idea for lower receiver comparison guide

[trinydex]

i've been trying to think of a way to get something like this started for a while.

i think such a guide would be best implemented as a user submitted type review since there are so many different brands of lowers and it's hard for one person to acquire them all. for consistency, a template should be followed.

the original idea has to be credited here

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ad.php?t=50947

i think most people have seen this on one forum or another.

i feel the template should be something like this:




MAKE: (the brand or roll mark) LMT, NOVESKE, CMMG etc.

MANUFACTURER: (the factory that cut it) LMT, CMT etc.

FORGED: (yes or no)

USER RATING and COMMENTS: (1-10) ten being highest score and notes about installing the LPK, tight fit, no problems etc.





i think the picture layout should be like this:

right face (this covers the roll mark and safety/fire iconography)

left face (safety/fire iconography and other cuts)

magwell area (so readers can see bevelage)

trigger guard area (see the trigger guard ears and forge flash)

fire control group recess (maybe this part isn't that interesting?)

buffer tube threads and buffer retainer area (to see if the threads are turned or tapped)

front (to see front checking of magwell or forge flash)





for those wondering what the merit of comparing lowers is, i actually have an ulterior motive. since i'm from california it's beneficial for me (and other californians) to know what options are "off list" (lowers allowed to be imported into california).

i also think it's good to have a clearinghouse for reviews of lowers.

anyone else have input? i am more than willing to kick it off with the cmmgs i have.

[Army Chief]

I'm on-board with the basic idea, but given the comprehensive nature of the Calguns post, I'm half-wondering what was really left unsaid. Seems like a pretty competent guide has already been prepared, no? What can, or should, be done to add to the information that is already out there?

AC

[trinydex]

i think there are more lower manufacturers than when the original thread was created. i also think there could be some benefit in having pictures up to par with what wevo usually produces.

is the format ok?

[Army Chief]

Some of this is academic to me at the moment, as I've no access to any of my lowers, but yes -- I think the proposed format is sound.

AC

[trinydex]

i'm doing this for semi academic purposes (the other parts would be legalistic). is that ok? is it kind of a waste of webspace?

[Army Chief]

I certainly wouldn't say that, though what made the Calguns project possible was having (most) all of the various brands on hand for comparison. These days, that's a bit harder to do, since lowers are more difficult to come by, and there seem to be so many new ones out there. Admittedly, we're still only looking at a handful of actual foundries, but that has nevertheless translated into scores of variations.

AC

[trinydex]

i started to compile a list and saw that there's definitely a lot of manufacturers. this seems a bit daunting already.

i know not everyone can possibly have all lowers, which is why i thought a user submitted version would be best. that way if everyone submits under the same format it's almost as if you have them all in the same place, as the pictures will be similar.

[cz777]

make a sticky set of posts for building the ar-15 -for people to choose the best parts and the makers clean up their ways for better Q.C. ...lowers/uppers, barrels and other parts ....YES please!

[rob_s]

There is a list floating around the interweb of various manufacturers and who *really* makes their lowers. and that's not even everyone. Interestingly I've put two lowers side by side that supposedly come from the same manufacturer and found differences.

For the pictures I'd say just to the 6 sides and post the originals in 600 pixels wide with links to the 1024+ wide pics for people to make out the details like beveling and flash.