-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Am I crazy?
- Thread starter SmoothDatadan
- Start date
allen-1
NES Member
Forged vs. Cast Aluminum | Queen City Forging
Description: What are the key differences between forging and casting aluminum. Knowing how the metallurgical properties will be impacted will be vital in knowing which solution will be right for your needs.
www.qcforge.com
"Forged products will be the choice when components must exhibit maximum properties and durability in service, where weight and mass must be minimized and failure would be costly or catastrophic. Other processes seek to claim “wrought properties” but only the forging process can consistently and reliably supply it."
ReluctantDecoy
NES Member
KAC are what real...and I hate to even type this word as it makes it seem like I'm setting up a joke, but "operators" use, right?
I full on believe that forged can be just as good, if not better than CNC/billet stuff given the right manufacturer. All the "CNC/billet are tighter tolerances" arguments are a huge assumption. Quality control and manufacturing experience is what really matters.
Yes, often. I have seen lots of complaints about Anderson lowers being out of spec and experienced it myself. The struggle is real.
Just because you haven’t seen it does make any less true.
Don’t see those number of complaints about other modern brands
Did you send your out of spec receiver back to Anderson for a replacement?
ANDERSON MANUFACTURING LIMITED LIFETIME WARRANTY
1. Warranty:Anderson Manufacturing warrants to the original purchaser of its products that its products are free from defects in materials and workmanship for the entire time that the product is owned by the original purchaser. The original purchase must be in the United States. The sole and exclusive remedy is limited to repairing or replacing, at our option, any product manufactured by Anderson Manufacturing that is determined to be defective. Any defective product will be remedied by Anderson Manufacturing or its authorized representative without charge, other than freight and insurance charges for return of the product. If we send you a new product, we will keep the defective one.
2. Exclusions:
Anderson Manufacturing will not be responsible for defects, malfunctions or required repairs resulting from:
- Improper assembly of a firearm using Anderson Manufacturing parts, using parts not manufactured by Anderson Manufacturing or using incorrect components.
- Damage or breakage to Anderson Manufacturing parts during assembly by the purchaser, such as stripping threads, cracking parts due to overtightening or snapping trigger guard ears due to improper installation.
- Unauthorized or improper modification or alteration.
- Improper repair or disassembly.
- Careless handling, abuse, neglect, criminal misuse, negligence or use under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
- Unreasonable use, i.e., use of the products under conditions more severe than those for which they were designed and intended.
- Normal wear, tear and/or corrosion.
- Use of defective or improper ammunition including remanufactured ammunition.
Last edited:
There is nothing wrong with your Anderson lower. The issue is do you want to spend a ton on a upper or just have a solid serviceable rifle? Anderson lower and barrel are just fine for this.
If I want mil spec I'm OK with Anderson, have some, have some Spikes, have RR. Stag is great, whatever. I do prefer a solid trigger guard - no sense having to install those if you ask me.
The trouble is if you want better, and I believe say Aero enhanced (ie M4E1), other brands up level recievers, are better and not just cosmetically: flared magwells, replacing pins with threaded fasteners, tensioning screw to take up any play between upper and lower, hangaurds fastening directly to the upper via an integral collar, that sort of stuff etc... Well then you really want a matched reciever set, not a mil spec lower and a higher end upper - it indeed tends to fit ok but you are passing up features and the rifle probably looks stupid.
So if you just want mil spec - go buy decent quality mil spec, I wouldn't split hairs much on it. But if you want better, buy a matched set from who you like - the added $150 is peanuts compared to the overall cost and especially so if you start getting picky on barrel, trigger, other parts.
The trouble is if you want better, and I believe say Aero enhanced (ie M4E1), other brands up level recievers, are better and not just cosmetically: flared magwells, replacing pins with threaded fasteners, tensioning screw to take up any play between upper and lower, hangaurds fastening directly to the upper via an integral collar, that sort of stuff etc... Well then you really want a matched reciever set, not a mil spec lower and a higher end upper - it indeed tends to fit ok but you are passing up features and the rifle probably looks stupid.
So if you just want mil spec - go buy decent quality mil spec, I wouldn't split hairs much on it. But if you want better, buy a matched set from who you like - the added $150 is peanuts compared to the overall cost and especially so if you start getting picky on barrel, trigger, other parts.
Randy Lahey
NES Member
Depends on if it fits your upper. Other than that probably not much.
I'm no hardware expert, but I've learned a few things over the years. Mil-spec is mil-spec. It's mil-spec for a reason.
