AR Lower Opinion Question....

incorrigible said:
I'm not necessarily convinced of this either. I had a Colt 6920 a few years back that I considered to have more play between the upper and lower than would have been otherwise be preferable. Also handled some out of the box that I'd go so far as to say they were sloppy.
Click to expand...

At the risk of sounding like a broken record...
The amount of play between upper and lower doesn't affect performance. It may be an asthetics issue for the owner though, so whatever floats their boat.

incorrigible said:
Manufacturing techiniques have come a long way, even over the last 10 years, but it takes some searching and a bit of luck to find one with proper tolerances, even within a brand line.
Click to expand...

Tolerances are defined as a +/- to a given dimension - I don't think tolerances have changed a bit with respect to most everything on an AR.
I think Sparrow nailed it: with the exception of a few in the last couple of years, I don't think there is a lower out there that won't work.
 
I like a little "wiggle" room between the receivers myself, I also like being able to open the rifle without a punch...on a side note...my Colt 6920 will drop mags free even with un-ground rivets...my Stag will not, the rivets will have to be be filed flat. Both drop free with standard mags...if we didn't have these asinine laws I doubt I would have even noticed.
 
beltfed said:
At the risk of sounding like a broken record...
The amount of play between upper and lower doesn't affect performance. It may be an asthetics issue for the owner though, so whatever floats their boat.



Tolerances are defined as a +/- to a given dimension - I don't think tolerances have changed a bit with respect to most everything on an AR.
I think Sparrow nailed it: with the exception of a few in the last couple of years, I don't think there is a lower out there that won't work.
Click to expand...

A rifle that has significant play between the upper and lower will probably function well, but accuracy won't likely be worth crap, so I guess it boils down to whether you want to spray lead down range or be precise.
I know that the closer the tolerances of the upper and lower match up the less play between the 2 parts is the result, and the accuracy is much better.
I own several "commercial" ( Colts, DPMS and Bushmaster) ARs and none of them shoot as accurately as the 1 we built here even with the DPMS barrel that I initially fitted it with.

From a function standpoint I would agree with you, but to me accuracy is as important as function.
 
Final fit is out of some brands hands because many just assemble parts purchased from from a small number of manufacturers, so what they receive is what they have.

Stag Arms rifles fit as well as they do because they are the brand and the manufacturer (Continental Machine Tool), and have a floor full of 50 year old+ engineers who have been making AR parts for over 25 years in many cases. These gentlemen sit all day at benches with a loupe on one eye, hand filing and finishing each upper and lower to exacting tolerances gained by years of experience and as demanded by the CEO, who is "mad" about fit and finish. The final result is not an accident. This time spent hand fitting costs more, but it is offset by the fact that they are manufacturing for themselves, and in great volume.

Experience, ability AND desire for perfection count. Not all brands can combine the three. Good ARs don't pop out of a CNC machine ready to ship.
 
Ar's are range guns, in Canada anyway. I'm happy with my Armalite lower. If I want a pretty one, I guess I can get it gold plated like Saddam's AKs:p
 
I have owned Colt, LMT, Stag and played with Armalite, Bushy, etc. While these are all quality lowers (really like my LMT and Stag) I would have to agree with MATT and Gunbuny about the ATRS lowers. I came across one in a rifle purchase and after fondling it, I had to get another one. I now have two that I seriously doubt I will ever part with. Fit, finish and aesthetically they just work for me. Not to mention they are CANADIAN too. Love the maple leaf insignia! Just my 0.02.
 
At trhe risk of being shot down, I'll say that my Socom billet is really the nicest lower I've ever played with. Its vault tight with both my uppers No play at all. I hate play between upper and lower.
 
Why is everyone so obsessed with lowers these days? As long as it's not a wonky out of spec freakshow, it's really not the half that counts.
 
Has nothing to do with lowers, its always been about getting the best toys...better than the neihbours at least. if you read throught most of the threads on this site it applies to all guns
 
FPembleton said:
Why is everyone so obsessed with lowers these days? As long as it's not a wonky out of spec freakshow, it's really not the half that counts.
Click to expand...

Because machined lowers are Gucci. I don't have one, and the lowers I have work just fine with the uppers I have...but I still wake up in the wee hours of the morning lusting after an ATRS machined lower. :redface:

Well no, not really. But they do look pretty Kewl.
 
alberta tactical rifle said:
A rifle that has significant play between the upper and lower will probably function well, but accuracy won't likely be worth crap, so I guess it boils down to whether you want to spray lead down range or be precise.
I know that the closer the tolerances of the upper and lower match up the less play between the 2 parts is the result, and the accuracy is much better.
I own several "commercial" ( Colts, DPMS and Bushmaster) ARs and none of them shoot as accurately as the 1 we built here even with the DPMS barrel that I initially fitted it with.

From a function standpoint I would agree with you, but to me accuracy is as important as function.
Click to expand...

The only way I can see someone presenting these statements as factual is if they tested this theory by holding only the lower during firing. If you put your rifle on a bench and rested the upper on a bipod or within a rest, and did not actually steady both receiver groups (the rifle as a whole), I can definately see play between the two playing havoc with follow through and the subsequent poi.

For all others that care to actually hold onto their firearms;) this wouldn't affect them, because no matter how you slice it, the lower plays ZERO part in hindering or helping the accuracy of an AR.
 
My Stag 4R is amazingly tight and shoots about MOA with SS109.
My C7A1 is frighteningly loose and shoots about MOA with SS109.

Both shot with a 4.5-14x50 Mark 4.

In service rifle you will never notice the difference caused by reciever fit. If you are however building an AR to shoot F class you need to give your head a shake.
 
I'm fond of the cutting-board lowers.

2008-11-02_012916_as_tested.jpg


http://www.weaponeer.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8035&PN=1&TPN=3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3chSzLxPuzU

;)
 
I have 2 ATR lowers that I'm satisfied with.

I also had a couple Colt 6920's that were good. The Stag and RRA lowers I had were also trouble-free.

But, I prefer my Knights SR-15 lower, mainly because of the ambi controls. I'm right-handed, but left eye dominant. So I shoot pistol righty, but longer guns lefty.

If I could get anotherr SR-15 lower, I'd be a very happy man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom