Anybody ever dealt with LMT service?

[Belmont31R]

I expect my $2000 rifle to be an improvement on the design, and better made than than the ones issued to GI's whose needs and expectations are totally different from mine. Looks to me like John Noveske thinks so too. And Knight's Armament.

Both my KAC guns are a little bit loose, and the pins push out with finger pressure only.


In fact on my SR15 if you hold the gun out with one hand, and shake it....you can hear the upper and lower rattling together.

[Hmac]

Both my KAC guns are a little bit loose, and the pins push out with finger pressure only.


In fact on my SR15 if you hold the gun out with one hand, and shake it....you can hear the upper and lower rattling together.

But it's entirely milspec, right? Every part on it is 100% interchangeable?

[Belmont31R]

But it's entirely milspec, right? Every part on it is 100% interchangeable?

I never said anything about interchangeable.



My point was you mentioned KAC, and neither of my KAC guns including one that cost me 5k are tight fitting like as being described in this thread by some. Nor would I want it to be. I also have a LaRue that when new I had to smack the top of the rail to get the two halves apart. Its now worn in enough they come apart with normal pressure, and there is a little bit of slop with the pins in. Point being even if you get a tight fitting gun out of the box if you bother to shoot the damn thing its going to loosen up anyways. Its not going to stay tight so whats the point?


The cost has nothing to do with it. Tight fitting guns appeal to some but its not a cost issue or one of quality. If you want to search around, and find a pair that fits tight that is fine. Just don't try to pass that off as being of greater quality or an issue of how much the gun cost. Its about the gun being design for combat use, and being able to be field stripped without having to smack the handguard to get them apart, having to use a tool to push the pins out, ect. Some people have a pet peeve that makes them come on a board like this, and make it an issue of quality or cost. Its just a pet peeve that has no basis in reality.

[ucrt]

I expect my $2000 rifle to be an improvement on the design, and better made than than the ones issued to GI's whose needs and expectations are totally different from mine. Looks to me like John Noveske thinks so too. And Knight's Armament.

========================

I've got two factory assembled Noveske's. One is tight and one is a loose. I can push both pins out on both guns with my fingers. Both have never missed a beat and are very accurate, what more could want? Loose one never bothered me.

I've got an S&W MP15 that is tight but I actually have to have something to punch the pins out. It is a pain in the butt but it is tight.

As stated, there is a "spec" on loosiness. If your upper and lower mate up within spec, don't worry about it or do and make it a life long quest to find the perfect fits.

Again, like it was stated above, I have heard more than one salesman claim that a lower tier brand was a better gun because it was tight. That's like claiming X-brand is better because the finish is blacker than Y-brand.

Just curious, have you ever noticed how loose the BCG is in the Upper? Man! Now that's loose...! How do those guns even function...


.

[Hmac]

I never said anything about interchangeable.

ChicagoTex did. I was responding to what he stated was HIS definition of quality...adherence to the design spec, which call for "100% design interchangeability". I already said one of my rifles rattles and I haven't thought to do anything about it. I can understand why the OP cares, though.

[Belmont31R]

ChicagoTex did. I was responding to what he stated was HIS definition of quality...adherence to the design spec, which call for "100% design interchangeability". I already said one of my rifles rattles and I haven't thought to do anything about it. I can understand why the OP cares, though.

Thats fine but the fit has nothing to do with the quality of the gun.

While I agree that looseness/rattling doesn't affect the weapon, many people have come to associate a good fit with quality machining and a quality firearm.

I expect my $2000 rifle to be an improvement on the design, and better made than than the ones issued to GI's whose needs and expectations are totally different from mine.

[Hmac]

Thats fine but the fit has nothing to do with the quality of the gun.

I respect your opinion.

[jklaughrey]

I like my AR upper/lower's to be loose like all my women when I was younger. Fast, reliable, and easy to use.

[Palmguy]

I expect my $2000 rifle to be an improvement on the design, and better made than than the ones issued to GI's whose needs and expectations are totally different from mine. Looks to me like John Noveske thinks so too. And Knight's Armament.

The idea that a tight upper/lower fit are an "improvement" or that you "need" such a fit are simply an opinion; and one that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the capability of a rifle to perform in it's intended role.

Like Belmont, I'm also not sure why you're name dropping KAC as an example to support your opinion. My experience with KAC guns (former KAC design engineer) has not been that they are above and beyond anything else in terms of tightness of fit between upper and lower.

[Magsz]

Pop an accuwedge in there and call it a day if you're not concerned with function or reliability.

Barrel composition, manufacturing process, ammo and rifling type have more to do with accuracy than a tight upper to lower fit.

Ive had AR's that are absolute rattle traps that will still turn out amazing groups if i do my part.