Are all lowers created equal?

[FuManChu]

I am a newer member to the forums and long time lurker, if I am posting this in the wrong place or just the wrong format please feel free to tell me. Also if there is a post that basically already addresses this please point me in the right direction in case I missed it looking around on the forum.

I have been doing research on lowers trying to figure out the difference of what makes a lower duty quality versus a hobby quality lower. Every time I go around the internet I feel like there is this circle jerk of only one answer I get that, "all lowers are created by mainly 4 specific manufactures (LMT, CMT, LAR, and MMS) and they are all the same equivalent quality besides certain aesthetics and level of finish or roll marks." I don't feel that truly gives me though any information on why. Feels like its a lazy answer I get for when people don't want to actually give you any real info on what constitutes a quality lower. The best post I have found on lowers so far was from AR-15.com and even then I feel like I trust it as far as I know who the guy who typed it looks like.

AR-15 post for reference: https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_12/...k-beware--MMS--CMT--LAR--LMT-compared---.html

He gives good information it seems to me at face value but to quote some of the mod casts I don't know what I don't know so it briefs well in certain aspects about what the difference in manufacturing qualities of the lowers. What the post doesn't give me is what parts of the lower I should check for spec and what pros and cons come from forged and billet because I have seen contradicting info researching that subject. At this point I'm just sticking to forged lowers for the time being until I find some solid answers on that front. I mainly sight my big ah ha moment that I need to know more about lowers is when @borebrush was taking about pin hole placement in a mod cast is what he checks on lowers. I hope for more elaboration on information like that or at least info on that level because I had never thought of that as a quality concern on lowers. I have heard about pin hole size but not location being something to check. Another thing bothers me is when everyone says certain lowers are mil spec and I thought the only companies that could make that claim honestly was Colt, FN, and sort of Daniel Defense, because they had the TDP to make then true mil spec (please correct me if I am wrong).

TL;DR I want to hopefully get some solid, sets me straight, knowledge on what makes a quality lower and the real signs to check for to prove that it is. While hopefully dispelling some misinformation that I may have read and can't tell is fact or fiction. I am not asking for a list either on best lowers to buy or anything like that because that is an ever changing list that will never be a constant. Please feel free to correct any of my statements or errors in this post all I want to do is learn the right information and not be led around by people who sort of know because they read it one time on a forum post by some dude named Billy Ray Bob who built an AR-15 in his barn.

 

[Longeye]

This may not be what you are looking for, but you will not go wrong with the major tier one lowers. In no particular order:
Colt, LMT, BCM, Daniel Defense, Hodge, and apparently SOL(GW).

The lesser brands: Bushmaster/Windham, RRA, DPMS, Eagle, Anderson, even S&W all have presented repeated problems to me on the work bench.

When people state: "They are allowed made by 4 and it is just a name stamped on the side with different finish specs/tolerances, the latter is the thing to focus on. Those 4 forge companies can make any grade of product. They charge according to quality. If company A wants tier 1 quality with commensurate QC/QA they will pay more, and consequently charge more for the lower they spec'd out.

On the other hand, company B wants to corner the sub 60 Dollar market. They will not be checking magazines to assure they drop free, or checking every 25 th lower to make sure the receiver extension threads are correctly timed.
You get what you pay for.

Consider also that the lower is likely the longest lasting part of your weapon. Do you want to base the next 3-5 barrels and an expensive trigger on the cheapest lower you can find?

The lower is what you will put a magazine in thousands of times. It is what you will put an expensive trigger in, based on existing FCG pin holes.
It is what holds the receiver extension on.
It is what retains the upper, and aligns the magazine with the feedlips of the upper/barrel.
It needs to be right.

If you decide to manufacture a SBR lower on a Form 1 that goes 10x.

Remember, the AR is a system of parts. All the parts have to be within tolerance to work optimally together. Ideally, all the parts are near the middle of the tolerance range.

Buy quality. Quality is rarely "on sale" or "clearance priced".

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[FuManChu]

@Longeye That was definitely something along the lines I wanted to read it was helpful and definitely better read than what I have been finding. I appreciate your time and response.
I was also wondering if anyone has heard anything on the knights armaments stripped lowers, because I have been contemplating picking a few up. I like it because I want to trust the name (this is not always a sound idea sadly) and plus its one of the few roll marks on lowers I like. My ideal Lower roll marks are the few that make it legal and either fire and safe or HK style equivalent (I'm weird like that I guess).

Stripped Lower in question- http://www.smallarmsales.com/product-p/22360.htm

 

[Longeye]

Knights is tier one as well. Just not common, with their emphasis on govt sales and big contracts.
G&R has that lower available as well.

