AR Sponsor
Posted: 5/2/2009 1:41:15 PM EDT
| Has anyone used a Lower Parts kit from Essential Arms? How do they compare to the LPK's from Stag or Rock River Arms. |
|
I've only worked with EA LPKs twice, and that's not a big enough sample for me to make a blanket statement about their quality that's worth a damn.
That said, the two that I worked with were fine. Unlike some of the lower-quality LPKs I've worked with, the EA kit components were machined well, nothing was missing, and my file stayed in the toolbox  Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
lower parts are lower parts IMO. Very far from the truth. So what parts do you think differ that much? Possibly FCG parts (mainly hammer and trigger springs), but for a standard single stage trigger, even these I think are the pretty much the same. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
lower parts are lower parts IMO. Very far from the truth. So what parts do you think differ that much? Possibly FCG parts (mainly hammer and trigger springs), but for a standard single stage trigger, even these I think are the pretty much the same. Who knows where the company sourced the parts, and whether or not they were properly heat treated or if they are even the proper size. |
|
Quoted:
^^ Agreed. It appears that RRA LPK has been the most popular and reliable. I went in the Industry Section under Essential Arms and people there seemed to praise them. However, I dont know if there is and bias there. Negative, I had two RRA LPKS. Both triggers sucked, but more importantly when one lower was dropped off of a coffee table, onto a carpeted floor, the bolt catch snapped off. I mentioned that on M4carbine, and someone else had a bolt catch break off and one person said he saw a factory RRA rifle on a dealer shelf with a broken bolt catch. At least the roll pins were correctly sized, and the pivot and take down pins didn't have to be beaten out with the handle of a screwdriver like my DPMS LPK, but I will not trust RRA's lack of a standard to ensure the critical fire control parts are properly heat-treated so they won't break. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
lower parts are lower parts IMO. Very far from the truth. So what parts do you think differ that much? Possibly FCG parts (mainly hammer and trigger springs), but for a standard single stage trigger, even these I think are the pretty much the same. Who knows where the company sourced the parts, and whether or not they were properly heat treated or if they are even the proper size. We're talking about springs, levers, plungers, buttons, detents, and pins that undergo very little stress, if they are out of spec and don't fit you will know right away during assembly, if they fit then they should be GTG. I stand by my original statement: Lower parts are lower parts (maybe with the exception of the FCG). If you want to spend 3 times as much for Colt lower parts than go ahead, but it's a waist IMO. Now if you want to talk upper parts, that's another story. |
| Probably the biggest difference between LPK's that you'll see will be the trigger/hammer/disconnector. Otherwise all the parts are so simple and universal that they should all work perfectly. If you are not going to use the single stage from the LPK anyhow and end up using a separate 2 stage, then parts is parts IMHO. |
|
Unfortunately, not all parts are created equal-even the small parts.
When you've put together enough ARs you'll see bad parts. When you work with different LPK manufacturers often enough you'll start to see trends. Consider the following four defective/out of spec parts from four different brands of LPK: 
From left to right: 1) Takedown pin "out of round", and won't insert into takedown pin holes on lower. 2) Takedown pin channel machined improperly, so pin won't fully seat in lower. The grinding marks happened at the factory-after the part was finished. That tells me the manufacturer knew of the problem and tried (unsuccessfully) to fix it...and then shipped it anyway. 3) Bolt catch is .03" too thick to fit into channel on lower. 4) Bolt catch is .025" too thick to fit into channel on lower. Other common problems include selector and takedown pin detents that are so soft the points deform immediately. Springs that are too long/short/skinny/thick, or don't have enough power (the buffer tube detent spring and bolt catch spring are common ones). FCG parts that are soft due to improper heat treatment. Inferior quality roll-pins, missing parts...you name it
|
|
At least the roll pins were correctly sized, and the pivot and take down pins didn't have to be beaten out with the handle of a screwdriver like my DPMS LPK
 Funny you mention this, I just did a build with a DPMS LPK that had the same issue. I thought it was the lower and the dealer took it back, I never thought it was the LPK. I guess I'll stay away from DPMS LPK.
|
|
Quoted:
At least the roll pins were correctly sized, and the pivot and take down pins didn't have to be beaten out with the handle of a screwdriver like my DPMS LPK
Funny you mention this, I just did a build with a DPMS LPK that had the same issue. I thought it was the lower and the dealer took it back, I never thought it was the LPK. I guess I'll stay away from DPMS LPK.This is my experience with DPMS lower parts kits as well. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
At least the roll pins were correctly sized, and the pivot and take down pins didn't have to be beaten out with the handle of a screwdriver like my DPMS LPK
Funny you mention this, I just did a build with a DPMS LPK that had the same issue. I thought it was the lower and the dealer took it back, I never thought it was the LPK. I guess I'll stay away from DPMS LPK.This is my experience with DPMS lower parts kits as well. I just assembled my first lower last night using a DPMS kit. I had no problems. All was good to go, much easier than I though. No special tools needed, didn't mar the finish.
