Add another one to the list of those who bought a KAC stripped lower and trigger guard, and them not fitting together. I pretty much destroyed my KAC trigger guard before giving up. Live and learn.
Printable View
I almost did the same.
But in the end I got it mounted, but it was a matter of principle at that point. Did you by chance reach out to Knights? I
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...ca9e188569.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are the "problem" lowers 7xxxx or 8xxxx?
I have three KMO17XXX series lowers. Two of which had no real issues when installing KAC trigger guards. I do not have a 3rd trigger guard.
Scooter are you referring to the leading digit? Mine is a KM0170XXX.
BR,
My lower was visually immaculate. Not even a smudge. So the problem isn't so visible just looking at the lower. I did contact Knight's last night. (through their "Contact Us" page) but I could only use 500 characters so my message was pretty brief. I have some understanding of manufacturing processes, and this one is pretty confusing.
To be honest it would have made more sense if my KAC trigger guard did not work in ANY lower, but the fact it worked on my Noveske and Aero but not the KAC lower. I mean what the what?!
Likewise with the lower I would expect no trigger guards work. Not just the KAC.
So I'm hoping to gain some clarity with all this. I'm hoping all of us can benefit from understanding what is happening can restore some confidence. At least with me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
F2S posted about the blems & trigger guard issues on TOS. Check it out & it'll likely answer any questions you had. I'm actually kinda surprised he didn't cross post his response here.
The TG issue is caused by some of the lowers having longer "ears". The "problem" is with the lower, not the TG. Even on those, many other brands TGs will still work. On mine, the Magpul enhanced TGs still worked on the lowers that wouldn't except the KAC TGs. It depends on their design.
I hope it's ok but here's what F2S posted on TOS:
Quote:
I can openly confirm that this release was completely an effort to get lower consumer cost KAC receivers to those that would be happy with TDP type lowers. The decision to initiate a forging purchase, with parts on shelf in time for SHOT was well before the election, and the worst case scenario was that Clinton would be elected and a buying frenzy would catch us with insufficient product on shelf to meet demand. The quantity of forgings planned for this is well in excess of anything we would stock or "overrun". New production started with the "KM017XXXX" serial number range, based on a traditional TDP type drawing that was in-house from something years ago. I cannot comment as to what those were for, but when the initial demand hit, it was remembered that we had "matching" product stored away in sufficient quantity to relieve the pressure from SHOT. It was later discovered that while those parts had gone through a QC process, that process was not the same as what is currently applied to 5.56 lowers or rifles.
It is entirely reasonable that a buyer would want to install the KAC triggerguard.
The forward protrusion of the ears that block installation of the KAC triggerguard is a result of forging dimension. When that drawing was created a different forging was used, and a different dimensional confirmation protocol than our "standard" ambi lower was used post-machining, which was rolled into the first "17" lower run. These also featured the counter-bored take-down and pivot pin holes. The same final QC process was applied to the first "17" run as was called for on the "8" run, which was TDP/mil-spec functionality driven.
These were mistakes, as it allowed a product to reach commercial customers with a significantly higher probability of minor cosmetic blemishes (they are still type II class 3) and forging dings, or show longer "ear" protrusion that could block installation of the new KAC triggerguard without minor fitting. We knew that there would be primarily two types of customers that would buy these lowers; folks that wanted a KAC lower for guns that would be shot, and folks that wanted a neat piece of KAC history at a monumental time in US history.
Yes, we are taking a beating here and over at other similar forums over these. However, for all of the gnashing of teeth, we currently have less than 10 returns here ever since the release began. Even if that number increases to 500%, the return rate is low enough for me to know that the vast majority of customers are happy with their purchase. Believe me, every RMA, every customer complaint pains us, and initiates a process and QA review to ensure that we are delivering to expectation. That said, it is indeed true that we are a military/government oriented company, so the QA procedures reflect MIL-STD/MIL-PRF acceptance requirements, and since we do not run separate manufacturing lines for product, sometimes items that are just inside the mil/gov acceptance range get out to commercial buyers. Some customers are ok with that, some are not. For those that are not happy, as always, let us know and we will do everything within reason to meet reasonable expectation.
Even with the criticism that we have faced over these, I am still happy that we did it.
I'm surprised that they haven't just cut off new orders, filled existing orders and scrapped the whole thing. It's a mess for sure and I imagine that it's a huge headache. Not to mention somewhat embarrassing. As I sit here waiting on my replacement lower, I'm glad they did it. And I'm looking forward to receiving my lower. But I'm sure some folks in Titusville are thinking that no good deed goes unpunished. I'm also sure that they are taking quite a beating on the forums. But one thing I know about KAC is that they will do everything they can to make it right.
I think all the complaining is eventually going to make things like this not happen anymore.