What makes a good AR?

Not 100% milspec and not milspec at all might be two different things. Every barrel maker site I've been to has said that if you want to rapid fire 3-4 mags you'd be better off with a chrome lined barrel. It's also kinda funny that the only companies that don't make or advertise their bolts as milspec are the lower end companies.

Is there any reason not to get milspec parts?
 
Mil-spec is a combination of requirements, including grade of material, size, length, hardness, smoothness, coating, cycles, durability, corrosion resistance, and so on and so forth. It is defined so that the manufacturers have a minimum to adhere to. Everything the government buys has a specification for use by the military.

As far as size is concerned, mil-spec should be strictly adhered to. As far as durability/quality is concerned, you should try to exceed it. Not everything in a civilian AR15 is found in a M4. For instance, the military doesn't have a "mil-spec" for a semi-auto BCG.

I guess the rule is that if it's regarding quality/durability of the part, always try to buy parts that exceed the spec.
 
Wow. Thanks a lot guys. I'm going to read over this a few times and see if I can't digest it all. And then try and have a look at this chart.
Click to expand...

this is a minefield with claymores on the edge just to keep it a mess that's hard to navigate through. The chart is meaningless and out of date.

My brother bought a S&W MP15T that is a really sharp shooter and its a non mil spec barrel (and it now has a non mil spec RRA two stage trigger that makes the mil spec triggert look like the piece of junk it is)

Building your own is an option, but keep in mind by the time you get done with the needed tools and figure out what components to get, to achieve the same level as the RRA you were looking at will cost you more.

No matter how anyone phrases it, buying high quality parts cost more than buying those parts in a package. To do it for less you will have to buy some cheaper parts.

If something goes wrong you have no one to turn to.

Mil spec is a combination of nonsense and serious. Read up on what Colt has to do to change an O ring. 10 years of talking, After they satisfy themself that the O ring is a hell of a lot better.

Bolts are test fired with a "high pressure Proof round" then magnflux inspection. Not stressed, good to go.

Rugger makes a 375H&H and does not proof test their bolts. They have quality control that ensure that the bolt will not fail.

As for RRA. I have read Sweeney who has put himself into the seat of being the be all and see all for ARs. He says you should have a mil spec bolt. then he lauds S&W for a chrome bolt that is not mil spec. Hypocrite (he contradict himself almost continuously). Worth reading but he is opinionated except when he is pitching for an mfg.

The RRA chrome bolt is not mil spec (no proof test and military does not allow chrome as its not approved despite it being easier to clean, Colt has not been able to get the bureaucrat his butt to look at it). \

As one guy said, the heart of the gun is in the barrel. Does not matter what method is sued, its the quality that counts.

My take is RRA gets good barrels, they put out a no hidden clause guarantee for accuracy and they have a very good selection of suppliers for their parts. If they say 1 MOA, it will do better than that. 3/4 and it will do better.

Their RRA two stage trigger (and the chrome is better still) is second only to very expensive Timney triggers and the like (which are not mil spec either)

I bought an RRA ATH and its exactly what I expected. GHigh quality components, very tight, trigger is excellent and it shoots better than I can. Barrel is stainless and I and will last me for as much as I ever shoot. Comes with a Wylde chamber so it will be accurate and still shoot 5.56. Works for me.
 
1) An AR is not a bolt action hunting rifle which by definition is a bit overbuilt for the task. You CAN buy a Savage that does the SAME thing as a Sako. It might even be as accurate. And... as a hunting rifle, it does what it is supposed to - shoot a few tens of rounds over the course of a year, and bag the buck.

2) An AR fires a high pressure cartridge in rapid fire fashion, and is meant to fire a couple hundred rounds in a session, and can do that over and over before major components need to be changed. The BCM carbine nick-named "Dirty 14" demonstrates this. So... to be as close to authentic as possible to do the real job of an AR, certain specifications are met.

3) Upper/lower tightness, and "fit and finish" are meaningless terms in the field of ARs. What matters are FUNCTIONAL specifications. These have to do with quality of steel used in the BCG and barrel, process used to make them, staking the carrier key properly, and other things many times ignored by some commercial manufacturers.

4) Before spending several hundred dollars on ANY firearm, one should know the real deal. With an AR, knowing what Milspec and "TDP" means is minimal data to understand. "Is every BCG made by the manufacturer/assembler magnetic particle tested" - is one example.

5) You CAN find a buddy with an RRA that has fired 1500 flawless rounds and has good accuracy and a tight fit. Is it Milspec - so that you could highly confident that it will do so when it fires its 2500th round - maybe not. Again, an AR is designed to do this.

The "gold standard" is Colt, which over decades has developed a "Technical Data Package" full of production techniques and specifications which have proven CRITICAL to making a carbine useful in combat. They did this because our soldiers deserve to have a reliable firearm. It reduces risk of failure when you NEED the weapon to function flawlessly.

Right now, you can nail a Colt for $1000. You can also find reasonable deals on other solid Mil-spec AR's in the same price neighborhood. Why do otherwise?
 
Last edited:
Chome coated BCG's were used by the military until they figured out that chrome vs aluminum chrome wins. And ate away the upper. Or some such. But chrome BCG's were phased out.

Wouldn't having milspec parts be better assurance of not failing than their cheaper counter parts?

A chrome lined barrel is something I'm non negotiable about, so, having bought the RRA, I'd still have to swap out the barrel.

I don't think the chart is useless. If nothing else it tells you who was willing to back up what they sell, and who was hiding behind smoke and mirrors.

How is an RRA two stage better than a Geissele?

The whole reason I decided to build was because all the features I want on a rifle can't be found already put together. I think it'd cost more to buy a complete rifle and then frankenstein it out to the way I want it. If I'm going to spend $1500-$2000 on a rifle, shouldn't it be exactly what I want from the start, rather than a $1500 comprimise?
 
Last edited:
S&W makes a respectable AR - NOT TOTAL Milspec in that their Bolts are batch tested. Some of their models use 4140, not 4150, etc. But... if you want to save some money, I think the Sport is a decent rifle - at least from what I've read. Many seem to have great experience with them in running carbine courses.

I have no doubt that RRAs are accurate, and built for that task. But, as an example, my friend had one in which the bolt carrier was NOT STAKED at all. The gas key was also loose when he went to get it fixed. Hello? Anyone listening? If he would have used it in a more serious situation than casual target practice, or even if SHTF, he'd have been very very sorry. (RRA does make models with chrome lined barrels BTW).

In a real sense, NON Milspec guns are really "hobby" guns - copies in the form of an AR, but not built with the same functionality in mind - that functionality being optimum reliability. ALL ARs are fairly accurate in the military sense.

No. Not all items on "the chart" are equal - but there is no excuse TODAY, when spending several hundred dollars, NOT to have all the features.

Some of the places you get "Milspec" AR advice can be a little caustic and arrogant. But... they know the AR. Read and learn - you'll be glad you did.
 
Chome coated BCG's were used by the military until they figured out that chrome vs aluminum chrome wins. And ate away the upper. Or some such. But chrome BCG's were phased out.
Click to expand...

This theory seems flawed. I know that chrome is harder than steel, but then again steel is also much harder than aluminum and it doesn't really "eat" the upper. Also one would think that a chrome surface would actually provide less friction against the upper than steel would......I am no metallurgist, but this just seems right.
 
From: ARMY TM 9-1005-319-23&P - AIR FORCE TO 11 W3-5-5-42 - MAY 1991:
NOTE:
There are bolts and bolt carriers on fielded rifles, some with chrome-plated exterior surface finishes and some with phosphate coating Both finishes are acceptable under certain operational requirements and or restrictions Phosphate-coated bolt carriers are required for divisional combat units Chrome plated bolt carriers are acceptable for divisional noncombat units and training center units. Chrome- plated and phosphate-coated bolt assemblies, bolt carrier assemblies, and repair parts for these assemblies may be intermixed In any combination, with the following exception:
Phosphate-coated bolt carriers are required for all deployable and deploying units Chrome-plated bolt carriers are acceptable for nondeployable and training center units.

Either way, the army had them, and does not use them now.
 
Ok, I get it. You have made up your mind and want people to concur with you. I learn a lot more by actually listening to people that disagree with me and having a conversation.

Good luck and I hope all works for you.

ps: B1 bomber is mil spec, they forgot to pay attention to the pitot tube heaters, lost a 1 Billion dollar plane to it. Good luck with mil spec.



Chome coated BCG's were used by the military until they figured out that chrome vs aluminum chrome wins. And ate away the upper. Or some such. But chrome BCG's were phased out.

Wouldn't having milspec parts be better assurance of not failing than their cheaper counter parts?

A chrome lined barrel is something I'm non negotiable about, so, having bought the RRA, I'd still have to swap out the barrel.

I don't think the chart is useless. If nothing else it tells you who was willing to back up what they sell, and who was hiding behind smoke and mirrors.

How is an RRA two stage better than a Geissele?

The whole reason I decided to build was because all the features I want on a rifle can't be found already put together. I think it'd cost more to buy a complete rifle and then frankenstein it out to the way I want it. If I'm going to spend $1500-$2000 on a rifle, shouldn't it be exactly what I want from the start, rather than a $1500 comprimise?
Click to expand...
 
Sorry you feel that way, its not what I meant. Its why I was asking questions. All those were questions. All I've ever deal with were Army colts. I didn't know anything about the assortment of parts and I thought milspec was just a sizing thing, didn't know the qc and processes used by diff companies etc. In the army you need a part, you look up a part number and order it. I'm not sure how the design of a plane and companies making parts to certain tolerances relates. Besides, this post has pretty much been answered to the best of my ignorent question asking could allow.
 
with dozens of different companies making ar's and ar parts, going mil spec means you can mix and match parts, and also these parts are less likely to fail.

while planning out which parts to buy for my ar build, i found a 10-12 page discussion about chrome lined barrels vs melonite barrels. advances in nitriding steel has made melonite barrels just as good or slightly better than chrome lined barrels in regards to hardness, corrosion resistance and barrel life. chrome lined is good but dont disregard other options.
 
