2 questions - Colt AR lower pricing, and retro AR-15 lowers - Talk me off the ledge :)

[wojownik]

OK, I'll admit, I can get stuck on wanting a brand name. So I'm wrestling with getting a new Colt A4 lower (not an M4 carbine, an A2/A4). But I'm having a hard time swallowing Colt lower pricing, which still seems to be 2x to 2-1/2x higher than a lot of other options out there. Still, its a Colt - but worth this kind of premium???

Completely unrelated - a separate retro build - any opinions on the McKay XM A1 style lower vs. the American Pride M16-A1 retro clone? Heard some rough toolmarks on McKays from a few years back - have they cleaned up their work since then?

 

[cheygriz]

It's up to you I like Colt's, but I'm sure there are other very good lowers out there.

I guess most folks buy what they want, not necessarily what they need. (I'm one of them)

 

[imashooter]

OK, I'll admit, I can get stuck on wanting a brand name. So I'm wrestling with getting a new Colt A4 lower (not an M4 carbine, an A2/A4). But I'm having a hard time swallowing Colt lower pricing, which still seems to be 2x to 2-1/2x higher than a lot of other options out there. Still, its a Colt - but worth this kind of premium???

Completely unrelated - a separate retro build - any opinions on the McKay XM A1 style lower vs. the American Pride M16-A1 retro clone? Heard some rough toolmarks on McKays from a few years back - have they cleaned up their work since then?

I prefer them for their consistency. Bought M4 lower tonight from Brownells for 280.00 shipped with the 10% off (today only) coupon code I received in an email today. Got same from them in May for 20.00 less but this isn't bad.

Who you looking at for the A4 lower?

 

[wojownik]

For the A4, really was just looking at Colt. Armalite was on my radar, but seem to be unobtainium.

PSA and Bushmaster are less than half the price, but lesser quality as well. Can't stand the Spikes logo.

I guess one thing the Colt has going for it, is that it'sess expensive and more available then FN lowers.

 

[entropy]

If you want Retro Ar lowers, No Dak Spud is the go-to; They have every variant up to the A1.

https://www.nodakspud.com/AR Lowers.htm

 

[Jackal]

Buy it for the rollmark. There is zero tangible benefit using the Colt marked lower vs any other in spec forged lower.

 

[GunnyUSMC]

For the A4, really was just looking at Colt. Armalite was on my radar, but seem to be unobtainium.

PSA and Bushmaster are less than half the price, but lesser quality as well. Can't stand the Spikes logo.

I guess one thing the Colt has going for it, is that it'sess expensive and more available then FN lowers.

Have you looked at the Areo Gen2 lowers? I would have trouble paying a higher price for Colt, the company has not been stable for years.

 

[imashooter]

Have you looked at the Areo Gen2 lowers? I would have trouble paying a higher price for Colt, the company has not been stable for years.

Financially and business - wise that's true but quality has steadily and greatly increased in the past 30 + years.

 

[wojownik]

Yes, the NDS receivers are sweet, but the waiting list is about a year at this point. And the ones I've seen on GB and locally are in the $250 range (stripped).

FWIW, I'm trying to put together a retro build, based on a CAPCO M16-A2 upper. The receiver would be either an 603/XM16E1 (which would have to be a Nodak), or a 603/M16A1 (Nodak, American Pride or Brownell's, if in stock). I think the buttstock and pistol grip could be either A1 or A2 (at least for USAF). I think the USCG used the 603 receivers, but upgraded both the upper and the lower furniture. I think ....

If you want Retro Ar lowers, No Dak Spud is the go-to; They have every variant up to the A1.

https://www.nodakspud.com/AR Lowers.htm

 

[AlexanderA]

Lowers have become a commodity. The thing that differentiates them is the rollmark. My last two builds have used Anderson lowers, simply because they happened to be available, at a low price, at the time. Whenever, now, that I look at those guns, I dislike that rollmark more and more. Buyer's remorse! It's even to the point where I'm considering replacing the lowers, just to get a better rollmark. (I happen to like the S&W rollmark. It's classy.) But I would not pay a huge premium for a Colt rollmark.

 

[FL-NC]

There's 2 kinds of lowers- the ones what work and the ones that don't. My opinion.

 

[Elkins45]

Anderson has a horse on their lowers too, and they aren't bankrupt. Poverty Pony all the way baby!

One of my two SBRs is built on a ban-era Colt. It has a big hole in the side where the special Colt anti-autosear block used to be. So I paid extra to get a receiver that's actually weaker than some generic brand, and the bolt carrier tail is sawed in half lengthwise. Save your money and use it for something that matters, like a better quality barrel.

 

[Everready73]

I would be way more concerned with the actual parts in the lower receiver than who the lower receiver was made buy. Maybe consider buying a stripped a4 receiver and getting quality lower parts. Shark arms has the colt lower parts kits minus FCG for around $50 and probably most of the other parts you would need. The receiver is probably the least important part of the lower half assuming it is in spec. Many other companies such as Sionics, BCM, DD make high quality lower parts kits.

If you want to go with the Colt(I am a big fan) I would contact Chris at Shark Arms. They have the best pricing on Colt stuff i have seen by far usually. Armsunlimited and G&R tactical also have a decent selection but prices are a little higher.

