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="NikatKimber" data-source="post: 1634638" data-attributes="member: 423"><p>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 <strong>*IS*</strong> a factor in the cost of the part, whether you say it is or not. </p><p>There is an inspection, maybe not calipers on every measurement of every part, but at the bare minimum: batch testing.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Have you been to all of them? Have they showed you in completeness their full QC program?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Most assuredly I agree. But wait, I thought you said it isn't part of the cost?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>...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 <em>precisely</em> 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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Respectfully disagree.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Exactly, and the inspection time and machine cost is directly related to machining precision parts.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No I didn't; same material cost DOES NOT equal "no difference in parts."</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="NikatKimber, post: 1634638, member: 423"] 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 [B]*IS*[/B] 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 [I]precisely[/I] 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. [/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