Are they really pretty much all the same with no real difference?

If so where does the cost/benefit curve level out?

Is a $130 seekins forged any better than a $35 anderson forged?

It is all in a name and has been questioned many times before. Some people prefer one upper to another while others have had issues with certain brands.

I personally look at it objectively and if it is to spec it is GTG by me. I have several different forgings and have yet to have one that is out of spec. Barrels and BCG's are a whole different story and would only buy from certain manufacturers.

There can definitely be differences.
It depends on who did the finish machine work.
I personally would not even consider a $35 upper.

What blaster said.  I wouldn't buy one because I prefer billet uppers, but my buddies have bought Anderson uppers, lowers and 80% lowers and they all run well.  Very up to spec.  But for $35, I might just get one for the heck of it and throw it in the safe for a rainy day.

in a forged upper or lower most of what you are paying extra for is cosmetic.

A $35 Anderson or PSA blem will do exactly the same thing as a $100 + Spikes or Seekins etc..... it just doesn't look as pretty to some people

Everybody sells blems. I bought a Grizzly LAR upper blem, the company was started by DOD to get an upper supplier available to obtain replacements. How milspec can it get? And yet no street cred on the forum boards.

Most AR builders buy on reputation, which is marketing hype and it's perception by the mass public. What often happens is the most understated copy ad with the latest cutting edge visual feature grabs the attention based on how professional and cool it is.

Actual testing to mil spec using their protocols isn't done. Everybody just tries to look like they are - about the most they do is mag particle inspect a bolt. Actually mike the bore of an upper and attach a tag, no. What they will say is that "Our products are milspec!" which to be brutally honest they can't - only the TDP weapons produced under Colts dimensional requirements are.

On the other hand, milspec is very much a negotiated set of requirements that Colt extracted from the Gov overseers that leave them plenty of room for profit. It's a nice minimum standard for a low price bid item, but it is not the most optimal - which could drive costs up to almost exponential proportions.

Like the mils spec for accuracy - it's 2MOA tested with ten shot groups. Not .5 MOA tested with three, which if it really is, means it's 4 times more accurate, but it doesn't make it four times more effective. It reduces a shot group from ten inches at 500m to 2.5 inches - on an 18" center of mass target. Almost any hit in that 18" is going to be effecitve. Making it four times smaller is a waste of money for a combat rifle. A hit is still a hit. Save it for prairie dog hunting or boasting in forums.

This is where the games are played in ad copy and on forums. "My $99 stripped forged upper is better than your $35 blem upper." Welll, if they are both drop forged aluminum CNC'd to spec, what we are really seeing is a lot more profit shorn from more cash flush sheep, not necessarily a "better" upper.

About all the upper does is connect the stock via the buffer tube threads to the barrel extension retained by the barrel nut. Two threaded connections, and it contains the travel of the BCG as it cycles. Adding the rail on top made things more difficult with it's slots and having them coaxial, but average gun needs the nose of the upper to be square and align the bore more. Most are.

Forward assists, brass deflector lumps, side charging handles, and such are just nice to have extras. The original didn't have them. Old school operating rod guys from the Garand era didn't understand how it worked and "fixed" it Good example that experienced users are not qualified firearms designers, but the public doesn't have a clue, so whatever accessory some rock star or big mouth operator is selling is the hot ticket.

The problem is that the A3 is the most widely produced and has the least cost because of it, so why spend more for less? A $35 blem upper works just fine, spending $99 for something else asks what did you get for the extra $64? Not much, really. It certainly will not be 2x more accurate or stronger, and it has to be asked, if it is, what for?

It's good at $35. Suit yourself, and if it has graphics on it, make a choice. Soldiers sure don't get any.

I bought a $60 Anderson upper with the dust cover assembly and forward assist installed and it came out great.

I bought a couple of Anderson uppers for about $40 a piece IIRC and they work great.  They don't a have T marks, I don't really care but some might.

QFT

as long as they are milspec and 7075, i dont think there is much difference in them.  i think the biggest issue is the fit to the lower receiver.  i've used 2 PSA blemished uppers on two carbine builds and i have a surplus ammo one i bought when they were running a sale a few weeks back.  $40 for the PSA and $35 for the surplus ammo.

Can't really know without knowing the specs. After a very quick look I only found a stripped Anderson upper for 35.00  the assembled ones went for 70.

Right out of seekins page....


So undoubtably seekins put a lot of time and money into product testing. Obviously they believe they are giving you something better than the average. You may buy one Anderson upper never ever have a problem with it. Maybe you decide to do another build using Anderson and that one has a flaw  making you swear off for anderson for life. Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe you buy 99 uppers from seekins and the 100th has a flaw. That may be what makes them different.