VLTOR MUR

[Waylander]

Are the VLTOR modular upper receivers worth the money? Do they fit well with a Colt lower?

[bkb0000]

parts are only worth what people are willing to pay for them. "worth" is way to subjective to just say "yes" or "no."

do you have a specific need for a rigid receiver? if not, then you'd be paying an extra $100+ for looks. plenty of people do.

they are "milspec" and fit all milspec lowers.. they usually fit on the tighter side, but the only way they won't fit at all is if something is out of spec.

[jafount]

if you were asking me I would say yes. But, I mated mine up with a billet lower and Noveske barrel in kind of a "spare no expense" build.

[bkb0000]

if you were asking me I would say yes. But, I mated mine up with a billet lower and Noveske barrel in kind of a "spare no expense" build.

so your primary intent was to build an expensive gun?

not being a smart ass- just being literal.

the MUR's purpose is for long-range precision. by being beefier, the receiver can take longer, heavier barrels with longer, heavier free-floating handguards with less flex. it serves no other functional purpose.

[J Krammes]

I really like the way they look, but I could not justify an extra $100 for an upper. I used a $100 CMT upper with a Noveske 10.5" barrel. I can hit 1/2 gallon milk jugs at 200 yards with it. Worth it? Not for me...

Jeremy

[Waylander]

Right now a have a used Colt A2 rifle. I want to keep my lower and build a good M4 upper assembly. I could pay $200+ for a Colt upper receiver and be pretty sure on a tight fit with the lower, a good fit with the Colt bolt, and good finish.

I've thought about saving $100 like you did and getting a cheaper receiver but I won't know how good it'll fit or the finish.

Or I could pay about the same as the Colt and get the VLTOR which should be a tight fit. It's supposedly stronger but I don't know that I need that since I won't be putting my rifle through any abnormal stress. I do like the looks and I want a VLTOR gas block and supressor anyway.

[bkb0000]

neither "fit" nor "finish" have any functional considerations, beyond the simple need for being able to attach the two receivers together.. everything after that is you.. chose accordingly.

[Waylander]

neither "fit" nor "finish" have any functional considerations, beyond the simple need for being able to attach the two receivers together.. everything after that is you.. chose accordingly.

I can understand them not being functional considerations but I wanted peoples opinions on aftermarket receivers. I especially don't want a loose/rattling receiver under any circumstances.

[sjohnny]

I'm getting close to finishing my very first AR. I considered the MUR based solely on "it looks badass". When I looked at my goals for the finished product and the fact that I was buying parts as funds became available I realized that how it looks was not really all that important. I bought an upper receiver from BCM for about $100 (about $130 less than the MUR) and for my purposes it will do the exact same job.

[bkb0000]

I can understand them not being functional considerations but I wanted peoples opinions on aftermarket receivers. I especially don't want a loose/rattling receiver under any circumstances.

well even with the MUR, which is generally as tight as you're gonna find, the chances of play between receivers is almost 100%. that's not a realistic expectation, nor should it be any concern.

[Army Chief]

You will often hear the dimensionality argument made in favor of the MUR, though the functional tolerances we're talking about here are really of more interest to a machinist or tooling fabricator than to a trigger puller. For most, the MUR is a beautifully-rendered solution to a problem which does not truly exist.

On the other hand, if you have a billet lower, and/or are looking to build something decidedly non-standard, there is no reason (price aside) not to consider the MUR. This is especially true if, for whatever reason, you prefer an upper with no forward assist, since the MUR offers that option where others generally do not.

I considered the MUR and went with Rainier Arms' new billet upper on my current 6.8 build, though we're still talking variations on a theme. In person, I do prefer the RA, but there are so few in circulation (at least, to this point), that the MUR remains what I would consider the "baseline" product.

Neither are necessary, but when tuning for optimal performance, who can really say if a thousandth here or there might not add up to a measureable difference at some point, after all. While the MUR is costly, it isn't prohibitive, so this is one mistake that you can probably afford to make, if for whatever reason, you're drawn to the idea of owning one.

AC

[noops]

I have one on a noveske. It certainly seems like nice kit, but I'm an average shooter, so it's probably overkill for a lot of applications.