Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'AR15/10 Rifles' started by bob1257, Feb 6, 2012.
What are you feelings on this topic ?
I think alot of guys claim mil spec few are, and if you dont buy one of them your buying CRAP!
Depends on what your expectations and uses are. There are various makers and manufacturers with the same varying degree of build precision, resulting in a few companies that nobody would buy from. If you're looking for a mil-spec'd weapon because you want it to be able to accept almost any and every mil-spec'd AR15 accessory and/or part ever invented, then buy a middle to upper end mil-spec'd upper and lower with mil-spec'd guts and add all of the mil-spec'd goodies your heart desires. If your uses dictate that all you're looking for in a weapon is to kill paper, to hunt with, or to take care of that occasional malfeasant that may want to enter your home and do you harm, a middle to upper end commercial version of an AR will suit your needs just fine. There are plenty of accessories that may or aren't mil-spec that will fit your weapon and will still do the job at hand. A well-built custom AR will work as well. In some cases and uses, one will suit you better than the other. Most well known commercial versions will still accept mil-spec'd parts and accessories. Some have tighter fit and finish. Some group better than others. Some charge extra amounts of money just because of a name, but think that 100yd. 2" groups on a good day is normal in hunting circles. Some will have hiccups when seeing that they're leaving the comfort of a range setting for the brush. All of the above, while being or not being mil-spec. I've had zero issues with ones that I've owned and few problems with ones that were issued, both M16 and AR15 versions, military issued or bought. I've yet to see a yote or paper that got lippy with me because I was using my built-to-mil-spec-but-not-a-full-mil-spec'd-platform AR without a chrome-lined 16" barrel instead of a Colt, for example. I like my weapons to be functional, reliable, accurate, to run without incident, and to be able to handle being outdoors in the elements when necessary. That doesn't mean they have to be battle tested, buried in cement and then dug up and test fired for effect, drug through a bunch of sand and mustard and ketchup, or tortured beyond comprehension before I brought it home in order for it to be worthy of performing to my needs and expectations. So as you can see, it's all up to what YOU intend to use it for, and what YOUR expectations are. I assure you, my built-to-mil-spec-but-not-a-full-mil-spec AR will kill every intruder in my house just as dead as an LMT, Colt, HK, etc., will, and still print 3" 5 shot groups at 400 yards. And do it every time. By the way, the last mil-spec I had was the last fully built to mil-spec I'll ever own. It's fit was terrible and so it was nicknamed the rattle trap. It's average was 4.5" groups at 200yds. And one of the feedramps had a burr big enough to gouge bullets and brass. As we all know, every manufacturer has the potential to produce a turd every now and then. I certainly thought that it was CRAP!
Pretty important stuff when you're locking out of a sub with SEAL Team 6, or doing a HALO insertion with an A Team from Fifth Group, but beyond that, I wouldn't sweat it too much for what most of us are using our AR's for. There's even a few MilSpec items that I'd actively avoid (chrome lined barrels come to mind) if I wanted an accurate rifle. There's any number of AR Service Rifles on the line at Perry every year that may not be MilSpec, but I'll guarantee you, most will shoot far better than any MilSpec GI rifle you'll ever find.
So true. Milspec is so dang over-rated in the AR-15 world. I wonder if people even understand what true milspec is, and how loose of a tolerance milspec allows. The truth is, that none of the semi automatic AR-15 rifles you can buy are truly milspec and many are built with better than milspec for quality purposes.
So you’re saying there is a difference between the Colt you get at the gun shop, and the one the mil issues beside the fire control group? I would like to know what it is. Milspec is not just about tolerances, the materials used and the certifications of the manufacturing facility are a factor as well. Colt and LMT for instance are ISO 9000 certified and hold government contracts.
It's close in that it might have a few more mil spec rated parts than other manufacturers. The fact remains. As long as that Colt M4 clone has a semi-auto fire control group, a 16" barrel, and was not purchased to fulfill a government contract it is not a mil spec M4 no matter if they use 4150 chrome lined barrels or MIL-8625 Type 3 class 2 forged receivers and front site posts.
