My first AR

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Alex984
    Unwashed
    • Jan 2018
    • 2

    #16
    Wow, great info guys. Thanks. Some specific replies below...

    Probably sacrilege around here, but I'm not sure I'll like the AR and I think a complete lower from a reputable company would have better resale than something a first time builder like myself could put together.

    Originally posted by Sticks View Post
    Just like the lower, you can assemble the upper yourself, just buy a high end barrel if that is your goal.
    As for the upper, it seems like chamber spacing can be tricky. Maybe not?

    Originally posted by just_john View Post
    Welcome to the Clan, Alex984, from the Great Nation of Texas! Your plan is sound - as stated above, some of the lead times are painful. You might also look at Alexander Arms for the upper. What part of the world are you in?
    I'm in Virginia. A few hours from PF and more than a few hours from AA. AA does seem like good stuff. My impression was that you pay more for PF but get more for your money. I could be wrong.

    Originally posted by Randy99CL View Post
    If a lower is forged and is a collection of unknown parts how are some priced at $100 while others (that seem no better) are around $400?
    This isn't Cadillac/Chevy or Zeiss/Simmons where it is obvious that you're getting a better product, these pieces are usually "mil-spec" and that guarantees that they function the same.
    Hey, something I can actually answer! I'm a (civilian) army engineer and work with "mil spec" all the time. It doesn't really mean what you think it does. In the commercial rifle world, I think it just means it's built to the right tolerances with a suitable material, not that it's gone through the myriad qualifications, quality assurance, and environmental testing. Environmental testing (MIL-STD-810G) is itself a document the size of a phone book and testing to that standard is only as good as the engineer who specified the correct measures.


    Originally posted by Lastrites View Post
    Ok I'll be that guy and say I wouldn't buy that lower at that price point. Brownells has or had complete Colt lowers for $250 and that price point would be tops as I still would want a nicer trigger. Palmetto State Armory has a complete lower with a Magpul Moe stock for $150 shipped, add a nicer trigger and your at $250 to $300. OP in my opinion you would be best served to do some shopping.



    Colt complete lower
    https://www.brownells.com/rifle-part...rod109740.aspx
    I thought about that Colt but it's out of stock and I have my doubts it'll come back at that price. If I do end up ordering the PF upper, I guess I'll have 8-10 more weeks to think about a lower, though. I will look more into PSA. Thanks for your advice.

    Originally posted by Sean Boburk View Post
    Personally, I would go the MOE route (or better yet, ACS-L). I've got a scar on my forehead that says that I don't like the stock adjustment lever exposed. I leaned on it when shooting at the range with my AR308, and the stock collapsed, driving the scope into my forehead. Maybe I'm just a dumbass
    Dumb question: MOE is a stock type?

    Comment

    • Drillboss
      Warrior
      • Jan 2015
      • 894

      #17
      MOE is a model name Magpul puts on a few of their buttstocks. Here's one of them:

      Comment

      • zcostilla
        Warrior
        • Aug 2017
        • 110

        #18
        Attached Files
        Last edited by zcostilla; 01-10-2018, 04:48 AM.
        -Zac

        Husband, Father, Veteran. Grateful for my redemption.

        Comment

        • Randy99CL
          Warrior
          • Oct 2017
          • 562

          #19
          Haven't we discussed this before? Sorry, may have been someone else.

          I have to respectfully disagree with this statement. I think that most companies (can't verify all) give at least a small discount when a complete upper or lower is purchased.
          I ordered BCA upper SKU #UASC6.5RHB20185R(MF)-(15)MLOK. Retail price is $334.99 and with the 10% Veteran discount it cost me $301.49
          BCA Side Charging AR-15 Complete Upper Assembly, 20" 4150 Black Nitride Heavy Barrel, Straight Flutes, 6.5 Grendel Type II, Rifle Length Gas System, 1:8 5R Twist w/ 15" MLOK


          The side-charge receiver with BCG is on sale for $160.99
          The barrel is $140.99
          The handguard (with barrel nut) is $87.99
          The gas block is $25.75
          The gas tube is $20.99
          The flash hider is $9.22
          Those prices add up to $445.93 and with the 10% discount it's $401.34, $100 more than buying the complete upper.

          And the Ruger 8516 complete lower cost me $218.
          The 452 trigger alone is $139 at Midway.
          The Magpul MOE stock is on sale for $51.25
          The Magpul MOE grip is on sale for $17.05
          So the price of just the trigger and the two Magpul pieces is $207.30 at Midway. To be fair the trigger can be purchased for as little as $110 if you shop around but you can still see that it's much cheaper buying the complete lower.

          The upper was assembled by BCA and they gave me the 3 empty cases they fired to test it.
          The lower was assembled and tested by Ruger.

          Another consideration is the warranty. If you build from a number of suppliers who is going to guarantee anything? It will be like computers; the hardware company says the problem is software and the software says it's hardware and no one fixes anything.
          If I have a problem I go to BCA or Ruger and I guarantee they will stand behind their product. No screwing around.