|
|
I bought a model 1 LPK, and it did not look good at all. had cheap casting marks,seemed like it was made of lower grade pot metal, looked like they were made in china......just did not look nothing like my other ones(which turned out were mil spec) the same held true with the stock set, it was cheap too. but the price was much less. I punched in the cage number,on a internet search, and found forum thread where others had the same concerns as I did, and several others commented that they were low grade and thats why they were cheap. I guess one should say they are commercial LPK's and when I sold the parts I listed it that way
I found a bushy LPK for sale on the EE here, and the chap said it was mil spec, so I bought it. well..........there was a difference. did not have the casting lines and circles, on the main parts, seemed like they were heavier and definitely machined better. so once again, the old phrase holds true "you get what you pay for" |
|
Quoted:
I bought a model 1 LPK, and it did not look good at all. had cheap casting marks,seemed like it was made of lower grade pot metal, looked like they were made in china......just did not look nothing like my other ones(which turned out were mil spec) the same held true with the stock set, it was cheap too. but the price was much less. I punched in the cage number,on a internet search, and found forum thread where others had the same concerns as I did, and several others commented that they were low grade and thats why they were cheap. I guess one should say they are commercial LPK's and when I sold the parts I listed it that way I found a bushy LPK for sale on the EE here, and the chap said it was mil spec, so I bought it. well..........there was a difference. did not have the casting lines and circles, on the main parts, seemed like they were heavier and definitely machined better. so once again, the old phrase holds true "you get what you pay for" Of course it is true, with a LPK you get what you pay for. However, a bushmaster still is not mil-spec, better than M1S yes, as good as a Colt or LMT, no. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
lower parts are lower parts IMO. Very far from the truth. So what parts do you think differ that much? Possibly FCG parts (mainly hammer and trigger springs), but for a standard single stage trigger, even these I think are the pretty much the same. Who knows where the company sourced the parts, and whether or not they were properly heat treated or if they are even the proper size. We're talking about springs, levers, plungers, buttons, detents, and pins that undergo very little stress, if they are out of spec and don't fit you will know right away during assembly, if they fit then they should be GTG. I stand by my original statement: Lower parts are lower parts (maybe with the exception of the FCG). If you want to spend 3 times as much for Colt lower parts than go ahead, but it's a waist IMO. Now if you want to talk upper parts, that's another story. In red is a contradiction considering that the FCG is part of the LPK. There is certainly stress and impact on these parts. Not all LPKs including FCGs are created equal. Some companies place far more attention on proper spec and hardness than others. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I bought a model 1 LPK, and it did not look good at all. had cheap casting marks,seemed like it was made of lower grade pot metal, looked like they were made in china......just did not look nothing like my other ones(which turned out were mil spec) the same held true with the stock set, it was cheap too. but the price was much less. I punched in the cage number,on a internet search, and found forum thread where others had the same concerns as I did, and several others commented that they were low grade and thats why they were cheap. I guess one should say they are commercial LPK's and when I sold the parts I listed it that way I found a bushy LPK for sale on the EE here, and the chap said it was mil spec, so I bought it. well..........there was a difference. did not have the casting lines and circles, on the main parts, seemed like they were heavier and definitely machined better. so once again, the old phrase holds true "you get what you pay for" Of course it is true, with a LPK you get what you pay for. However, a bushmaster still is not mil-spec, better than M1S yes, as good as a Colt or LMT, no. Back in 2001 Bushy was tops I never heard anyone bad mouth them back then I used a Bushy LPK for my build in 2001 SEEMs the same Quality as my LMT |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I bought a model 1 LPK, and it did not look good at all. had cheap casting marks,seemed like it was made of lower grade pot metal, looked like they were made in china......just did not look nothing like my other ones(which turned out were mil spec) the same held true with the stock set, it was cheap too. but the price was much less. I punched in the cage number,on a internet search, and found forum thread where others had the same concerns as I did, and several others commented that they were low grade and thats why they were cheap. I guess one should say they are commercial LPK's and when I sold the parts I listed it that way I found a bushy LPK for sale on the EE here, and the chap said it was mil spec, so I bought it. well..........there was a difference. did not have the casting lines and circles, on the main parts, seemed like they were heavier and definitely machined better. so once again, the old phrase holds true "you get what you pay for" Of course it is true, with a LPK you get what you pay for. However, a bushmaster still is not mil-spec, better than M1S yes, as good as a Colt or LMT, no. Back in 2001 Bushy was tops I never heard anyone bad mouth them back then I used a Bushy LPK for my build in 2001 SEEMs the same Quality as my LMT you own them both, so your probably right. I believe the bushy kit, I had, did have a cage number( which means mil spec,right?or was it just a manufacturer #??) I will have to look at it again. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I bought a model 1 LPK, and it did not look good at all. had cheap casting marks,seemed like it was made of lower grade pot metal, looked like they were made in china......just did not look nothing like my other ones(which turned out were mil spec) the same held true with the stock set, it was cheap too. but the price was much less. I punched in the cage number,on a internet search, and found forum thread where others had the same concerns as I did, and several others commented that they were low grade and thats why they were cheap. I guess one should say they are commercial LPK's and when I sold the parts I listed it that way I found a bushy LPK for sale on the EE here, and the chap said it was mil spec, so I bought it. well..........there was a difference. did not have the casting lines and circles, on the main parts, seemed like they were heavier and definitely machined better. so once again, the old phrase holds true "you get what you pay for" Of course it is true, with a LPK you get what you pay for. However, a bushmaster still is not mil-spec, better than M1S yes, as good as a Colt or LMT, no. Back in 2001 Bushy was tops I never heard anyone bad mouth them back then I used a Bushy LPK for my build in 2001 SEEMs the same Quality as my LMT No, Bushmaster was never "tops." They do not build to the TDP. A Bushmaster LPK is not "mil-spec." The problem in your thinking is the differences are sometimes not apparent to the naked eye. Were those small parts manufactured correctly? Were they properly and thoroughly heat-treated or were they shabbily surface-hardened? |
AR Sponsor