worn anodizing in pivot pin hole on brand new Daniel Defense upper

[SouthwestAviator]

I’ve had the same thing on my upper and lower pin holes. Daniel Defense told me it does not effect function at all. Does anyone know if it can affect overall lifespan of the lower, though?

[MorphCross]

I’ve had the same thing on my upper and lower pin holes. Daniel Defense told me it does not effect function at all. Does anyone know if it can affect overall lifespan of the lower, though?

With regards to the pivot pin area, the lower will outlive multiple barrels, bolts, and springs.

[SouthwestAviator]

Is finish wear in the pivot pin areas normal?

[georgeib]

Is finish wear in the pivot pin areas normal?

Kinda. Wear is normal in all areas where parts are moving against each other and creating friction. I imagine the less you take your rifle apart, the less wear you'll see in the pivot pin areas.

[trauma]

I’ve seen a bunch of uppers over the last year at least with DD doing this.

[Androctonus]

If this isn’t an uncommon thing for DD to do, I guess it can’t really be bad. DD knows ARs well. But, pivot and takedown pin holes seem like a bad area to be without anodizing to harden the surface against the pins. I separate uppers and lowers frequently and it feels like there is friction in there, even with grease.

[Sry0fcr]

If this isn’t an uncommon thing for DD to do, I guess it can’t really be bad. DD knows ARs well. But, pivot and takedown pin holes seem like a bad area to be without anodizing to harden the surface against the pins. I separate uppers and lowers frequently and it feels like there is friction in there, even with grease.

Maybe not bad, but not good either. At the very least indicative of a broken process. There's no good reason that these receivers shouldn't have been re finished.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[Androctonus]

Maybe not bad, but not good either. At the very least indicative of a broken process. There's no good reason that these receivers shouldn't have been re finished.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

The only reason I can think of is that re-anodizing would, as far as I know, slightly decrease the diameter of the pivot pin hole and potentially lead to fitting problems again. But, maybe that could be accounted for in the amount of removed material before re-anodizing. I’m tempted to ask them to switch over the parts to a new receiver, but I don’t want to argue with them about it.

[AKDoug]

Maybe not bad, but not good either. At the very least indicative of a broken process. There's no good reason that these receivers shouldn't have been re finished.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

They'd have to ream slightly larger than re-finish. Then hope it's the right size. Type III anodizing can be as thick as .003". Doesn't sound like much, but can make a pin hard to get in. Frankly, I don't see a single issue with them reaming to size.

[Sry0fcr]

They'd have to ream slightly larger than re-finish. Then hope it's the right size. Type III anodizing can be as thick as .003". Doesn't sound like much, but can make a pin hard to get in. Frankly, I don't see a single issue with them reaming to size.

That's a call they're supposed to make through nonconformance reporting and quality/engineering disposition. If they can't meet the requirements (all of them, material, dimensional & anodizing) through rework, the parts get scrapped, or regraded (blem). They basically shipped non-conforming (blem) receivers and sold them as 1st quality, only question is whether they did it knowingly because someone would have to sign off on the decision to do it under any standard quality system.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk