AR lower?

[jabraun98]

I just purchased an ar-15 lower for my build, keep in mind that this is a 100% complete lower. The company is Mag Tactical. Is this a good, quality lower?

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=344909835

Thanks
Jabraun

[ThatBeardedGuy]

Neat concept. Half the weight of a mil-spec lower. Some concerns about how the aluminum would stand up to a catastrophic failure like an overcharged round, but I've seen a Colt M4 blow up more spectacularly than the MAG example I found on AR-15.com.

[BillyJack3]

I wouldn't do it. You can get a PSA Mil-Spec LBK with Magpul CTR Stock for $179 and a PSA blem lower for $99. Quality full lower build for $278. And that's with a Magpul CTR Stock!

It doesn't list the parts you are getting in the build either. Is the buffer tube to spec? Looking at the pic of the inside of the lower, I'd be concerned with the strength. They state that there is a lot of "reinforced" areas. Does that mean they were weak to begin with?

First I've seen of these but it looks like a roll of he dice for a price that's above what you can build a quality lower for.

[mxsailor803]

I agree with BillyJack on this one. I'm piecing together a PSA setup for my wife right now and its less than the 200 bucks with proven quality. Pass.

[shaunpain]

Everyone is a naysayer for anything but an aluminum lower on the internet but I'm not buying it. There have very few complaints for reduced weight lowers in even the polymer flavors so I said you probably did okay. They offer a lifetime warranty so you should be good to go.

[Fishbed77]

The GEN 4 receiver is made of a proprietary Tactical Alloy.

That would have set off warning lights for me. A "Tactical" alloy?!?!? That's ridiculous.

You could call potmetal a "tactical alloy" if you wanted to, and it's still potmetal.

[mxsailor803]

That was my thoughts on it Fish. Granted I'm not a engineer by any means (aircraft mechanic) but its a big warning for me. At least the makers of the polymers don't call what its not. If it said 6061 or 7075 somewhere, it wouldn't have been such a big deal.

[Skadoosh]

The GEN 4 receiver is made of a proprietary Tactical Alloy.

I smell a rat.

[zukiphile]

I smell a rat.

That might just be the scent of overbearing sales language.

Not there is anything wrong with the ordinary aluminium alloy, but other ideas are interesting too.

[kraigwy]

It isn't the lower that makes an AR, excluding the trigger. If the parts work, then there really is not difference.

The Upper is what makes or brakes an AR.

I forgot who make my lower for my Service Rifle, but I know the trigger cost twice as much as the complete lower.

It carries a White Oak Service Rifle upper and its a shooter.

[MarkCO]

The MAG lowers are made of a Magnesium alloy. They are true and correct and I have one built up for a .22LR dedicated rifle (sub 4 pounds). I have shot one that supposedly had 10K rounds through it and it was still fine. The only area I would be concerned about is the buffer retaining pin. But then I build all of my ARs with no buffer retainer since they can break and or hog out even in mil-spec lowers.

The MAG lowers retail for about $200, but I got mine for quite a bit less during their initial "get em out there" phase. The parts to build one out should run about $120, so you did okay.

Unless I was building a specific ultralight like a dedicated .22, I would probably go with a mil-spec aluminum lower. For $100, I had a choice between a DelTon and a Mag for a .300 BO pistol build and went with the DelTon. A few ounces, between the hands, makes little difference when running an AR.

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

The only thing that scares me is where they re-enforce the trigger and hammer pin area and pivot pin areas. Just scares me that the lower isn't as strong as a standard lower...

Let us know how it is. I truly hope it is awesome.

[sailskidrive]

^^^ Same concern here. Also, I've seen many an M4 break where the buffer tube screws in.

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

I have a CMMG Quebec-A(complete AR in .22). I wouldn't mind trying the lightweight lower on this rifle, but I don't know if I would run it with a 416 upper (I say the 416 just because the recoil is slightly sharper than a standard M4) or something like that on it..

[MarkCO]

Magnesium is the lightest structural metal available for general use. It is approximately 34% lighter by volume than aluminum with roughly an equivalent strength. However, it has fatigue, denting and buckling resistance that is superior to aluminum alloys, all beneficial in a lower. Magnesium also has the highest known damping capacity of any structural metal, again beneficial.

So tell my why you are all nervous about these lowers again? They cost more for less weight and based on common handbook numbers, have superior properties to aluminum. I am not endorsing them, but I am not scared of them either. I am just not sure that double the price gets you anything unless, like I said, you are going as light as possible for some purpose built AR.

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

I like magnesium, but usually as a fire starter. I am just not sure about going full blown into a lower. I would just think if it were superior to 7075 T6 then all of the manufacturers would have switched by now. The tensile strength of 7075 T6 (74,000-78,000 psi) Aluminum is still higher than Magnesium alloy. Don't get me wrong, I am all for lighter and stronger. I would trust it way more than polymer lowers, but I personally will not buy a polymer lower... Just like carbon fiber can be used in AR lowers. But I guess the great thing is if lost in the woods you could start a fire with it....

Magnesium costs more to forge and mill and while is stronger than standard aluminum, it isn't as forgiving as far as bending. This is one of the very very few times when you will hear me speak these words "I just trust mil-spec more" mainly because it has already proven itself. As I said it is "my personal opinion, that I would not trust it as much, so no need to get offended.

[BillyJack3]

It says it's a "proprietary tactical alloy".

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by CharlieDeltaJuliet

This is one of the very very few times when you will hear me speak these words "I just trust mil-spec more" mainly because it has already proven itself.

That level of conservatism seems prudent when one cannot tolerate the failure of a component.

For many of us, these items are sport and recreational equipment, and trying something new and unproven has no dire consequence.

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

I understand zukiphile, I was answering Marks question about why I am nervous about the lower(or my own use and opinion). I honestly would like to try a total carbon fiber AR, but I am not going to trust one with my life until it has been proven and tested. I was simply stating I would try it with my CMMG upper, it still goes through more abuse than most AR's ever see.

[twp5253]

I ordered up and they have arrived, one each in NP3 flavor
http://www.hoganguns.com/lowers/223l...rcomplete.html
and one of these,
http://www.hoganguns.com/lowers/308l...rcomplete.html

I would have ordered complete rifles but they don't have barrels and the CA politicians are actively working to reduce what I purchase...wet noodle if they get their way. Chris, the main sales guy at Hogan was awesome to work with!

[1911rocks]

The reinforced areas are the Hammer Pin and Rigger pin which require a longer pin than the Mil-spec pins. I'm getting one for a 22lr dedicated lower with a TS upper.

[zukiphile]

Does the manufacturer send longer pins with the lower? I would think making a customer search for and obtain a non-standard part would be shortsighted.

EDIT - In looking at the MAG site, they do provide pins.

[Skans]

I wouldn't buy a lower or upper if I didn't know what kind of metal its made of. It's probably just plain old aluminum - not forged either. I doubt its pot metal, or ZAMAK - as these would actually be heavier.