About time somebody put milspec in a proper perspective.
I will disagree with this part though:
Originally Posted by surf
Now there are other manufacturers who might use very good quality materials with decent build standards and have good quality control and they would make a very good rifle also. But they would clearly not have the likelihood of building as good of a rifle as the above manufacturers who build towards the Govs TDP standard.
Not being bound by a milspec can be a blessing. Milspec materials, finishes and processes are hardly state of the art these days. A company can build a rifle superior to anything .gov issues precisely because it doesn’t have to follow “milpsec”. Noveske rifles are a good example of that. The only advantage “milpsec” gives is that once the rifle is accepted by the government you know exactly what you’re getting and what to expect.
Definitions of what is the best for a military or civilian (even SD-oriented) shooter do differ. For example precision becomes more and weight becomes less of an issue for a civilian. A civilian will more willingly accept the increased cost and doesn’t care about sustained fire capability. So in fact a company aimed to build an ideal AR for civilian will have to deviate from milspec.