 milspec pocket knifes that Seal Team 6 is apparently issued
The TDP is owned by one company (Colt). The US Govt then gave it to a few companies (that won .Mil Contracts). These companies had to pay royalties to the owner of the TDP (Colt).
With that said, lots of companies have or have gotten detailed info from the TDP and do build a good product. Do they have .Gov inspectors coming into validate what they are building? No. Can they cut corners at any time with no backlash? Yes. So that means that you (the consumer) are relying on the company to do what they say they will. There is a VERY short list of companies that I would trust what they say. BCM is one of these companies.
My advice to people is if you want an AR with a carbine gas system, buy a Colt. If you want an AR with a middy gas system, buy a BCM/DD/Noveske/etc.
Is there a “standard”? Of course there is and it has been provided in the thread, so you can reference the links. I would venture a wild guess that not a single weapon at that gun shop you mention is an actual “MIL-SPEC” weapon.
The reality is that unless Uncle Sam is purchasing the weapon under a .gov contract from a recognized vendor under contract, where the build process has oversight from on site inspectors AND the weapons parts undergo correct testing protocols monitored by .gov inspectors AND then finally passed by .gov inspectors AND issued under .gov contract, then the weapon is NOT a MIL-SPEC rifle, period.
Anyone can claim that they build toward the “TDP”, but it would technically be incorrect for them to claim that the rifle is a true “MIL-SPEC” weapon. As others have mentioned a company can make the claim of building towards “MIL-SPEC” standards or even meeting or exceeding the TDP for this weapon platform, but really that is just a claim and one needs to consider the overall reputation of the company in that they are making good on what they are saying when it comes to materials, build process, testing, etc…And yes, some companies have better reputations than others when it comes to this.
