Gotta clear this up..."Mil-Spec" Question

[GetYerShells]

Ok, I have to clear something up. I hear and see a lot of companies claiming that their AR's are made to Mil-Spec tollerances. I see these claims and I wonder... are they really true? In the Air Force we use the standard issue M-4 carbine made by FNH. FNH has a contract with Colt to produce the majority of small arms we use to include the M16A4, M4 carbine, M249 SAW, M240B, and the M2 .50 BMG. Knowing that, any weapon we employ goes through a series of riggorous tests to meet the high standards that we need.

I often see these two terms use in conjuction with one another "MIL-STD", or "MIL-SPEC". Now, I don't know what kind of test the majority of arms companies use to test their rifles (particularly the civilian AR's) I do know that if they are using anything other than MIL-STDXXX, use materials other than the ones listed in said MIL-STDXXX to build them, and put them through any other tests spelled out in MIL-STDXXX then the rifle is not up to Mil-Spec. If it's not contracted by Colt, produced by FNH in accordance with those DoD Standards then it is not, and never will be Mil-Spec. For example, say FNH is making 1000 new M-4's in their factory. Those 1000 M-4's have to be test fired, put through a long list of QC checks in accordance with a DoD Std. If 1 firing pin on that batch of 1000 rifles malfunctions during the QC test then the whole batch fails the test and has to be sent back. So what I am asking is, where are they coming up with the terms Mil-Spec, and Mil Std? Anyone have any light to shed on this subject?

 

[wjkuleck]

This is indeed a touchy subject, particularly for a pedant such as myself. In the realm of military procurement, it's not just the primes that can make things. For example, if you review the daily contract solicitations by the DoD, you'll see many items, including small arms components. Many, many companies can conform to the requirements set forth in Mil Specifications and Mil Standards.

When it comes to complete small arms, the M16 and M4 in particular, unless the arm is select fire, it strictly speaking cannot be "Mli Spec" because only a select-fire arm can completely comply with the Specification. But, what if an arm is made exactly to the Spec, using the Standards (material, finish, coatings), with the sole exception that the select fire components are replaced by semiauto only components as required by the BATFE? Even I, who is a stickler for meaning and grammar, am inclined to "give a pass" on the exactitude of the definition.

Note also that FN and Colt do not make all the pieces parts of their M16s and M4s. Their receiver forgings are outsourced, as shown by the forging codes found on uppers. Smaller parts come from subcontractors.

So, if an M16- or M4-type rifle is made exactly to the drawings, and the standards, with the exception of the parts contour modifications required for civilian legality, one can contemplate the possible legitimacy of "military grade" claims. And heck, Fulton Armory, for example, has supplied upper receiver assemblies for the M16/M4 in quantity, said assemblies seeing combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I agree, the terms can be tossed around far too loosely; but in some cases, there is a core of truth to them.

Respectfully, and with the most sincere appreciation for your service,

Walt

 

[Snowmanx7]

Good question, good answer. Expanding my knowledge.

 

[Creature]

Good question, good answer.

From someone who knows what he is talking about. I trust Walt's AR knowledge implicitly.

 

[wjkuleck]

Thanks, "Creature."

It's tough for a small manufacturer such as Fulton ARmory, which does not manufacture 1000 AR-type rifles a year, to conform to the "test from the lot of 1000" requirement. Yet, if we source from the same subs as FN and Colt, and demand the same component "military conformance" as FN and Colt do, does that not merit some kind of comment? The resulting product being sufficiently conforming (de facto, if not de jure) that the Army bought em, and when other units saw them, they wanted their own?

We work hard to walk that fine line. As a military contractor ourselves we understand and respect the Standards and Specifications. I hope you never find us using the terms inappropriately.

Best regards,

Walt

 

[Jimro]

Mil-Spec is just a buzzword. At some point someone under the umbrella of the DOD wrote a document stating that a piece of equipment would perform within some defined parameters. Ever wonder why some paints have milspec ratings?

What it comes down to is that mil-spec isn't that hard of a standard to achieve.

Now Jim-Spec, that is something truly special to be prized above all lesser parts.

Jimro

 

[GetYerShells]

Hey Walt, thanks for your insight. That really does make sense though. I know anytime I go to qualify at the firing range the CATM (combat arms training and maintenance) instructors pull out these DoD manuals and check to make sure the parts are within tolerance before shooting. Anyway thanks again for the knowledge. Now I know

Phil

 

[Pinky Carruthers]

FNH has a contract with Colt to produce the majority of small arms we use to include the M16A4, M4 carbine, M249 SAW, M240B, and the M2 .50 BMG.

AFAIK FNH has a contract with the government to produce these weapons, not with Colt. Also, Colt is the sole producer of the M4 carbine.

 

[zippy13]

I hear and see a lot of companies claiming that their AR's are made to Mil-Spec tollerances. I see these claims and I wonder... are they really true?

IMHO, such partial claims are meaningless... tolerance refers to an acceptable variance. Variances in what... some poorly dimensioned, out of date shop drawing, how can you tell? Consider the absurd, you could be buying a totally junk firearm that claims to comply with "Mil-Spec 12345678-9 tolerances" when those are the tolerances for jet way resurfacing. Mil-Spec paint color isn't the same thing as Mil-Spec paint. It's easy for the unscrupulous to treat the specs and stds as a buffet to pick and choose components that can mislead the public about their product's quality, a luxury not afforded DoD contractors.

wjkuleck
Walt, thanks for the inside look at some of the hurdles encountered by those trying to provide meaningful and legitimate descriptions for "military conformance" civilian versions. We appreciate your walking that fine line.

