NOS tubes

"built more rugged to meet their needs...."  Yes, that is often said.  But I think, at best, the JAN tubes were tested after manufacture to demonstrate they were up to spec to begin life, before being shipped out to the military. However, I have compared closely a number of tubes from the same manufacturer, one JAN vs the other not JAN, and I never saw any difference at all between the two in construction.  There ARE tubes with novel alphanumeric designations that replace common tubes, e.g., 6900 vs 5687, or RCA 5632(?) vs 6SN7, that really are built differently from their counterparts. 

buell, I have made my feelings about 12AU7s known here in past postings.  I don't like any of them. So I even avoid equipment that uses them, but if necessary, I replace them with either 12FQ7 or 6FQ7, depending upon the filament voltage supply. The only issue there is that the FQ7 requires twice the filament current as does a 12AU7. (For those who don't know, a 12AU7 can be wired for either 6V or 12V filament voltage, same tube; whereas you have to choose your FQ7 based on filament V. So 12FQ7 and 6FQ7 are different tubes.) I guess I would concede that in my experience with AU7s, the Amperex Bugleboy, real ones, are OK.

Like most military requisitions, they probably just double the price for the same tubes and stamp JAN on them. Nobody really follows up to see if they're more durable than commercial ones. 

I worked at Intel in the 70s and 80s and processed many JAN products.  They were processed to JAN specifications but were physically the same as other parts.  They had a more rigorous burn-in and were tested to tighter specs than the normal product lines.

Bill

Bill has it right ^^^^^^^^ tested to higher standards and a paper trail to match - I delivered billion dollar products to the usg… of course your opinion is yours….