Spare AR parts quality?

AR/M4 AR General Discussion
21

Nah, you’re missing my point. There IS a difference between Colt LPK’s and others, but under the circumstances where you’d actually need a spare, I doubt the difference would matter all that much and it wouldn’t render your gun inoperable.

Example:

You have a Colt LE6920 (everything works great), and you have a shoot-day/course/whatever coming up. You wanna try this new-fangled A5 buffer system and Magpul grip; so you go to swap out the parts…

SHIT!!! You lose your safety detent and the spring/detent for your end plate. “But wait!! I have some spares… oh no… it’s just some random spare I got off Brownells for 25 cents–not Colt brand.”

“I guess I’ll cancel my shoot-day/course because I can’t stomach the idea of non-Colt detents/springs being in my lower!” << SAID NOBODY EVER

22

Alright. How do I go about accessing the difference between a Colt takedown detent and this one:

https://www.whiteoakarmament.com/shop/lower-parts/lower-receiver-parts/takedown-pivot-pin-detent.html

What questions do I need to ask of the respective companies?

23

I cannot think where the quality of detent pins, takedown pins and related springs would affect function of an AR. But I can see where in the long term they can be a constant source of annoyance. I have a set of take down pins that have a sloppy fit and sometimes they don’t line up like they should when reassembling the two halves. You gotta know the secret handshake.

When pricing small parts, keep in mind cost of shipping. Sometimes the more expensive parts are cheaper after adding the cost of shipping. Buy from a company you can have confidence in. WOA is one of those companies. Another thing to keep in mind- What’s the difference going to matter if you pay $10 for a few spares, or $40, after you shoot up a couple of thousand rounds of ammo?

In my opinion, the most important spare you can buy is a complete BCG. That’s what’s most likely to stop the rifle and having a spare makes replacement easy.

If you want to get spare smalls, take a look at a kit like this
https://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/receiver-parts/parts-kits/lower-parts-kits/ar-15-m16-lower-spring-kit-prod57595.aspx

24

Hey Mistwolf. First of all, I picked up the AR15M4 Colt extractors -one for each of my rifle bcg. I will work on getting a spare bcg.

I’m a bit confused on whether you think WOA is a quality company you can have confidence in or company that sells cheap parts?

Also, I hear mixed things about CMMG. I used their LPK on my rifles and didn’t have any complaints. I ended up using all the springs/detents that came with my other parts like my safety selectors, takedowns, etc. I don’t know if they’re MIM or not - I emailed them that question, but they never got back to me.

25

Keep in mind the selector/safety spring in the same as the ejector spring, that last thing I want is an el-cheap-o spring in my spare parts box that has the potential to find it’s way into my bolt.

26

I didn’t know that. Makes sense now that I stop and think about it.

27

I think you can have confidence in the WOA small parts. They work to keep their customers satisfied. They cater to National Match competitors, a group of shooters who can be very particular about equipment. I have no personal experience with WOA but they get good recommendations from shooters who do.

I don’t think you’ll have problems with the CMMG kit, but I cannot stay you won’t. I used it as an example of a small parts kit that would cover what you’re looking for.

It’s good that you’re thinking ahead, but don’t get wrapped around the axle about small parts. It’s good to have spares, but at this point it’s a tertiary concern. Get ammo and mags and go shoot. Get a spare BCG. When you get a chance, pick up a few small spares and a parts box to kit them in. Spend less time sweating the small stuff.

28

Ok. Why is mil spec not mil spec? Either a part is manufactured to military specifications or it is not. And it follows that if Colt manufactures a part that is up to military specifications and Company x manufactures the same part to military specifications then one part is as good as the other. That’s the whole point of military specifications. That’s the whole point of interchangeability of parts. When the Army rebuilds a rifle it does so from parts meeting military specifications regardless of the manufacturer of that part.

29

One problem is that “mil spec” means different things to different people. When most people/companies use the term “mil spec”, it usually does not mean 100% mil spec, just sort of mil spec.

One example is buffer tubes. The term mil spec buffer tube is used frequently, but it usually just means it has a mil spec diameter. As many people have seen, there are a lot of different “mil spec” buffer tubes being sold.

