JT dist. LPK.  Surprisingly crisp trigger out of the box.

The differences I am talking about are not due to different crews.  There is an obvious difference in methods and markings.  All five of the RRA kits have the same features.  All five Stag kits have the same features.  Etc.  Stag triggers have an S stamped into them, RRA's do not.  Stag hammers have a circle with four dots in them, RRA does not.  You can see seams in one kit that you don't in the other.  You can straight angles in one kit, that you don't in another.  You can see the different colored springs in the different kits.  Again, not saying that the same handful of companies aren't responsible for all the kits.  It is just obvious that there are different processes used, and that not all the same level of attention is provided to all the different manufacturer's kits.

What is the spec for these parts?  Does the spec require distinctive markings, or is that simply one maker's way of identifying which molds or dies they used?  Finish on springs is not a big deal either.  In fact, variations in the details are just that-details.  If you were referring to "functional surfaces that were not finished," for example, that would be a very different thing.  If it's details that are just cosmetic, like the markings or edge finish on non-functional surfaces, then you just have an indication that these parts came from different makers, which makes sense when you're getting the kits from different vendors-they probably just have contracts with different suppliers.

Unless it's fit related, I'd just chalk these detail differences up to "different makers" and otherwise ignore them.

Wow guys, a lot of info... over all it seems to be just a matter of opinion. I really appreciate the input. It seems that there are a few of you who state that the LPK's are made basically from "unknown" type companies; at Mil-spec tolerances.  A co-worker gave me a J&T catalog today and in the back it said that certain items, because of confidential agreements, their makers would not be disclosed. That leads me to believe that only a few companies make the parts for all of the companies. I believe that my M&P 15 receiver is Mil-spec - so basically any of them would probably suffice. However... The guys who keep throwing in the subliminal "Anvil Arms" name... your getting to me! I might just go that way, considering that most of the LPK's are within $20.00 of each other. The only question now is... If the parts look and fit like crap, will the company stand behind the return?
    I really appreciate the input guys. And above all, (not to sound gay) I respect all of your opinions.

some of the pics are not so good but you get the point. it's hard to tell in these but some of the "ramps" are at different depths and angles.









upper #2


upper #3






again, i like RRA and plan to keep buying their stuff when it fits my needs but there are some things they could do better.

to compare some things.........

here are some shots of my YHM. again some of the pics suck but you get the point.

I don't think anyone would suggest that these extensions cut into the upper were not done "after manufacturing," and with some variation in depth and angle.  I specifically commented that attributing a specific method to how they're made was not a good idea since we don't know how they do it.  And doesn't Rock River call these cuts "extensions" rather than M4 ramps anyway?

Again, I would not buy a stock RRA gun for a "service" gun, and isn't that really the only place that a problem with "extended" ramps might show up?

i'm with you on the fact that i would not use a RRA for a service/SHTF rifle. that's what my LMT is for . RRA makes a good second tier rifle just like Bushy and Armalite.

for the average casual shooter their fine and for my 15 year old step son it's the greatest rifle in the world as far as he's concerned.

i don't think the "extensions" would cause any issues. if i thought that one of my non-ramped uppers really needed them i would just do it myself. i could do a better job than the RRA extensions. in a 1:9, semi auto rifle what's the point?

i just don't see why RRA goes to the trouble to "tool" them in when they're not really needed in the first place. like i said before i think it detracts from the overall quality and appearance of the rifle. when fit and finish are one of the best qualities that you have i wouldn't go screwing it up.