The infamous Mil-Spec

M4 style AR15 rifle

Every group has a vocal cadre that demand compliance to their closely held beliefs as defined by their collective.  In the AR-15 realm we have the mil-spec advocates.   These folks have their short list of approved manufacturers and the moment a new company dares to come into existence they pounce to question every minute detail about the materials and processes used to manufacture the interlopers new wares.

Often times the criticisms leveled against the manufacturers’ products will be centered on compliance to military specifications.  Ironically, most who cite the military specifications for rifles such as the AR15/M16 have never read the actual specifications nor even know where to find them.  They instead resort to parroting what they’ve read on Internet discussion forums.

What are military specifications (mil-spec)?  Simple, they’re standards established by the General Accountability Office (GAO) for defining essential technical requirements of purchased materiel for the military or for substantially modified commercial items to be used by the military.  These standards have been established to guarantee interoperability, commonality, reliability and cost of ownership to ease the strain on logistics systems.

What mil-specs aren’t are a guarantee the product defined is the absolute best that it can be in terms of materials used or processes used for manufacturing.  In the case of the AR15/M16 many of the specifications were established in the 1960’s and 1970’s long before various alloys were developed or even before CNC machining was in common use.

Buffer tubes

Take the buffer tube (receiver extension) of the AR15 rifle as an example.  The military standard tube will have a diameter of 1.148”.  The commercial buffer tube will have a diameter of 1.168”.  The threads will be slightly smaller in diameter on the commercial tube (1.170’ vs 1.185”) as well.  Some commercial tubes will have welded end caps where mil-spec tubes will consist of one piece.

Is the thinner mil-spec tube stronger than the thicker commercial tube?  I guess that depends on what tests are conducted.  In a real world application would a commercial tube be any more likely to fail if exposed to the same stresses as a mil-spec tube?  Everything I can find would indicate no, the mil-spec tube isn’t necessarily more durable or able to withstand significantly more stress than the commercial variant.  

So why do we have mil-spec on buffer tubes?  Simple.  If we go back to the definition of what mil-spec is we’ll find in this case it has to do with interoperability and compatibility.    A Soldier should be able to remove a buttstock from one M4A1 and drop it onto another M4A1 without having to worry about compatibility.  That’s it.

Another example would be the use of Carpenters 158 steel in the construction of AR15/M16 bolts.  Carpenters 158 is the mil-spec standard material for manufacturing a bolt, but is it the best material available?  Lewis Tool & Machine (LMT) thinks that Aermet is vastly superior (2.5 times stronger) to Carpenters 158.  Their Enhanced Bolt, which is designed to remedy failures associated with the mil-spec standard M16 bolt, seems to be a popular item.  This goes back to the specifications written for the M16 being drafted in the 1960’s and 1970’s.  Better materials now exist yet the mil-spec standards haven’t been modified.

All the mil-spec advocates will claim the use of Carpenters 158 is a must.  They’ll cite the infamous “Chart” hosted by M4Carbine.net as their holy scripture on the subject, yet in reality Carpenters 158 is a minimum standard and nothing more.

If you’re new to AR15’s and don’t know what to look for when buying a rifle from one of the 50+ makers of AR’s out there today, stick with mil-spec standards to get started.  Or, do your research and find out where deviating from the military specifications can be a good thing.

There are some specifications you don’t want to deviate too far from such as MP/HP testing of bolts and barrels that assure quality and durability.  Staked nuts on the gas key are a good thing as well.  Having .154” diameter pins for the fire control group is another good thing (Colt used larger holes at one time).  M4 feed ramps on a carbine are a bonus as they improve feeding reliability.

I don't completely discount military specifications for the AR15 or think they're totally irrelevant to the civilian legal AR15.  What I do believe is that they're a bare minimum standard for quality and interchangeability and nothing more.

Glock: Innovator or coasting on past success?