I agree that there is a significant difference in the quality of many small (and large) AR parts. When I find something I like, I try to stock up on it if it’s not too expensive.

One very frustrating thing is buying the same part from the same retailer at different times, and getting slightly (but noticeably) different parts.

Joe Mamma

30

I’ve bought WOA parts kits with ALG triggers in them. Most I know feel they are a solid company, pretty strong following. They’ll tell you whose parts they use. Or did when I called.

And I’ve had Colt packaged Delta ring assembly from Brownells come in with rust on the steel parts. Should have sent it back, but was pissed and did not want to wait. Just lubed it all up and installed it. (Was mainly the spring)

Point being: you can have issues even with Colt small parts from brownells.

I’d probably see if White Oak will sell you a completion lower part kit. (Minus FCG)

31

They will.
https://www.whiteoakarmament.com/shop/lower-parts/lower-parts-kits.html

32

Real milspec is certificated and traceable. If there is a problem with a certificated milspec part, an investigator can follow the paper trail showing how the part or assembly was made and if approved processes were followed. A company may claim their parts are made to “military specifications” but that doesn’t mean they are approved to supply parts to the government or that the parts are properly certificated and documented.

33

Well said. I found this to be the biggest problem when buying AR parts. Most companies outright lie about parts quality others don’t know any better. Another problem is that most online retailers do not disclose their sources/manufacturers therefore parts might be coming from China, Taiwan, or Turkey as it is often the case. Even a lot of US-made parts are not up to quality because they are manufactured by small shops.

If you absolutely must have a mil-spec parts I would suggest going only with the mil-spec suppliers Colt, LMT. FN does not sell parts to consumers as far as I know. At $269 it’s hard to justify a spare LMT LPK although you do get a 2-stage trigger and an ambi safety with it.

It would be interesting for me to see a comparison done, by a someone more knowledgable than I, between a Colt and a few generic/cheaper LPKs to identify differences (both in materials, dimensions, and coatings).

34

So the term mil spec can mean real mil spec or sort of mil spec or we are calling it mil spec because it sounds cool? Sounds to me that There is a lot of fraud and false advertising. I go back to my earlier statement. Either a part is mil spec or it is not. Sort of mil spec means it is not mil spec. And a buffer tube that is mil spec as to one thing but not others is not mil spec.

35

The problem with doing a comparison is less than reputable companies kits will change as they source cheap parts.

36

When I said “mil spec is mil spec” in a very facetious manner I mean that also from quality perspective and material/machining perspective. Take the bolt carrier group. You can technically buy a mil spec BCG for $49 bucks, and it does meet the military specs in terms of what the carrier is made of, what the bolt is made of and machined to the tolerances specified. However if you look at that BCG carefully, you can see the gas key staking is completely sub standard, the firing pin may be in “spec” but could be inferior materials. That’s why that $49 BCG is inferior to an LMT or a DD, or a BCM BCG.

Materials is another potential area where a company may be adhering to the spec, but the spec may not detail certain metals or alloy. So a manufacturer will take advantage of that and use inferior metals but if it’s measured it will be within spec, but is definitely sub standard.

And sometimes it’s not about the spec. You have Manufacturer A who makes a part for company 1, company 2 and company 3.
They may sell the same part to all three companies, but only company 1 has specifications that could dictate more exacting tolerances or even specify that 8/10 BCG’s must undergo a 10 point inspection whereas companies 2 and 3 specify gay every 3/10 get additional QA time. Company 2 and 3 can sell the part for cheaper but there is also a good risk of inferior parts being on the market and consumed by guys like you and me.

This is why I believe “spare parts are spare parts” is total horse crap. You should also understand also the guys who have weighed in on this discussion have done so ad nauseam and are probably tired of repeating themselves. They are our SME’s, our industry experts, mods and seniors who have been working/ building AR’s for 20 years. Me personally? I respect em and I listen to em.

If you ever visit TOS, and someone asks about building a new AR and do thy really need to go with the more expensive parts, you will see the brand haters come out of the woodwork. The same guys who run Bushmaster and Olympic Arms and consider them equal to Colt, Noveske, LMT, KAC etc. Why do they think that?
Because they believe “mil spec is mil spec”.
And it just isn’t.

That’s why if you want to do it right, do your homework. Go with reputable companies. Read reviews from guys who know what they are talking about and when you ask a question about quality and someone just gives you a brand name, it doesn’t hurt to ask “why?” Why is that brand better. You can contact the manufacturer or ask on forums like this. You can ask why an ACOG is such a great sight and get that answered and you may also hear, it’s a great sight but it may not be for you. It can go beyond that with what I call perceived value vs realized value, but that’s out of scope for what you asked.

Do your due diligence because anything with doing, is worth doing right.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

37

In your example a BCG with staking that is not mil-spec is not a mil spec item. Likewise if the materials are not mil spec then the part is not mil spec even if the tolerances are. Moreover if a part has tighter tolerances than mil spec (ie better?) then it also is not mil spec. If a part or assembly of parts meets military specifications then mil spec is mil spec. And if they don’t it’s not mil spec and the entire concept of interchangeability of parts is nonsense and we should go back to hand made guns admitting that Eli Whitney was wrong.

38

So it sounds like you are in the “mil spec is mil spec” camp and know what the mil specification is on the gas key. But just consider a couple of things. For example, So when I look st the mil spec for the M4 carbine, (MIL-C-71186(AR) it says that the gas key must be torqued and staked IAW applicable drawings. Unfortunately when I look at those drawings, I have a hard time distinguishing what the spec is exactly, but the point that it’s a drawing and at least in the drawings I have, it doesn’t state explicitly: "stake depth must be .XXmm deep and extend across the hex bolt by X.XXXmm
So you’re saying there isn’t a fudge factor in that?

Or how about the RE tube? mil spec states: “…shall be securely fastened to the lower receiver by means of the receiver end plate being staked to the receiver extension nut.”

So are you saying there is no fudge factor in that? That there can be zero variation while still adhering to mil specification? that there can’t be just really craptastic staking job? Granted there’s been bad stake jobs on Colts and the other big boys, but it doesn’t take a lot of research to see that there are companies who consistent produce crappy stake jobs. Just as one example of one part.
I just do not buy that there are not any companies out there selling a “mil spec” part whatever it may be hasn’t done a little manipulation of the standard in an effort to reduce their cost. It could be my means of an inferior workforce who doesnt perform the task correctly, consistently or by means of inferior materials.

Because it really does sound like you’re saying that. It doesn’t take a deep search to see pics of craptastic stake jobs on buffer tube end plate and castle nut. CONSISTENT substandard staking, yet It Is Staked.

But if your reasoning is correct, you can make a ton of friends on here by saving them a ton of money. If mil spec is mil spec, then we can all start buying Bushmaster and Olympic Arms. No need for LMT’s KAC’s, Colts, BCM, and custom builds. The poor KAC, Let See What You Have" thread is going to suffer. :jester:

Because mil spec is mil spec.

39

This is not true. If the tolerance is +.000 to -.005 and in the process, the contractor holds tolerance to -.001 to .002 which is tighter, it is not only within tolerance, but is within control. It is not only better than milspec, it is within milspec.

However, if you said tighter clearances, you would be correct. If the clearance is set to be +.005 to +.010 and the clearance was held to +.002 to +.003, the clearance is not within spec. It may be in control, but it is not within tolerance and therefore not milspec.

Staking isn’t a grey area. Although staking instructions may not be found on the print, there will be instructions somewhere in the notes or the approved work order on what staking method(s) to use. There is a tech manual on staking that must be followed. There is a manual on how to stake and what the allowable limits are and there is a manual on how to inspect staking. A company concerned with doing it right will avail themselves of the specs.

Because mil spec is mil spec.

Right. But what many people don’t realize, or flat out ignore, even if all the manufacturing steps are followed to the letter, it is not milspec unless there is documentation to prove it. It is not milspec without the approval from the government to make that particular item for the government.

I just do not buy that there are not any companies out there selling a “mil spec” part whatever it may be hasn’t done a little manipulation of the standard in an effort to reduce their cost.

Bingo!

40

http://www.gandrtactical.com/Spare-Lower-Parts_c_150.html

C4