By better if you mean ‘prettier’, sure.
If by better, you mean physical properties of better, no.
This.
Anodizing is superior.
Cerekote will add material and possibly fitment issues.
By better if you mean ‘prettier’, sure.
If by better, you mean physical properties of better, no.
This.
Anodizing is superior.
Cerekote will add material and possibly fitment issues.
I feel like people are blowing this way out of proportion. Sure type 3 anodizing may be "harder" but for the people who actually use their stuff and will bang their SLR around in the truck and bush it's gonna get scratched, dented, and beat up regardless of the type of finish, and when it does throw a coat of spray bomb on it in the camo of your choice. For the people who are going to baby it and carefully protect it and treat it like a queen, cerakote will hold up their ideals of perfection just fine.
So what difference will it make in the real world? Not much.
When we signed up for the pre-order we knew we were buying an overpriced item with an unknown timeline from an untested manufacturer who is guaranteed to make some mistakes along the way and take way longer than thought, so don't act so surprised.
Two things I see happening:
1. MDI sticks with the change to cerakote because they can get the quality they want in the time frame they want, and a bunch of people will bail on them as a result.
2. They find a better source for anodizing, production will be further delayed, and a bunch of people will bail on them as a result.
Pick your poison.
This.
Anodizing is superior.
Cerekote will add material and possibly fitment issues.
I believe cerakote and anodizing adds about the same amount.
RDSC is quality guys. This is a smart move. They have been trained and certified by cerakote. They are not just a Joe blow shop experimenting with colors.
RDSC is quality guys. This is a smart move. They have been trained and certified by cerakote. They are not just a Joe blow shop experimenting with colors.
If their cerekoting instead I’d say lower price on receivers since you paid for an anodized one not a cerekoted one
Just playing devils advocate here. But wouldnt cerakote cost more money than anodizing? I honestly don't know but I would think it does?
It's night and day comparing the Type 3 anodizing on the Stag 10 vs my cerakoted BCL-102. A friend flopped open my Stag 10 receiver set and the sharp extension threads on the upper wedged into the lower receiver pretty hard, and it didn't even leave a mark. Yet I set my cerakoted BCL-102 down on the brass deflector a bit too hard and immediately had a piece of cerakote flake off where the aluminum deformed.
ATRS MS is being produced in Calgary is it not, wonder where they get theirs Type III anodized...
I feel like people are blowing this way out of proportion. Sure type 3 anodizing may be "harder" but for the people who actually use their stuff and will bang their SLR around in the truck and bush it's gonna get scratched, dented, and beat up regardless of the type of finish, and when it does throw a coat of spray bomb on it in the camo of your choice. For the people who are going to baby it and carefully protect it and treat it like a queen, cerakote will hold up their ideals of perfection just fine.
So what difference will it make in the real world? Not much.
When we signed up for the pre-order we knew we were buying an overpriced item with an unknown timeline from an untested manufacturer who is guaranteed to make some mistakes along the way and take way longer than thought, so don't act so surprised.
Two things I see happening:
1. MDI sticks with the change to cerakote because they can get the quality they want in the time frame they want, and a bunch of people will bail on them as a result.
2. They find a better source for anodizing, production will be further delayed, and a bunch of people will bail on them as a result.
Pick your poison.