G21 Gen4 & G17 Gen3 EXO

Glock is one of the most successful handgun companies in modern history.  Their revolutionary Glock 17 pistol took the shooting community by storm in the early 1980's and its success as a military and law enforcement handgun has been unrivaled globally.

Glock began life around 1982.  By 1983 the Glock 17 had been adopted by the Austrian military.  In 1984 the Glock 17 was introduced to the US market where its destiny to become one of the worlds most popular military and LEO handguns was cemented.

Take note of the dates above.  The Glock has been around for 30 years now with only 4 generations of pistols having been introduced.  In 1988 the Gen 2 pistols was introduced with only minor changes.  In 1998 the Gen 3 pistol was introduced with a new frame that had finger grooves, a new rail, and new loaded chamber indicator on the extractor.  By 2010 Glock launched the biggest changes to its classic pistol, the Gen 4 modifications.  These modifications included a new lower frame with user swappable back straps, new checkering, new recoil spring and other minor changes.

G21SF - Failed Ambi-Mag Release

But there's something worth note in this story.  Every generation of Glock released is the same basic pistol with updates added to keep the aging design relevant on the market.  Glock hasn't introduced a totally new pistol or even a rifle in the last 30 years.  They keep on rewarming the existing design hoping no one notices they've really done nothing notable since the 1980's.

I love Glock handguns.  I really do.  I have several Glocks in my inventory and I carry a G19 EXO as my defensive handgun of choice.  But unlike many diehard Glock fans, I do question some of Glocks decisions and have taken note of their apparent inability to evolve past their one and only claim to fame.

It seems to me that Glock is struggling to stay relevant and they are clinging steadfastly to their original design hoping that by tacking on the latest and greatest doo-dads they will never have to design something totally new -- ever.

As a long time fan of Glock pistols it's been rather painful for me to watch, actually.  While Glock flounders trying to keep their aging design modern, they've made some fairly high profile mistakes.

G21 Gen 4 Replaceable Back Straps

Take the G21SF pistol for example.  The G21SF was developed to compete in military trials.  To meet the functional requirements of the trials they made some quick changes to their G21 .45 ACP pistol.  First, they reduced the grip size to squeeze slightly better ergonomics out of it.  Then they stuck a 1913 rail under the dust cover and quickly fashioned a ambidextrous magazine release system.  The ambi magazine release was a total failure with reports of broken parts and dropping magazines running rampant across the internet.  The original intent was to implement this ambi-magazine system into all future Glock pistols, but that quickly faded as the reports of failures continued to stream into Glock.  Alas, the ambi-magazine release is no more.

The RTF2 (Rough Textured Frame) was introduced in 2009 along with new slide serrations affectionately called "fish gills" by collectors.  A year later the hideous fish gills were dropped from production guns, and the 60 grit sandpaper known as the RTF2 grip frame was relegated to LEO only sales in 2011.  I own two of these now defunct pistols and I have to admit, the RTF2 grips are painful to use for concealed carry -- especially if you wear your pistol inside the waist band.  Many owners dulled the sharp edges with sandpaper in an effort to prevent wounding themselves with their new carry guns.

G19 RTF2

The introduction of the Gen 4 Glocks has also been something of a painful experience for Glock.  Widespread reports of reliability issues has forced Glock to release several different recoil spring updates as they try to get ahead of the cascade of trouble reports coming in from the field.  It's been so troublesome that many Glock fans, such as myself, have refused to buy the Gen 4 pistols and remain loyal to the Gen 3 guns.

I feel the competition is passing Glock by.  I can't think of any other gun manufacturers that have existed for 30 years making only one design without introducing something totally new at some point.  It seems to me that Glock would rather jerry-rig user replaceable back straps onto their existing design as opposed to designing a totally new pistol with modern features.  At this point the Gen 4 Glock pistols look like a hodgepodge of after thoughts vs. a class leading innovative handgun capable of brushing the competition to the side.

Is Glock capable of designing a totally new pistol, or is Glock a one hit wonder biding its time until the competition passes it by?

