View Full Version : Stillers billet AR-15 LOWERS
Thomas M-4
05-20-09, 01:34
I know stiller is well known for benchrest action now it seems they are making AR-15 lowers http://www.viperactions.com/ predator XT billet lower AR-15
Looks like its got a decent mag funnel from the pics
Those look pretty interesting. Thanks for the link.
Looks like they copied the Sundevil set screw.
Thomas M-4
05-20-09, 21:27
I know stiller has a pretty good reputation I don't think I would use one for serious use but they would probable make a good 3-gun lower or a precision long range rig. It would be interesting to see if they come out with a matching upper.
It is interesting mil spec receiver alloy is 7075-T6 and they use 7050-T7651 alloy maybe some one will chime in to explain the differences.
torquemada055
05-20-09, 21:57
Predator XT AR Lower lower receiver for AR15 gun $369
Currently listed prices at http://www.lanworldinc.com/Lower.htm
Stag Stripped 5.56 Lower $125.00
Noveske 5.56 N4 Lower $245.00
Sabre Defence 5.56 Lower $155.00
Spikes Tactical Stripped 5.56 Lower $169.00
From LMT@ http://www.lewismachine.net/
LMT : Defender Lower with Collapsing Stock and Standard Trigger $330.00 each
I may be a bit less than stellar on the tech side of things but I can see the additional cost of an exotic alloy being that great in the grand scheme of things.
I also didnt like the extra machining steps for the magwell, but that is just an aestetic difference as I don't have any evidence that it will or wont effect the structural integrity of the magwell.
Thomas M-4
05-20-09, 22:52
Predator XT AR Lower lower receiver for AR15 gun $369
Currently listed prices at http://www.lanworldinc.com/Lower.htm
Stag Stripped 5.56 Lower $125.00
Noveske 5.56 N4 Lower $245.00
Sabre Defence 5.56 Lower $155.00
Spikes Tactical Stripped 5.56 Lower $169.00
From LMT@ http://www.lewismachine.net/
LMT : Defender Lower with Collapsing Stock and Standard Trigger $330.00 each
I may be a bit less than stellar on the tech side of things but I can see the additional cost of an exotic alloy being that great in the grand scheme of things.
I also didnt like the extra machining steps for the magwell, but that is just an aestetic difference as I don't have any evidence that it will or wont effect the structural integrity of the magwell.
All the lowers you listed are forged stiller is billet not to fair to compare prices with them.
POF billet gen3 lower $365.00
Tactical innovations billet lower $279.00
Larue billet lower $250.00
I own a LMT its great for a serious use along with other examples colt,noveske and others.
I am just saying it might make a good 3-gun lower or a precision long rang rig.
Game gun thats all .
torquemada055
05-21-09, 01:44
I always thought a billet was a piece of metal forged into shape and then machined to final form.
Am I incorrect in this, and what is the process for making a forged receiver as opposed to a billet?
If read just about everything on the site, but guess I missed this one, at least....
I always thought a billet was a piece of metal forged into shape and then machined to final form.
Am I incorrect in this, and what is the process for making a forged receiver as opposed to a billet?
If read just about everything on the site, but guess I missed this one, at least....
I'm curious on this too. My current thought on it was that billet was completely machined from a large chunk of aluminum versus the forged ones are forged into shape and then finish cut and trimmed, but I'm not really sure of the differences.
A few old timers I know use the term billet to describe semi finished products, usually castings. The CNC generation uses the term to describe parts cut from solid bar stock. Stillers website has a photo showing the lower in various stages of completion
idreamt...
05-21-09, 14:00
All it takes is money.
The Tactical/varmint stocks look pretty impressive too.
I'm curious on this too. My current thought on it was that billet was completely machined from a large chunk of aluminum versus the forged ones are forged into shape and then finish cut and trimmed, but I'm not really sure of the differences.
That's what I thought.
Is billet stronger than forged?
Thomas M-4
05-21-09, 16:24
That's what I thought.
Is billet stronger than forged?
Thats a good question I could be wrong but it seems that I remember reading some were that in the forging process that the surface of the receiver is very dense kinda like a hard candy shell. The cnc billet receiver the density is even through out the receiver. But with the flexibility you get with a cnc you can add extra material to critical parts of the receiver there for increasing the strength of the receiver.
I am just interested in how 7075-T6 compares to 7050-T7651 that I have no clue?
I am just interested in how 7075-T6 compares to 7050-T7651 that I have no clue?
They're pretty much identical. The difference is in the heat treating. If I remember correctly T651 is the "newer" spec but you'll still see plenty of T6 material out there. In a relatively low stress part like a receiver it won't make a difference.
JesseWin27
05-21-09, 21:57
I was under the assumption if it was "billet" it was machined from a solid piece of aluminum by a CNC machine?
I was under the assumption if it was "billet" it was machined from a solid piece of aluminum by a CNC machine?
Nowdays, this is correct.
machining, fit and finish I've ever seen on an AR lower. Completely flawless, not a complaint anywhere on it.
