Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32

Thread: Milspec AR15

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,062
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by lysander View Post
    Let's get a few things straight:

    1) The original AR-15, as designed and built by Armalite was a select-fire weapon, and there for not "a civilian version".

    2) The later Colt's Manufacturing examples of "XM16"s were identical to the AR-15 in every way, except for the Marking of "XM16", and "US Property" markings.

    3) The AR-15 was purchased and issued to "the military", the US Army bought a number for testing, and a number (1000 to be exact) were given the Republic of Vietnam for issue to their troops and US Advisors.

    4) The semi-automatic version of the "AR-15" came about after the events of item #3, so the "civilian version" post-dates the "military version".
    Big facts right there. And most of my post was supposed to be dripping with sarcasm in case that didn’t convey.
    AQ planned for years and sent their A team to carry out the attacks, and on Flight 93 they were thwarted by a pick-up team made up of United Frequent Fliers. Many people look at 9/11 and wonder how we can stop an enemy like that. I look at FL93 and wonder, "How can we lose?". -- FromMyColdDeadHand

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    2,764
    Feedback Score
    0
    If you want to play at semantics, there is technically no such thing as "milspec". There is the technical data package or TDP, which describes in intimate detail the specifications of each model of firearm accepted by the government. It is a huge amount of information covering dimensions, procedures, materials, tolerances,... ad infinitum.

    In terms of civilian AR-15s, none of them meet the TDP 100%. If they did they would be select fire M-16s, or M-4s. When something is said to be "milspec" that means it is built as close as possible to the TDP. Many parts of an AR can be 100% compliant with the TDP. Some cannot, like the FCG, but can be manufactured as closely as possible to that standard. That is really all that is important. If an AR is built as closely as possible to the TDP, then one can have a degree of confidence in the construction of that AR. Your would expect certain criteria to be met.

    That does not mean that TDP is the only measure of quality, let alone the pinnacle of perfection. A KAC SR-15 deviates from the TDP in a number of areas. I would not say that makes it "substandard". Though as a general rule, most deviation from TDP is not for the better.

    Deviation from TDP can be good or bad, and TDP rifles certainly do go down. All it does is provide a standard reference to compare against.
    Go Ukraine! Piss on the Russian dead.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,234
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Jeez, even wiki has more facts than this thread.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    1,253
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by lysander View Post
    Let's get a few things straight:

    1) The original AR-15, as designed and built by Armalite was a select-fire weapon, and there for not "a civilian version".

    2) The later Colt's Manufacturing examples of "XM16"s were identical to the AR-15 in every way, except for the Marking of "XM16", and "US Property" markings.

    3) The AR-15 was purchased and issued to "the military", Malaya bought some, the US Army bought some for testing, and a number (1000 to be exact) were given the Republic of Vietnam for issue to their troops and US Advisors.

    4) The semi-automatic version of the "AR-15" came about after the events of item #3, so the "civilian version" post-dates the "military version".
    What about the AR15, the original as designed by Armalite, disqualified it from civilian purchase at the time?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,755
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by utahjeepr View Post
    If you want to play at semantics, there is technically no such thing as "milspec". There is the technical data package or TDP, which describes in intimate detail the specifications of each model of firearm accepted by the government. It is a huge amount of information covering dimensions, procedures, materials, tolerances,... ad infinitum.

    In terms of civilian AR-15s, none of them meet the TDP 100%. If they did they would be select fire M-16s, or M-4s. When something is said to be "milspec" that means it is built as close as possible to the TDP. Many parts of an AR can be 100% compliant with the TDP. Some cannot, like the FCG, but can be manufactured as closely as possible to that standard. That is really all that is important. If an AR is built as closely as possible to the TDP, then one can have a degree of confidence in the construction of that AR. Your would expect certain criteria to be met.

    That does not mean that TDP is the only measure of quality, let alone the pinnacle of perfection. A KAC SR-15 deviates from the TDP in a number of areas. I would not say that makes it "substandard". Though as a general rule, most deviation from TDP is not for the better.

    Deviation from TDP can be good or bad, and TDP rifles certainly do go down. All it does is provide a standard reference to compare against.
    Actually, there is a "military specification", at least four that I am aware of, six if you include the M4 series.

    MIL-R-45587 - Rifles, 5.56mm: M16 and M16A1
    MIL-R-63997 - Rifle, 5.56mm: M16A2
    MIL-R-41135 - Rifle, 5.56mm: M16A2E3
    MIL-DTL-32309 - Rifle, 5.56mm: M16A4
    MIL-C-70599 - Carbine, 5.56mm: M4
    MIL-C-71186 - Carbine, 5.56mm: M4A1

    All rifles, carbines, and parts made in accordance with these specifications are "mil-spec". There can be "mil-spec" parts sold on the civilian market, if they are made in strict accordance with the military/Colt drawings, and tested in accordance with the applicable specification. However, since the drawings are proprietary to Colt's, and the military drawing can only be used for Government contracts, the only (legal) civilian source for "mil-spec" parts would be Colt's or a Colt's licensed producer. I mean, how else could you get access to Colt's proprietary drawings?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,755
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by PracticalRifleman View Post
    What about the AR15, the original as designed by Armalite, disqualified it from civilian purchase at the time?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Nothing but intent.

    Armalite never tried to market the AR-15 to the civilian sector, it only when after military contracts, both foreign and US.

    Colt followed suit, until it had secured a military contract.
    Last edited by lysander; 02-20-21 at 17:34.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    North Alabama
    Posts
    5,310
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)
    Redacted
    Last edited by AndyLate; 02-20-21 at 18:43.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    2,584
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by lysander View Post
    Actually, there is a "military specification", at least four that I am aware of, six if you include the M4 series.

    MIL-R-45587 - Rifles, 5.56mm: M16 and M16A1
    MIL-R-63997 - Rifle, 5.56mm: M16A2
    MIL-R-41135 - Rifle, 5.56mm: M16A2E3
    MIL-DTL-32309 - Rifle, 5.56mm: M16A4
    MIL-C-70599 - Carbine, 5.56mm: M4
    MIL-C-71186 - Carbine, 5.56mm: M4A1

    All rifles, carbines, and parts made in accordance with these specifications are "mil-spec". There can be "mil-spec" parts sold on the civilian market, if they are made in strict accordance with the military/Colt drawings, and tested in accordance with the applicable specification. However, since the drawings are proprietary to Colt's, and the military drawing can only be used for Government contracts, the only (legal) civilian source for "mil-spec" parts would be Colt's or a Colt's licensed producer. I mean, how else could you get access to Colt's proprietary drawings?
    A Czechoslovakian honeypot?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    395
    Feedback Score
    0
    Just what I was looking for. Keep it going.

    The ar15 was originally a military issue and not intended for the civilian market.

    Learn something every day

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    26
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rcoodyar15 View Post
    Now don't get me wrong. I am glad they did it. If the AR15 didn't use milspec specifications then we wouldn't be able to mix and match parts from all these different manufacturers.

    But, since the AR15 was for the civilian market and not ever issued to the military why was it 8manufactured milspec.

    Now this is a technical question for someone who knows the history of the AR15's development.

    My theory is since the manufacturers were already set up to produce the m16 then it only made sense to produce a civilian semiautomatic version with basically the same parts.

    Is the only difference really the fire control system?
    There is not a universal size for commercial parts, each vendor would build to there own specs and commercial parts do not interchange. Now when a manufacturer builds mil spec parts with little variance between them, you will have a nice tight build. This is why when building a precision rifle you would want matched upper / lower and a matched barrel from a manufacturers that has great QC.

    This is why there is a difference when building a rifle with parts from geissele vs parts from Anderson even when it’s just the receivers.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •