Anderson "multi" lower?

UKWildcatFan, they are regular AR-15 lowers; they put "Multi" on there for folks who use uppers other than .223/5.56. My Remington R-15 in .204 Ruger has the same thing stamped on its receiver, for example.

PS: They're going for ~60-65 bucks last time I checked.

I have never really understood it myself either unless some states want/require it. It's an AR lower like most others and could be many different calibers depending on how its built and the upper.

They seem to be one of the least expensive lowers and I have seen them as low as $40 at times. They look to be fine to me though.

UKWildcatFan said:

I'm working on a trade and someone offered me an Anderson "multi" lower. I checked out their sight to see if they're regular AR lowers, but can you confirm? What's "multi" about them?

Click to expand...

Because the lower can be used for "multi" calibers. 5.56/223, 300BLK, 6.8 SPC, 7.62x39, 6.5 Grendel, 9mm, etc hence the designation of "multi" on the side.

Walkalong wrote:

Anderson has some marked .223 and some marked multi. I don't know if it makes a difference or not, but most companies mark them multi.

Click to expand...

I suppose that marking them "multi" is a selling point. That way, the buyer won't feel limited to building the gun in .223/5.56 mm.

Last year, when I was putting together a few extra AR's, I found that Anderson lowers were the most commonly available and the cheapest. Nothing wrong with them, quality-wise.

I don't like the vague "multi" caliber marking. I want the lower specifically marked for the caliber. I had to do some looking to find lowers that were specifically marked. "Multi" seems to be the current trend.

It can be a safety issue if the lower is marked 223 Remington/5.56 Nato and the upper is chambered for a different cartridge. There are frequently no other chambering markings on the rifle that can be easily seen that indicate the chambering of the barrel. Many of my barrels are marked up near the chamber and hidden by the handguard. Also, some of the markings are small and difficult to read by these aging eyes.

By marking the lower Multi, the user should at least not assume it is chambered for 223 Rem/5.56 Nato and investigate farther to learn the actual chambering.

Over the past few years, I have gotten one or two uppers that were stenciled in the cartridge that I was building the rifle for. Nice idea and the light bulb went on. For others, I used a vinyl cutter to make a stencil and using Duracoat marked my blank uppers with the cartridge.

I have AR's chambered in eight different cartridges and some are identical to others except for the chambers. I'm more comfortable being able to easily see what the rifle is chambered in.

I have several Anderson lowers. I like them. They are AR-15s regardless of the roll marking.

I have two of them.

Some feel differently because of the stamp brands, but to me a lower is a lower is a lower.

They work. Just buy the shorter screws.

they run 50-60 bucks now and are the cheapest of the metal lowers. for the most part they are totally fine. I hear some reports of the mag release button or bolt release being tight, but it seems that a little sand paper on the finish fixes it right up.
The only real thing to note is what Browning touched on: The grip screw hole is not tapped all the way into the receiver. That's fine if you use an anderson or magpul grip screw, but regular AR screws are too long. And you can't run a set screw up into the frame to take out the creep. BUT there is a fix: simply tap the hole the rest of the way into the receiver. It's easy and aluminum is soft, but it is an annoyance.

A washer or two under the screw head and you're good to go if all you have is the regular screw and no tap.

My Anderson lower is marked multi and pistol.

I built it up as a 5.56 pistol, but will soon be getting a .300 BO upper.

"...a lower is a lower is a lower."

Can't agree, particularly where Anderson Gen. I lowers are concerned. Many I have seen were out of spec in critical areas. Compare one side by side with a top shelf offering like Aero Precision's and you will immediately see the difference.

The Anderson Gen. II lower with integral trigger guard seems to be better. Perhaps their QC will hold up with the new generation.

I worked at a LGS. The purpose of it is so that when the buyer fills out the 4473, the LGS employee has something to enter in the caliber block of the 4473 (all blocks must be completed). Since it isn't a complete firearm, the caliber is potentially whatever the buyer decides it will be once the project is completed.

As I understood thngs - the lower is marked with the chambering of the firearm because that was/is the law of the land. Given the modular nature of the AR platform, the BATF allows the manufacturers to use the phrase multi instead of a specific chambering designation.

At least that is the oral history that I was told, many years ago.

rbernie said:

As I understood thngs - the lower is marked with the chambering of the firearm because that was/is the law of the land. Given the modular nature of the AR platform, the BATF allows the manufacturers to use the phrase multi instead of a specific chambering designation.

At least that is the oral history that I was told, many years ago.

Click to expand...

Take a look at a S&W. M&P. 15, I have a pair of them with NO CALIBER markings of any kind.......I was mighty surprised when I realized that when logging them into my boundbook

As far as that goes, the boltguns I have seen are marked on the barrel, not receiver, as are most shotguns.

I have several Anderson lowers marked "Multi" for caliber. I use them for SBRs when I will be engraving my Trust info on them anyway. I bought a case of them for $39.95 from Centerfire a while back. The fit and function of them seems to be outstanding for the price.

greyling22 wrote:

The only real thing to note is what Browning touched on: The grip screw hole is not tapped all the way into the receiver. That's fine if you use an anderson or magpul grip screw, but regular AR screws are too long.

Click to expand...

Yes, I ran into this problem when assembling my Anderson lowers. The grip screws from a commercial lower parts kit were too long (and would not bring the grip tight against the receiver). But when I got real mil-spec grip screws from a trusted vendor, they were the right length. It seems that commonly-available commercial grip screws are being made longer than the original mil-spec grip screws. Perhaps this is to accommodate the wide variety of aftermarket grips.

If the grip screw hole is tapped all the way through, you run the risk of a too-long grip screw intruding into the fire control cavity, and impinging on the trigger. This could be a serious safety issue. (It could reduce trigger engagement with the hammer -- the hammer could slip off the sear portion of the trigger.) It appears, therefore, that Anderson is making their lowers this way for a reason. Kudos to them. (Think about it -- tapping the hole all the way through would actually be easier.)

Blade First said:

"...a lower is a lower is a lower."

Can't agree, particularly where Anderson Gen. I lowers are concerned. Many I have seen were out of spec in critical areas. Compare one side by side with a top shelf offering like Aero Precision's and you will immediately see the difference.

The Anderson Gen. II lower with integral trigger guard seems to be better. Perhaps their QC will hold up with the new generation.

Click to expand...

How many Gen I Anderson lowers were put out in comparison with the Gen II's? (That's a real question, not a leading one). Just took a look online and I can't find a single one.

For myself and helping out family and friends and the guys I worked with at the Fire Dept I've put together Superior Arms, Rock River, Noveske, Anderson, Aero, CY6/SLR-15, PSA and DS Arms and haven't had many issues except for the the uptake adjustment set screw on the CY6/SLR-15 wanting to come loose (just ended up locktiting it in place), the trigger pin and hammer holes on one PSA lower were egg shaped (my buddy sent it back and got a refund and went whole hog and bought a Seekins Precision rifle) and then the different sized screws on the Andersons. That's it. That's the extent of the trouble I've had.

With the Anderson I knew about the shorter screw and I bought 3 beforehand for the two I had (they're $2 from Anderson). So that wasn't much trouble at all.

They don't have cool guy rollmarks and instead of a box like the others they came in baggies from the FFL and I didn't spend any time at all going over the thing with calipers. I just assembled them and they worked. :Shrug

Like many issues that people talk about online I suspect that there were problems at one time, the company fixed the problem (hence the reason for the Gen II) and people still talk about it even though it's no longer relevant information for shooters currently assembling them.

AlexanderA said:

greyling22 wrote:

If the grip screw hole is tapped all the way through, you run the risk of a too-long grip screw intruding into the fire control cavity, and impinging on the trigger. This could be a serious safety issue. (It could reduce trigger engagement with the hammer -- the hammer could slip off the sear portion of the trigger.) It appears, therefore, that Anderson is making their lowers this way for a reason. Kudos to them. (Think about it -- tapping the hole all the way through would actually be easier.)

Click to expand...

Any experienced assembler of an AR should be competent enough to know to check for issues long before a first round is ever chambered. I know some just slap them together as fast as they can and get to the range without anything but basic function testing, or don't fully understand what they assembled. Understanding what you are putting together and how the parts work is important. The issue you describe should be easy enough for even the most novice assembler to identify.

Before I put a single part on an AR lower, I lube and run a 1/4 x 28 tap all the way through and clean out any debris from that hole, every time.

FYI, Some triggers use that hole for adjustment parts and it has to be fully tapped, like Jard.



.

Lawyers tell their clients (manufacturers) to make their products as idiot-proof as possible. This may have been a factor in why Anderson didn't tap the grip screw hole all the way through.

Putting a set screw in that hole could be a way of adjusting trigger engagement, for those who know what they are doing. The problem is that many AR builders don't know what they are doing.

You always have to assume the lowest common denominator.

The idea that a lower is a lower isn't accurate. Some clown named Rogio was making lowers in Fayetteville NC (and complete guns). Without going into details of how horrible most of the other components were, the lowers were just WRONG. Sometime parts wouldn't go in, holes were improperly located, etc.

No name Bubba making lowers in his garage is not the same thing as a reputable firearms company making them.

Next time I'll make sure that distinction is understood.

Just saying it's hard to go wrong these days with both parts and lowers compared to what it was like in the 90's.

I just bought two Anderson lowers a couple weeks ago and they both were able to take the 1" grip screw. Could be that enough people complained so they changed it?

My son and I built him an M4 this past weekend on an Anderson lower with a Stag lower parts kit, Aero Precision upper and barrel. Everything went together with no issues. This is the third Anderson I've built in the past 2 years and I see nothing wrong with them.