Every group has a vocal cadre that demand compliance to their closely held beliefs as defined by their collective. In the AR-15 realm we have the mil-spec junkies. These folks have their short list of approved manufacturers and the moment a new company dares to come into existence they pounce to question every minute detail of the materials and processes used to manufacture the interloper’s new wares. Often times the criticisms leveled against the manufacturer’s products will be centered on compliance to military specifications. Ironically, most who cite the military specs for rifles such as the AR15/M16 have never read the actual specifications or even know where to find them. Instead, they resort to parroting what they’ve read on Internet discussion forums . . .
What are military specifications (mil-spec)? Simple; they’re standards established by the General Accountability Office (GAO) for defining essential technical requirements of purchased materiel for the military or for substantially modified commercial items to be used by the military. These standards have been established to guarantee interoperability, commonality, reliability and cost of ownership to ease the strain on logistics systems.
What mil-specs aren’t are a guarantee a particular product is the absolute best that it can be in terms of materials used, processes for manufacturing, etc. In the case of the AR15/M16 many of the specs were established in the 1960’s and 1970’s long before various modern alloys were developed or even before CNC machining was in common use.
Take the buffer tube (receiver extension) of the AR15 rifle for instance. The military standard tube has a diameter of 1.148”. A commercial buffer tube has a diameter of 1.168”. The threads are slightly smaller in diameter on the commercial tube (1.170’ vs 1.185”) as well. Some commercial tubes have welded end caps where mil-spec tubes consist of one piece.
Is the thinner mil-spec tube stronger than the thicker commercial tube? I guess that depends on what tests are conducted. In a real world application would a commercial tube be any more likely to fail if exposed to the same stresses as a mil-spec tube? Everything I can find indicates no, the mil-spec tube isn’t necessarily any more durable or able to withstand significantly more stress than the commercial variant.
So why do we have mil-spec on buffer tubes? Simple. If we go back to the definition of what mil-spec is, in this case it has to do with interoperability and compatibility. A soldier should be able to remove a buttstock from one M4A1 and drop it onto another M4A1 without having to worry about compatibility. That’s it.
Another example is the use of Carpenters 158 steel in the construction of AR15/M16 bolts. This goes back to the specs written for the M16 being drafted in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Carpenters 158 is the mil-spec standard material for manufacturing a bolt, but is it the best material available? Lewis Tool & Machine (LMT) thinks that Aermet is vastly superior (2.5 times stronger) to Carpenters 158. Their Enhanced Bolt, which is designed to remedy failures associated with the mil-spec standard M16 bolt, seems to be a popular item. Better materials exist now, but the mil-spec standards haven’t been modified.
All the mil-spec junkies will rant and rave that Carpenters 158 being a must. They’ll cite the infamous “Chart” hosted by M4Carbine.net as their holy bible on the subject. Yet in reality, Carpenters 158 is a minimum standard and nothing more.
Here’s how I view military specifications as it relates to the AR15/M16. It’s a good place to start. Period.
If you’re new to AR15s and don’t know what to look for when buying a rifle from one of the 50+ makers of AR’s out there today, stick with mil-spec standards to get started. Or, do your research and find out where deviating from the military specifications can be a good thing.
There are some specs you don’t want to deviate too far from such as MP/HP testing of bolts and barrels that assure quality and durability. Staked nuts on the gas key are a good thing as well. Having .154” diameter pins for the fire control group is another good thing (Colt used larger holes at one time). M4 feed ramps on a carbine are a bonus, too, as they improve feeding reliability.
Do your homework before making a purchase and you should do just fine when buying a new AR. But please, don’t get too caught up in the whole “if it isn’t mil-spec it isn’t s***” nonsense and avoid becoming one of “them”.
Tim Harmsen runs the Military Arms Channel
Steels (and other metals) used in weapons (or other) production are only half the story. Telling me that you use “XYZ” steel doesn’t impress me. For example, telling me that you’re going to replace your Garand bolt originally made with “War Department 8620″ with Aermet steel… will cause me to give a wry smile – because the steel is only half the issue. The case hardening is the other half.
Telling me that you use “XYZ” steel and then detailing the heat treatment protocol, with heating times, quenching media, tempering temperatures, soak times, atmospheres used in the furnaces, etc… that starts to impress me. I say “starts,” because then to finish impressing me, you have to detail for me what your testing protocol is, what your sampling protocols are, etc.
This is the sort of stuff detailed in military specifications. As you correctly point out, the military specs might not result in the best technology or materials available being used in the product. That’s a no-brainer – the military is, after all, seeking to have the lowest cost bidders win on their contract bids.