          In a thread earlier today (now yesterday) I showed this build that cost me $531 for upper, lower and one magazine.
          "In any war, political or battlefield; truth is the first casualty."

          Trump has never had a wife he didn't cheat on.

          Comment

          • Lastrites
            Warrior
            • Apr 2017
            • 678

            #20
            Alex if your hesitant and think this may end up a catch and release project, there are two routes to travel. One is buy the cheapest complete lower that can be had or go the complete opposite and purchase a good name brand that is often sought after. One will sell easily while the other will be a give away if you consider the current conditions in the AR market.

            Comment

            • howl
              Warrior
              • Nov 2015
              • 236

              #21
              I wouldn't want a SS barrel under a handguard where I couldn't wipe it down easily. They can rust. Nitride is a good option. At the least, I'd take the handguard off and coat it with Krylon.

              You can put a lower together with tools most people already have, no problem. I'd buy an Aero stripped or populated lower and finish it out to my spec.

              You can put an upper together with about $100 worth of tools. I'd build with BCM or Aero M4E1.

              You will not necessarily save money putting your own together. If you object is best quality, it is more like reloading where you spend about the same to get exactly what you want, and the past time of putting it all together yourself.

              Comment

              • Dcommoncents
                Warrior
                • Jul 2017
                • 164

                #22
                Originally posted by Alex984 View Post
                As for the upper, it seems like chamber spacing can be tricky. Maybe not?:
                I don't know if tricky is the right word, but it can be difficult/inconvenient to check headspacing yourself since the necessary gauges aren't cheap. I could be wrong but it's also my perception that not many gunsmiths have headspace gauges for 6.5 G. I'm a DIY kind of guy and have built a handful of ARs, but this is why whenever possible I try to buy a barrel and bolt combo that the factory has checked for headspacing.

                Other than headspacing being off, which is virtually unheard of when mating barrels and bolts from reputable vendors (but should still be confirmed), the only thing that you would need to be concerned about in that realm is that you buy the correct bolt for your chamber since there are 2 types of 6.5 G bolts with different bolt face depths. The standard by far is the "type II" bolt which has a .136" bolt face. But this is also hard to screw up since manufacturers and suppliers are mostly pretty good about making clear what type of chamber and bolt they are selling. If you're interested in learning about the chamber and bolt specs there are some good stickies above and the Horde will I'm sure be happy to answer any specific questions or concerns you have when making a purchasing decision.

                Comment

                • bj139
                  Chieftain
                  • Mar 2017
                  • 1968

                  #23
                  If a manufacturer follows mil spec for his barrels and bolts doesn't that mean headspace is correct?
                  I know about the .136" bolt face but didn't Colt establish specs for that so headspace would be correct?
                  My point is this is not some custom barrel job where headspace can vary depending on what the gunsmith decides..

                  Comment

                  • Dcommoncents
                    Warrior
                    • Jul 2017
                    • 164

                    #24
                    Originally posted by bj139 View Post
                    If a manufacturer follows mil spec for his barrels and bolts doesn't that mean headspace is correct?
                    I know about the .136" bolt face but didn't Colt establish specs for that so headspace would be correct?
                    My point is this is not some custom barrel job where headspace can vary depending on what the gunsmith decides..
                    I'm not remotely an expert so feel free to correct me, but I'm not sure what you mean by "mil spec" because I don't think that term has any real meaning in the context of chamber or bolt dimensions. I take it you are referring to the parts being made within the correct tolerances, for example the barrel being manufactured with a saami spec chamber in such a way that the cartridge will be properly supported at the shoulder and base when used with a true .136" bolt. Opinions obviously vary widely on the necessity of checking head space since it is incredibly rare to have an issue when the barrel and bolt are from established manufacturers.

                    Nonetheless, barrels and bolts are made by humans using machines with parts subject to wear and misadjustment, so checking head space is nice insurance against the possibility that either the barrel or bolt is out of spec, or both are slightly out of spec such that the errors compound to create a problem. Personally, I'm not exactly religious about checking head space -- I just stuck some layers of masking tape on the back of 2 cartridges to make a poor man's no-go gauge to "check" my newest grendel upper -- but I do think it's prudent to check every barrel/bolt combo whenever possible.

                    Comment

                    • VASCAR2
                      Chieftain
                      • Mar 2011
                      • 6218

                      #25
                      The 223/5.56 bolts use .125 bolt face +or- .001. When Colt designed and released an AR-15 chambered in 7.62X39 their research noted the difference in the rim thickness between 223/5.56 and X39 case. Colt Engineers used a .136 bolt face depth for the 7.62X39 cartridge. The deeper bolt face allows more room for the extractor for the larger X39 case. Bill Alexander looked at Colts design and saw the benefit of the .136 bolt and used it with 6.5 Grendel which is the same case head as the 7.62X39.

