I was watching a video review about the FNP 45 and they mentioned that FNH makes something like 70% of US military small arms. This had me thinking, if a company is so heavily entrenched in the military, is it safe to assume all their gear will be good quality? Is military stuff usually top shelf or are the boots on the ground always longing for better quality gear?
Suppressors Is "mil-spec" over rated?
- Thread starter jericho
- Start date
Re: Is "mil-spec" over rated?
A lot of government bidding goes to the lowest bidder. However, FNH makes reliable products. Their SPR line of rifles is held in high regard and the M240Bs that we received for the ship were a vast improvement over the M60s they replaced. They have a lot of good press and they have definitely earned it.
Josh
A lot of government bidding goes to the lowest bidder. However, FNH makes reliable products. Their SPR line of rifles is held in high regard and the M240Bs that we received for the ship were a vast improvement over the M60s they replaced. They have a lot of good press and they have definitely earned it.
Josh
Re: Is "mil-spec" over rated?
The trigger on my M-4 is mil-spec. It sucks.
My PVS-14s were mil-spec. They were awesome.
Frankly, it depends on the product. In the case of FN, their stuff has a deservedly good reputation, and they were good enough to beat Colt for the M4 contract. If I had to pick one company to outfit small arms and crew-serveds for an entire army, FN is one of the few companies that could do it and do it very, very well. I am not impressed with the "mil-spec" label generically, but I am very impressed with the FN products I have used.
The trigger on my M-4 is mil-spec. It sucks.
My PVS-14s were mil-spec. They were awesome.
Frankly, it depends on the product. In the case of FN, their stuff has a deservedly good reputation, and they were good enough to beat Colt for the M4 contract. If I had to pick one company to outfit small arms and crew-serveds for an entire army, FN is one of the few companies that could do it and do it very, very well. I am not impressed with the "mil-spec" label generically, but I am very impressed with the FN products I have used.
Re: Is "mil-spec" over rated?
This is a term that gets used in all sorts of applications. For example I can buy a guitar amplifier that uses "mil-spec" components. Does it sound good? Well that has less to do with parts as design. All it means is the parts meet minimum specs laid out. No more no less. Take it for what it's worth.
This is a term that gets used in all sorts of applications. For example I can buy a guitar amplifier that uses "mil-spec" components. Does it sound good? Well that has less to do with parts as design. All it means is the parts meet minimum specs laid out. No more no less. Take it for what it's worth.
Re: Is "mil-spec" over rated?
The guys above summed it up nicely.
I generally like to go for "mil-spec" stuff when it means that its easier for it to be compatible with all my other stuff. E.G. if I buy an m4 carbine type AR-15, I want it to be a mil-spec one so that it will fit the brand new Knights Armament Rail system that I got in the Marine Corps.
However, speaking from the Marine Corps - generally, if something is "mil-spe" or "Marine Corps issue" - my experience has been that it just means its the most spectacular piece of garbage that the Marine Corps could find, and it was a nickel cheaper than the really nice option. Ha Ha.
But maybe I'm just too cynical...
The guys above summed it up nicely.
I generally like to go for "mil-spec" stuff when it means that its easier for it to be compatible with all my other stuff. E.G. if I buy an m4 carbine type AR-15, I want it to be a mil-spec one so that it will fit the brand new Knights Armament Rail system that I got in the Marine Corps.
However, speaking from the Marine Corps - generally, if something is "mil-spe" or "Marine Corps issue" - my experience has been that it just means its the most spectacular piece of garbage that the Marine Corps could find, and it was a nickel cheaper than the really nice option. Ha Ha.
But maybe I'm just too cynical...
Re: Is "mil-spec" over rated?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VAJayJayPunisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what if you have a "mil-spec tactical" item, is it double awsome? </div></div>
No but it's double the price.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VAJayJayPunisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what if you have a "mil-spec tactical" item, is it double awsome? </div></div>
No but it's double the price.
Re: Is "mil-spec" over rated?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VAJayJayPunisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what if you have a "mil-spec tactical" item, is it double awsome?</div></div>
you're a piece of work.
keeps me laughing!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VAJayJayPunisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what if you have a "mil-spec tactical" item, is it double awsome?</div></div>
you're a piece of work.
keeps me laughing!
Re: Is "mil-spec" over rated?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cal50</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mil-spec toilet paper.
That's the shit! </div></div>
Wiping my ass requires a bit of a Tactical approach at times.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cal50</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mil-spec toilet paper.