When manufactures adhere to “mil-std” this, that or some other thing – if they’re actually adhering to it, there’s a whole lot of manufacturing processes that come along for the ride – not just a materials specification. When a manufacture tells me they’re using some new material, but are still conforming to the testing and sampling protocols for the old material(s), and they’re showing the statistically valid improvements (to a 95% confidence interval) – OK then, let’s run with it. If a manufacture just sub’s some new material and ditches the rest of the production/testing/sampling specifications, and then waves a materials spec sheet in my face? Eh, I’m not so impressed.
+1 let’s jump on AR15.com and read about coatings coming off LMT’s “enhanced” BCG within a few hundred rounds. I love experimental cutting edge materials. Key word being experimental.
I saw one of those charts and I was like “that manufacturer sucks” (for one of the mil-specs) and “I know that is a good builder” (for one of the non-mil-spec, might have even been LMT). YMMV, but I would go by current reputation-noting that although reputation rarely moves quickly in a positive direction it can rapidly move the other way due to mergers/acquisitions or management changes.
Everybody’s an expert, or at least wants to be.
Does it make a difference? Not really. Just like everything else people have to go with what they’re comfortable with. In the end it isn’t so much what you’ve got as how good you are with it.
Some stuff might be better than other, but any PGA golfer is still going to blow me away with even the cheapest set of clubs and golfballs no matter what i’m using simply cause I don’t golf.
I think the problem with a lot of also ran AR-15 manufacturers is that they do not meet the specification as a minimum standard, rather than the companies using it as a starting point to be improved upon in areas. That said, many of these guns will still work just fine for most purchasers of AR-15 rifles, as they only shoot a few hundred rounds through them in their lifetime.
This is a great article. I think Mil-Spec standards exist for a reason, but people take it way too far. Just in the last few days I’ve encountered scores of internet experts and gun snobs who felt the need to trash one of my friend’s AR15s that wasn’t a Mil-Spec gun, the fact that his gun runs reliably and shoots straight never really meant anything because his barrel wasn’t 11595 and his bolt wasn’t MP tested in the factory.
Things like MP/HP testing are great, and I think it’s a good idea to look at manufacturers that test their parts/guns before they leave the factory, but people need to stop being gun snobs about it. It really reminds of the H&K forum (Not the official one) I was a part of for a while, you mention a Glock or anything else that isn’t a USP and you’re bombarded with dozens of gun snobs telling you about how the USP is superior to any other handgun in the world, and Glocks are hand grenades shaped like guns. People do the same thing with ARs, to them if it’s not a Colt, BCM, DD, LMT, or whatever else it’s just going to fail on you.
Nobody likes a gun snob, not even other gun snobs.
Good article. Forwarding it to my “mil-spec or die” friend.
All I can hear in my head is my Drill Instructor telling me that all my equipment “was made by the lowest bidder!” hehe.
Good points all around. As recent and new AR purchaser I had to wade through quite a bit of info. The only I worry about being mil-spec are generally dimentions, not materials.
“The only I worry about being mil-spec are generally dimentions, not materials.”
This. As I’m new to the black rifle thing, my chief concern is interoperability of the stuff I buy. I ran into a friend of a friend at a gun show, and he was having a mil-spec buffer tube put on his AR by a guy there at the show. He’d previously had a commercial buffer tube and stock, but had gotten a great deal on a really nice mil-spec buttstock. Prior to that day and that conversation, I had no idea there were two different “specs” that were not interchangeable. I don’t want to buy some thingamajig and have it end up not fitting some other doodad I already have.
No AR-15 is truly “mil-spec”, otherwise it would be an M-16. Select Fire. Our military doesn’t use Ar-15s. Having mil-spec bits and pieces on your gun doesn’t make it mil-spec, for the above mentioned reason.
Excellent article. There are basically three types of AR’s: below mil-spec, mil-spec, and above mil-spec. An spaghetti MRE is mil-spec, but clearly inferior to my wife’s spaghetti. An LWRCi, LMT, POF Armory is above mil-spec in overall design and price point.
SLAB RANKLE, you have hit the nail on the head there buddy…… only real mil spec is the M16 and you can get one with the right permit…….
There are a few milspec requirements that are gold. M4 feed ramps and MPI are a must have.
That being said, anything the military gets are always made by the lowest bidder. So in essence, you’re sticking to requirements met by the lowest bidder. Independent research and testing beat internet dogma any day of the week, and twice on sundays.
Does that mean that an Olympic Arms AR is as good as a Saber Defense or a Colt? No, not at all. So look at consumer reviews before you buy.
Nice article.
Since most of us are not machinists or gun smiths with 30 years plus under our belts it is all to easy to put faith in something that is a minimum standard for interoperability not the best their is.
I’ve been pushing for the term “industry standard” as a civilian alternative to “mil-spec”.