C'mon Glock, give us something new.

Thinking ahead

AK-74 Rifle in 5.45x39

For years I've been a fan of the AK rifle.  I started with the 7.62x39 then moved to the 5.45x39 a couple of years ago.  The AK is simple, reliable, and in the case of Arsenal rifles they're also well made.  It's why I have chosen the AK as my "go to" rifle.

Fast forward to the events of July 20th, 2012.  A madman stormed a packed movie theater where he indiscriminately shot 70 people, killing 12 of them.  He used a S&W AR-15 rifle with a 100 round drum magazine, a Remington 870 pump shotgun and a Glock .40 pistol (two were recovered).

The media and several politicians are now focused on two aspects of this tragedy hoping to enact future anti-gun laws to heavily restrict both semi-automatic firearms and "high capacity" magazines.  Take a look at the recent Cyber Security Bill which carries an interesting proposed amendment -- a magazine ban reminiscent of the 1994 Crime Bill passed under President Clinton.  The goal is to ban magazines over 10 rounds making it illegal to manufacture or sell them (or transfer grandfathered magazines) after the ban goes into effect.

Even if this bill goes down in flames future bills are certain to be proposed after the November elections.  Once the elections are out of the way, stand by.  We'll see a flurry of new bills being proposed and it only takes one to stick.

Thinking forward, how would a new magazine ban affect my choice of "go to" rifles?  How might it affect future rifle purchases that took place after such a ban were enacted?

A few of my long gun magazines

If you're like me, you have a number of different rifles and handguns, most of which require proprietary magazines.  Right now I'm stocking up on my most used magazines just in case such a bill were to pass Congress.  I'm quickly realizing I don't have the financial resources to buy 50 of every magazine type necessary to feed all of my different firearms.  I need to prioritize.

Let's take a look at my "go to" rifle.  It uses AK74 magazines that at one time were cheap and plentiful.  I have quite a few, but now I'm looking to buy for a lifetime.  I need more.  The price has jumped up considerably and the availability is very limited.  I will also mention that ammunition import bans may be enacted as an incremental measure which would render my 5.45x39 AK74's mostly useless.  Without imported ammo, the 5.45x39 loses its luster as a cheap blaster and affordable stockpiling alternative to 5.56mm.

I have a couple of options here.  One, I can convert back over to 7.62x39.  Magazines are still readily available and even if imported ammo ceases is cut off there are domestic producers of the ammo.  Or two, I can switch over to 5.56mm and STANAG magazines.

I'm leaning towards a platform shift for my "go to" rifle.  Right now the STANAG option seems to be the most viable given the situation we currently face.

NATO standard STANAG magazines

The STANAG magazine is a NATO standard.  Almost every new 5.56mm rifle that's coming out uses it.  This includes the SCAR 16S, ACR, FS2000, AR's, XCR, etc.  It's reasonable to expect future rifles that are released will also use the STANAG magazines -- at least for the foreseeable future.  That means if I am going to stockpile magazines the STANAG magazine makes the most sense, by far.  Adopting the STANAG will assure compatibility with the widest possible selection of current and future rifles.  I can invest in 100 of them, have enough for a lifetime under a new magazine ban, and reasonably expect that if a rifle released 10 years from now tickles my fancy I'll have 30 round magazines for it.

I highly recommend that you set a few bucks aside every month to buy magazines for your favorite firearms now, focusing on those that have magazine capacities of more than 10 rounds.  I also recommend you take a look at your "go to" firearms and think about a platform shift if your rifle doesn't use STANAG magazines.

When to upgrade your defensive pistol

Let’s face it, the gun industry is booming and concealed carry guns are in extremely high demand these days.   With this demand you’ll find manufacturers racing to fill the void they see in the market with new and improved designs.