That's the shit! </div></div>
Wiping my ass requires a bit of a Tactical approach at times.
Re: Is "mil-spec" over rated?
Mil spec, if followed, is for consistency, not quality.
Mil spec doesn't replace quality control for the military and it shouldn't replace quality control for us, either.
Mil spec does involve certain quality standards, but it seems to me that the primary concern is to make sure that the same product is the same product no matter who manufactures it.
This was probably a bigger issue in the past, but it remains true today. Imagine if 1/2 of the M16 mags didn't fit in certain rifles because the magwells were out of spec. Annoying wouldn't be the word.
Mil spec, if followed, is for consistency, not quality.
Mil spec doesn't replace quality control for the military and it shouldn't replace quality control for us, either.
Mil spec does involve certain quality standards, but it seems to me that the primary concern is to make sure that the same product is the same product no matter who manufactures it.
This was probably a bigger issue in the past, but it remains true today. Imagine if 1/2 of the M16 mags didn't fit in certain rifles because the magwells were out of spec. Annoying wouldn't be the word.
Re: Is "mil-spec" over rated?
consistency is quality in my book. FNH is a great company that has in place nearly twice the quality control procedures(than civilian marketed companies).
consistency is quality in my book. FNH is a great company that has in place nearly twice the quality control procedures(than civilian marketed companies).
Re: Is "mil-spec" over rated?
Well, that depends....ARMS mounts are consistently crappy, for example. FNH makes good gear, though. Some of it is fugly, but well-made.
Milspec is definitely over-worshipped, at times. Larue stuff isn't milspec in some areas...it's better than milspec. And so on....
Well, that depends....ARMS mounts are consistently crappy, for example. FNH makes good gear, though. Some of it is fugly, but well-made.
Milspec is definitely over-worshipped, at times. Larue stuff isn't milspec in some areas...it's better than milspec. And so on....
Re: Is "mil-spec" over rated?
Here’s the deal, and it’s very simple: Only rifles made for the U.S. military are MilSpec. MilSpec criteria include every aspect of the rifle, from the materials it’s made from to the treatment of those materials, the dimensions of components made from those materials, testing of these parts, wear and durability, accuracy, service life—every excruciating detail is specified, and most importantly, a MilSpec rifle is approved by a U.S. government inspector.
Now, the TDP (Technical Data Package) is basically the "spec" that all these parts must meet. This TDP is proprietary knowledge to only those companies actually building shit for .gov. In fact, when a company like say Colt or FN, gets a contract, a part of that contract is non disclosure of said TDP. The best all the other manufacturers can do is to reverse engineer mil-spec parts and copy them as well as they can. Some companies (few) are actually producing parts that exceed the TDP.
The moral of the story is to not believe something is mil-spec simply because the manufacturer claims it to be.
Here’s the deal, and it’s very simple: Only rifles made for the U.S. military are MilSpec. MilSpec criteria include every aspect of the rifle, from the materials it’s made from to the treatment of those materials, the dimensions of components made from those materials, testing of these parts, wear and durability, accuracy, service life—every excruciating detail is specified, and most importantly, a MilSpec rifle is approved by a U.S. government inspector.
Now, the TDP (Technical Data Package) is basically the "spec" that all these parts must meet. This TDP is proprietary knowledge to only those companies actually building shit for .gov. In fact, when a company like say Colt or FN, gets a contract, a part of that contract is non disclosure of said TDP. The best all the other manufacturers can do is to reverse engineer mil-spec parts and copy them as well as they can. Some companies (few) are actually producing parts that exceed the TDP.
The moral of the story is to not believe something is mil-spec simply because the manufacturer claims it to be.
Re: Is "mil-spec" over rated?
Nearly every company, even tiny ones, some of which are sponsors on this website and the number of weapons systems they build in a year is in the double digits, have government contracts. I find it very hard to believe that the specs for say an M16 are so secret that they can't be disclosed.
In fact, I suspect that the full specs for the M16 are available with nothing more than a FOIA request to the right government office.
The taxpayers have a right to know what they're paying for, unless there's some strong national security interest at play there.
Nearly every company, even tiny ones, some of which are sponsors on this website and the number of weapons systems they build in a year is in the double digits, have government contracts. I find it very hard to believe that the specs for say an M16 are so secret that they can't be disclosed.
