Poverty Pony Thread

>with Spikes, you get a shitty roll mark of two penises fencing
Woke my kid up from laughing, well worth it though.

Anderson makes lowers without the pony now. So there is no reason not to buy one at this point other than their shitty choice of font

Attached: F1ANGHOST1.jpg (800x520, 48K)

A lower is a lower

Attached: IMAG0500.jpg (3000x4000, 2.69M)

I admittedly bought one to have a pony on my m4gery. It went together fine. I'd like an armalite or military supplier. Probably going to and up with an Aero though.

Careful with Aero; the fit is finiky, and they dont go together well with some...

They get so much hate because of there price.

>Why do Anderson lowers get so much shit?
They aren't machined as well and anybody telling you otherwise either has no attention to detail or is shilling.
On mine the front take down detent hole was a little deeper than it should have been, the holes for the safety selector and FCG wern't completely round and the holes for the bolt catch pin and trigger guard pin were undersize. The lower also has a lot of play with my Aero upper and my BCM upper.
Everything did fit okay and is functional, but... Aero lowers don't have these problems, they are manufactured to much tighter tolerances.

look into Battle arms development lowers i think they are around 7 oz

I just put together a franken-AR with an Anderson lower, and I've had no issues. It's a lower like any other. Zero problems.

Who gives a shit about the coating on an aluminum lower? I don't give a fuck if my gun has scratches on it soy boy. All of mine are in spec as well.

People that spend a bunch on their lowers are retards, they would be better off dropping more money on a better barrel, optic, etc.

The holes being undersized seems like a possibility for mine. I had to hammer them in pretty hard. Granted that was my first lower build so I don't know what's typical.

Yeah I'm saying saying they wont work or that I am not using my Anderson. They just aren't machined as nice as an Aero and to say they are a lower just like any other lower isn't being honest. Once you are spending the $60 or so on an Aero there isn't any point in spending any more.

You don't know what tolerance means, do you?

you do know that every forged AR lower comes from the same forge house, all milspec forged AR lowers are of the exact same strength and material only difference is who does the milling.

Shh, we were ignoring the retard.

No you're right, I have no idea what it means. Please enlighten us.

The finish might be a little chalkier than a premium brand, but I have noticed ZERO difference otherwise. It's a piece of aluminum CNC machined to a certain spec, like 99% of lowers.

Not the user you replied to.
But here's a piece of shit 80% that I sent back.
This isn't an effect from lighting, this is anodizing that's shallow and uneven.

If you want to pay the same amount for an inferior product, that's on you. Anodizing is there to protect the aluminum. And yes it will oxidize (thus why they put on a protective coating).

Attached: IMG_20171101_121106.jpg (2560x1440, 296K)

Absolutely. Any AR is best served by putting all the money into the optic and the trigger. The rest is all Gucci bullshit.

This
Also this

I have one as a tacticool paperweight I may end up turning into a rifle. I've bought stupider things for $40.

Higher chance of being out of spec, but the forging is the same and the milling is milspec or better. And it costs $40.

Attached: 1508457954335.jpg (1213x1095, 140K)

Milspec is milspec, buying anything over $40 is literally just paying for a unique roll mark

Attached: 1516322480232.png (1219x864, 1.38M)

In engineering and manufacturing, tolerance refers to the acceptable range of variance in measurements of a given material or part. To say that something has tighter tolerances (particularly an item that is meant to fit with military specifications and potentially must play nice with hundreds of other manufacturers' products,) is pants-on-head retarded. In your example, a manufacturer must have decided on some arbitrary designation for what was and was not acceptable for their products within the existing specifications.

Stop using tolerance as a fucking nothing term you crayon-munching homonculus. Say fit and finish if you must.

>

Attached: FB_IMG_1522201911874.jpg (614x500, 34K)

Milspec is like the shittiest spec that is still acceptable.

yours is the only anderson lower that I have ever heard of with those problems, sounds to me like you didn't look it over very carefully when you bought it.

Barrel is most important, followed by trigger, followed by BCG, followed by optic. You are a dumbass if you think otherwise.

>packing material got stuck in the bolt release hole and the customer can't get it out
sounds to me like that is a retarded customer who did something stupid and wants to blame it on the manufacturer.

