Gotcha. one = "often".I have personally seen an Anderson lower that was out of spec. Trigger pin holes not drilled properly. Built one for a neighbor. Not “nonsense “
Last edited:
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.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Gotcha. one = "often".I have personally seen an Anderson lower that was out of spec. Trigger pin holes not drilled properly. Built one for a neighbor. Not “nonsense “
KAC (Knight's Armament) AR's are largely considered the ones to have for the most serious applications. Their receivers are forged. Billet is fine, but mostly for larping factor.Also, CNC might be precise in theory, but it all comes down to machine tolerances, end mill state, and quality of initial CAD and machine code. CNC is not infallible just because of the computer aspect.
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?KAC (Knight's Armament) AR's are largely considered the ones to have for the most serious applications. Their receivers are forged. Billet is fine, but mostly for larping factor.
Yes, often. I have seen lots of complaints about Anderson lowers being out of spec and experienced it myself. The struggle is real.Gotcha. one = "often".
Did you send your out of spec receiver back to Anderson for a replacement?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
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.Does the manufacturer of the lower reaaalllly matter? I bought a cheap Anderson complete Lower, I plan on a new trigger job with some other small upgrades. But, as long as my upper is of high quality, does it matter? I’m new to the AR platform so please be nice. Thank you
-SmoothDataDan
Depends on if it fits your upper. Other than that probably not much.Does the manufacturer of the lower reaaalllly matter? I bought a cheap Anderson complete Lower, I plan on a new trigger job with some other small upgrades. But, as long as my upper is of high quality, does it matter? I’m new to the AR platform so please be nice. Thank you
-SmoothDataDan
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.Does the manufacturer of the lower reaaalllly matter? I bought a cheap Anderson complete Lower, I plan on a new trigger job with some other small upgrades. But, as long as my upper is of high quality, does it matter? I’m new to the AR platform so please be nice. Thank you
-SmoothDataDan
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.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.
Isn't that the primary buyer of these, someone who wants a "mil-spec" rifle?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
It is. It is either IN spec, or OUT OF spec. Black and white. On and off. 0 and 1.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.
Going above and beyond "mil-spec" is still within the spec; so it is IN spec.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.
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.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've heard of some stuff that doesn't work with other parts from other manufacturers,
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.Then, by definition, wouldn't that be "out of spec"?
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.Mated a S&W Sport lower to a BCM Upper, no problems. Why do people worry about this?
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.I have personally seen an Anderson lower that was out of spec. Trigger pin holes not drilled properly. Built one for a neighbor. Not “nonsense “
Ha "Angry Joe". Now I love it even more!
ThisEvery manufacturer has outliers and duds. I bet Anderson has more of those on average but most are fine.
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....
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: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?
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.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
The very first ar I had was on Anderson. Nothing bad about it, and nothing great. It works. An aero m4e1 is better.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.
Does the manufacturer of the lower reaaalllly matter? I bought a cheap Anderson complete Lower, I plan on a new trigger job with some other small upgrades. But, as long as my upper is of high quality, does it matter? I’m new to the AR platform so please be nice. Thank you
-SmoothDataDan