Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 127

Thread: Which lower?

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    31
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Stickman View Post
    To start, none of the lowers you own are milspec. It is a term which the industry uses in a misleading way. Once upon a time it meant something, but in the civilian world it has come to mean almost nothing. In using your above example, which is a common one used, what they are actually saying is the forging the receiver started with was made from 7075 aluminum, not that the receiver is milspec in any way other than they share the same material. The machine work isn't the same, the finish typically is a variation of the one called for by military spec, and the QC which the item is supposed to be held to is not the same.

    This certainly doesn't make every cheap receiver out there an absolute piece of garbage. However, it doesn't change these items are much more likely to be out of the called for specs, and it shows in the overall amount of complaints that are generated. Add to that, a lot of people assembling AR15s don't have a factual idea of what is or isn't correct, and the numbers would honestly be worse.

    I wrote an article for publication a few years back talking about the difference between rails, and there were a few things that came together to form the various prices. In the case of receivers, there are a few similarities, but the primary means which cement the two pricing structures rely heavily on machine time. You can crank out rails and receivers pretty quickly if you don't care about things like tolerances, tool chatter, and the like. The manufacturer bills the retailer, or subretailers for their costs, and the machine time. A rail, or receiver which spends 20 minutes on a CNC is going to be much cheaper than one which spends 120 minutes.

    If the parts you have work well enough for your needs, that is great. A lot of people on this board go into, or have gone into harms way, and they are not interested in substandard components. For a guy or girl who doesn't shoot much, and is looking at their AR15 as a way to have fun when they go shooting, I'm not sure if there is much to get worked up over for anyone. Once many people have something cheap, they begin to understand and appreciate the varying levels of quality, and what they are missing.

    From a personal perspective, unless you are on my squad, part of my family, or a close friend, it doesn't matter to me what other people do. If someone gets uppity with you, don't worry about it. However, don't have issue when people point out your component list as subpar. While it might not matter for your needs, it may be important for others to learn.

    Hopefully some of the above makes sense.

    If nothing else, welcome to the board. It can be a bit chilly here for some people, but the big difference is that this particular board won't allow people to post BS without calling the person out. The end result makes for a pretty nice place once you get used to it.
    I totally see your point and agree. I wasn't calling the parts i used milspec.... The manufacturers were. So either they are or they aren't. As you said they have all worked for my purposes, which so far is range use and some sporatic professional training.

    I'm just a plain old civilian. I don't kick in doors or hunt down terrorists. I am also not an expert. While I don't take offense, it is a little off putting the response I've gotten to an opinion. I NEVER said the lowers I used were the same as other more expensive ones. I DID says all things being equal buy the cheapest one... obviously what most have been pointing out is that all things are NOT equal.

    I'm new to this board, but not new to the internet nor shooting. I'm always will to listen and learn. Most of the responses have been informative. Thank you for that.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,421
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by misfit47 View Post
    I like stuff that's held to tighter tolerances than minimum acceptable standards.
    I have years working in a manufacturing environment in the aviation industry. I have experience in looking at ways to reduce costs from defects.

    Tolerances are set to ensure parts work with each other. Tighter tolerances mean nothing if there is no added value to the product. People have this idea that "milspec" is the minimum standard. What they don't realize is, in particular regards to machines and parts supplied to the military, it is THE Standard. It's what gets the job done. Anything outside milspec isn't better than the minimum. It is outside allowable limits. Changes to milspec results in a product that doesn't fulfill the mission. An example is the M203 notch cut on the M4 barrel. For civilian use, it isn't needed and can be deleted. But deleting the M203 notch from the barrel isn't better for an organization that needs to mount the M203 to their M4s. The M203 notch isn't the minimum standard. It is THE Standard.

    Another thing people don't realize. Tighter tolerances mean nothing if the manufacturing process isn't in control. For example, On one project, hole defects were costing the aviation company I worked for millions of dollars and they wanted to know why. The short story is, the process had poor control. In one case, the hole needed to be .185"-.188" for an interference fit with the fastener. It was found that when the holes were perfectly drilled, using the tooling and drill process specified by the company, hole dimensions varied from minimum to maximum. What that meant is that when the holes were processed perfectly, the holes would be within tolerance, but there was no control. With further investigation, it was discovered that with a change to a cheaper drill, the mechanic could process holes faster with less effort and better control of the final dimension. The irony? The double margin drill we switched to wasn't held to tolerances as tight as the piloted reamer it replaced. But it gave us better control when processing the .185"-.188" interference fit holes and saved the company millions in hole defects. The holes were withing tolerance AND in control.

    What you want isn't a product "made to tighter tolerances". What you want is a product that is made to proper tolerances using processes that are in control. That's what we call Quality Control. You want a lower made with good quality controls in place.

    Let me add- Parts that are made to spec without controlling the process cost more than parts made to spec with good process control.
    Last edited by MistWolf; 02-24-18 at 11:14.
    INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    3,641
    Feedback Score
    0
    Wow, looks like Aero Precision has a bad reputation.

    https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread...pper-won-t-fit

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    North Alabama
    Posts
    2,655
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Deleted due to low knowledge base.
    Last edited by AndyLate; 03-07-18 at 21:48.

