AR Sponsor
Posted: 4/23/2015 11:05:03 AM EDT
|
Recently purchased 2 stripped Anderson lowers. Nice finish, great price. Finally got around to assembling, ran into some problems
Receiver #1- Bolt catch wouldn't fit in slot.Tried 3 different catches, no go. No obvious burrs on receiver. Filed sides of slot, catch finally fit. Receiver #2- Front take-down pin wouldn't fit in hole, no way. Tried 2 different pins. No obvious burrs on receiver. Used drill bit on T wrench. Finally got it to fit. I've assembled over 20 lowers, various makes. Never ran into these issues before. Just a heads-up to you guys. Good news, both functioned perfectly. 2 mags through each. |
|
I built one 2 weeks ago. My take was that it was right on tolerances....everything "just fit" with zero slack or slop. The tightest was the mag catch. I liked how it went together. It felt like something made to exacting standards rather than loose and sloppy.
I'm very happy with the first one and have one more for a future build. |
|
Whose parts kit were you using? Ive done three so far..........no issues and their customer service is top notch...........check out the video and tour of their shop where they machine these little bargains..........
Anderson is good to go........price and quality=value |
|
Quoted:
Whose parts kit were you using? Ive done three so far..........no issues and their customer service is top notch...........check out the video and tour of their shop where they machine these little bargains.......... Anderson is good to go........price and quality=value Except for taking off too much material between the grip and the stock, yes, my friend's are good to go. |
|
Quoted: And did you contact Spikes?  Quoted: Quoted: I've used 2 and had no issues whatsoever. Fit and finish was clean and tight. My Spikes builds on the other hand... And did you contact Spikes? |
|
Quoted:
I have an Anderson lower that a buffer tube will only screw in a couple of threads .  
Going to try another tube . If that doesn't work , guess I'll contact Anderson . gd Good news . Tried another tube and it works . Still tight as hell but at least now the build can progress . gd |
|
Got two Anderson lowers in the other day. Along with TR Enabling LPK's.
Pivot pin wouldn't close in the first one and had to file some off of the flat side of the pivot pin head to fit, (did try other pivot pins with the same result), the second Anderson lower went together nicely and I'm very happy with the fit and finish of it. I will try more, at least until I have a problem that isn't simple to fix....and I'm sure that the lower could have been replaced but like an earlier poster, I'm impatient about exchanges especially when it's an easy fix. Cheers |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have an Anderson lower that a buffer tube will only screw in a couple of threads .
Going to try another tube . If that doesn't work , guess I'll contact Anderson . gd Good news . Tried another tube and it works . Still tight as hell but at least now the build can progress . gd No problems with my Anderson lower with closed trigger guard. Was the buffer tube that wouldn't fit, The $16 7075/T6 from receiver nation on ebay? the guy sent me two neither one would fit my Anderson lower with closed trigger guard, it would only screw in a couple of threads. IT Cost 8 bucks to send them back to the jackass. I bought one a couple years ago from him that works great. So I bought a BCM that screwed right in. |
|
Quoted:
Recently purchased 2 stripped Anderson lowers. Nice finish, great price. Finally got around to assembling, ran into some problems Receiver #1- Bolt catch wouldn't fit in slot.Tried 3 different catches, no go. No obvious burrs on receiver. Filed sides of slot, catch finally fit. Receiver #2- Front take-down pin wouldn't fit in hole, no way. Tried 2 different pins. No obvious burrs on receiver. Used drill bit on T wrench. Finally got it to fit. I've assembled over 20 lowers, various makes. Never ran into these issues before. Just a heads-up to you guys. Good news, both functioned perfectly. 2 mags through each. I tried using a strike industries LPK in an Anderson lower and the bolt catch would not fit. I had two Anderson lowers at the time and it wouldn't fit in either. It was the LPK and not the lower, as a CMMG LPK bolt catch fit just fine. |
My thoughts on Anderson lowers. Its a no frill lower that the manufacturer is not raping the consumer for a huge fast profit. I'm looking at mine...yep it doesn't say spikes, stag or rock river. Its just as functionable as the ones I listed without the surcharge for a BIG name brand. They still are probably profiting $20 a receiver instead of $50+ a receiver. The only downside I found on mine is the ugly ass horse  on the side they could have just had Anderson Manufacturing for the roll mark.
|
|
Quoted:
My thoughts on Anderson lowers. Its a no frill lower that the manufacturer is not raping the consumer for a huge fast profit. I'm looking at mine...yep it doesn't say spikes, stag or rock river. Its just as functionable as the ones I listed without the surcharge for a BIG name brand. They still are probably profiting $20 a receiver instead of $50+ a receiver. The only downside I found on mine is the ugly ass horse on the side they could have just had Anderson Manufacturing for the roll mark.Don't take this personal, it's for ALL that make the same statement. Colt has a horse on their lowers, and I never heard anybody complain about it |
|
Quoted:
Don't take this personal, it's for ALL that make the same statement. Colt has a horse on their lowers, and I never heard anybody complain about it Quoted:
Quoted:
My thoughts on Anderson lowers. Its a no frill lower that the manufacturer is not raping the consumer for a huge fast profit. I'm looking at mine...yep it doesn't say spikes, stag or rock river. Its just as functionable as the ones I listed without the surcharge for a BIG name brand. They still are probably profiting $20 a receiver instead of $50+ a receiver. The only downside I found on mine is the ugly ass horse on the side they could have just had Anderson Manufacturing for the roll mark.Don't take this personal, it's for ALL that make the same statement. Colt has a horse on their lowers, and I never heard anybody complain about it None taken at all. Its like women we all have our own likes and dislikes. |
|
Quoted:
Don't take this personal, it's for ALL that make the same statement. Colt has a horse on their lowers, and I never heard anybody complain about it Quoted:
Quoted:
My thoughts on Anderson lowers. Its a no frill lower that the manufacturer is not raping the consumer for a huge fast profit. I'm looking at mine...yep it doesn't say spikes, stag or rock river. Its just as functionable as the ones I listed without the surcharge for a BIG name brand. They still are probably profiting $20 a receiver instead of $50+ a receiver. The only downside I found on mine is the ugly ass horse on the side they could have just had Anderson Manufacturing for the roll mark.Don't take this personal, it's for ALL that make the same statement. Colt has a horse on their lowers, and I never heard anybody complain about it I'm amazed (and somewhat fascinated) by the preoccupation with roll marks. I've got lowers from three different manufacturers and I don't pay any attention to the roll marks. Honestly, as long as it doesn't compromise the physical integrity of the lower, who freakin' cares? |
|
I put one together about three weeks ago. Greased both the pivot & take-down holes, mine slipped right in. I can manipulate them with my thumbs. Unlike my Daniel Defense which takes an aid to get them moving.
You must have gotten one from a bad run. Surprising, as I understand that Anderson is a major producer of AR receivers??? |
AR Sponsor