This is unironically why most high end 1911s simply don't fucking work out of the box

It is a design meant for clearance and slop. Tolerance stacking makes most near unusable until you autistically wrack the slide 6million times to eliminate micro burrs

I just had to send the receiver back to spikes twice for manufacturing defect.
I bought a spikes lower and upper separately. They rattled like a skeleton on crack.
I sent it back to spikes, with pleasant service and quick turnaround, they sent me a replacement.
The replacement had a crooked logo and I sent it back.
The 3rd time they got it right.
You can take that as a shit product but I take it as top notch service. They paid for all shipping, were quick and fixed the issue. They even through in some pens and stickers in the box.
I think Anderson's product is fine. I don't know anything about their service.

>Barrel is most important
Maybe 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago. Machining has gotten so good in recent years that almost all barrels are good. I have a $160 barrel that shoots under MOA.

Of course it's a different story if you want a precision rifle that shoots little bugholes.

>tolerance refers to the acceptable range of variance in measurements of a given material or part
>To say that something has tighter tolerances (particularly an item that is meant to fit with military specifications and potentially must play nice with hundreds of other manufacturers' products,) is pants-on-head retarded.
How are you this retarded?

Attached: facepalm.jpg (490x322, 25K)

Are you talking reliability or accuracy? Or shootability? There is no one order of part importance that works for all three of those.

Assuming your rifle is reliable, the next most important thing to me is the optic. Then trigger. Then light. Then sling.

So buy Comspec and whine that there's no parts for your gun? I don't really care what you do with your money

Okay, so let's say a KAC lower has tolerances that are tighter than most while still existing within the mil-spec standards. Guess what? It still falls within mil-spec standards and does not inherently have an advantage purely because they chose some random point within an accepted standard. It doesn't mean the parts will inherently fit better in it, nor does it mean the upper will mate with it better.

Please just stop, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh, shit, I see what you mean. My apologies. My point stands, however, as I meant to state that having tighter tolerances does not inherently make a gun part better than an another so long as it falls within acceptable standards of manufacturing (usually mil-spec.)

Does Remington make lowers now???

Are you retarded?
Tighter tolerances in his example would be more likely to fit and have less slop you brainlet.

What guarantee do you have that it would mate well and have any apreciable impact on fit and finish with the hundreds of other AR parts out there?

You need to Google that, see how wrong you are.

Okay fine, free education time. We'll focus on hole diameter here instead of true position or anything else because A: boys like holes, B:I want you to be able to understand what im laying down.

Say we are looking at the rear take-down pin hole which IIRC has a diameter spec of .248" +.002 -.000 So what we are saying here is that the hole can be no smaller than .248" but can be up to .250"
Now the spec on the pin iirc is .247" +.000 -.002 So what we are saying here is that the pin can be no larger than .247 but can be as small as .245"
So on the whole milspec allows anywhere from -.001" to -.005" of slop in this fitment. This is the milspec tolerance zone.

Now, say we have a company called Ideal Inc. They make gun parts exactly to specification, their tolerances are so tight they don't have them. So when they cut the pin hole it is always exactly .248" Any milspec pin will fit because the hole is to milspec but you might have a slop of .003" because that is what milspec tolerances allow on just the pin alone. Also worth noting is that the maximum slop you will get out of an Ideal Lower is at .003" rather than milspec .005" because they can hold the minimum hole size. So you will always get a tighter fit with their lowers.

Keeping this going. Say you also buy your take down pins from Ideal Inc. They are exactly .247" Because your rifle has been manufactured exactly to specification, aka you have ultra tight tolerances, everything fits as tight as is allowed. This assembly is inherently superior to one that is loose. It can sustain more wear before it becomes out of spec unacceptably loose. It is less likely to get damaged because there is less movement between parts.

1/2

2/2

So yes, even inside milspec. If you hold tight tolerances, aka you manufacture everything exactly to spec, you are producing superior products with superior fitment. Having an acceptable range of variances aka tollerance is about reducing the amount of parts you have to throw away and reducing costs. Because the more precisely you want things manufactured the more money it costs and the more parts are rejected. So somebody sat down and figured out how loose everything could fit on an AR and still function. Somebody also sat down and figured out how tight things could fit and still function, that is the other end of the tollerance range. Idealy you want things to fit as tightly as possible and still function because it increases lifespan and reduces the wear rate.

