Idea for easier 80% lower

[Groyper]

Get off the idea of casting a receiver. Several large manufacturing companies at one point cast AR lowers with expensive machinery and it is viewed entirely as an abject failure. Cast lowers are the pariah of the 90s and early 2000s AR world. Besides this the complex process of heat treating 7075 aluminum alloy becomes a problem. Then after it's heat treated how are you going to correct deformities and warps that are a result of the heat treating process. Just stahp.

I just want easy access in exercising my rights. I cant believe we once had the freedom to order Rifles, Machine Guns, hell even Mortars with HE rounds to our door steps....And sadly lost it.

[Leonidas24]

I just want easy access in exercising my rights. I cant believe we once had the freedom to order Rifles, Machine Guns, hell even Mortars with HE rounds to our door steps....And sadly lost it.

You're not going to get it with casting. If you have any ideas of casting a receiver at home put them out right now. Watch any video on YT about casting in sand and you'll see the cast comes out covered in grit, sand, and closer to a general shape of what the final product will be with absolutely zero functionality until it has had MASSIVE amounts of post cast work done. Casts still also require holes to be drilled, the magazine well machined out, the receiver extension threads cut, and the FCG pocket machined. The best and far easier method would be to invest in a variable speed mill and the appropriate end mills and drill bits. $1500 will get something more than capable of this and will produce a far cleaner result that will last years. Spend your time, effort, and energy focusing on something tangible that will prolong the life of your labor, like home type III anodizing.

[elephant]

So, whats the legality of 80% lowers vs 95% lowers? Why 80%? is that law?

[Groyper]

You're not going to get it with casting. If you have any ideas of casting a receiver at home put them out right now. Watch any video on YT about casting in sand and you'll see the cast comes out covered in grit, sand, and closer to a general shape of what the final product will be with absolutely zero functionality until it has had MASSIVE amounts of post cast work done. Casts still also require holes to be drilled, the magazine well machined out, the receiver extension threads cut, and the FCG pocket machined. The best and far easier method would be to invest in a variable speed mill and the appropriate end mills and drill bits. $1500 will get something more than capable of this and will produce a far cleaner result that will last years. Spend your time, effort, and energy focusing on something tangible that will prolong the life of your labor, like home type III anodizing.

I assume casting polymer receivers is also not possible?

So, what's the legality of 80% lowers vs 95% lowers? Why 80%? is that law?

I believe it's all just a series of mindless, irrational, arbatiery rules set by people who hate their job, or love to **** freedom over...Just an opinion..

[Coyote bulldozer]

What's your objection to just doing it the normal way with a jig kit? By far the easiest method to finish 80% lowers sans a mill is the jig and hand held router! Last year around my birthday me and my buddies had a "milling party" and cranked out 5 complete lowers in an evening (hell by the final one we had the process down and completed it start to finish in under an hour).

By comparison my other buddy is in the hobby of casting aluminum ingots, it takes several hours just to melt enough aluminum cans in his small hobby crucible to cast one single cupcake pan sized ingot, never mind melting enough to cast a whole AR lower... I've never personally priced hobby grade aluminum casting equipment but said buddy was bragging at work how he picked up his new (again very small and hobby-only grade) crucible for $600 so it seems the typical jig/router/drill press route is probably the cheaper route as well (you could pickup the jig with some 80% blanks AND a router for under the price of JUST the crucible and then you'll still need to buy / build the molds and everything else involved with casting).

There are no advantages to this idea...

[Leaveammoforme]

So, whats the legality of 80% lowers vs 95% lowers? Why 80%? is that law?

Current generation 80% lowers are as complete as the ATF will allow. Everything is done except for the fire control pocket.

"95%" lowers are a marketing gimmick. They compare their lower to a previous generation 80% lower that didn't have the receiver extension threaded.

There are multiple 80% options with varying levels of required patience/tooling already on the market. While more options and ideas are always good, I personally won't be liquifying any glass to release a cast lower from its bonds.

[lysander]

Current generation 80% lowers are as complete as the ATF will allow. Everything is done except for the fire control pocket.