The flood of new handguns becomes a bit overwhelming to the average gun enthusiast at times.  At one point you find a handgun you’re happy with that’s the latest and greatest in technology only to discover a year later another manufacturer has introduced a new model with improved ergonomics, sights, finishes, reduced size, etc.  The question then becomes, “when do I upgrade?”

Let me take a step back and tell you a little bit about my own carry guns over the years and perhaps from this I can impart a little wisdom regarding the temptation to constantly upgrade your carry gun.

I’m 44 years old.  I’ve been carrying and shooting handguns for around 23 years.  In that time I’ve carried a 1911, a Glock 17 and a Glock 19 as my primary defensive arms.  Each time I’ve swapped one gun for another in my holster I’ve done so for very specific reasons.

The 1911 was originally chosen because I shot it well, it was reliable and it packed a punch with the proven .45 ACP cartridge.  The 1911, if made right, is one of the worlds best defensive pistols ever designed.

Glocks entered the scene and brought high capacity, reliability, erogonomics and lightweight to the table of consideration.  I purchased a Glock 17 in the late 1980’s and slowly warmed up to it.  By the 1990’s I was favoring the Glock pistol.  I had learned to shoot it as well as my 1911’s and I found it was one of the most reliable pistols I had encountered.  Sometime in the mid-1990’s I switched to a G17 as my primary defensive gun.

I’ve always been a fan of full-sized service pistols.  I’ve never been a fan of compact handguns, at least through most of my adult life.   I’m 6’4” and am able to comfortably carry a service sized pistol without much issue.

Enter the Glock 19.  I bought my first Glock 19 in the early 2000’s.  I never really favored it over the G17 for a range gun, but I slowly began to realize it was just as reliable and even more concealable as its bigger brother.  By 2004 I was carrying a G19 as a primary defensive pistol and I continue to carry to this day.

During the span of time discussed above I’ve seen countless handguns come onto the market.  The Springfield XD, the Sigma, the M&P, the various Sig’s, and countless others have appeared with each promising improvements over previous designs.  Despite the temptation to jump ship to a new carry gun I’ve managed to stay the course with the G19.   

Here’s why.

You’ll notice there are many years between the time I buy a handgun and the point at which I decide to carry it.  For most people it takes years and thousands upon thousands of rounds to become truly proficient with a handgun.  I can pick up any handgun and within a few magazines shoot it well.  By well I mean chewing the center out of a target at 7-10 yards.  But there is far more practice and skill required before that firearm becomes an extension of your body.

With a 1911 or a Glock I can stand square to a target 7 yards away, close my eyes, draw the weapon and bring it up to eye level, then open my eyes and have the weapon on target – pretty much dead center with the sights aligned and requiring only minor adjustments for a perfect sight picture.  Some people call this “muscle memory” but I call it being "at one" with my tool of choice.  It becomes an extension of my arm and in my minds eye, even when my eyes are closed, I can visualize it doing exactly what I request of it – and it does.  I liken it to being able to close your eyes, hear a sound and point your index finger directly at the source.

You do not gain this level of familiarity and control over tools by a few range trips and a few weeks later carrying the firearm daily.  It takes hundreds of trips to the range and thousands of presentations from the holster and endless dry firing before you gain such a level of proficiency with your weapon.

If you were to change handguns every year or two you would become “ok” with a wide variety of firearms but you would be a master of none.  It’s my belief that I must be a master of my weapon if I am to be able to use it to perhaps save my life or the life of a loved one should that day ever come.

I will also add that the worst thing you can possibly do is have a collection of carry guns, each being completely different.  I’ve met people that carry a 5 shot snubnosed revolver one day then carry a double action auto the next.  This is a sure fire way to find yourself being carried by six friends and relatives to your final resting place.

I digress.

If you have a handgun you’ve trained diligently with, one that hits center every time you pull the trigger and it has proven itself to be reliable, why would you trade it for a brand new design?  You must ask yourself, “what do I gain buy switching to a new pistol?”  I think you’ll find in most cases you’ll gain nothing functionally and your desire to “upgrade” is nothing more than a perfectly natural craving for the latest and greatest device to fondle and show to your friends.  From a practical sense, most of us gain nothing from buying a new handgun as it ultimately resets our level of experience to “novice” and now you face years of training to get back to where you were before the “upgrade”.