The only way I can reasonably see an advantage within the mil-spec world would be matched sets that take away any movement during the functioning of the rifle. I think 99.9% of shooters aren't good enough to correct or compensate for the initial force pulse from the firing pin striking the primer. Stuff starts to move even before that, since you're a human, but that explosion causes stuff to move within the rifle. The less movement, assuming a perfect sight alignment, the better. Key word there is sight alignment, the bullet goes where the sights are when the bullet leaves the barrel. When you leave the mil-spec world, you run into proprietary hardware that may or may not work with other platforms. You probably get better functionality for that single rifle, but it's only that rifle.
I've had M4's that rattled like a baby's toy, but they still shot well within practical combat accuracy.
Yup, and "practical combat accuracy" is all I've ever looked for with my AR builds. They are not "sniper accuracy" rifles and never intended for them to be. I've got other rifles and better ammo if I want gnat's ass accuracy.
Isn't that the primary buyer of these, someone who wants a "mil-spec" rifle?
It is. It is either IN spec, or OUT OF spec. Black and white. On and off. 0 and 1.
Going above and beyond "mil-spec" is still within the spec; so it is IN spec.
This might be good for someone who competes or hunts with one, as two possible examples.
I get what you're saying, I'm talking about milled to match parts. So the difference between 'in spec' and matched. The difference in metal touching metal firmly vs metal with air in between that allows for movement. I've heard of some stuff that doesn't work with other parts from other manufacturers, I might be falling for the 'heard it on the web' fallacy.
I've never shot an AR/M4 that just threw rounds if I was doing my job. I may have thrown some in my time, but it wasn't the gun's fault.
I guess that would be the case. Going back to the OP, I was just saying spec is 'good enough' to hit a human sized target at 400-800. I've never shot anything that far to test it. I'm sure prior mil guys can attest.
Edit: hopefully before Coyote responds: I'm wondering if an extreme 'in spec' one way would work with an extreme 'in spec' the opposite way on the matching part would work well?
Some people want their guns to not look like shit or have extra slop. In reality wrt getting a "functional" gun, neither one actually matter unless your stuff is way out of spec.
Last edited:
Lol awhile ago someone posted a KAC lower that was really f***ed up. Every manufacturer has outliers and duds. I bet Anderson has more of those on average but most are fine. I will never buy one (I just don't see the point when theres better feature enabled and finished stuff for marginally more money) but they have a purpose. You can build cheap guns with them. They're no worse than the lowers on the bottom 50% of ARs sold in the US.
Also if you're buying Andersons you should have like a box full of them. They're cheap enough for that. You can just bin the parts and RMA the shit ones.
PSA had it was called the angryjoe-14
Chris M.
NES Member
Ha "Angry Joe". Now I love it even more!
I have built let's say a few AR's. I used either old school Mega and new school Anderson's. Zero issues with any. All I can say about that.
I do have a DD rifle. When firing it. I do feel like everyone else on the range is below me. Cuz, it shoots so much better......lol
I do have a DD rifle. When firing it. I do feel like everyone else on the range is below me. Cuz, it shoots so much better......lol
Anderson is GTG. I like the Aero with the upper tension screw, just a personal preference.
Tolerance stacking is a thing. Just because you buy expensive parts, doesn't mean you're guaranteed a tight upper/lower fit.
Chances are the rifle will shoot better than you can anways....
Tolerance stacking is a thing. Just because you buy expensive parts, doesn't mean you're guaranteed a tight upper/lower fit.
Chances are the rifle will shoot better than you can anways....
cathouse01
NES Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2018
- Messages
- 2,441
- Likes
- 4,668
Actually that is the whole purpose of Mil-Spec. The tolerances are there so that even when you stack them, you still get a functioning rifle. (ETA functional from the Army’s point of view, which is Minute of Man at 300 meters.). You want to be able to take a part from any one rifle and use it in any other rifle. The whole idea is to prevent you from having to do what Tuco ( The Good, The Bad and The Ugly ) had to do in the gun shop:
Last edited:
Not discounting the problem you had, I believe it. There are a lot of internet pig piles on Anderson that are 99% hearsay. I've read many and there are a couple people with real issues and a host of hundreds chiming in. Maybe they had a bad run or two that weren't stopped by QC. All of my experience and firsthand accounts have been positive.
The very first ar I had was on Anderson. Nothing bad about it, and nothing great. It works. An aero m4e1 is better.
All lowers I have are identical, for 15 and 10, any can be swapped out with no issues. Makes life easier.
Some people are so mated to their own opinions that they can't accept someone else's.
If it works for you, build on and enjoy!
Similar threads
