[ajole]

You’re right. But the underlying issue is...what does the label actually mean then, in the commercial world? If something that is said to be milspec by the maker, does that mean EVERYTHING exactly like the stuff for a contract, including materials, dimensions, methods of production, certain in house inspection like MPI or other quality controls, so IF it had been tested and or inspected by the DOD, it would pass?

Or do they simply mean, made according to the size and material specs, so as to be fully interchangeable in an M4/M16, and they are pretty sure it would pass?

Or do they only mean, it’s made to dimensional specs, from stuff that’s as good as, or maybe better than, the specs, like with nickel boron or stainless, or other coatings or treatments?

That’s always my question. MilSpec is a MINIMUM, in my opinion, I’m not sure why the idea of crappy stuff being “good enough for government work” doesn’t seem to apply to rifles, especially considering the vocal minority of folks that think the DI system of the Stoner rifle is the worst idea ever, a jam-o-matic that kills the user if used on the battlefield long before it kills anyone else, because, obviously, the military would be happy to invest a few hundred grand in training a soldier, and then save $50 on the rifle they hand him...

 

[mn_doggie]

Yup I really a need mil spec stamp for the 200 rounds a year I fire thru my AR15.

And since all my carry pistols are not Mil spec., they can't possible be functional in a "real" gun battle.

And my $15 toilet seat can't possibly be working well.

There is a purpose for mil spec. in very, very few cases does it make a difference for civilian purposes.