Mil-spec to me is the minimum a design for combat readiness. Anything above that is a better design.
Only problem is, there are maybe ~3-7 companies on the market who even have a clue what Mil-spec and the TDP are, and hardly any of the other companies meet those "minimum" standards.
When you start to look at the certs on components, materials sources, metallurgy, manufacturing methods, and QC, we're talking about a handful of companies left.
Simply slapping a NiB BCG, stainless barrel, billet receiver set, and BCM GF or Raptor CH together with the pet handguard of the season does not equal anything near the Mil-spec or TDP. A lot of people have been misled to believe this is the case, when most of the guns that fall under the description above fall way short of anything resembling the TDP in critical components or certs.
JP is one of the few that knows what he is doing, and really gears a lot of his blasters towards a particular field in the competitive action shooting sports, but has also made gov't type blasters along the way.
A lot of low standard companies point out one area of self-proclaimed expertise in their components (which are usually way below the TDP standards), then tell the new customer that they are better than "...the lowly Mil-spec, since that's the lowest bidder", or some similar craphouse lawyer spiel.
Bushmaster made millions that way. Turns out not one of their components was anything near the Mil-spec.
Mil-spec and the TDP for even the M16 are things that most AR15 companies don't, and won't ever have a clue about, because they simply can't be told. They already know better in their minds.
JP knows this, and is trying to avert the situation where some knucklehead drops the lo-mass carrier into a rack-grade duty rifle, thinking he will gain some performance advantage, not understanding that the lo-mass carrier is designed to be used as one of many components in a race-ready rig, to include the gas system, recoil system, being fed a very particular load for competition use.