                      Recent manufactures of 7.62X39 AR-15’s did not use the .136 bolt face depth and went with the .125 bolt face depth used with 223/5.56 bolts.
                      Last edited by VASCAR2; 01-18-2018, 01:46 AM.

                      Comment

                      • bj139
                        Chieftain
                        • Mar 2017
                        • 1968

                        #26
                        Originally posted by Dcommoncents View Post
                        I'm not remotely an expert so feel free to correct me, but I'm not sure what you mean by "mil spec" because I don't think that term has any real meaning in the context of chamber or bolt dimensions. I take it you are referring to the parts being made within the correct tolerances, for example the barrel being manufactured with a saami spec chamber in such a way that the cartridge will be properly supported at the shoulder and base when used with a true .136" bolt. Opinions obviously vary widely on the necessity of checking head space since it is incredibly rare to have an issue when the barrel and bolt are from established manufacturers.

                        Nonetheless, barrels and bolts are made by humans using machines with parts subject to wear and misadjustment, so checking head space is nice insurance against the possibility that either the barrel or bolt is out of spec, or both are slightly out of spec such that the errors compound to create a problem. Personally, I'm not exactly religious about checking head space -- I just stuck some layers of masking tape on the back of 2 cartridges to make a poor man's no-go gauge to "check" my newest grendel upper -- but I do think it's prudent to check every barrel/bolt combo whenever possible.
                        Masking tape no-go gauge. I like it.

                        If the specification on parts is set by the military it is "mil spec".
                        I mentioned Colt set the spec to .136" for the bolt face because that's what I read here and elsewhere.
                        I don't think this is mil spec since the military did not adopt the Grendel. Maybe it is "Colt spec".

                        Most people buy the group buy bolt specified at .136" and buy a barrel with the same spec assemble it and shoot and everything works fine.
                        I don't think there is an epidemic of mil spec parts being out of spec. I think the manufacturers do a very good job.

                        Comment

                        • Dcommoncents
                          Warrior
                          • Jul 2017
                          • 164

                          #27
                          Originally posted by bj139 View Post
                          Most people buy the group buy bolt specified at .136" and buy a barrel with the same spec assemble it and shoot and everything works fine.
                          I don't think there is an epidemic of mil spec parts being out of spec. I think the manufacturers do a very good job.
                          Agreed, it's largely a non issue. But I wouldn't feel comfortable suggesting someone NOT check headspace or buy a factory checked set because there is some risk however slight. I actually had a WMD bolt fail the no-go gauge in a ballistic advantage .223 wylde barrel, which is interesting because WMD's president said they use BA barrels, however not with a wylde chamber. Maybe it wouldn't be a problem, but I certainly don't use that bolt in that barrel (the bolt headspace was fine in my m4 contour 5.56 barrel though).

                          Comment

                          • Dcommoncents
                            Warrior
                            • Jul 2017
                            • 164

                            #28
                            Originally posted by bj139 View Post
                            I mentioned Colt set the spec to .136" for the bolt face because that's what I read here and elsewhere.
                            I don't think this is mil spec since the military did not adopt the Grendel. Maybe it is "Colt spec".
                            And this is an interesting tidbit along with what Vascar posted. I think I also read about this design in one of the sticky threads but forgot about it. Smart move by colt and AA if you ask me.

                            Comment

                            • Timmy2Knives
                              Bloodstained
                              • Jun 2017
                              • 89

                              #29
                              Looks like this has been fairly well hashed out, but I will reiterate that building your own lower is very simple, rewarding, and without doubt the most affordable option. About the trickiest part is the bolt catch. It's not that bad at all.

                              Recommend Aero Precision Gen 2 forged lower. Includes a couple nice improvements such as a second screw in the grip to remove any play between your upper and lower receiver, threaded rear takedown pin detent hole, and improved magwell. Can be had for as much as standard "milspec" forged lowers. Got mine for $40 on sale from Primary Arms, but you can search on sites like gun.deals

                              Personally, I also love Anderson "Sport" lightweight slickside upper receivers. No forward assist and dust cover. Two needless parts for anyone not deploying to the sandbox. Many still debate this hotly, but I have never ONCE missed these components. Think about... 9mm ARs are very popular now, almost always without forward assist and dust cover. No one seems to mind regarding those builds.

                              Regarding triggers, The ALG ACT is arguably the best duty style trigger. If you need that. If this gun will not be used for defensive purposes and marksmanship is the goal a drop in is the way to go. I like my POF straight 3.5 lb trigger myself. Only set me back $120 with KNS pins. Hard to beat. There are many good options now. Can't go wrong with Geisselle, but they are not the only quality option. POF, CMC, Elftmann, Hyperfire, etc etc

                              It is a fantastic market right now. I have no "need" for more rifles, but the deals I keep finding keep me building haha enjoy your new addiction!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X