Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
Thinking of starting an AR build. Which lower?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ripnbst" data-source="post: 1634606" data-attributes="member: 16136"><p>Nikat,</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>My first posted sounded like there was no difference in parts because there isn't, and you agreed with me:</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ripnbst, post: 1634606, member: 16136"] 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: [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
Thinking of starting an AR build. Which lower?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom