Why do people think parts are better when they have "Military spec" written on them? Car batteries ( Marine Corps Hummers use Optima) and harness cam locks come to mind the most. I am sure there are more. I have been in the Marine Corps for almost 7 years now and I run away from most things that say Military spec. Why? Because I or someone I know have to work on this stuff. I have seem so many civilian things that claim to be better because it's the same as the military. Help me understand. Don't get me wrong alot of stuff is really good. We use our stuff hard in the military and if it holds up and I can use it on my truck then I will. i.e. 5 ton axles and 16R20 tires(52x16x20)with double beadlocks and run flats. Just because that 5 point harness comes with a Military spec webbing and camlock doesn't mean I'm going to get it.

 

Mil-Spec parts are definately superior to yout typical commercial grade equivelants. They undergo strenuous design with optimized fatique life, better raw materials, better quality control, lot and batch testing, and are improved through strict reliability and maintainability analysis. Failures are not acceptible in the field, whereas a commercial failure is of no detriment usually.

 

I've been happy with the Mil-surplus axle i bought for my '79 blazer.............Don't tell anyone

 

I think you'll find these days MIL-SPEC means little. 20 years ago it was significant in respect to the reasons Baja states. Since then, the vast majority of manufacturers have adopted the ISO-9000 standards, which are the international equivalent of MIL_SPEC. We still hear the stories of the $600 hammer, the $XXXX toilet seat, etc., which the price was driven up to because of the rigorous documentation required by meeting and qualifying for MIL-STD listing.

I worked MIL-STD product qualification & listing for many years, starting in the early 80's in the semi-conductor business, then moved onto ISO-9000 later on. Major difference is the amount of product documentation required for MIL-SPEC. Much of the requirements are the same, or very similar.

We used to laugh about the cost of MIL-STD resistors (any electronic component) when we could go to Radio Shack and buy one of similar quality for 10 cents.......

 

Spend some time nosing about Melbourne Florida and you'll find a bunch of shops that make their living doing just that.

Bob

 

ISO-whatever (9000, 90001, etc) is only a documentation spec. It has nothing to do with reliability of what is manufactured or what it is made of or how it is inspected after manufacture. It is a spec on having a document that specs how to write the document that specs how to document the manufacturing process. Is this what you're saying Mil-spec is? Because I thought that mil-spec had to do with the post manufacturing inspection and testing process to ensure durability in the field.

 

dieingford, I'm with you here. I'm in the Army and I laugh when I see folks flip because something is "mil spec". They seem to think it's the best there is. While we do use some of the best gear and equipment available, it's not always top notch or much better than what you can get elsewhere for less.
I know a guy who bought some gas cans and water cans for almost $20 each just because they were military suprluss, when I have the same ones from a hard ware store and payed half of that. And he still thinks he got the better deal
Things like that happen all the time.

 

For the most part you are correct on ISO. Simply put, say what you do, and do what you say. MIL-SPEC you also have to document your test results. I haven't been involved for a few years, but I believe ISO is moving towards ensuring what you do is adequate too. ISO does have requirements for both in-process testing and final product acceptance, if I remember correctly. There are many areas of ISO that cover the quality of your process, such as calibration. You must be able to show your equipment is adequate for the tests you claim you are doing, as well as traceability back to either a National standard, or an acceptable natural phenomenon. We went so far as to write procedures on ordering office supplies. It's good as that it gives someone unfamiliar with THE way to do something a written instruction.

We did a lot of life testing on our products for MIL-SPEC, but that testing was also standard on our other parts. In the early days of ISO, the guides read a lot alike, sometimes almost word for word.

A few years ago I was involved in getting our Mass Lab accredited by NAVLAP, which is an national, all voluntary laboratory certification program. The guidelines were based on ISO, but went further by evaluating your actual process. We had auditors from the National Institute of Technology sit beside our techs, both making sure they followed the prescribed procedure, as well as checking to see that what we did was actually capable of meeting requirements. Talk about stress! I never saw that depth by any DCAS or other MIL_STD auditor ever. Can't remember the other groups name, something like DESC. One audit I went through we just sat and the auditor ran down a checklist of questions about our calibration system, even told me ahead of time I HAD to answer 'YES' to all but two of the questions, and it would be obvious which two! Others got into my records and procedures quite deeply.

 

And you gotta remember that your "MIL-SPEC" parts are still built by the lowest bidder. I spent 10 years in the Navy, and I've learned that while "most" of the MIL-SPEC parts are pretty good, the name "MIL-SPEC" is really just a way of adding more money to the annual budget.

 

I used to play with dodges alot, I can tell you that M880 parts were the EXACT same as off the shelf 72-80 3/4ton 318 4x4 dodge parts.

some radio mounting parts and bumpers etc,. were different but everything else was the same.