Maybe a bit too large for a carbine build for most, but perfect for a target/varmint build.
Here is a .204 Ruger build I finished recently for a customer. Stiller lower, Pac Nor threaded barrel w/Vortex (as per the customer's request), RRA NM "tuned" 2 stage, Bushmaster Varmint handguard, Stag/CMT everything else.
Topped off with a Nikon Monarch 4-16X40. Half MOA @ 200 yards with less than 60rounds through it.
The set screw works great to take the last bit of movement out of the lower to upper fit.
http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd2/hagst3/IMG_1070.jpg
http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd2/hagst3/IMG_1078.jpg
http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd2/hagst3/IMG_1074.jpg
http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd2/hagst3/IMG_1084.jpg
odd that you would use a billet lower, but not upper, on a long, heavy-barreled gun...
billet is "stronger" in that it's machined thicker in certain spots. i suspect forged aluminum of the same thickness would probably be even stronger, but for whatever reason Vltor is the only manufacturer i'm aware of that's doing that.
they look tuff, but since i'm totally unfamiliar with that alloy i'd have to do some serious research before dropping that kind of d'oh on a lower.
odd that you would use a billet lower, but not upper, on a long, heavy-barreled gun...
billet is "stronger" in that it's machined thicker in certain spots. i suspect forged aluminum of the same thickness would probably be even stronger, but for whatever reason Vltor is the only manufacturer i'm aware of that's doing that.
they look tuff, but since i'm totally unfamiliar with that alloy i'd have to do some serious research before dropping that kind of d'oh on a lower.
Why is that odd? The majority of "long, heavy-barreled guns" use upper recievers made of the same exact material.
Talk to the 1911 guys about forged versus cast. I have heard of more forged frames having "issues" than the cast ones. That's a debate for another thread.
If you read up on the alloy it is better, at least on paper, what that boils down to in practice I dont' know. It is overbuilt and that's what my customer wanted.
SWATcop556
07-11-09, 17:04
Not my particular cup o' tea. I would prefer either a Larue or a POF. Just not a huge fan of the large "X" on the magwell. Looks like it makes a good rifle though.
It seems everyone these days are building their own version of the AR. I will probably cry the first time I hear about a Hi-Point AR, but I don't doubt that it can/will happen at some point.
Why is that odd? The majority of "long, heavy-barreled guns" use upper recievers made of the same exact material.
Talk to the 1911 guys about forged versus cast. I have heard of more forged frames having "issues" than the cast ones. That's a debate for another thread.
If you read up on the alloy it is better, at least on paper, what that boils down to in practice I dont' know. It is overbuilt and that's what my customer wanted.
it's not odd that you'd use a standard forged uppper with a long, heavy barrel- you're absolutely right in that most long, heavy barrels are hung from standard forged uppers. my point was that if you were going to spend extra money for a billet receiver with a precision gun, the upper is where i'd put it. the lower doesn't affect accuracy, but a stout billet upper does. so it seemed backwards to me.
I'm no metal expert, i only know what i know about gun metal from what i've picked up over the years. but steel and aluminum are two totally different metals, and all i can guess is that steel melts, forms, and cools better than aluminum. in the AR world, castings have been long since abandoned- cast receivers were the worst receivers ever made.
Thomas M-4
07-11-09, 17:45
Stiller is supposed to release a matching billet upper receiver. I believe next year I would like to see what design changes he incorporates into his upper. Then I would consider maybe purchasing a set for a MK12 mod1 clone. Has the lower by its self it is interesting but as many have said it is the least stressed part of the rifle.
Neat...had no idea Jerry was getting into AR's. He makes great turn bolts & hope this does well for him.
Neat...had no idea Jerry was getting into AR's. He makes great turn bolts & hope this does well for him.
Yes, that was the biggest influence on the decision to use the XT lower.
I think the price point might be the biggest factor but it is a great lower.
it's not odd that you'd use a standard forged uppper with a long, heavy barrel- you're absolutely right in that most long, heavy barrels are hung from standard forged uppers. my point was that if you were going to spend extra money for a billet receiver with a precision gun, the upper is where i'd put it. the lower doesn't affect accuracy, but a stout billet upper does. so it seemed backwards to me.
I'm no metal expert, i only know what i know about gun metal from what i've picked up over the years. but steel and aluminum are two totally different metals, and all i can guess is that steel melts, forms, and cools better than aluminum. in the AR world, castings have been long since abandoned- cast receivers were the worst receivers ever made.
Well, that is what the customer wanted. I don't know anyone that is making a billet upper that is available right now.
I can tell you that the Stiller XT was chosen because of the precision machining, exacting tolerances and workmanship that Stiller Precision is known for. The upgrading in material and finish was a plus.
I don't know about Stiller coming out with an upper. I can tell you that I'm on the list for a few of the Predator 25X rimfire receivers, in both single shot and repeater.
Thomas M-4
07-11-09, 18:32
Yes, that was the biggest influence on the decision to use the XT lower.
I think the price point might be the biggest factor but it is a great lower.
Do you have any info about the upper?