"95%" lowers are a marketing gimmick. They compare their lower to a previous generation 80% lower that didn't have the receiver extension threaded.

There are multiple 80% options with varying levels of required patience/tooling already on the market. While more options and ideas are always good, I personally won't be liquifying any glass to release a cast lower from its bonds.

However, assuming the casting things worked, the idea put forward would not be an 80% receiver, as the FCG pocket would be formed when cast. Someone did a similar thing with plastic, hard for the receiver, and soft for the FCG pocket, and the ATF nixed the idea.

[Leaveammoforme]

However, assuming the casting things worked, the idea put forward would not be an 80% receiver, as the FCG pocket would be formed when cast. Someone did a similar thing with plastic, hard for the receiver, and soft for the FCG pocket, and the ATF nixed the idea.

I seem to recall that the argument was "Which came first? The fire control pocket or the pocket plug?"

Company claimed plug came first. Therefore, a FCG pocket never existed.

ATF claimed FCG pocket came first (making a complete lower) then pocket was filled.

I believe the company ultimately got all the lowers back.

The only thing I remember for sure was the super sweet single point slings the ATF was rocking. Because, you know...There's a high percentage of having to flip the kill switch on employees of a store front....

[Groyper]

What's your objection to just doing it the normal way with a jig kit? By far the easiest method to finish 80% lowers sans a mill is the jig and hand held router! Last year around my birthday me and my buddies had a "milling party" and cranked out 5 complete lowers in an evening (hell by the final one we had the process down and completed it start to finish in under an hour).

By comparison my other buddy is in the hobby of casting aluminum ingots, it takes several hours just to melt enough aluminum cans in his small hobby crucible to cast one single cupcake pan sized ingot, never mind melting enough to cast a whole AR lower... I've never personally priced hobby grade aluminum casting equipment but said buddy was bragging at work how he picked up his new (again very small and hobby-only grade) crucible for $600 so it seems the typical jig/router/drill press route is probably the cheaper route as well (you could pickup the jig with some 80% blanks AND a router for under the price of JUST the crucible and then you'll still need to buy / build the molds and everything else involved with casting).

There are no advantages to this idea...

Yeah, a few basic google searches kind of showed the flaws of the idea...

Current generation 80% lowers are as complete as the ATF will allow. Everything is done except for the fire control pocket.

"95%" lowers are a marketing gimmick. They compare their lower to a previous generation 80% lower that didn't have the receiver extension threaded.

There are multiple 80% options with varying levels of required patience/tooling already on the market. While more options and ideas are always good, I personally won't be liquifying any glass to release a cast lower from its bonds.

Well I have thought about about the same method, only using glass around a limestone "plug" but that just seems a bit nuts...

However, assuming the casting things worked, the idea put forward would not be an 80% receiver, as the FCG pocket would be formed when cast. Someone did a similar thing with plastic, hard for the receiver, and soft for the FCG pocket, and the ATF nixed the idea.

Of course they would, why would they not ruin great ideas and stifle small business and entrepreneurs.


Have you ever felt like everything you want to do is illegal or violates the laws of physics?

I seem to recall that the argument was "Which came first? The fire control pocket or the pocket plug?"

Company claimed plug came first. Therefore, a FCG pocket never existed.

ATF claimed FCG pocket came first (making a complete lower) then pocket was filled.

I believe the company ultimately got all the lowers back.

The only thing I remember for sure was the super sweet single point slings the ATF was rocking. Because, you know...There's a high percentage of having to flip the kill switch on employees of a store front....

So I assume a basic video of them showing the plug existed before, and the "Non-receiver" was created around it would have been enough?

Any way that someone else could fight them in court for making false claims?

[RobertTheTexan]

I just want easy access in exercising my rights...

Buawhaaahahahahahaaa!!
Easy??? Either the OP’s “Easimeter” is made in Transylvania or he lives in opposite world. There are pretty easy ways to exercise our 2nd Amendment responsibilities certainly metric tons easier than the casting lower/melting glass with Draino or Liquid Plumber.

This isn’t the first time we would have been saved by an OP doing a Google search before posting.