So when I am saying that Aero Precision holds tighter tollerances what I am saying is that they stick closer to the specified sizes of things thus staying closer to the ideal form the engineer wanted. This is always a good thing.

First off, none of the Andersons I have seen have had uneven anodizing, second off, if you took a basic chemistry class you would know that aluminum does oxidize, creating a protective layer that stops further oxidation. Unless you plan on spilling corrosive shit on your gun or your poor little heart can't stand having a couple of scratches on your gun, it is not needed.

Trigger is definitely after optic, you can easily shoot with a mil spec trigger as long as your fundamentals are good, a wundertrigger isn't going to make you into Travis Haley or something.

If you are making parts assuming that the hole is going to be .003 oversize, you are a fucking idiot and shouldn't be making parts.

I can 100% guarantee you think tolerance means clearance.

Fucking this. I knew I couldn't have been the only one to see this shit. Spikes' rollmark is terrible looking.

Attached: 1520460452565.jpg (2048x1536, 882K)

That's more or less what I was going for, which is why I made it a point to mention that these parts have to play nice with all the others. It's still a good thing, and I'm not saying that an Aero lower is not better than an Anderson lower (Aero is pretty much all I use,) but to say that it is better because it has tighter tolerances is kind of a nothing statement when most people make ARs from a hodgepodge of parts that may have wildly different tolerance specifications across the board.

Soo.... in short, Aero a best, Anderson okay, Spikes is shit (for cringiness, not quality.)

Attached: 2f7.png (487x380, 26K)

>to retarded to even read my post correctly.
I stated that aluminum oxidizes.

>protective coating.
Not on an object that is handled and encounters abrasive conditions.
Aluminum oxide is brittle and flaky- it will constantly break off and expose fresh aluminum on something like an AR until the lower/upper is completely eroded.
You
Are
An
Idiot

Optic is last because it is not necessary to the function of the gun.

have 3 rifles with poverty pony lowers running different uppers, one BCM and two palghettos (CHF and freedom line) and have had zero problems with the finish, milling and performance, maybe I just got lucky.

Nah, not just you. I have 3 Anderson’s, an aero, and a bushmaster. They’re all plenty fine.

So many "experts" in this thread, I thought I was in /arg/

Attached: IMG_0165.gif (240x228, 456K)

It was a rock from their deburrer/tumbler

I also had this "issue" with my Anderson lower build. It wasn't a big deal because it was cheap and it works perfectly, but there's a few scratches from when I went ape with the hammer putting the trigger group in.

>oxidizes around trigger pin holes/safety selector hole
>bcg grinds through oxide every stroke.
>normal use wears through flaky, powdery aluminum oxide, repeat- massive wear from normal use in just a couple years.
>pins fall out, safety switch jams

Durr hurr protective coatings don't matter....

At least you can clearly demonstrate that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Attached: 684543354.png (247x229, 37K)

POVERTY PONE

Attached: AR_12-11-2015_H.jpg (1024x768, 441K)

If its not a Colt or FN it's a copy.

based real pone.

Attached: iw0hw7.jpg (640x480, 43K)

Spikes, because i like it when my mags drop free

Inb4

>hurr durr muh poverty poney drops free

Congrats you got 1 in 1000

>Congrats
Thank you. I feel good about it.

Attached: 1509757518666.gif (352x240, 2.57M)

ony a faggot chooses a shit lower over a quality lower because of a roll mark.

I must have gotten 4 out of 1000 then, all my lowers are just fine.

Anything wrong with taking the DPMS Oracle my pops got me and slapping a nicer upper on it? Do they make decent enough lowers?

Nigga no

I've never had a problem with my Anderson or Spike's Tactical.

The only downside to andersons I've seen is that the finish is like a rough grey instead of a black anodized.

Mine is fully black and matches all the other black stuff I have. Maybe you got a bad one?

No to both?

I bought six....

I have that same rail. love

wtf no it's not. I just picked up another the other dayt because it was fairly cheap at the fun store. It's flat black and matches all my other lowers

That's what im saying too, dumbass

t. anderson owners

>Buys incomplete receiver
>Complains when receiver is incomplete
Makes sense.

>muh tool that goes BANG and tries to explode from the inside has a slightly uneven finish!!!!
Are you being raised by a single mother?

Everything needs to be perfect or I wont get fucked at the range