Does anyone know who Aero Precision makes lowers for?

>>33473578
no idea. I bought one of their almost complete rifles(missing handguard/stock) and had no idea it was fitted with a fine ass ballistics advantage barrel until my FFL showed me when I came to pick it up.

File: lower 1.png (4MB, 2032x1323px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2032x1323px

>>33473623
>>33473578
I decided to use an aero precision lower for my current build instead of an Anderson like I typically do. So far I'm impressed with the difference in quality for what was only a 20 difference at the gun show vendor I bought it from. Also the A and other rollmarks look fucking sick when color filled for a prime AESTHETIC.

>>33473578
it usually doesn't pay to advertise who the OEM supplier is

>>33473578
old thread is maybe too old
>http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_12/318113_AR_Lower_Receiver_FAQ__56k_beware__MMS__CMT__LAR__LMT_compared___.html

>>33473858
Maybe I read that over too fast but I didn't see aero precision referenced

>>33473764
I'm having a hard time figuring out why anyone would want a lower other than aero precision unless they want to pay a premium for a roll mark

I'm fairly certain that Aero Precision does not forge their own lowers, they just do the machining.

>>33473902
my bad, you're right. I just read "oem supplier" and immediately thought of that arfcom thread

>>33473764
the OG Aero logo was better looking imo, i think some tripfag in the /arg/ has one of the older lowers, he filled it in with a gold and it looks fuckin nice

>>33473955
Aero lowers come from LMT

>>33473963
Interesting, I'm kinda surprised as at least from I've seen the Aero ones are going for less than their LMT counterparts. Does that mean Aero drills the extra whole for the nylon tension screw in themselves? Because I happen to really like that feature. That and the looks of the logo/rollmarks aside from clone specific brand names it's my favorite.

>>33473910
Because objectively, Mega Arms makes the best fitting upper/lower receivers available on the market. Price is higher yes, but the end product is worth it in my mind. (I'm referring to their billet set)

>>33473963
Really? Where are lmt lowers so much more expensive?

>>33473963
no fucking way, proofs?
LMT is supplying like 3 different millitarres right now, no way theyre make another OEM's lowers

File: aero_precision_ap_15_old_style_640.jpg (44KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 640x480px

>>33473956
>the OG Aero logo was better looking imo

This. You'd think if they can do a run of those dumb PEW PEW lowers, they could do a run of the original logo too.

>>33474012
I occasionally have work in tacoma, I could probably stop by one of their facilities and ask

File: IMG_6938.gif (2MB, 580x433px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 580x433px

>>33473995
>6 oz heavier
>not as sturdy as a forged receiver

Into the trash it goes

File: raw forging.jpg (38KB, 612x416px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 612x416px

>>33473993
It means that Aero Precision probably does *all* the machining on the raw forging. See pic for what they loook look like before starting.

>>33474008
There are only a few forging houses that make lower for everyone. It's rare to find someone who does both the forging and the machining because it is essentially two entirely different businesses.

>>33474055
0.6

>>33474057
>>33474008
>supplies raw forging
you said lowers up here >>33473963
assumed you meant serialed lowers

>>33474055
>not as sturdy
do you understand the difference between 7075 and 6061 aluminum?

>>33474145
Sorry any confusion. Aero forgings come from LMT.

I have seen some of Aeros CNC equipment. As far as production/serialzing/finish machining and turning the raw forgings into something useful it is done in house.

>>33474145
Aero lowers are forged 7075, which are stronger than billet 7075

>>33474145
You're quoting two different people. I can only assume >>33473963 was referring to raw forgings, because anything else would be incorrect.

Also, forged 6061 will outperform billet 7075.

>>33474000
See>>33474057

>>33474055
how is it weaker?

File: forging.jpg (38KB, 736x330px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 736x330px

>>33474181

>>33474181
Billet receivers are supposedly weaker than forgings. Not that guy you are asking btw, but IIRC more chance of inconsistencies from the casting process to create the blocks the receivers and machined from, whereas the forging process that hammers the fuck out of whatever raw stock eliminates these inconsistencies to a large degree.