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    872
    Feedback Score
    18 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by jsbhike View Post
    Wow, looks like Aero Precision has a bad reputation.

    https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread...pper-won-t-fit
    1.) That thread is 5 years old

    2.) If you'd read the entire thing you would have realized that the OP eventually concluded his lower was out of spec and not the Aero Upper

    There are some documented examples of issues with Aero products, but they seem to be good about addressing them when given a chance, at least in my experience (which is limited to their receiver sets and handguards). They are a budget oriented product for sure, but they put a better product than the bottom of the barrel manufacturers and are generally a good value at their price point.
    Last edited by Tx_Aggie; 02-24-18 at 17:20.

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    3,641
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Tx_Aggie View Post
    1.) That thread is 5 years old

    2.) If you'd read the entire thing you would have realized that the OP eventually concluded his lower was out of spec and not the Aero Upper

    There are some documented examples of issues with Aero products, but they seem to be good about addressing them when given a chance, at least in my experience (which is limited to their receiver sets and handguards). They are a budget oriented product for sure, but they put a better product than the bottom of the barrel manufacturers and are generally a good value at their price point.

    I read the entire thing and it was the rest of the thread I was referring to, not just a single upper. Sounded like long term and deep issues.

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    7
    Feedback Score
    0
    This thread ends with someone explaining exactly what Mil Spec means as opposed to what it’s taken to mean. The minimum standard of acceptance - with defined tolerances - for conformance to military specifications. It doesn’t require a Burst selection, it requires that where 6061 T6 alum. is specified, it actually conforms to 6061 T6 standards as defined by the spec.
    Is that clear enough?
    You would think so. You would be wrong.
    Have ten expert technicians mike a pipe using the same micrometer.
    You won’t get an answer, you’ll get a range.
    It then falls upon one whose pay grade infers accountability deciding the final Go/No-Go sign off, and if you don’t think expedience and profit bend lines, you don’t understand the term “close enough for government work”.
    Anderson has cost contractors their reputations.
    Colt? A much safer bet.
    But mil specs as absolutes? No such animal.

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    10,039
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by CeeRay View Post
    Anderson has cost contractors their reputations.


    Rightfully so.

    Fruits of the poisonous tree, the fish rots from the head down, or whatever other phrase people prefer, selling absolute and utter garbage components that have failed QC is inexcusable.
    Stick


    Board policy mandates I state that I shoot for BCM. I have also done work for 200 or so manufacturers within the firearm community. I am prior service, a full time LEO, firearm instructor, armorer, TL, martial arts instructor, and all around good guy.

    I also shoot and write for various publications. Let me know if you know cool secrets or have toys worthy of an article...


    Flickr Tumblr Facebook Instagram RECOILMAGAZINE OFF GRID RECOIL WEB

  9. #79
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    10,039
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by AndyLate View Post
    I really hope you don't mean they are not MIL-SPEC because they are not drilled for an auto sear pin and marked as full auto or burst.

    Most of us understand that the lower is the firearm, and since 1986 new machine guns are not legal to build and sell to consumers.

    My thought is that a "MIL-SPEC" lower is forged from the material specified in the M-16/M-4 Techical Data Package (TDP), machined to the dimensions called out in the TDP with hole placement and threads within the tolerances called out in the same TDP, and finished according to the TDP. Exceptions are markings and the afore-mentioned auto-sear pin hole.

    I am certain Colt sells lowers built to the TDP they sold to the government, only semi-auto.

    I am also certain that other companies sell lowers (or rifles built on the lowers) which match the material, dimensions, and finish called out by the TDP. Depending on the company, lowers may not be forged, tolerances may be smaller or larger, dimensions may be changed, and raw material and finish may vary.

    All that to say - yes, I said I prefer Ruger lowers to Anderson, but I prefer my Sabre Defence and Nodak Spud lowers to either.

    Andy


    You are incorrect. This has been covered numerous times as to the hows and whys.
    Stick


    Board policy mandates I state that I shoot for BCM. I have also done work for 200 or so manufacturers within the firearm community. I am prior service, a full time LEO, firearm instructor, armorer, TL, martial arts instructor, and all around good guy.

    I also shoot and write for various publications. Let me know if you know cool secrets or have toys worthy of an article...


    Flickr Tumblr Facebook Instagram RECOILMAGAZINE OFF GRID RECOIL WEB

  10. #80
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    60
    Feedback Score
    18 (100%)
    I can't believe this "just as good" or "Milspec is Milspec bruh" conversations still exist today, even with the overwhelming amount of evidence there is online today. A little googling goes a long way. I used to try to inform people about QC, the quality of parts and materials and reputation, but at the end of the day, there are three types of gun owners. The recreational shooter (who buys cheap and says just as good), the enthusiast (who knows about everything posted above, but buys the best at his budget) and the duty guys ( who buys the absolute best that knows it would probably not fail and can literally beat the shit out of).

    I don't even bother anymore, just let them buy/do what ever they want. They'll learn on their own sooner than later.

Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •