AR Sponsor
Posted: 1/15/2003 9:27:19 AM EDT
| I have purchased an Essential Arms pre-ban AR-15 for what I thought was a reasonable price (980.00). (I am aware of the history of the company and the burden of proof issues involved with this being a pre-ban assembled rifle.) I wanted to know what the opinion of this crowd was on Essentials receivers. I have heard that they are not so desireable as compared to other lower to middle end priced pre-bans. I am trying to decide if it is a keeper or not. Please be as specific as you can. |
|
Bohr, I have one that is identified as cast by Ruger. (All markings are in a straight line) I have built many AR's and I will tell you straight up that this is one of my favorite lowers to use. Everything lines up right. All milspec (or close to milspec) parts fit right in. I have never cracked or broken one and even the asthetic lines are correct with milspec uppers. The color is the only thing I don't care for. I do believe that cast lowers are weaker than forged ones. I however think Ruger had some magic they used, cuz I have never seen an Essential Arms lower crack or break. I have seen other cast ones break. I absolutely hate Olympic Arms cast lowers. I will hold my other oppinions about Olympic to myself due to their lack of customer service to me. A built a friends plinker cast Oly lower and it crack while installing the roll-pin for the trigger guard. They blamed me for not supporting it correctly. If you saw the pitted pot metal and the way I assembled it, you would know it met with "Defects in materials and workmanship" Keep in mind, they never looked at it. Anyway, I like EA lowers, alot. If you ever want to part with it, let me know asap. And, all are pre-ban. Let BATF prove its not. Never been challenged in court, cuz they have the burden of proof. Its still America... Regards, Mortis... |
|
Thank you for the info. Mortismaker, you say you have one that was cast by Ruger? Could you tell me more about this. Were these receivers cast by other companies and then machined my Essential Arms? I would be interested to know how to determine this information. Yes, cast is definatly weaker than a forging. In my opinion though, the casting appears to be a good one and should be easily strong enough in this application. By the way, I may provide some info on topics related to materials and their properties as I perform mechanical testing and material charachterization at a research lab for a living. If you guys ever want to have some hard data to settle a dispute on hear, let me know. |
|
Bohr, I don't know this for a fact. I have gotten this info from a few different places. If the search function is working, and if its not too old, there were a few topics about this. This is what I have heard: There were two companies that Casted the receivers for EA (Essential Arms). One was a company in Texas, not sure of the name. The other is supposed to be Ruger. The Ruger lowers were supposed to be identified by the lettering for the manuf and ser#. If these letters are straight, not up and down. Not sure how to explain that. Um, I think the Texas ones were like post and super script. Hope that makes sense. I have heard also that the Ruger receivers are the better ones. I don't know if that means for casting strength or appearance. I also do not know if these receivers were cast then machined. Or finished totally by the caster. I hope this helps. If you have any info, I would like to hear it. Testing would be kinda cool. Feel comfortable though, these receivers are good, straight, and tough. Mine has served me well in many camping trips and practical shoots for many years. Regards, Mortis... |
|
I have a pre-ban EA J15 in CAR configuration that my friend purchased from a West Point buddy of his back in 91. It took 11 years to convince him to sell it to me but it was worth the wait. We had agreed upon $600 before I flew out to visit but when my vacation was over he gave it to me for $400 even. Not bragging, just happy. As you know, EA never made complete rifles so the upper and everything else was made by other companies. Mine has seen a heck of a lot of rounds though it over the years to the point that the fire control parts were starting to show a lot of wear. I ordered a kit from Bushmaster to replace all of the lower parts. The bolt and carrier are showing quite a bit of corrosion from all of these rounds but still functions flawlessly. Bottom line, my EA receiver doesn't have a wear mark or scratch on it. It also fits very tight to the upper with no slack at all. In my opinion, it is a very good receiver and will last long after your upper and everything else wears out. As long as you have the pre-ban lower and the laws don't get worse, it'll last you a lifetime while you replace the rest of the parts. David. |
| I had a light gray one that I bought in either 88 or 89 (can't remember). It was defective. The buffer detent hole was drilled to far back and caused the buffer to get all chewed up on the edges. EA replaced it no problem and this one worked perfectly. Mine was $79.00 plus $10 for the transfer from the dealer. |
AR Sponsor