The Civilian M9 Pistol

In a few of my videos I've mentioned my "M9 pistol" which always causes a stir in the comments section.  Posters will question the pedigree of the pistol I'm talking about and in some cases inform me that what I have is a Model 92 and not a real M9.

Left Side Markings

In the late 1990's Beretta released a special edition M9 pistol.  It came packaged in a camouflaged box with a web bet, holster, pistol, spare magazine pouch, a patch and a certificate of authenticity.  Only a couple thousand of these peoples were produced.  These pistols were unique in that the markings were identical to military contract M9's of the period.  The only difference between these pistols and the military M9 was the prefix on the serial number.

Beretta only made one run of these "real" M9 pistols.  Rumor has it that the DoD doesn't want military marked M9's in circulation on the civilian market.  Beretta has continued to make and sell Model 92 pistols that are marked M9, however they lack the proper military markings and are easily spotted as civilian pistols.

Markings on Hammer

In the 1990's the M9 military contract pistols had very specific markings.  They also made use of all steel components.  Later M9 military contract pistols would use polymer in parts such as the guide rod, trigger and hammer drop safety lever.

To identify a M9 pistol with military correct markings you'll need to look in a couple of different places on the handgun.

On the left side of the slide you will find markings that read, "U.S. 9mm M9 - BERETTA U.S.A. - xxxxx"  The xxxxx will be the last five digits of an assembly number found on the right side of the slide.  On the left side of the hammer you will find the last 4 digits of the assembly number and right above it you will find a cage number.  Just below the assembly number you will see a large C.

Proof Mark

On the right side of the slide you will find the assembly number in this format:  "ASSY xxxxxxx-xxxxx".  Just after the assembly number, you will find a proof mark - "PM" stamped into the slide.  This PM will be through the finish leaving bare metal visible.  This PM is stamped into the pistol after it has been completely assembled and finished and is only placed on the pistol after it passes final testing.  You will not find this PM mark on any other civilian M9 pistol except for this one special edition M9.

On the right side of the frame you will find, "U.S. 9mm M9 - BERETTA U.S.A - xxxxx"  The xxxxx will be the last 5 digits of the assembly number.

The pistols will also feature the original dot front sight and half-moon rear sight.

The only difference between the special edition M9 and the military M9 of the period will be the serial number.  The special edition M9 will have the "M9 - xxxx" prefix.

Contrary to popular belief, military M9 don't have "Property of the US Gov." markings on them.

In essence I have one of the few real M9 pistols in circulation.  I used to own two of them but sold one several years ago.  Of course I kick myself every day for selling it.

German Army reporting problems with G36 rifle

The G36 has been in service with the German Army (Bundeswehr) since 1997.  While the G36 wasn't the first rifle adopted by a major military that made extensive use of polymers, it was certainly one of the more popular designs.  It has been used by at least 30 different countries in some capacity making it a successful design on the military small arms market.

Despite HK's sterling reputation for quality the rifle isn't universally loved.  Now a German newspaper is reporting that the German Army is aware of an interesting problem.  Once the rifle heats up with use, the accuracy degrades so much that it's ineffective past 200 meters.

An internal document intended for the Secretary of Defense stated that once the rifle gets hot enemy targets past 200 meters can not be safely engaged.  The document states that the problem represents a significant deficiency in the G36's design.  The military is recommending that troops allow their rifles to cool in firefights to help deal with the problem.  They warn that if troops aren't careful, the G36 can completely fail.  The Armed Forces Association, a German soldiers' interest group, is urging a speedy resolution to this problem.

What I find interesting is that this problem is just now coming to light.  Has the German Army covered up this problem?  I can't imagine that it's taken over a decade of fighting in the Middle East before this problem to come to light.

Fear of Commitment

S&W 9mm Shield

The S&W Shield is a new product that has generated quite a bit of excitement since its announcement at the 2012 NRA Show.  At first glance, this pistol appears to be the cats meow given it's diminutive size, 9mm and .40 caliber chamberings, light weight, good quality sights, and single stack magazine -- all features that are highly valued in the sub-compact market.

However, I've found a couple head scratchers -- I mean features -- that leave a dry taste in my mouth on this otherwise promising new pistol.  The low hanging fruit of criticism is the inclusion of a manual thumb safety.  This is a topic that's been beaten to death already, so I'll avoid boring you with another critique of this less than ideal feature.  The other feature that causes me some concern is the extended 8 round magazine and the polymer grip extension that slides over the body of the magazine.

The 9mm Shield comes with two magazines.  One 7 rounder and one 8 rounder.  The 7 round magazine fits flush with the bottom of the grip.  The 8 round magazine sticks out about 3/4" and includes a polymer sleeve that fits over the base of the magazine giving your pinky a little more purchase on the grip of the pistol.  I will admit, the Shield feels much better in my hand with the 8 round magazine inserted.

Grip extension sliding up on 8rnd mag

Grip extensions aren't a new idea, companies have been including grip extensions on magazines for some time -- the XD Compact and the PX4 Compact come to mind.  However there are two different kinds of extensions in common use and some work better than others.  The floor plate extension like that found on the HK P2000SK works better than the grip extension/sleeve of the S&W Shield and here's why I say that.

The sleeve of the Shield is held in place by friction.  The sleeve can slide up the body of the magazine with little effort.  If you were to carry one of these extended mags as a spare, it's possible that the polymer sleeve would move up the body of the magazine.  Should a reload be required, seating the spare magazine in the pistol becomes far more challenging.  If the sleeve isn't in its proper place, you must really whack the magazine to get it to seat and even then it's not guaranteed it will properly seat.

It's for this reason you must use the 8 round magazine in the gun if you plan on carrying a spare magazine.  However, carrying the 7 round magazine as your spare causes another problem.  Should you require a reload you've now altered the handling characteristics of your pistol by going from the full grip offered by the 8 round mag to the truncated grip of the 7 round mag which leaves your pinky dangling. 

S&W should have committed to a design and stuck with it.  The 9mm Shield should have either been a 7 round pistol or a 8 round pistol.  The use of the polymer sleeve is a compromise that's unnecessary in my view.  I would pick the magazine length that works best for you and only use that magazine in your pistol.  Since S&W dropped the ball with the friction fit of the polymer sleeve, if you choose to carry the pistol with the 8 round magazine as a spare I would super glue the sleeve to the magazine body or remove it to avoid problems.


*** UPDATE 4/28/2012


Today I took a few friends out to shoot the Shield.  Without commenting on the issues I see with the 8 round magazine and the sleeve I let them shoot the pistol as much as they wanted with the 7 and 8 round mags.  All shooters commented about the annoying tendency of the sleeve to walk up the magazine body causing issues with seating the magazine in the gun.


Unfortunately I only have one 8 round magazine to test at the moment, but given the design I have a hard time believing I'm the only one that has experienced this issue.


At this point I'm of the opinion that Shield should have been a 7 round pistol (9mm) and the 8 round magazine was a marketing fopaux.  The length of the 8 round magazine does make it feel better in the hand but it also makes the grip of the Shield longer than the grip of a Glock 19.  The length of the grip is the most important dimension when trying to shave inches from a pistol to reduce printing while concealed.  If I'm going to carry a gun that has a foot print larger than a Glock 19, I'll just carry the Glock 19 and have 15 rounds on tap vs. 8.


Fortunately the remedy to the 8 round magazine problem is simple - I'll leave my one and only 8 round magazine in a drawer and carry my Shield with its 7 round magazine.