In fact, I suspect that the full specs for the M16 are available with nothing more than a FOIA request to the right government office.
The taxpayers have a right to know what they're paying for, unless there's some strong national security interest at play there.
Re: Is "mil-spec" over rated?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ewoaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here’s the deal, and it’s very simple: Only rifles made for the U.S. military are MilSpec. MilSpec criteria include every aspect of the rifle, from the materials it’s made from to the treatment of those materials, the dimensions of components made from those materials, testing of these parts, wear and durability, accuracy, service life—every excruciating detail is specified, and most importantly, a MilSpec rifle is approved by a U.S. government inspector.
Now, the TDP (Technical Data Package) is basically the "spec" that all these parts must meet. This TDP is proprietary knowledge to only those companies actually building shit for .gov. In fact, when a company like say Colt or FN, gets a contract, a part of that contract is non disclosure of said TDP. The best all the other manufacturers can do is to reverse engineer mil-spec parts and copy them as well as they can. Some companies (few) are actually producing parts that exceed the TDP.
The moral of the story is to not believe something is mil-spec simply because the manufacturer claims it to be. </div></div>
Much what this guy said. I will give an example though- Lets say you go to buy a barrel. If that barrel does in fact meet all mil-specs for lets say an M4 barrel, you could call it a mil-spec barrel. There is a very detailed list of specifications that go into that barrel; from the material it's made of to the chrome lining, exacting dimensions, finish, heat treating.... it is a set of very exacting specifications. But does that mean it is the end-all-be-all? No. Again, considering the barrel for a standard M4. That standard was wrote in the early 90's. It hasn't changed. Do you think there might now be a "better widget" out there? That the specs outlined back then may have been surpassed? Of course they have been. But, on the positive side, if it is verified to meet military specs... you at least KNOW what you are getting.
So, long story short-
1) Ensure a claim is actually a fact.
2) Mil-Spec does not mean it's the best
3) Mil-Spec is nothing more than a set of standards
4) Things not "Mil-Spec" can be both worse than or better than "Mil-Spec"
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ewoaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here’s the deal, and it’s very simple: Only rifles made for the U.S. military are MilSpec. MilSpec criteria include every aspect of the rifle, from the materials it’s made from to the treatment of those materials, the dimensions of components made from those materials, testing of these parts, wear and durability, accuracy, service life—every excruciating detail is specified, and most importantly, a MilSpec rifle is approved by a U.S. government inspector.
Now, the TDP (Technical Data Package) is basically the "spec" that all these parts must meet. This TDP is proprietary knowledge to only those companies actually building shit for .gov. In fact, when a company like say Colt or FN, gets a contract, a part of that contract is non disclosure of said TDP. The best all the other manufacturers can do is to reverse engineer mil-spec parts and copy them as well as they can. Some companies (few) are actually producing parts that exceed the TDP.
The moral of the story is to not believe something is mil-spec simply because the manufacturer claims it to be. </div></div>
Much what this guy said. I will give an example though- Lets say you go to buy a barrel. If that barrel does in fact meet all mil-specs for lets say an M4 barrel, you could call it a mil-spec barrel. There is a very detailed list of specifications that go into that barrel; from the material it's made of to the chrome lining, exacting dimensions, finish, heat treating.... it is a set of very exacting specifications. But does that mean it is the end-all-be-all? No. Again, considering the barrel for a standard M4. That standard was wrote in the early 90's. It hasn't changed. Do you think there might now be a "better widget" out there? That the specs outlined back then may have been surpassed? Of course they have been. But, on the positive side, if it is verified to meet military specs... you at least KNOW what you are getting.
So, long story short-
1) Ensure a claim is actually a fact.
2) Mil-Spec does not mean it's the best
3) Mil-Spec is nothing more than a set of standards
4) Things not "Mil-Spec" can be both worse than or better than "Mil-Spec"
Re: Is "mil-spec" over rated?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nearly every company, even tiny ones, some of which are sponsors on this website and the number of weapons systems they build in a year is in the double digits, have government contracts. I find it very hard to believe that the specs for say an M16 are so secret that they can't be disclosed.
In fact, I suspect that the full specs for the M16 are available with nothing more than a FOIA request to the right government office.
The taxpayers have a right to know what they're paying for, unless there's some strong national security interest at play there. </div></div>
Let me clarify. the intent of my post wasn't to portray that no one could make a "mil-spec" product w/o having a .gov contract. It's obviously not some top secret info, just proprietary.
