well like i said id go palmetto state armory all the way through i have a PSA complete rifle and fit and finish is outstanding in my eyes. It went together like peanut butter and women
OK, now that I'm not on my phone, let me expound a little.
Yes, a .250" hole is a .250" hole... for the most part. But the $$ difference comes in here: is it a .253" hole, or a .251" hole, and is it that consistently. Also, if the drawing says 2.750" from xyz location, is the actual location 2.751", or 2.755"?
Precision costs $, higher precision costs $$$.
The other factor in the part cost equation, is QC, how many parts out of a 1000 does the company inspect. And by inspect I don't mean "Oh, that one looks good..." I mean measuring every hole diameter, distance, and location; every measurement; every thread on the part.
Now, as was mentioned, the lower doesn't have to be aircraft grade tolerances on all of it, which is why for the most part, cheaper lowers work just as well as more expensive lowers.
You are right and you are wrong. If a drawing says a hole diam is 0.750" that's great but it really means nothing. The difference is in the tolerances. In general, drawings have tolerances based on the number of decimal places so a dimension specified as 1.1" might have a tolerance of +/-0.1" That same dimension written as 1.100" now has a tolerance of 0.005". See the difference? In the first case the hole could be 1.1,1.0, or 1.2 and pass inspection. In the second case the dimension written as 1.100" can only vary 1.095"-1.105". Big difference.
***HOWEVER***It does not cost any more money to do either one in terms of the process. The difference here is the equipment used to make it. Modern CNC mills can hold +/-0.001" inch. The big differences is in:
1. The Operator who wrote the program must know what they are doing
2. The jig built to hold what is being machined must be of just as high quality, if not better.
3. The CNC Mill operator must follow directions.
So these companies like Noveske probably have really nice brand new HAAS mills with highly engineered jigs for fixturing the lowers which means more overhead to cover. But that doesn't change the fact that their lower at the end of the day didn't cost any more than company X's in terms of direct manufacturing cost. They just have more overhead.
Inspection levels affect cost too, also correct. I don't know what AQL the higher priced companies are running but I'd be willing to bet they 100% inspect 3 of them after setup, if they are good they run and check critical dimensions on one an hour or one every other hour. If they find an anomaly they stop, go back and find where things went awry. If all looks good, keep on makin' chips.
Even still, it is a well known saying that you cannot inspect quality into a part.
As far as wanting a lower that is Mil-Spec. The military has a drawing and if the rifle meets that drawing then it meets print thus it passes inspection and is "Mil-Spec" Saying a lower is Mil-Spec says something, but it also leaves alot on the table. Mil-Spec may have a +/- 0.005" tolerance on critical features and more lax tolerances on others. A lower that is +/-0.002" globally, which is very possible, will be a much higher quality lower *if* you make all the other component's interfacing features to the same tolerances. If not, you have wasted your time and money.
So these companies like Noveske probably have really nice brand new HAAS mills with highly engineered jigs for fixturing the lowers which means more overhead to cover. But that doesn't change the fact that their lower at the end of the day didn't cost any more than company X's in terms of direct manufacturing cost. They just have more overhead.
So if they brougnt in more seasonal migrant workers ...they could, theoretically, bring the costs down.
So if they brougnt in more seasonal migrant workers ...they could, theoretically, bring the costs down.
Last edited:
I wasn't wrong at all. I just didn't write it all out like you did *the second time*.
You're first post sounded like you thought there was no difference in parts.
If you count inspection and machinery and tooling as overhead, and not as manufacturing cost (WTF *IS* "manufacturing" cost then?), then all you have left is raw material. And sure, the material in the Noveske isn't any more than that in the Surplus Arms lower.
No kidding. Anything that goes into the overall quality of the product being produced is manufacturing cost.
Thanks to the "Project Triangle"...High Quality is most likely going to result in higher cost.
Overhead is how much it costs to rent their shop building, pay the secretary, and keep the lights on...
Nikat,
I agreed with you on the inspection part, though I doubt there is really that much difference in inspection levels among the reputable companies. Which is why I don't think that should be taken into consideration. From the tone of your post, you made it sound like Noveske does a full layout of every lower leaving their facility. I assure you they don't. Now a company who sells only a few hundred AR's a year like Wilson Combat, they might.
