What does the word mil-spec make you think of?
Unfortunately, it makes me thenk of AKs with their sloppy dimensions and bad overall things.

It makes me think a product meets the relevant military specifications. Most of the time that is a good thing for civilians, sometimes not.

On the subject of the AK47, it does perfectly what Mikhail Kalashnikov intended it to do , so I see nothing to complain there.

Don't knock sloppy when it comes to military weapons, it's those "sloppy" clearances that keep them working all the time. Other "sloppy" designs are the Colt 1911/1911A1, M-98 Mauser, 1903 Springfield, M1 Garand, Browning 1919, Browning M-2 (Ma Duce), German MG-42, Walther P-38, etc. In other words all of the most sucessful designs.
Under harsh and dirty conditions "tight" tolerances are a invitation to failure, witness the P-08 (very tight tolerances and highly prone to failure under combat conditions), The British Ross rifle etc. Even the Matty Mattel Special is fussy about being clean also, even though it's only "semi" tight.

Funky answer. Sorry I asked.

"mil-spec' can be described in the words of the Pennsylvania Dutchman who characterized an overbuilt item as being "nix for nice, but hell for strong"!! It DOES NOT NECESSARILY mean (Define elephant??) "a mouse, built to government specifications!"

Hey, credit where cedit is due Tailgunner, the Ross rifle is (was, I guess) Canadian. - Dan

Dan
Sorry, me bad.
The Ross was (is) a very accurate rifle and proved it in the hands of the Canadian snipers, I'd love to own one.
It's major shortcomming as a infantry combat weapon was the tight fit it has causes it to hang up whenever it got sand in the action (the point I was trying to make).

Mil-Spec is short for military specification. There is a specification for everything the military uses. The mil-spec is the minimum specification that it meets. For example in uniforms it would be the thicknes and durability of a fabric, it's color and pattern, the blend of the fabric, and size specifications. For a fire arm it defines failure rates, caliber, finish, et cetera. The Beretta M-9 and SIG 226 both meet the mil spec but the Beretta was less expensive. When mil speck is applied to a 1911 it means parts were toleranced to fit a range not a specific manufacturer. Some current manufacturers use "mil-spec" to describe their model of a 1911 but still use non-milspec parts. By the way, a mil spec 1911 will shoot a maximum four inch group at fifty yards in a rest. As for the AK it's primary design was high rate of fire at close range 100-200 yards with minimal stoppages and easy to manufacture.

Actually, I thought the "cutest" aspect of the Ross rifle was when the soldier dismantled the bolt for cleaning/maintenance, he could quite easily reassemble it the wrong way and then have the firing pin enter his skull upon firing.

120mm
Someone will correct me on the "mark #'s" I'm sure, but there was only one series of the Ross rifles that had the bolt assy problem (mk 2 ?).

Kind of like saying all Springfield 03's will blow up, just because some of the early ones had poor HT on the receiver.

I know very little about the Ross; I'm just aware that that particular failure was particularly spectacular and gruesome.

The problem with the 1903 was corrected and the piece went on to a long and distinguished history. Whatever happened to the Ross? Did it go on to bigger and better things? I'll have to do some research. Thanks.

[ 07-28-2003, 08:11: Message edited by: cas ]