What do you plan on doing for the upper? If you already have one, or are building you could consider buying a complete Colt rifle and selling off the upper to get the lower a little cheaper than if you just bought it

 

[wojownik]

I'm on the same wavelength with you there. As long as they are in spec, the receivers are the same - it's down to the rollmark.

Lowers have become a commodity. The thing that differentiates them is the rollmark. My last two builds have used Anderson lowers, simply because they happened to be available, at a low price, at the time. Whenever, now, that I look at those guns, I dislike that rollmark more and more. Buyer's remorse! It's even to the point where I'm considering replacing the lowers, just to get a better rollmark. (I happen to like the S&W rollmark. It's classy.) But I would not pay a huge premium for a Colt rollmark.

I've got several sets of good lower receiver parts (not furniture though). For the upper, I have a mint CAPCO M16-A2 upper (US military, unissued, original contract to upgrade USAF A1 rifles), and also have a Colt AR-15A4 20″ 1:7 Gov’t profile flat top upper, and a Bushmaster 20" 1:9 HBAR upper (from the Windham years).

So retro lower receiver would goes with the CAPCO (btw, the CAPCO upper is in pre-ban Colt gray). Colt or GM Hydromatic would be appropriate rollmarks.
The "modern" lower would go with my Colt upper.
The Bushmaster HBAR would stay with its Bushmaster lower (all circa 1997).

(rounding out the collection is a Bushmaster Patrolman, and a Colt restricted-marked AR6721).

I would be way more concerned with the actual parts in the lower receiver than who the lower receiver was made buy. Maybe consider buying a stripped a4 receiver and getting quality lower parts.
<snip>
What do you plan on doing for the upper? If you already have one, or are building you could consider buying a complete Colt rifle and selling off the upper to get the lower a little cheaper than if you just bought it

 

[Speedo66]

If you're anywhere near AIM Surplus in OH, they're having a walk-in sale this week, which includes Anderson lowers for $34.95.

Colt rollmark is nice, but not that nice.

 

[GunnyUSMC]

Financially and business - wise that's true but quality has steadily and greatly increased in the past 30 + years.

Has there been an independent comparison done that has put Colt lowers against any other brand?
A lot of people won"t use Anderson because they are sold at a low price point, or they don't like the rollmark. But people forget that years ago $99.99 was a good deal for an Anderson lower. Anderson is also the largest manufacture of AR lowers in the US. A lot of the lowers on the market that run from $75 to $150 are made by Anderson. They just put a different rollmark on it. If you had your own FFL and placed a big enough order Anderson would put your info and rollmark on the lowers for you.
I've been thinking about buying lowers with different rollmarks just for fun.
When it comes to Mil-spec lowers, the price deference you pay is for the finish and the rollmark.

 

[GunnyUSMC]

Lowers have become a commodity. The thing that differentiates them is the rollmark. My last two builds have used Anderson lowers, simply because they happened to be available, at a low price, at the time. Whenever, now, that I look at those guns, I dislike that rollmark more and more. Buyer's remorse! It's even to the point where I'm considering replacing the lowers, just to get a better rollmark. (I happen to like the S&W rollmark. It's classy.) But I would not pay a huge premium for a Colt rollmark.

Just fill in the rollmark with JB weld, paint it and have the Colt logo laser engraved on it.

 

[Casefull]

I found out first hand that Colt firearms were nothing special in the early 1980s. It's hard to fathom that people still believe that they are somehow better.

 

[cheygriz]

Many experienced riflemen believe they are better.

 

[GunnyUSMC]

Many experienced riflemen believe they are better.

Some people believe in Bigfoot too. Just because someone believes does not make it so. Colt makes a good quality AR but they are over priced. You get nothing special for the extra you pay.

 

[Elkins45]

Many experienced riflemen believe they are better.

What does “better” mean in regards to a lower? How is this quantified? I can see how it can be measured with a barrel, but a lower is either in spec or it is not.

 

[gulogulo1970]

Is it better? Probably the same.

But if it gives you a bit more pride of ownership and if you later look at it and think, I wish that were Colt.
Pay the money and be happy from the start.

Look at it this way, the Colt lower is cheaper than buying the Anderson then later buying the Colt.

 

[cheygriz]

We all have our own definition of what constitutes "better."

To many folks, cheaper is better. To others, not so much.

Is a Ruger better than a Rossi? It costs far more.

Is a Ford better than a Chevy??? Hell yes! (IMHO)

 

[AlexanderA]

Anderson has a horse on their lowers too, and they aren't bankrupt. Poverty Pony all the way baby!

The Anderson "Poverty Pony" logo isn't that bad, as a design. The problem is in the execution. It's so deep and bold (and so is the serial number, BTW), that you begin to suspect it is forged or cast into the receiver (how is that even possible?) rather than being engraved or rollmarked in the traditional way. A lot of the criticism of Andersons would disappear if they would just find some way to tone down that logo. Functionally, Anderson receivers are just fine.

The Anderson rollmark, as bad as it is, is still a lot better than markings of "Zombie Defense," skulls, spiders, and the like. Those just show the level of immaturity of the owners.

 

[entropy]

Colt or GM Hydromatic would be appropriate rollmarks.

So would Harrington & Richardson, but you won't find any Hydro-matic or H&R lowers floating around-they were all produced for selective fire and delivered to the military and LE agencies.