To put it simply, you can't actually buy a true mil-spec AR. For one to be mil-spec it would have to be A) select fire B) inspected by .gov/mil. Obviously because of the '86 act, you're not going to purchase a truly mil-spec rifle. So folks simply seek out the closest thing, which obviously you can purchase with ease. The problems folks run into is that they get confused on the true definition. Many simply refer to a rifle as being mil-spec because it has m-4 feed ramps or a gov't profile barrel. The TDP is obviously way more involved than that, but most folks don't know, care, or take the time to find out.
Let's look at 2 different rifles from 2 different manufacturers both claiming to sell milspec ARs.. Olypic Arms sells one. It's about half the cost of, say a Colt 6920. They both may look identical and are both "mil-spec" so why is it much less? Which one is better? The only thing Mil-Spec about an Olympic Arms rifle is that it 1) has a 5.56 chamber, 2) has the correct FSB taper pins, 3) uses the Mil-Spec dia. FCP pins, 4) uses a rear sight of the correct height. Little QC tidbits like MPI/HPT bolt, staked gas key, etc are cut in order to provide the product at a lower cost to the consumer. More QC = more $$ like with any product. Enter TDP stage right.
So is the Colt 6920 a better rifle? It costs much more? Is it truly mil-spec because it's made by a company with a .gov contract? Yes and no. It could be about the closest thing to "mil-spec" as you can get, but because it's simply a semi auto AR15, not inspected by a .gov authority, then it can't be truly mil-spec as Colt does claim. In my opinion, it's worth the extra money, yes.
Then there are products out there that exceed what is set forth by the TDP and are not obviously mil-spec, but in many folks opinion to be much better, just like what was said above, we've come a long way since the original TDP.
Long story short, educate yourself, read the "chart", decide for yourself what it is that you need.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nearly every company, even tiny ones, some of which are sponsors on this website and the number of weapons systems they build in a year is in the double digits, have government contracts. I find it very hard to believe that the specs for say an M16 are so secret that they can't be disclosed.
In fact, I suspect that the full specs for the M16 are available with nothing more than a FOIA request to the right government office.
The taxpayers have a right to know what they're paying for, unless there's some strong national security interest at play there. </div></div>
Let me clarify. the intent of my post wasn't to portray that no one could make a "mil-spec" product w/o having a .gov contract. It's obviously not some top secret info, just proprietary.
To put it simply, you can't actually buy a true mil-spec AR. For one to be mil-spec it would have to be A) select fire B) inspected by .gov/mil. Obviously because of the '86 act, you're not going to purchase a truly mil-spec rifle. So folks simply seek out the closest thing, which obviously you can purchase with ease. The problems folks run into is that they get confused on the true definition. Many simply refer to a rifle as being mil-spec because it has m-4 feed ramps or a gov't profile barrel. The TDP is obviously way more involved than that, but most folks don't know, care, or take the time to find out.
Let's look at 2 different rifles from 2 different manufacturers both claiming to sell milspec ARs.. Olypic Arms sells one. It's about half the cost of, say a Colt 6920. They both may look identical and are both "mil-spec" so why is it much less? Which one is better? The only thing Mil-Spec about an Olympic Arms rifle is that it 1) has a 5.56 chamber, 2) has the correct FSB taper pins, 3) uses the Mil-Spec dia. FCP pins, 4) uses a rear sight of the correct height. Little QC tidbits like MPI/HPT bolt, staked gas key, etc are cut in order to provide the product at a lower cost to the consumer. More QC = more $$ like with any product. Enter TDP stage right.
So is the Colt 6920 a better rifle? It costs much more? Is it truly mil-spec because it's made by a company with a .gov contract? Yes and no. It could be about the closest thing to "mil-spec" as you can get, but because it's simply a semi auto AR15, not inspected by a .gov authority, then it can't be truly mil-spec as Colt does claim. In my opinion, it's worth the extra money, yes.
Then there are products out there that exceed what is set forth by the TDP and are not obviously mil-spec, but in many folks opinion to be much better, just like what was said above, we've come a long way since the original TDP.
Long story short, educate yourself, read the "chart", decide for yourself what it is that you need.
Re: Is "mil-spec" over rated?
They are not both mil spec. In fact, neither of them are.
I have the chart. My rifle is "mil spec" in places that I want it to be and not "mil spec" in others. Like I said before, "mil spec" is a standard, but certainly not an end.
