The term is way over used in marketing... the truth is that milspec covers materials, dimensions, processes, and inspections. If it is not built for a government contract and not inspected, it is not milspec.Soccerdad1995 wrote:I may be wrong, but I thought that the term "milspec" was used to differentiate AR's that have certain dimensional tolerances so you would know whether after market parts will fit, etc. If the definition requires parts that have been inspected by gov inspectors, then most high end custom AR's would not be "milspec". Not that that is a bad thing, as you say.cyphertext wrote:The Ruger AR is not "built to milspec".... Let's ignore the fact that it is not being built for the gov and is not inspected by the gov inspectors during the manufacturing process, since that alone disqualifies it from being "milspec". The barrel, the bolt, the front sight, the delta ring... none of this is "milspec" from a design and materials standpoint.Liberty wrote:
I do believe it's worth more than just a plinker though. It is built to milspec. It has a reputation for being reliable and accuracy of 1.5 MOA or better. I think that this qualifies it as a good self/home defense, hunting, truck or a general purpose gun.
Not saying the Ruger is bad and can't handle the roles you have outlined it for, just it isn't "milspec".
Some use "milspec" to mean that the dimensions are the same and parts can be swapped. Others use the term to try to show quality, and mean that their product is built with the same materials and to the same dimensions as the military part. In the case of the Ruger AR-556, it is dimensions only. For example, the front sight / gas block, and the delta ring assembly on the Ruger are not the same as their military counterparts, but you could put them on another AR from a different manufacturer. The bolt in the Ruger is made from a different steel than the military counterpart... same with the barrel.
I have 3 ARs... a S&W, a BCM, and a CMMG... none are milspec.