Sound technical content, curated with aloha by
Ted Mooney, P.E. RET
Pine Beach, NJ
The authoritative public forum
for Metal Finishing since 1989
-----
Q&A's about MIL-STD-171
Q. Is there a difference at all between MIL-STD-171F finish no. 1.2.2.2 and 1.2.2.5 from table II?
To me it looks like both default to same 1.2.2 which is AMSQQC320 class 2 chromium coating.
- St. Catharines, Ontario
November 10, 2021
Q. Steve,
Yes, they are listed as the same thing. I suspect the separate listings are there for historical reasons, backwards compatibility to old drawings that list those finishes.
In fact, yes, if you look at the E revision, 1.2.2.1 through 1.2.2.5 were listed as Class 2a through Class 2e in QQ-C-320. Perhaps AMSQQC320 did away with the a through e subdivisions under class 2.
Ray Kremer
Stellar Solutions, Inc.
McHenry, Illinois
November 12, 2021
November 15, 2021
Thanks very much for chiming in Ray.
I obtained the old rev E of the spec from the Department of Defense website and I will look through it to see the differences.
Thanks,
Steve
- St. Catharines, Ontario
⇩ Related postings, oldest first ⇩
Q. Hi, I have searched all over the web for what the specifications for Finish 5.1.1 of are and I cannot find them. Can anyone help me with this?
Thanks,
Joyce Hanni- Manassas, Virginia
2004
A. You searched all over the web? It took 15 seconds to type MIL-STD-171 5.1.1 into Google and find out that it is zinc phosphate.
Jeffrey Holmes, CEF
Spartanburg, South Carolina
2004
Q. Finding that the mil-std-171 includes zinc phosphate is little information to anyone searching for the ENTIRE standard and all of it's contents. Maybe you were able to find and download the entire standard?
Michael Dersch- Rockaway, New Jersey
2005
A. Hi, Joyce; Hi, Michael.
Most MIL specs are available for downloading at http://assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/^https://quicksearch.dla.mil/
Just put "MIL-STD-171" into the 'Document ID' box.
The download is free (although there is nothing as expensive as "free") -- you are being taxed to fund someone (probably a beltway bandit who made substantial political contributions) to give your offshore competitors a free leg up on you. You are paying for all the "free" copies your Indian and Chinese competitors download; I guess you might as well get a "free" copy yourself :-)
Ted Mooney, P.E.
Striving to live Aloha
finishing.com - Pine Beach, New Jersey
2005
A. According to my hard copy of MIL-STD-171C dated 16 March 1979, finish no 5.1.1 is the general lead in to Metallic Coatings, usually applied by an electroplating or hot-dip process. The specific coating(s) are listed in Table II which is several pages long and includes a variety of metals and thicknesses of coating including Cadmium, Zinc, Gold, Aluminum, etc., each of which is covered by another referenced Military Specification.
Hope this helps.
- Hopkins, Minnesota
March 28, 2009
A. Hi. Indeed it's a bit confusing because the document has a "section" 5.1.1 labeled "Detail Requirements, Metallic Coatings", but it also has a "finish" 5.1.1 which is, as Jeffrey described, Zinc phosphate:
Regards,
Ted Mooney, P.E.
Striving to live Aloha
finishing.com - Pine Beach, New Jersey
August 2013
Q. Need finishing spec MIL-STD-171 3.3.1, Heat treated 0-1 steel.
Tom O'Brienmachine & repair - Hamlet North Carolina
August 19, 2013
A. Hi Tom. MIL-STD-171 appears to have no section 3, and finish 3.3.1 appears to be "Black oxide for iron and steel, MIL-DTL-13924 [on DLA]".
But I'm not understanding whether you are looking for a copy of the spec (which this page tells you where to get), or whether you are saying that you are looking for a quotation on having the service done to your components. If the latter, please post something about size, volume, etc., so readers can determine whether they will be able to handle it. Thanks.
Regards,
Ted Mooney, P.E.
Striving to live Aloha
finishing.com - Pine Beach, New Jersey
August 2013
Q. My drawing states. Finish 4.1 of MIL-STD-171.
Can't figure out if it is paint or other coating.
- Sterling Heights, Michigan
February 13, 2020
A. Hi John. Personally I don't think it's either; I think it's just "Finish No. 4.1 -- Abrasive blasting (Method I of TT-C-490
[from DLA]
)"
But it's always risky to ask a third party what the first party wants, and 'bad communication' still ranks as perhaps the biggest business problem, so I think you should require clarification before proceeding :-)
Regards,
Ted Mooney, P.E. RET
Striving to live Aloha
finishing.com - Pine Beach, New Jersey
February 2020
Q, A, or Comment on THIS thread -or- Start a NEW Thread