 

[blhseawa]

+++ Walt

I would like to follow up on a couple of points from Walt.

There are three types of "MIL-SPEC" parts out there when it comes to small arms. As Walt pointed out, both FNH and Colt get a number of components from other suppliers.

For example when it comes to lowers there are four sources of forged lowers.
The four sources sell to a number of machine shops that have expensive CNC multi-axis milling machines. With some minor trivial changes to the drawings it is extremely easy to change a select-fire to semi-fire based upon the same MIL-SPEC drawing and CNC program. The bolt carrier and fire-control piece changes are just as simple. So that is some background.

Where things get a little more tricky, is in finishes applied to metal parts, and quality control. Government contracts require lots of documentation paperwork, and ISO 9000 quality and inspection controls. For certain parts 100% inspection is required.

Given the above, it quite possible for a machine shop to produce government contract parts on one line, and commercial parts on another. Thus leveraging the sunk cost in manufacturing the parts. The commercial line may use spot checking and minimal paperwork. Same machines, and in a lot of cases, same machinist. Thus the part are of pretty high quality.

So that is the first two types of "MIL-SPEC".

The third type has to do with parts that fail "QC" Quality Control. In the best of worlds the parts are sold as scrap and melted down to make new raw materials. In some cases, the parts get sold to the public. This third type is not "MIL-SPEC" in any sense of the word and it is in my IMHO fraud to portray these parts as parts of any kind rather than as scrap they started out as.

Thus there are three types:

1) government contract delivered parts, factory overstock (over-run), or in days of yore, surplus., sigh!

2) commercial parts using same tooling/know-how/personnel/processes

3) gray market scarp or "me to" machine shops


1 and 2 are almost indistinguishable from each other than possibly markings and coatings. As far I'm concerned both are good quality parts and weapons.
The only place I disagree is on barrels and bolts 100% MPI and shot-peening are a must!

3 should be avoided if at all possible. Deal with reputable firms and you should be OK, check forums and web site and learn from others mistakes.

YMMV, but I hope this helps explain this issue.

Best regards

 

[GetYerShells]

So Colt is the sole source for the production of the M-4 carbine. The contract is between Colt and the DoD correct? FNH has a lisense agreement with Colt or DoD to procure the materials to make them. So basically all the civilian AR makers can use materials, metals, coatings that meet or exceed the requirements spelled out in MIL-STDXXX. According to the August 2008 issue of Combat Tactics, page 29, para 6 I quote 'Just so we're crystal clear on this important point: no commercial AR-15 carbine or rifle is, or ever will be, Mil-Spec. If the government is not testing the gun, by definition, it is not Mil-Spec. "Mil-Spec commercial" is an oxymoron'.

They also state that according to Jim Battaglini, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Colt Defense LLC, "Commercial black rifles are not considered Mil-Spec because there is no U.S. government verification to assure that their performance, endurance, accuracy, interchangeability, and reliability meet all specifications imposed by the United States Armed Forces."

 

[TheManHimself]

So Colt is the sole source for the production of the M-4 carbine. The contract is between Colt and the DoD correct? FNH has a lisense agreement with Colt or DoD to procure the materials to make them.

Colt is the sole source for the M4 carbine, yes. Colt has the rights to the Technical Data Package (TDP), i.e. the design specs required by the .mil, for the M4 carbine.

FNH has nothing to do with M4s. FN makes M16A2/A3/A4s, M249s, and some other arms. Some M4s may be built on refurbed FN M16 lower receivers, but the uppers and stock assembly come from Colt.

LMT also makes some M4s and variants for special units - I believe some Mk. 18 CQBRs are made by LMT, or at least the upper halves.

Although Colt is the only company with the M4 TDP, the actual spec isn't "top secret". Parts must be made from certain grades of steel (some CMV steel as per MIL-STD-idon'tknowthenumber for the barrels, etc), pressure tested and magnetic particle inspected individually, bolts must be shot peened, etc; and this is available information for manufacturers that choose to follow those specs. It's not that companies like Bushmaster, Armalite, or DPMS can't make rifles to the same specs as Colt or FNH, it's that they don't in order to make a cheaper rifle that consumers who don't know any better will think is "just as good" because it looks the same.

 

[Jimro]

It's not that companies like Bushmaster, Armalite, or DPMS can't make rifles to the same specs as Colt or FNH, it's that they don't in order to make a cheaper rifle that consumers who don't know any better will think is "just as good" because it looks the same.

If you've seen the unit cost for an m4 then it makes a lot of sense as to why such a price point would be unattractive to the civilian market.

The more pertinent question is "Is mil-spec higher quality"? and the answer is "no, not really", but it is a baseline for quality.

Jimro

 

[Swampghost]

MIL-Spec. means describing a part in the most verbose way possible.

10 yrs. ago I was an Engineer for a company with 70K sq. ft. of CNC machines, waterjets, etc. We machined parts for the military (recievers for mini-guns, the Warthog's cannon and more) as well as parts for Lockheed, Allison, GM/Isuzu and others. MIL-Spec. on most parts must have taken somebody a month to write and us a day to read when all that we really needed were drawings and a material.

We also manufactured a system of our own that required an electronic gyro. The gyro itself was $180. Waterproofed for our system it was $230. MIL-Spec. it was $3500! They spec'd a SPECIAL waterproofing coating.

Anybody want to buy a MIL-Spec. toilet seat?........Only $1500.