Printable View
You're right they should be judged on their own merit. If you have one feel free to let us know port size and chamber spec. Even though they're seemingly insignificant mil spec guidelines, I subscribe to having a proper chamber and gas port. It's only what drives the entire system and ensures reliability.
Yes I can.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcp1810
Mil extensions are 66% stronger than their commercial counterparts (7075 vs 6061 aluminum).
Mil extensions also have deeper, stronger rolled threads.
And yes, there's better than mil spec. KAC e3 bolts, VLTOR A5s, Geissele triggers, etc. No one here ever said it was the end all be all, but it is a starting point.
At the prices they are selling for now, gold should be the standard they are measured by.
Quote:
Originally Posted by glockman10mm
Too true.
You know, back to the mil Spec thing, I don't really care all that much about it. Most weekend plinkers will be well served with a Double Star. Heck, I have an M&P that I am quite fond of. My problem is when people, through ignorance, pay full price for a sub specced gun. When you could buy a BCM or a Colt around 1K then why would you EVER pay $950 for a lower tier rifle?
I replaced a lot of "mil-spec" parts in my day. The military sets a standard of what it wants--thus the mil spec. That doesn't mean it is better or worse than anything else, only that that's what the military specified--and the military has a lot of junk.
Ok they are stronger. No one is questioning that. But, stronger does not necessarily equate to more reliable. Do you have any numbers on mean rounds between failure for mil-spec tubes vs commercial? In typical home use or even competition what is the failure rate of commercial tubes compared to mil-spec tubes? At a typical match how many commercial spec tubes will have their threads pull off disabling the rifle? Unless we have some numbers for actual real world failures of these parts calling them more reliable is nothing more than speculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by munch520
If you have a car that weighs 3500 pounds why buy a twenty ton bottle jack when a three ton is perfectly adequate?
The V-10 in a Viper is definitely stronger than the slant six in a 1975 Dart, but that does not necessarily mean it is more reliable, or that its additional strength is necessary.
Mil-spec is what it is because of the intended use of the weapons. In combat, anywhere in the world. 99+% of AR's sold on the commercial market are never going to see those conditions. Such being the case, mil-spec is fine if you have to have it, but for 99+% of us it is not necessary.
I'm so sick of this argument. 'Need' is a separate discussion.
There's better options available at similar price point. End of story
All I am saying is that mil-spec rifles are the ordnance equivalent of a McDonalds burger. It is a known quality nothing more, nothing less.
Correct, it is a KNOWN quality. A quality that many gun manufacturers don't measure up to, and yet they still charge full price. To me, not meeting Mil Spec is a sign that a manufacturer takes shortcuts. AGAIN, paying the same price for a non-Mils Spec gun as you would pay for a Mil Spec gun is just flat out stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcp1810
If plinkers could buy Bushmasters for $600 we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Wow! the NRA and Colt say there is no such thing as a mil-spec AR!
The MilSpec Definition
Oh my!
And Timmy not meeting mil-spec does not necessarily mean cutting corners. The mil-spec chamber and rifling standards are just ducky if all you are ever going to shoot is 5.56 NATO ammo. If you might be shooting a mix of 5.56 and .223 you would be better served by a rifle with a Wylde chamber. If you are never going to shoot 5.56 you would be better served by a SAAMI spec .223 Remington chamber. A mil-spec 5.56 NATO chamber with 1:7 rifling is going to totally suck for someone that wants to hunt prarie dogs with 36-45 grain bullets. The twist is too fast. They would be better served by a non spec 1:14 or an old 1:12 twist rate.
If you want a McRifle then get a mil-spec type rifle. If you want an AR for shooting something other than NATO ammo you could be much better off without one.
That's a little misleading given the data below. 1:7 has been recognized many times as the most versatile twist rate. I've had consistent sub moa results from XM193 at 110 yards out of a 18" 1:7 MK12.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcp1810
From Andrew Tuohy:
The 1/7 twist barrel did not overstabilize any of the ammunition types. It was remarkably accurate with some of the lighter bullets. Although it generally shot better groups with the heavier projectiles, it was accurate and precise enough with the light bullets for almost any purpose, including varmint hunting.
https://plus.google.com/app/basic/st...z4pwzawc3spf50
From Molon:
Contrary to some of the nonsense you may have heard around here about fast twist barrels not being able to shoot light-weight bullets accurately, the 10-shot group pictured below was fired from 100 yards using 55 grain BlitzKings from a 1:7.7" twist barrel. While a fast twist barrel is not the ideal twist for light-weight bullets, as you can see from the target below, sub-MOA groups can be obtained with light-weight bullets fired from a fast twist barrel.
https://dl.boxcloud.com/bc/1/512de80...15619ac9ec3ff/
I give up.
When I worked for an AR-15 manufacturer we used their kits for our base parts. I inspected about 900 of their guns and they were very consistent. Finishing was top notch. I never had any fit issues with them and they were always friendly when I called on the phone. I have nothing but good things to say about them.
What about things like clambering? Fit and finish don't really matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosler Guy
As a matter of fact, yes I can. Extruded 6061 vs extruded 7075, meaning about 30 lbs more break strength. Better contact in the threads vs commercial tubes is also a good thing. The catch is knowing who is making true mil-spec receiver extensions and not just using mil-spec dimensions on extruded 6061 tubes; companies like Bravo Co, Colt, Daniel Defense, and Vltor are good to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcp1810
Cost-benefit over large-scale production (consider that the TDP has manufacturing requirements too). TiN is also highly IR reflective. Phosphate coating also makes a better base layer for additional coatings due to being porous.Quote:
Or why a phosphate coated part is superior to titanium nitride?
The answer is in the material properties of the metals used, and titanium is a poor material for the application. Ti firing pins break more often than steel firing pins. Additionally, no evidence exists to suggest the reduced mass/inertia of a titanium firing pin providing tangible benefit over the common steel firing pins. That $35 is better spent buying 7 steel firing pins.Quote:
Or a steel firing pin to a titanium pin?
Arbitrarily decided, but it was chosen as another safety feature. The trigger itself, though, is more durable than most aftermarket options (Geissele a very notable/noteworthy exception.)Quote:
Why is the mil-spec trigger pull of 5.5 to 8.5 pounds superior to say a two pound Timney trigger?