AR Sponsor
Posted: 6/28/2017 4:50:52 PM EDT
| When looking at standard A2 forged 80% lowers are there any specific manufacturers or makes to avoid? I'm just looking for a standard 7075 forged aluminum and T6 heat treated lower that is in the white. I've seen prices that vary from about $30 to $75 for these lowers. I just can't find anything that jumps out as different when comparing several popular options. |
|
The only brands that I've used are AR Stoner and Anderson, though I've also used a NoDak Spud, but you said A2.
The only thing about the AR Stoner that I don't like is that it has 'Safe' 'Fire' on both sides of the receiver. The Anderson had no engraving at all. Both of them had the rear shelf pre-milled. That all said, I wouldn't buy either of those (or any other A2 lower) for a retro rifle, at this point. I'll be getting at least one more 80%, possibly (probably), two more. One to replace an Anderson A2 on my A1 and one for a future XM177E2 build. Of those two A2 lowers though, I think I like the Andersons better. |
|
Quoted:
Some are out of spec garbage. Be sure you test fit parts and pins before you have a lot of expensive work done! I found out first hand. I called customer service about it and they said that a couple of others had that issue, and they sent me a replacement. I never did mill the second one though. I gave it to a friend and he did, and that new one was fine. |
|
Quoted:
Some are out of spec garbage. Be sure you test fit parts and pins before you have a lot of expensive work done! I found out first hand. I used a different company that will remain nameless. After doing the FCG machining, the pivot & takedown pins wouldn't align. At first the company fought me and blamed me, then after I sent pics, they acknowledged "...a case of lowers fell and one that got damaged snuck through..."  what puzzled me was the degree of slop in the template/jig. It was really tight, but fit. I only had one upper that would fit, which was odd.
I never had trouble with Tactical Machining, but they are A2, forged. I have no experience with the brands you mentioned. |
|
Quoted:
This is true. I used a different company that will remain nameless. After doing the FCG machining, the pivot & takedown pins wouldn't align. At first the company fought me and blamed me, then after I sent pics, they acknowledged "...a case of lowers fell and one that got damaged snuck through..." what puzzled me was the degree of slop in the template/jig. It was really tight, but fit. I only had one upper that would fit, which was odd.
I never had trouble with Tactical Machining, but they are A2, forged. I have no experience with the brands you mentioned. |
|
Quoted:
Was that a Tactical Machining 80% lower? I have three I've yet to touch. But plan on working on soon. The only problem I ever had was when I drilled the Hammer pin hole in the wrong position. Other than that self-inflicted issue, they've always been fine. |
|
Quoted:
I would hate to admit how many Tactical Machining 80% lowers I've completed. The only problem I ever had was when I drilled the Hammer pin hole in the wrong position. Other than that self-inflicted issue, they've always been fine. |
|
I have used several TacticalMachining, and a few from what used to be Ares. (Renamed now, after their run-in with atf).....and one from NODAK. I REALLY liked the NODAK. A LOT.
I have reprofiled the aforementioned forst two brands to A1 config. The NODAK was an A1. I still had to do a small amount of mods to the NODAK, to achieve my desired results, but was well worth the added expense to get their lower. It had the heavy flashing on the parting line. (Good, for my purpose) Most others have the flash machined off...not good in my book. I did feel the need to change the machining/tooling marks between the front pivot pin ears, and rework the bolt release bosses to the earlier/smaller bosses as used on the xm16e1 and other early models. |
|
Quoted:
I have used several TacticalMachining, and a few from what used to be Ares. (Renamed now, after their run-in with atf).....and one from NODAK. I REALLY liked the NODAK. A LOT. I have reprofiled the aforementioned forst two brands to A1 config. The NODAK was an A1. I still had to do a small amount of mods to the NODAK, to achieve my desired results, but was well worth the added expense to get their lower. It had the heavy flashing on the parting line. (Good, for my purpose) Most others have the flash machined off...not good in my book. I did feel the need to change the machining/tooling marks between the front pivot pin ears, and rework the bolt release bosses to the earlier/smaller bosses as used on the xm16e1 and other early models. Take that single factor out, and I love their stuff. |
|
Quoted:
Front pivot pin detent drilled off center and mag button recess out of spec! That's my luck! I wish I could help. I know first hand how miserable it is to machine everything perfectly, only to find the pre-machined work is shit. |
|
Brovet isn't alone with the Tactical Machining lower issues. I have two lowers from them that have the same issue of out of spec front pin detent hole and magazine catch hole. Luckily on both lowers the detent holes for the front pins are only ever so slightly out of spec that you would have to search for it visibly, it actually makes my front pivot pin fit a little more snug which isn't exactly a "problem." As for the magazine catch hole being out of spec. It seemed it was just undersized. I took a few different files to it and some sand paper and after about 30 minutes or so of test fitting magazine catch buttons it was good. Guess I lucked out.
Edit: forgot to mention both the lowers I used are blem lowers that I got from them in person when I stopped by their shop. Paid $20 for each lower. |
|
Quoted:
Brovet isn't alone with the Tactical Machining lower issues. I have two lowers from them that have the same issue of out of spec front pin detent hole and magazine catch hole. Luckily on both lowers the detent holes for the front pins are only ever so slightly out of spec that you would have to search for it visibly, it actually makes my front pivot pin fit a little more snug which isn't exactly a "problem." As for the magazine catch hole being out of spec. It seemed it was just undersized. I took a few different files to it and some sand paper and after about 30 minutes or so of test fitting magazine catch buttons it was good. Guess I lucked out. Edit: forgot to mention both the lowers I used are blem lowers that I got from them in person when I stopped by their shop. Paid $20 for each lower. |
|
Quoted:
$20 is far better than $losing $300 worth of custom work on a crap lower. At $20, I'd be a little annoyed but at $300+, I'd be steaming angry. Quoted:
Quoted:
Brovet isn't alone with the Tactical Machining lower issues. I have two lowers from them that have the same issue of out of spec front pin detent hole and magazine catch hole. Luckily on both lowers the detent holes for the front pins are only ever so slightly out of spec that you would have to search for it visibly, it actually makes my front pivot pin fit a little more snug which isn't exactly a "problem." As for the magazine catch hole being out of spec. It seemed it was just undersized. I took a few different files to it and some sand paper and after about 30 minutes or so of test fitting magazine catch buttons it was good. Guess I lucked out. Edit: forgot to mention both the lowers I used are blem lowers that I got from them in person when I stopped by their shop. Paid $20 for each lower. |
|
Quoted:
Wait a minute.....how do you knowingly buy a blem lower and then complain about it being out of spec? 
|
|
Quoted:
Wait a minute.....how do you knowingly buy a blem lower and then complain about it being out of spec? But for the most part, a blem means cosmetic. |
|
Quoted:
Has anybody used any of the ones for sale on the EE by Right To Bear Arms currently on sale @ $26 each? |
AR Sponsor