Not my particular cup o' tea. I would prefer either a Larue or a POF. Just not a huge fan of the large "X" on the magwell. Looks like it makes a good rifle though.
It seems everyone these days are building their own version of the AR. I will probably cry the first time I hear about a Hi-Point AR, but I don't doubt that it can/will happen at some point.
LOL! If Hi Point makes an AR it'll cost $400, be die cast or pot metal and run nonstop for over 100K rounds w/o a failure of any kind.
The type of alluminum used and its heat treatment are more important. You will never, ever notice a difference in strength if they are the same alloy and same level of heat treat. Some billet receiver can be made thicker to be stronger than forged counterparts. Grain structure is NOT a point of failure for receivers so why wonder which part is theoretically stronger when neither would fail? Just dont get a cast receiver and you will be fine.
The finish is what will make them more or less resistant to wear... not the underlying 7075 T6 being machined billet or machined forging.
You are looking up all the wrong trees if you thing you can get a receiver that wont wear or you are going to make a "stronger" reciever that wont break or wear out where another would... its not going to happen. A .1% difference in strength does not mean anything if its just the carrier moving in the upper or if you drop your rifle from the roof off a 10 story building one will do nothing to your receivers and the other will destroy them.
A billet receiver is what you want for a "pretty" rifle... it has a more consistant surface. A forged receiver will have some surface imperfections on the unmahined portions... its the nature of the beast when you make mass produced items that are forged. For fuction you will be served perfectly with any quality forged upper be it Mega, CMT or whatever.
As far as finish you have milspec anodising like CMT, LMT etc and then there is the Mega, DPMS, etc teflon impregnated anodisation. It a little slicker and prettier and does not need to be holding CLP to look good in pics. Either will serve you just fine.
Some will say billet is more cinsistantly true and the rals in spec... thats an issue for your supplier, not you... you r supplier should be sending bad uppers back so if you buy from a good supplier like any of our board sponsers you will be fine.
Billet is used for low production or custom items. Forged is more expensive to get an inital die set up but its cheaper for high volume in the long run... for instance LWRC made a new .308 rifle the SABR. Prototypes and inital production are all billet. It was cheaper to do CNC programming than to set up for forging initally. To save money they went to forged for future production runs for higher volume. The inital billet is likely to be a bit "prettier" but both will be equal in funtion.
The type of alluminum used and its heat treatment are more important. You will never, ever notice a difference in strength if they are the same alloy and same level of heat treat. Some billet receiver can be made thicker to be stronger than forged counterparts. Grain structure is NOT a point of failure for receivers so why wonder which part is theoretically stronger when neither would fail? Just dont get a cast receiver and you will be fine.
The finish is what will make them more or less resistant to wear... not the underlying 7075 T6 being machined billet or machined forging.
You are looking up all the wrong trees if you thing you can get a receiver that wont wear or you are going to make a "stronger" reciever that wont break or wear out where another would... its not going to happen. A .1% difference in strength does not mean anything if its just the carrier moving in the upper or if you drop your rifle from the roof off a 10 story building one will do nothing to your receivers and the other will destroy them.
A billet receiver is what you want for a "pretty" rifle... it has a more consistant surface. A forged receiver will have some surface imperfections on the unmahined portions... its the nature of the beast when you make mass produced items that are forged. For fuction you will be served perfectly with any quality forged upper be it Mega, CMT or whatever.
As far as finish you have milspec anodising like CMT, LMT etc and then there is the Mega, DPMS, etc teflon impregnated anodisation. It a little slicker and prettier and does not need to be holding CLP to look good in pics. Either will serve you just fine.
Some will say billet is more cinsistantly true and the rals in spec... thats an issue for your supplier, not you... you r supplier should be sending bad uppers back so if you buy from a good supplier like any of our board sponsers you will be fine.
Billet is used for low production or custom items. Forged is more expensive to get an inital die set up but its cheaper for high volume in the long run... for instance LWRC made a new .308 rifle the SABR. Prototypes and inital production are all billet. It was cheaper to do CNC programming than to set up for forging initally. To save money they went to forged for future production runs for higher volume. The inital billet is likely to be a bit "prettier" but both will be equal in funtion.
you've missed, entirely, the purpose of billet uppers as we know them today- receiver flex.
billets are machined beefier to keep long, heavy barrels from flexing the receiver.
Thomas M-4
07-14-09, 02:20
you've missed, entirely, the purpose of billet uppers as we know them today- receiver flex.
billets are machined beefier to keep long, heavy barrels from flexing the receiver.
Has bkb0000 stated the point was receiver flex. Been around long enough to know that any thing made by the hand of man will not last forever or be unbreakable.
Has bkb0000 stated the point was receiver flex. Been around long enough to know that any thing made by the hand of man will not last forever or be unbreakable.
I have not inquired about the uppers. Next time I talk to Jerry I will ask.
I'm not sure how much receiver flex comes into play once the bolt is locked up. I'm also not so sure on how much of that flex is "cured" by the use of a billet upper. ?????
I would be more concerned about barrel "droop". :D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.