While “mil-spec” is a starting point, it is also the absolute bare minimum that the DOD allows for a weapon to be considered combat worthy.
The fact is, “mil-sepc” as a term is overused by companies that in no way meet those standards, but have a passing aesthetic resemblance to the military issue M4.
There are companies that don’t meet the minimum basic standards, however most of them are priced up against those that do and are marketed as such. Example, a standard BM or DPMS is often sold at prices approaching a basic Colt 6920 or BCM. Choosing the lower quality yet equally priced gun is foolhardy. However, when looking at something such as a $600 S&W M&P15 Sport compared to the $1050 6920, the value starts to shine and the numbers become slightly less important, especially with the S&W having close (not equal) numbers.
The fact is, if you want a reliable fighting rifle (as opposed to a weekend range gun that resembles something cool) the brands that tend to emulate “mil-sepc” are universally considered (GTG). Think Colt, BCM, DD, LMT. Others have specs that go above and beyond mil-spec. Think KAC, Noveske, LWRC, LaRue, HK. Then there are “me-too” rifles. Those that charge prices near the “mil-spec” but don’t have the specs or reputation to justify them. Many of those used to be GTG, but in the last decade have reduced quality to increase production and profits, and have also been surpassed by any of the other 143 AR manufacturers out there.
Mil-spec in the civilian world is little more than a marketing gimmick. However, there are companies following a generally accepted set of standards, specifications, and practices and producing superior rifles compared to many of the best known brands.
Having worked to set up conformance standards for various bits of software and networking protocols in the computer industry, here’s one the reasons why vendors (or more accurately, their engineers) fall back on “MIL-STD:”
Creating your own standards is expensive. Sure, it seems easy on the surface to just lay down a bunch of parameters and publish them.
Then you get into the legal and technical issues in testing, verification, etc. Becoming a recognized standards organization is a huge chunk of bureaucracy and paperwork in and of itself, never mind the actual standards.
Suddenly, all that talk becomes rather expensive.
Just talk to any engineer who has served on an IEEE, AISI, ASTM or other standards-setting group. Ask them, after they’ve done one standard, if they’d like to do another.
Most engineers would likely prefer to slit their own throats than do it again. I did it once, and you couldn’t find a team of meth-addicted draft horses big enough to drag me back for another round of that nonsense.
I’d agree with the statement that “mil-spec is a good start”. If you’re new to the platform and don’t know what you’re getting into, you can’t go wrong buying BCM or Daniel Defense or any of the other “top-tier” manufacturers. Once you understand what all the lingo means, then you can feel free to diverge from the standards.
Prior to owning my first AR, I was determined not to be one of those snobbed. I staked out a position that the center-point on the quality/cost spectrum was the best place to start, and I bought a Stag Arms. It ended up being a less than reliable choice, despite it being a well-respected brand.
Ended up trading it for a BCM build, and I couldn’t be happier.
My Sig Sauer M400 doesn’t have a high pressure tested barrel extension or bolt. They weren’t Magnafluxed either. When you think about it, there are thousands of other makes and models of firearms that never have any of this done. The only reason the tests are done is to make sure the bolts and barrel extension lugs don’t break off. Remember, they are made from cheap steels from the lowest bidder.
Specifications just set performance baselines and confidence levels so that steps can be skipped and costs can be minimized over the long haul. The DOD doesn’t want $2000 safe queens. They want $600 pieces built with the materials and coatings they have at hand. The job has to get done, even if 50 of them fall apart and 20 were put together from the salvaged parts, with minimum expendature of resources. What that ends up meaning is that True MIL-STD M16s and M4 aren’t really that pretty and are not that accurate compared to what any of us could assemble. If you busted a piñata full of spec parts from differnt manufacturers around the country and could assemble a rifle, you have a very damn close to 100% chance that it will not quit on you, if taken care of.
Aermet is 2.5 times stronger? I don’t think so. C158 probably still is the best material to make a bolt from.
OK, I’ve built AR15s before. In fact, one of the ones I own I built in 1982, with a Sendra Corp/RIA, black, lower receiver. The buffer tube and buttstock I bought for it back then claimed to be MilSpec. The buffer tube has a straight back end-NOT slanted- and the buttstock itself is ALUMINUM covered in a textured rubber coat. I was in the process of updating it, and since I THOUGHT I had all MilSpec, I only bought a MilSpec buttstock as currently used on the M4. To my surprise and embarrassment, the new MilSpec buttstock is SLIGHTLY SMALLER than the buffer tube. So my question is this: Was I sold commercial in lieu of MilSpec back in 1982, or have the specifications for MilSpec changed over the years? Anyone know? Thanks in advance.