"Why are guys so in love with mil-spec parts?"

This is pretty entertaining on several levels.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1517007_Why_are_guys_so_in_love_with_mil_spec_parts_.html

Level 1 is probably the most important, and that is that he is missing the point.  As I've repeated over and over again, the issue is not that so many companies exceed the minimum standard of "mil-spec", it's that so many companies can't even bring themselves to comply with the baseline.  The ignoramuses (ignorami?) of the internet constantly assume that a company that doesn't comply is exceeding the spec.  This defies logic.  I'm a maker of a knockoff brand of ARs.  I want to make money.  I am presented with two materials, one costs twice what the other costs.  I even have a third option, which is to spend thousands of dollars on R&D to come up with my own proprietary "better" material.  Which do you think I'm going to choose?  90% will choose the cheapest material (DPMS, Olympic Arms, etc.), 9.99% will choose the more expensive material because they have some integrity and want to do it "right (BCM, Daniel Defense, etc.), and 0.01% will look to actually innovate (KAC..., and I can't think of any others).  Again, "Mil-Spec" is a minimum standard, and it's a minimum standard that very few can even bring themselves to meet.  Those that are not required to hold to a standard (Colt), rarely do.

Level 2 is where the fun begins.  And that is that despite two pages of replies, almost none of the people posting can articulate the above.  Why?  Because they are just as clueless as the guy that started the thread.  They fell into the trap of just buying whatever is more expensive and got lucky.  The AR world is very much one of Sneetches when looking at the vast majority of buyers.  Whether one has a sub-standard, non-mil-spec gun or a gun that meets or exceeds the spec is largely a matter of luck and personality type.  The guy that is always looking for a deal and to save a few pennies winds up with a DPMS and the guy that mistakes expense for quality winds up (luckily) with the Colt.  What is truly entertaining is when you get the dummies from group 1 and the dummies from group 2 ARGUING WITH EACH OTHER!  It's like a food-fight on the short bus!  Hey Colt guy, you don't know shit from brown bread any more than the DPMS guy does, you just got lucky on this one.  If you can't respond to a thread like this with content similar to the first paragraph of this post, you are just as bad as the guy that started the thread.  The scary part is when you get someone like the thread-starter who thought he was getting quality because he over-paid and turns out to have bought a bunch of snake oil at 2013 inflated prices.  Ouch.

Level 3 is the guy that started the thread.  Oh boy.  As is usually the case in these situations, he gets outed for being all sand-in-pussy over previous slights on the internet.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/617203_SUPER_EXPENSIVE_AR__over__3000__PICTURE_THREAD.html
He over-paid for sub-standard parts, and still didn't come out with a quality gun or even one that's truly expensive, and gets trumped by the first person replying who posts a truly expensive gun (albeit one that probably cost the poster not $1 and in fact probably MADE him money).  Then we go on to discover that this rocket-surgeon started another thread before that to brag about his "most expensive AR"
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/617197_Most_expensive_AR_.html
Frankly, I think the worst part of all of this is that he gets people replying.  Which means there are more of him.

Level 4 is the Chart.  Even after all of this time it's still getting referenced.  I suspect that most of the people that posted about it in the original thread did so because they were being smart asses, but they are referencing it nonetheless.  What is equally interesting is that the Explanation of Features is still live and all anyone has to do is link to it, but for whatever reasons (mostly pathetic Dr. Phil type reasons, I'm sure) they won't.  Not to toot my own horn, but I still haven't seen a better answer the the thread-starter's question than the E of F.