Part of the reason behind billet manufacturing is easier addition of ambidextrous features that are more difficult to design around the forging process

>>33474181
http://www.americanweaponscomponents.com/2nd-amendment/billet-vs-forged-lowers-whats-best/

>>33474177
I realized i was quoting two different people, what I didnt realize was billet 7075 was weaker than forged 6061. I was under the impression that 7075 the more durable of the two alloys, or would I be correct in saying that forged 6061 is weaker than 7075?
I thought I knew at least these basics, but learning never stops i guess

>>33474263
Apples to apples, 7075 will outperform 6061. But forging produces parts that are significantly stronger and more fatigue resistant than the initial billet or sheet material.

>>33474263
>>33474216
>>33474210
Forging is done for (significant) cost savings and reducing material waste. You can't always control grain flow direction compared to your loading conditions, and the Short Transverse is a bitch of a direction.

Our parts in aerospace that are forged are often designed for lower stresses than 'billet' hogged out parts due to variations in the forging process that need to be accounted for. People put way too much credit towards forgings, especially for a precipitation hardened material like 7075.

>>33474322
Forging is done to improve material performance. Simply "reducing material waste" isn't worth the significant investment in tooling that forging demands.

>>33474181
They assume it is sintered which in reality it is weaker.
Lower done with real casting should be strong as anything else.

>>33474012
>>33474029
I'd try also
that logo is nice

>>33474351
It can be worthwhile for high volumes of parts. Especially on smaller and thinner things like a lower where it doesn't necessarily require a high tonnage press.

I swear, someday I'm going to get a goddamn forged 80% lower and do hardness and machine tensile samples from it just to show how minimal the difference is, if there even is one.

>>33474282
>>33474322
>>33474216
thanks for the learnin, anon(s)

anyone have an opinion on Vseven's lithium-aluminum alloy lower?
>besides sticker shock

>>33474426
Lithium aluminum alloys are still in the development stages; they're trying to work out some issues with them that no one wants to talk about. If people can get away with 3D printing or doing epoxy molds (with threaded inserts) on a part, then 7075 will be more than adequate.

S&W's aluminum scandium frames are some cool shit though. Goddamn Russians and their minerals.

>>33474468
>S&W's
>Russians
uwotm8?

>>33474540
He probably means Russians have massive control over one of the key ingredients of the alloy formula thus making it expensive or rare. How dense are u?

>>33474540
Scandium is rare as fuck and Russia has a lot of it. I think they used it in their mig 29. Even though it's fuck-awesome, we don't have enough of a supply to make it a strategic metal.

>>33474546
Ive been drinking hot sake and trying to study for an exam for the entirety of this thread, excuse me if i dont have the wherewithal to search where the fuck scanadium comes from

>>33474574
>drinking and studying
This is supposed to prove you are not retarded?

I know they make shit for cobratac

File: AR.jpg (3MB, 5259x2959px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5259x2959px

Love mine, especially since I picked it up at a show for $65

>>33474012

> Have three OG logo Aeros
> Sequential serial numbers

>>33475933
Neat

File: IMG_0397.jpg (930KB, 4032x1298px) Image search: [Google]

930KB, 4032x1298px

>>33473578
They make them for a lot of people. Here is my diemaco upper on aero lower abortion

>>33474198
but the grain flow will STILL be broken by machining when you machine the forged blank! how is that any different? these aren't threads where you can just roll it and retain longer grains, you STILL have to machine the fucking thing.

>>33476002
I think that rollmark is sexy. Looks like something out of destiny

>>33473902
you were correct, aero wasn't on that list, but i don't think it was intended to be an exhaustive list either

>>33473910
unless you're buying out of milspec, buying anything other than the cheapest lower is paying for a roll mark. most people are buying almost exclusively for aesthetic when they buy premium products

>>33477379
Im partial to it, but the upper on the lower really makes a lot of people rage.

>>33477413
Its also a ten year old thread, so it likely holds little relevance now

>>33476360
the only real stress on a lower is at the buffer extension tube neck and pivot pins, buth of which benefit from not being milled out from billet

>>33477452
But the noveske rollmark looks like shit