It is my belief that the biggest factor in the cost of the lowers is the machinery they are made on. My point is that saying "Mil-Spec" isn't necessarily indicative of cost. If the part meets print, its Mil-Spec. What machine it was made on has nothing to do with that. One might actually make the argument that the companies with the better equipment could sell their parts for less because they can likely make them quicker, with the same amount of precision as the guys with not so nice equipment.
Overhead is any cost they have consistently. If a machine is being used, or just sitting there idle, they are still paying for it. That is overhead, not mfg cost. Once it is paid off, it is no longer overhead. If a company is in a building they own, that is paid for in full, it is not overhead.
Mfg cost is material, machine time, paying the operator, paying the QC tech to inspect it, shipping, etc. Things DIRECTLY related to the manufacture of that product. If you were not making that product, you would not have any of those costs.
My first posted sounded like there was no difference in parts because there isn't, and you agreed with me:
I agreed with you on the inspection part, though I doubt there is really that much difference in inspection levels among the reputable companies. Which is why I don't think that should be taken into consideration. From the tone of your post, you made it sound like Noveske does a full layout of every lower leaving their facility. I assure you they don't. Now a company who sells only a few hundred AR's a year like Wilson Combat, they might.
It is my belief that the biggest factor in the cost of the lowers is the machinery they are made on. My point is that saying "Mil-Spec" isn't necessarily indicative of cost. If the part meets print, its Mil-Spec. What machine it was made on has nothing to do with that. One might actually make the argument that the companies with the better equipment could sell their parts for less because they can likely make them quicker, with the same amount of precision as the guys with not so nice equipment.
Overhead is any cost they have consistently. If a machine is being used, or just sitting there idle, they are still paying for it. That is overhead, not mfg cost. Once it is paid off, it is no longer overhead. If a company is in a building they own, that is paid for in full, it is not overhead.
Mfg cost is material, machine time, paying the operator, paying the QC tech to inspect it, shipping, etc. Things DIRECTLY related to the manufacture of that product. If you were not making that product, you would not have any of those costs.
My first posted sounded like there was no difference in parts because there isn't, and you agreed with me:
If the part meets print AND is made of the specified material AND is subjected to the specified testing criteria AND is inspected/approved by a government representative, then it is Mil-Spec. Almost nothing on the civilian market is truely "Mil-Spec". That term is tossed around far too freely.
If I implied that, it wasn't intentional. I was just saying that inspection takes time; and we all know time = money. That time as you put it later "wouldn't be spent" if you weren't doing the inspection. Thus, it *IS* a factor in the cost of the part, whether you say it is or not.
There is an inspection, maybe not calipers on every measurement of every part, but at the bare minimum: batch testing.
Have you been to all of them? Have they showed you in completeness their full QC program?
Most assuredly I agree. But wait, I thought you said it isn't part of the cost?
Agreed, but that was not the question at hand, it was whether there is *higher* precision and more QC (ie, manufacturing cost differences) between high end lowers and low end lowers.
...that is not related to the manufacture of that part. If one followed the logic you used, the material cost is not part of manufacturing cost, because it is a consistent cost. The secretary and building are overhead because you would still incur those expenses whether you are a machine shop or a warehouse. The CNC mill is part of the manufacturing cost precisely because you *wouldn't* need it if you weren't machining parts. Only a danged fool would have a 6+ figure machine laying around as part of a business and not be using it.
Respectfully disagree.
Exactly, and the inspection time and machine cost is directly related to machining precision parts.
No I didn't; same material cost DOES NOT equal "no difference in parts."
Again though, I'm not saying that you *need* a lower held to +/- .0001", but I AM saying that there is a quantifiable difference in the cost from low end to high end.
You guys can argue specs and quality control all you want, but you're never gonna find anything better than a Del-ton lower.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[WTT] Ruger 10/22 charger, with threaded barrel, scope, extra mags ,ammo.- Latest: Dangerousways
-
-
-
-
-