You won't go wrong with a few Knights Armament lowers.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[FuManChu]

Thanks again @Longeye for your replies they have been helpful.

 

[Jonathan Carbonaro]

How do the following lowers match up?
Archer, Aero, Spikes etc.
I'm not entirely happy with my Aero lower that I've used on my most recent project, but I'm not sure if that's due to the cerekote or the lower itself.

 

[Longeye]

You have them ranked in the right order...

And Cerekote covers a lot of finish problems. It also can create as many as it covers. As paint goes, Cerekote is too much of a good thing. Most Cerekote applicators get it on much to thick, which creates tolerance stacking problems.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Jonathan Carbonaro]

Longeye,
I'm assuming you'd rank Archer up there with the Tier 1 lowers?
My debate is right now, do I use a rifle I put together for duty use as a possible future Civilian Leo? Currently I'm a Military Armorer, so I have the tools/knowledge and the T.O. sitting in front of me whenever I do something. I know it will be right and it will work. Or would I be better off grabbing a BCM complete Lower, and a BCM complete upper for duty use?
On my Aero lower, I've lost the smoothness of the retaining pins and the smoothness of taking the upper away from the lower has been lost compared to other rifles/pistols I've used. It looks cool, but I think its lost what could of been a good little SBR (once I had filed a stamp/haven't yet).

 

[Longeye]

Archer is top shelf, duty grade stuff. The principles are guys who have used this equipment and won't push product out the door that is not street/armorer worthy.

Your Aero: It sounds like you have a tolerance stacking problem, probably from the Cerekote. Is there any functionality loss with the other parts; ie bolt catch, mag release, trigger group? All your out right now is a $100 lower, and a overpriced coat of paint. If you coated the lower and the takedown pins both try installing uncoated pins. Failing that sell the stripped lower, and get another.

Duty carbine:
Your cart is ahead of the horse. Your future agency may have policy on Personal Owned, Dept Approved weapons. Or maybe not. That will ultimately drive the program.

That said, if your carbine is put together by the book, with quality components, is in a commonly reliable configuration, and has passed a reasonable function fire test, I would call it duty ready.

The caveat: Own your own program. If your carbine ceases to be reliable, either fix it post haste, or humbly accept the dept's issue weapon. Don't be "That guy" that insists his carbine is GTG despite failures to function every time it sees the range. Be objective. Your stuff either works or it doesn't.
As an armorer, you should be on top of this. If you print PODA guns to the range, they better work better than the issue stuff. If they do not, you should be professionally embarrassed.

Reality:

If a good guy dies or gets fucked up because of your weapon failure, you will carry that knowledge to the grave. His wife and girlfriend(s) will discuss you in unkind ways. His friends will be pissed at you to the end of their days.





Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Jonathan Carbonaro]

Hell I still got to get hired. If they end up allowing POW's for rifles and what I have meets the requirement great, if it doesn't then I'll use what they tell me or if its a POW and mine don't meet requirements then I'll just cross that bridge when the time comes.
IF I get hired on somewhere and they allow POW's I'll use an already put manufactured rifle. The last thing I want on my Conscious is someone innocent died because of my work on a weapon if it did malfunction or a part did break because of personal negligence.

As far as the Aero goes, I think you're right with the Cerekote causing tolerance problems.

 

[Longeye]

I wasn't telling you not to use or trust your own work. I was just laying out some things I have seen.

Sometimes, the PODA guns are better than what the department issues or is able to maintain. In that case, you would be foolish and negligent to use the issued, factory assembled stuff.

Bottom line is: Use quality parts, assembled correctly, and to specification. Then stay on top of maintenance. And wear the gun out staying proficent.


Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[spinmove_]

What's the consensus on the GWACS CAV-15 MKII polymer lower?

http://www.gwacsarmory.com/lower-receivers-ar-15/

 

[Longeye]

My information on Archer turns out to be dated. The people that I trust to do right are no longer associated with the company. It may men nothing or everything, but people matter.

 

[PM07]

From a LE Supervisor perspective, a good amount of agencies do not authorize personally built patrol rifles or personally owned weapons, at least in my area. My former agency did, because I wrote the policy and it was very, very specific about the components authorized for use. Also, depending on the agency, they may not allow you to work on your issued carbine. Its partly due to a civil liability stand point as far as malfunctions that cause injuries etc. Having one company to answer for a something going wrong vs. a multitude. When someone asks me, I usually recommend buying a complete lower and uppers, especially if its for LE duty use . Depending on the company it still allows for some customization in the trigger, barrel length etc.