WARNING: Large Pictures
In recent month I've picked up a few lowers for some builds I'm working on. I will do a picture comparison with my Colt lower from my 6920.
I have:
1. Stag Arms
2. Areo Precision
3. Cavalry Arms
4. Colt lower from my 6920
I won't do a picture comparison with the Cavalry lower as it's apples and oranges, instead I'll just give my experience and thought about the Polymer Lower.
NOTE: the white specs on the Colt lower are only visible in the pictures do to the flash. They cam from someone who was spray painting upwind from where my rifle was. Also the apparent scuff marks on the stag are not as noticeable in real life as in the pics.
Let me say that all the aluminum lowers seem to be in spec and I had no issue installing the LPKs.
Here thy are:
L to R -Colt, Stag, Areo
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/b...D/DSCF4426.jpg
The Cav curently sporting a BCM 16" M4 upper:
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/b...D/DSCF4407.jpg
Front view. L to R: Areo, Stag, Colt (camera help upside down)
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/b...D/DSCF4427.jpg
Tool marks are very evedent on the colt, almost none on the Stag the Areo is very smooth.
Inside the trigger guard: Colt, Stag, Areo
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/b...D/DSCF4430.jpg
Stag and Areo are very smooth not so with the Colt
Right Side of receiver":
Colt
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/b...D/DSCF4436.jpg
Stag
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/b...D/DSCF4437.jpg
Areo
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/b...D/DSCF4439.jpg
not much difference . I do like the Pictogram for fire and safe on the Areo, just because it's different.
Top Rear: Colt, Stag, Areo
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/b...D/DSCF4441.jpg
Can't really tell from the photo, but the Colt and Areo fit perfectly around the end plate. The stag protrudes a little around the end plate. Now I don't know if this is due to the Stag lower or the Danial Defense QD end plate it's sporting. The Colt has it's stock end plate and the Areo has a Noveske QD end plate. All future builds will get Noveske's.
Also notice the Aero is a little thicker (re-enforced?) in the are around the rear right side push pin. The Colt is actually connected all the way through in this area.
Top front: Colt, Stag, Areo
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/b...D/DSCF4444.jpg
Notice the area of the front push pins. The Colt is the roughest, the Stage a little Better and the Areo is very Smooth.
Here's a closer look:
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/b...D/DSCF4456.jpg
Bottom Magwell area: Colt, Stag, Areo
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/b...D/DSCF4446.jpg
The Colt has the most flared mag well, Stag the second most and the Areo the least.
Finish: Colt, Stag, Areo
This pics will give you an idea, but best when seen in person:
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/b...D/DSCF4456.jpg
The Colt and the Areo are very nice, with a slight edge to Colt to my eyes. The Stag is very gry looking is shows scratches easily. they will probably disapear with the application of some oil, still the ugliest to me. The Colt and Areo also match the BCM upper much better than the Stag.
As a side note the CMMG lowers I have seen also have a nice finish as do the Spikes Lowers I've run into. Was considering an CMMG because of this, but the Areo was less expensive ($119 vs 140) so I went with it. Plus I wanted to try something different than what you usually see.
About the Cavalry Arms Lower:
I have a OD green Cavalry Lower I just built into a 16" carbine (BCM Upper). It's about 4 oz. lighter than a standard complete lower, 8 oz. if the standard lower has a rubber but pad (witch the cave has built in).
I couple of notes:
Pros:
1. getting the pins in and out was very easy and smooth.
2. less expensive to build as you don't need a stock and grip (though most kits bring a grip anyway).
3. once put together is a bit lighter than a standard complete lower.
4. Is different and a bit unique.
5. It is the same length as a standard AR with the stock collapsed one notch (how I usually have my stocks anyway).
6. Upper and lower fit is very tight, NO movement at all.
7. Stock has built storage compartment.
Cons:
1. I had to dermal the area around the mag catch as it was a little tight.
2. Mine It would not lock the bolt back until I trimmed a coil or two from the bag catch spring. I guess you could also clean out/deepen the the sprong hole a bit to get it to work.
3. Mine Does not droop free Pmag or aluminum mags. I have taken a file to the mag well as per Cav's instructions and it is getting better but still have not goten it to drop any of my mags yet.
4. The push pins come all the way out and go in from the left side instead of the right, witch I have forgoten a few time as I vust recently built it.
5. Had to drill out the hole for the buffer retainer pin in order to make it large enough for it to fit.
The "cons" are a little inconvenient, but can all be fixed.
Overall, glad I got it. It is something different. I am considering making it into an 18" SPR type rifle as it has such a tight fit and might make a good tack driver setup. But maybe not as the lower may tend to flex more, I'm not really sure. Alternately I may make it a 14.5 SBR for a more light weight rifle setup.
Here she is:
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/b...D/DSCF4405.jpg
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/b...D/DSCF4402.jpg
NOTE:
I Hope to add two more lowers into the mix in the near future, a BOHICA Arms Billet lower and something else (haven't decided what yet). But this is it for now.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by RojasTKD
Bookmarks