I get what you're saying, especially in light of all the M4 type guns that are sold today. Basically none of them are "mil spec" and most of them have 16" barrels to meet the NFA minimum.
I do think having an MPIed bolt is a good idea, I like M4 feed ramps and 1 in 7 twist chrome lined bores (with 5.56 chambers). The rest is pretty much not important to me, and much of my own rifles, beyond that, are not "mil spec" at all.
They are not both mil spec. In fact, neither of them are.
I have the chart. My rifle is "mil spec" in places that I want it to be and not "mil spec" in others. Like I said before, "mil spec" is a standard, but certainly not an end.
I get what you're saying, especially in light of all the M4 type guns that are sold today. Basically none of them are "mil spec" and most of them have 16" barrels to meet the NFA minimum.
I do think having an MPIed bolt is a good idea, I like M4 feed ramps and 1 in 7 twist chrome lined bores (with 5.56 chambers). The rest is pretty much not important to me, and much of my own rifles, beyond that, are not "mil spec" at all.
Re: Is "mil-spec" over rated?
"mil-spec" isn't over rated if it is indeed mil-spec. As noted what it is, is a set of standards that set forth both the quality and conformity of a product to be used by the military.
Here's the problems and blessings of such. Take an M4 for instance. A brand new M4 coming out of FN's NC plant will meet some pretty stringent standards. You can count on it in battle to do what it's intended to do. It's had a lot of input from the people who have gone to battle and some changes were made to make it a better weapon than the original M16 and M16A1, A2, and A3. You can take 44 of them and issue them to a platoon and they will do what they are intended to do.
Now, go the other direction and say we have to fight the next war in a snow country...and we need snowmobiles. If we are going going to ramp up and build them for the military to use they will need to conform to a general standard. As much as we don't like pidgeon-holing something, we need to have a general standard so that they are all the same. So maintenance is the same, ordering parts is the same, inspection of them is the same. This goes on with the trucks, tanks, and planes we buy too. We need to know we can send 500 of them into battle and repair them that way as well. We need to know they can take "x" amount of battle damage. That if they take a bad hit, they can hopefully get you home. It seems like some of the stuff we have fielded over the years is crap, and some of it is. Some of it got dreamed up by some knucklehead who has never been anywhere in his life. Not even a camping trip. Where things like knives, guns, hatchets/axes and mosquito nets can be appreciated. Some of these engineers don't realize if you beef up the outside, you have to beef up the engine, tranny, drive-train, etc or it won't get to where it needs to go, do what it needs to and get home.
So, in that regard mil-spec has it's drawbacks. Not everything with a mil-spec has actually been tested to the degree it needs to. I've heard the statement, "We can't make it fit everybody." To which the NCO's statement is, "This don't fit anybody!" Some changes need to be made.
The bottom line is you have to know what is good and what isn't good for your intended purpose.
"mil-spec" isn't over rated if it is indeed mil-spec. As noted what it is, is a set of standards that set forth both the quality and conformity of a product to be used by the military.
Here's the problems and blessings of such. Take an M4 for instance. A brand new M4 coming out of FN's NC plant will meet some pretty stringent standards. You can count on it in battle to do what it's intended to do. It's had a lot of input from the people who have gone to battle and some changes were made to make it a better weapon than the original M16 and M16A1, A2, and A3. You can take 44 of them and issue them to a platoon and they will do what they are intended to do.
Now, go the other direction and say we have to fight the next war in a snow country...and we need snowmobiles. If we are going going to ramp up and build them for the military to use they will need to conform to a general standard. As much as we don't like pidgeon-holing something, we need to have a general standard so that they are all the same. So maintenance is the same, ordering parts is the same, inspection of them is the same. This goes on with the trucks, tanks, and planes we buy too. We need to know we can send 500 of them into battle and repair them that way as well. We need to know they can take "x" amount of battle damage. That if they take a bad hit, they can hopefully get you home. It seems like some of the stuff we have fielded over the years is crap, and some of it is. Some of it got dreamed up by some knucklehead who has never been anywhere in his life. Not even a camping trip. Where things like knives, guns, hatchets/axes and mosquito nets can be appreciated. Some of these engineers don't realize if you beef up the outside, you have to beef up the engine, tranny, drive-train, etc or it won't get to where it needs to go, do what it needs to and get home.
So, in that regard mil-spec has it's drawbacks. Not everything with a mil-spec has actually been tested to the degree it needs to. I've heard the statement, "We can't make it fit everybody." To which the NCO's statement is, "This don't fit anybody!" Some changes need to be made.
The bottom line is you have to know what is good and what isn't good for your intended purpose.
Re: Is "mil-spec" over rated?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quickdraw40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My AIAWs are mil spec. </div></div>
In the light of US mil specs, are they really?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quickdraw40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My AIAWs are mil spec. </div></div>
In the light of US mil specs, are they really?
Re: Is "mil-spec" over rated?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quickdraw40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My AIAWs are mil spec. </div></div>
In the light of US mil specs, are they really? </div></div>
I don't really know. It's what I was told. Doesn't really matter to me. Just sayin'.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quickdraw40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My AIAWs are mil spec. </div></div>
In the light of US mil specs, are they really? </div></div>
I don't really know. It's what I was told. Doesn't really matter to me. Just sayin'.
Re: Is "mil-spec" over rated?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quickdraw40</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quickdraw40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My AIAWs are mil spec. </div></div>
In the light of US mil specs, are they really? </div></div>
I don't really know. It's what I was told. Doesn't really matter to me. Just sayin'. </div></div>
I'm not trying to bust balls, AI AW's are frickin' bulletproof systems. Its just a case in point regarding the thread's general inquiry.
AIAW's are a perfect example of "probably better than US mil-spec". I don not know if there is a set of specifications within the US military for an AI AW. If there's not, its not "mil-spec", but that doesn't detract from it being arguably the best production sniper system out there!
Mil-spec is highly overated, There's a milspec for toilet paper, but I'd probably prefer my Charmin.....
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quickdraw40</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quickdraw40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My AIAWs are mil spec. </div></div>
In the light of US mil specs, are they really? </div></div>
I don't really know. It's what I was told. Doesn't really matter to me. Just sayin'. </div></div>
I'm not trying to bust balls, AI AW's are frickin' bulletproof systems. Its just a case in point regarding the thread's general inquiry.
AIAW's are a perfect example of "probably better than US mil-spec". I don not know if there is a set of specifications within the US military for an AI AW. If there's not, its not "mil-spec", but that doesn't detract from it being arguably the best production sniper system out there!
Mil-spec is highly overated, There's a milspec for toilet paper, but I'd probably prefer my Charmin.....
Re: Is "mil-spec" over rated?
I think the key is that when advertising many places will say "built with mil-spec parts" or "to mil-spec" tolerances. That doesn't mean all that much, sort of like saying you use organic tomatoes.
I think the key is that when advertising many places will say "built with mil-spec parts" or "to mil-spec" tolerances. That doesn't mean all that much, sort of like saying you use organic tomatoes.
Re: Is "mil-spec" over rated?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quickdraw40</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quickdraw40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My AIAWs are mil spec. </div></div>
In the light of US mil specs, are they really? </div></div>
I don't really know. It's what I was told. Doesn't really matter to me. Just sayin'. </div></div>
I'm not trying to bust balls, AI AW's are frickin' bulletproof systems. Its just a case in point regarding the thread's general inquiry.
AIAW's are a perfect example of "probably better than US mil-spec". I don not know if there is a set of specifications within the US military for an AI AW. If there's not, its not "mil-spec", but that doesn't detract from it being arguably the best production sniper system out there!
Mil-spec is highly overated, <span style="font-weight: bold">There's a milspec for toilet paper, but I'd probably prefer my Charmin.....</span></div></div>
You can see the importance the Army places on getting<span style="font-weight: bold"> THAT </span>paperwork done
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quickdraw40</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quickdraw40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My AIAWs are mil spec. </div></div>
In the light of US mil specs, are they really? </div></div>
I don't really know. It's what I was told. Doesn't really matter to me. Just sayin'. </div></div>
I'm not trying to bust balls, AI AW's are frickin' bulletproof systems. Its just a case in point regarding the thread's general inquiry.
AIAW's are a perfect example of "probably better than US mil-spec". I don not know if there is a set of specifications within the US military for an AI AW. If there's not, its not "mil-spec", but that doesn't detract from it being arguably the best production sniper system out there!
Mil-spec is highly overated, <span style="font-weight: bold">There's a milspec for toilet paper, but I'd probably prefer my Charmin.....</span></div></div>
You can see the importance the Army places on getting<span style="font-weight: bold"> THAT </span>paperwork done