They are a bit closer since they ditched the shaved Bolt carriers, but it's still a civilian rifle no matter how you slice it. Will it function? No doubt, but will it function better than a Bushmaster or Stag M4 clone that costs $400 less? I highly doubt it.
There is a lot of good stuff out there that is not milspec. One needs to look beyond a fancy logo printed on the side, and consider the capability needed in their personal AR and either buy or build a rifle that meets the "myspec" category. The buyer will probably be happier with their weapon and the savings in the pocket book can be used to buy a lot of ammo. If it's a fancy logo wrapped with milspec parts that creates a fuzzy feeling that keeps someone warm at night then by all means let them spend the extra dollars, but know that the extra money isn't buying much.
I do see your point but I just dont agree. I have been through alot of trainning courses and see guys at my local range all the time who's non mil spec guns are failing.
Most often its not due to the parts but the qualty in which the weapon was put togher. Loose gas keys, improperly staked gas key(if staked at all), loose barrel nuts, un staked reciver extensions, short buffer springs, after market stocks that dont fit right, canted front sight bases, tight chambers and thats the short list.
In classes the most common issue with the lower end guns is failing extractors and there failing at 500 rounds. I also like a 1-7 twist barrel that is chrome lined. These guns will still shot MOA and are worth the small added cost. Here are some good deals all guns all mil spec and maybe a little better. I just dont see the reason not to buy one of these when the non mil spec guns at least localy are commanding the same price.
Colt SP 6920 (OUT OF STOCK) at G&R Tactical
BCM 16" Mid-Length Rifle (OUT OF STOCK) at G&R Tactical
Daniel Defense XV M4 Carbine (OUT OF STOCK) at G&R Tactical
I see what you're saying and I don't necessarily disagree with you. I come from a viewpoint that a majority of guys are not buying ARs to train, but for recreational shooting, hunting, and just to say they have an AR in the cabinet.
My standpoint is that when you're looking to buy an AR you need to determine what you want to use it for. How serious of a shooter are you? How much do you shoot? Competition? What kind? Tactical matches or 3 gun? Long range? Do you shoot reloads? Do you intend to use military ammo, .223 Rem, or both?
All of these are considerations that will determine personal needs and choices for an AR.
I think it's a mistake for someone to box themselves into milspec when it's not necessarily needed. I think a buying decision should be based on personal need rather than beating yourself up because the parts you may want or need for a particular application are not milspec.
Again, I here what your saying but I'm trying to change your point of view on it I guess. When I buy a gun, I buy it for ever, no crap! I dont see why anyone would buy less than mil spec. I have 4 ARs now but its not my first 4, I have been down the non mil spec road and it just is not worth it! I owned DPMS, Stag, Wilson Combat and Olympic before I settled on DD, LMT and BCM I paid more for the 4 hobby guns and they were quite litterly half the weapon. I'm not a fan boy I wasted my money and I'm trying to stear guys down the right path to a quality weapon.
Have you seen this its a crowning endorsement of DD form a former Delta operator. I know for a fact that the first 3 I owned would not do this. My wifes duty rifle is a DD and I would not trust her life to anything less.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89HEefl1KI4]M4 Torture Test Promo - YouTube[/ame]
Great video! I think I'm more impressed with the Aimpoint! DD has come a long way since they started producing.
That Aimpoint is going on my next battle rifle for sure.
Aimpoint is always worth the money did you see they now have a 2MOA T1.
Well all I can say is trying to figure out what M4 to buy is no easy feat. I have been researching trying to buy once and be done. I am more lost now than ever. Colt, DPMS, Sig,Spikes,LMT, how in the heck do I choose. Local guy that pushes Bushmaster one visit at this fellows place and I am told not to expect an accurate gun past 150 yards. What the heck I am not trying to be a hero but if I want to blast a coyote at 250 yards I ought to be able to do that. Stupid me.
A lot of people bought them a couple years back when Obama got elected. Of these, many really don't shoot them. I can think of 3 people I know, including myself, that rarely shoot them. Of the 3, at least I belong to a gun club.
I wish I would have got the 20 inch barrel though. I want to do more long range stuff.