MIL SPEC gets used as much as Match Grade some times it doesn't always mean its the best choice. It more of a marketing term than anything these days. Kind of like company's saying that they were ISO 900x certified back a few years ago.
 
jsimmons said:
Mil-spec is a combination of requirements, including grade of material, size, length, hardness, smoothness, coating, cycles, durability, corrosion resistance, and so on and so forth. It is defined so that the manufacturers have a minimum to adhere to. Everything the government buys has a specification for use by the military.

As far as size is concerned, mil-spec should be strictly adhered to. As far as durability/quality is concerned, you should try to exceed it. Not everything in a civilian AR15 is found in a M4. For instance, the military doesn't have a "mil-spec" for a semi-auto BCG.

I guess the rule is that if it's regarding quality/durability of the part, always try to buy parts that exceed the spec.
Click to expand...

Precisely!

If a gun/part is rated mil-spec then you know it meets a certain combination of requirements.

Non mil spec may be better or it may not.

A non mil spec AR can be as reliable as any mil spec AR, and as accurate, or more accurate.



tirod said:
Same for the bolts - mag particle inspection of every bolt is great, that means your bolt isn't likely to have cracks in it from the manufacturing process.
Click to expand...

MPI is pointless unless you HPT first. HPT is a proof test of the bolt. Is it really needed? Probably not, I have several high round bolts that did not receive any form of testing. When buying new the cost is about the same, so it makes sense to me to go with a fully tested bolt.



tirod said:
A lot of the selection of what steels and alloys are used is also wrapped up in how the parts are made. 7075 can forge acceptably, but the newer uppers on other guns are made by extrusion. Nobody's said, but they may be using a different grade.
Click to expand...

You can not extrude 7000 series aluminum. Extruded AR parts are from 6000 series and do not have the strength of a forged 7000 series part. The extruded parts get the job done but personally I avoid extruded uppers and RE's. The cost difference is insignificant so why go with a lesser part?
 
Last edited:
You can not extrude 7000 series aluminum. Extruded AR parts are from 6000 series and do not have the strength of a forged 7000 series part.
Click to expand...

Correct.

I deal with 6063-T5 Aluminum extrusions all day long every day with very annoying and moronic suppliers. Nothing gives you confidence in a company more than listening to them arguing with each other on a teleconference about a design change that they requested.:(

Not only is the material itself weaker but forging makes a stronger part with a given cross section of material and you can get more complex contours with forging than you can with extrusion. Extrusions have to be straight so they can squirt it through the die.:D

For those that don't know, extrusion is the same process that your children/grand children use for making Play-doh spaghetti.:D
 
Thanks everyone for your time. I've came up with a list of all the parts/brands I want...and its totaled up to being a $1700+ gun. So now I gotta go back and 1) try to price compare 2) thin the fat of any excess/over priced things that would work just as well with a cheaper part. I guess I should start a new thread for that.
 
Thanks everyone for your time. I've came up with a list of all the parts/brands I want...and its totaled up to being a $1700+ gun. So now I gotta go back and 1) try to price compare 2) thin the fat of any excess/over priced things that would work just as well with a cheaper part. I guess I should start a new thread for that.
Click to expand...

If you're not in a hurry, you can wait for sales or group buys (like they have on AR15Armory.com).

You'll save money on shipping if you get a bunch of parts from the same source.

Don't forget - you're gonna need tools too.
 
why build a 1700 weapon when you can buy a proven platform now for under 1k easily..for a upper quality weapon.

im not getting the trend in building ar's...yeah its cool cuz ya built it but you can have 2 for the price f building them now..like a car..the sum of parts outwieghs the cost of a completed platform. palmetto arms/sw/rem all have good stuff right now..even walmart is selling ar's. tho theyre kinda pricey on some of em
 
Proven for who? Even if I bought that $1000 weapon and dumped $200 for buis, $100 for furniture that fit me, $200 for a giessele trigger, $300 for a criterion barrel....how much would I have saved for a rifle that is just starting to be the way I want it? Thats not including other stuff I want, like the PWS FSC. And thats hoping I can get one fairly set up the way I like it as far as handguards and stuff goes.

I really want an AR that is set up more for 3 gun. I don't want a benchrest target gun. I want a gun I can do mag dumps, using 100 round mags. I want a gun with so little recoil I can RUN while shooting and hold it on target. I want a gun so tough it uses sand for lube...

Ok, maybe thats a little far fetched. But why own 2 "ok" guns when all I want is 1 good one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top