Do anderson lowers take any lower parts kit? Awhile back Anderson changed a pin or screw hole, did they ever switch back to standard?
dmas
Ok, I own 3 Anderson lowers and have zero issues with fitment.
One has psa lpk, and the other 2 cmmg lpks.
Everything "mil spec".
They may have messed up on receivers in the past. But I'm sure all that is fixed now. If not they'd be out of busniess.
One has psa lpk, and the other 2 cmmg lpks.
Everything "mil spec".
They may have messed up on receivers in the past. But I'm sure all that is fixed now. If not they'd be out of busniess.
Short answer - no, they are not milspec. Longer short answer - nothing on the civilian market that isn't a Colt is milspec either. Still longer answer - Anderson has a higher rate of being out of spec than any other stripped lower I have seen documentation of (sample size of 220ish, last time I checked our books).
I'm not presenting an argument.
Seeking your input as I may have missed something along the way.
Are they not mil spec because they are not select fire?
Manufacturers sell components (receivers, parts kits and such) as mil spec (same dimensions and tolerance variances as military standard) as other manufacturers do so that parts are interchangeable. There are proprietary parts from some manufacturers as well.
I have seen mil spec and commercial spec.
Why only Colt? What's the scoop?
Seeking your input as I may have missed something along the way.
Are they not mil spec because they are not select fire?
Manufacturers sell components (receivers, parts kits and such) as mil spec (same dimensions and tolerance variances as military standard) as other manufacturers do so that parts are interchangeable. There are proprietary parts from some manufacturers as well.
I have seen mil spec and commercial spec.
Why only Colt? What's the scoop?
Another "is it mil-spec" thread?
smh......mil-spec; one of the few terms I know that is often misused and rarely understood by so many people.
smh......mil-spec; one of the few terms I know that is often misused and rarely understood by so many people.
They are fine. I have 4 that I put together with psa kits. The only problem I have ran into is the grip screw issue. But it’s a well known issue and Anderson will ship you a new grip screw for free.
Wow, so much hyperbolic elitism in this thread...
If the lower receiver is forged 7075 aluminum and can hold all the parts in the way they are supposed to be held in, it's good to go. Because that's all it basically does - hold all the lower parts together.
If anyone thinks I"m wrong, please explain exactly how.
.
If the lower receiver is forged 7075 aluminum and can hold all the parts in the way they are supposed to be held in, it's good to go. Because that's all it basically does - hold all the lower parts together.
If anyone thinks I"m wrong, please explain exactly how.
.
You're absolutely correct. It's this simple performance criteria that Anderson seems to time and again prove incapable of properly meeting.
.
They are as Mil-spec as any other AR's. By definition Mil-spec would also mean it has the hole drilled for the auto sear like a M16, so no AR's being sold today (legal ones at least) are truly mil-spec. For AR's it basically comes down to interchangeability of parts, which most AR's do, some have proprietary handguards or other stuff, but most everything else accepts parts form one another & they all take the same size pins, springs, detents, etc. I've built numerous AR's with Anderson lowers & they've all worked great. Buy a few of them while the prices are low & you still can!
.
They are as Mil-spec as any other AR's. By definition Mil-spec would also mean it has the hole drilled for the auto sear like a M16, so no AR's being sold today (legal ones at least) are truly mil-spec. For AR's it basically comes down to interchangeability of parts, which most AR's do, some have proprietary handguards or other stuff, but most everything else accepts parts form one another & they all take the same size pins, springs, detents, etc. I've built numerous AR's with Anderson lowers & they've all worked great. Buy a few of them while the prices are low & you still can!
.
Mil spec or not, I have a handful of builds all but 1 with Anderson lowers and a couple with matching uppers. All of which fit very well with the components installed or attached to them and they all function just the same, maybe I'm in the minority. When a company proves to be unacceptable in quality first hand, I'll make adjustments accordingly. Not wasting money is a priority.
As the op i did use mil spec carelessly, but it was an easy way to fit header. I meant to ask do standard parts fit?
I wonder how fitment issues compare with 80% lowers vs anderson. Even being careful seems a guy in a garage couldnt do as well as on a factory floor. Also lowers can be made from plastic. I wonder how accurate those can be.
I wonder how fitment issues compare with 80% lowers vs anderson. Even being careful seems a guy in a garage couldnt do as well as on a factory floor. Also lowers can be made from plastic. I wonder how accurate those can be.
I'd take an Anderson over an 80% lower (from anyone but someone who really knows their stuff and is, by trade, a machinist dealing). That said, I'm not so broke or so frugal that I refuse to spend a hair more and buy something much more likely to be better than either. It's not like quality AR lowers are stoopid expensive. Like, I could get it if we were comparing a Kia to a Rolls. But really, we're comparing a Chrysler 200 to an Accord. Buy the damn Accord.
OP, to answer your question about fitment, I've done a couple recent projects on Anderson lowers and they fit fine. That does not imply I won't have an issue in the future.
I actually had a problem with the one LPK. It was an AR-Stoner. The rear takedown pin was not milled correctly. I had to get another. The trigger blade is also not milled correctly. But it is serviceable. I will stick with CMMG or similar LPKs in the future.
I actually had a problem with the one LPK. It was an AR-Stoner. The rear takedown pin was not milled correctly. I had to get another. The trigger blade is also not milled correctly. But it is serviceable. I will stick with CMMG or similar LPKs in the future.
I guess the thing is, if something is cheap enough I really don't see it as a risk if it has the possibility of being a bad one. If I ever by an Anderson lower that doesn't work then I will just buy another one, which probably will and I will still be (a little) money ahead compared to something like a Spikes.
I mean, at that low of failure rate they only have to be just a little cheaper than one that had 0 out of 220 failures for you to still come out ahead.
It's a 4% failure rate. But you could always return a bad one so there is no actual risk at all. Because you would find out when building it.
.
That is a fair point. Often Aero only runs $10 more than Anderson but I guess knowing how the market works its hard to believe that they could be that much better and Anderson could still stay in business and despite what people say, is one of the most popular lower makers.
But really....I only care what works. I'm 4 for 4 with my Anderson lowers, and both my colts work fine as well.
In fact the only AR issue I've ever had was with a gas block that didn't seal well enough to cycle properly on a mid-length system.
Regarding dmas' question, I don't know about Anderson changing any of their pin or hole locations or specifications, but I have built 5 AR-15s and two were with Anderson lowers. The fit with the uppers is very good and they work flawlessly; never had a problem with either.
For what it's worth, I also bought a RF85 no-lube Anderson upper - seemed like a good idea at the time. Check it out, It's pretty interesting rifle technology. Anyway, I decided to see if their claim was true. I put around 900 rounds through it before I decided it probably was true, lost interest, and decided to end my testing. Now, I just shoot it and clean it like I do my other ARs. Since then, I have probably put close to 3,000 rounds down range with zero failures.
Personally, I like Anderson lowers. I am planning to build another AR pistol soon and I will probably go with another Anderson lower. It's going to have a 7.5 inch barrel and yeah I know all the negative stuff about short-barreled 5.56 pistols, and I don't care - it's a play toy. Works for me.
I have also put together a couple of ARs using PSA hardware. Never had a problem with PSA parts either. Maybe I have been lucky.
And yes, I would like to have a Colt AR - just for the heck of it. Just haven't gotten around to it and may not. I have several Colt pistols and I do like them, but I have had a few failures with my Colt 1911s - but who hasn't? I don't think it's a big deal. Now, my EDC CC pistol is a 9mm Sig. It works. Every time. I like it, and that IS a big deal.
For what it's worth, I also bought a RF85 no-lube Anderson upper - seemed like a good idea at the time. Check it out, It's pretty interesting rifle technology. Anyway, I decided to see if their claim was true. I put around 900 rounds through it before I decided it probably was true, lost interest, and decided to end my testing. Now, I just shoot it and clean it like I do my other ARs. Since then, I have probably put close to 3,000 rounds down range with zero failures.
Personally, I like Anderson lowers. I am planning to build another AR pistol soon and I will probably go with another Anderson lower. It's going to have a 7.5 inch barrel and yeah I know all the negative stuff about short-barreled 5.56 pistols, and I don't care - it's a play toy. Works for me.
I have also put together a couple of ARs using PSA hardware. Never had a problem with PSA parts either. Maybe I have been lucky.
And yes, I would like to have a Colt AR - just for the heck of it. Just haven't gotten around to it and may not. I have several Colt pistols and I do like them, but I have had a few failures with my Colt 1911s - but who hasn't? I don't think it's a big deal. Now, my EDC CC pistol is a 9mm Sig. It works. Every time. I like it, and that IS a big deal.
Meh, I picked up a couple Anderson Lowers only because they were dirt cheap for cheap projects. Most of the time I look for deals on Spikes or Aero and have had zero issues.
Projects are fine, but duty guns should have a higher priority. While I don't necessarily consider the lower a critical part (as long as it is within standards and tolerances), there are far more important parts that comprise an AR.
There are some facts, some of which we can get here from other members (if you can trust them. Disturbed is just sharing his experience, and as always, it's buyer beware. More expensive doesn't always mean better, it's often just better QA/QC and more attention to tolerances.
My son has a couple ARs (his first was built on a Spikes receiver when he was 10), but is now building his very own (actually buying his own parts...yeah me!. He's decided to go with a matched Noveske upper and lower. Pretty darn expensive, but he's put a ton of thought into the build (starting out as a pistol), and components...I'll probably still out shoot him with a simple Anderson build
Quality plays a role. I always take two rifles to my classes. I've never had my primary fail (which is a good thing), but as soon as you put stress on your rifle, optics, etc., you'll find weaknesses that need to be addressed. One range session, I had the bolt-hold open break. It was impossible to run drills with it and a little too technical for a field-fix. I'll chalk it up to a bad parts kit, but it makes you really consider ever part that goes in or on your rifle. Cheap parts do save you some money, but the risk of failure just goes up (how much, it's not a definite, but still a higher risk) over known parts that receive better QA/QC.
ROCK6
Projects are fine, but duty guns should have a higher priority. While I don't necessarily consider the lower a critical part (as long as it is within standards and tolerances), there are far more important parts that comprise an AR.
There are some facts, some of which we can get here from other members (if you can trust them
. Disturbed is just sharing his experience, and as always, it's buyer beware. More expensive doesn't always mean better, it's often just better QA/QC and more attention to tolerances. My son has a couple ARs (his first was built on a Spikes receiver when he was 10), but is now building his very own (actually buying his own parts...yeah me!
. He's decided to go with a matched Noveske upper and lower. Pretty darn expensive, but he's put a ton of thought into the build (starting out as a pistol), and components...I'll probably still out shoot him with a simple Anderson buildQuality plays a role. I always take two rifles to my classes. I've never had my primary fail (which is a good thing), but as soon as you put stress on your rifle, optics, etc., you'll find weaknesses that need to be addressed. One range session, I had the bolt-hold open break. It was impossible to run drills with it and a little too technical for a field-fix. I'll chalk it up to a bad parts kit, but it makes you really consider ever part that goes in or on your rifle. Cheap parts do save you some money, but the risk of failure just goes up (how much, it's not a definite, but still a higher risk) over known parts that receive better QA/QC.
ROCK6
If you understand $600 Milspec hammers, you’ll understand the reason military Colts are several times the cost of consumer grade Colts. The hoops they put military contractors through for even simple things is mind numbing.
If you want to make a small fortune from military contracting, start with a very large one. It’s all economy of scale.
WW
Shoot straight - stay safe
If you want to make a small fortune from military contracting, start with a very large one. It’s all economy of scale.
WW
Shoot straight - stay safe
The Anderson Lower Review and Performance Test
https://lifeundersky.com/anderson-lower-review-and-performance-test/
https://lifeundersky.com/anderson-lower-review-and-performance-test/
.
Oh, that will make a lot of people VERY mad. Mostly the ones that think if you don't spend at least $100 on a stripped lower you're wasting your $$. I tend to think it's often the other way around.
.
Oh, that will make a lot of people VERY mad. Mostly the ones that think if you don't spend at least $100 on a stripped lower you're wasting your $$. I tend to think it's often the other way around.
.
I have 2 Anderson lowers. One came built on a cheap clone A2 I bought just for fun and seemed to work fine so when I saw a stripped Anderson lower at Cabela's for $49 I thought, why not!
I just bought the $24 parts kit I needed to finish the lower since I already had so many other spare parts and I have to say something is not right about this one.
Two issues, first everything seemed to fit tight, so tight that I had to slide things back and forth a few times to get them to seat. The worst was the buffer and buffer spring retaining pin. The hole in the lower was so tight that when I pushed it down it stayed down...not good. I ended up having to pull it out by the nipple with plyers and sanding both the buffer retainer pin and the opening down to get it to move freely. Similarly the rear take down pin was so tight you could not push it back out when attached to an upper without a punch.
Next and worst of all is the fact that no magazines I have tried (MagPul, metal USGI, or Lancer) will drop free from the magazine well when empty. Its NOT EVEN CLOSE. The magwell is so tight/narrow empty magazines have to be stripped out (and no the mag catch isn't interfering).
That is a deal breaker. Given how cheap other stripped lowers are right now and the fact that they are 100% available in this time between panic buys I can't recommend the Anderson as much as I wanted to.
BUYER BEWARE.
I just bought the $24 parts kit I needed to finish the lower since I already had so many other spare parts and I have to say something is not right about this one.
Two issues, first everything seemed to fit tight, so tight that I had to slide things back and forth a few times to get them to seat. The worst was the buffer and buffer spring retaining pin. The hole in the lower was so tight that when I pushed it down it stayed down...not good. I ended up having to pull it out by the nipple with plyers and sanding both the buffer retainer pin and the opening down to get it to move freely. Similarly the rear take down pin was so tight you could not push it back out when attached to an upper without a punch.
Next and worst of all is the fact that no magazines I have tried (MagPul, metal USGI, or Lancer) will drop free from the magazine well when empty. Its NOT EVEN CLOSE. The magwell is so tight/narrow empty magazines have to be stripped out (and no the mag catch isn't interfering).
That is a deal breaker. Given how cheap other stripped lowers are right now and the fact that they are 100% available in this time between panic buys I can't recommend the Anderson as much as I wanted to.
BUYER BEWARE.
I get a kick out of the nickname for Anderson lowers - "Poverty Pony" lower.
For the most part they work just fine.
In assembling my most recent PSA Pistol, I looked around at local shops for an Anderson or PSA lower. All I could find were ATI Milsport lowers - so that's what I used. Personally I'd rather have an Anderson as it has some name recognition and doesn't have big ugly markings like the ATI Milsport I used has.
Sure I could order some stripped lowers when they are on sale online. However, really need to buy multiples to make the transfer fee worthwhile. $20 transfer fee on 1 - $35 lower isn't much cheaper than just buying a stripped lower from a local dealer.
For the most part they work just fine.
In assembling my most recent PSA Pistol, I looked around at local shops for an Anderson or PSA lower. All I could find were ATI Milsport lowers - so that's what I used. Personally I'd rather have an Anderson as it has some name recognition and doesn't have big ugly markings like the ATI Milsport I used has.
Sure I could order some stripped lowers when they are on sale online. However, really need to buy multiples to make the transfer fee worthwhile. $20 transfer fee on 1 - $35 lower isn't much cheaper than just buying a stripped lower from a local dealer.
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
