Problem anodizing blem 80% AR-15 Lower Receiver

[Lostsheep]

@lostsheep
It's sounds like you are just that.. Lost. I don't care if your a self proclaimed machinist or engineer. I'm a machinist too. You are totally spouting off to the wrong dude over nothing. It cracks me up people on calguns like you that get so heated over nothing. And who gives a dam how many lowers you have. Is this a my dad can be at up your dad contest with you. You sound like you are 12 years old. Calm down buddy. I am a machinist too. Not an operator which most likely you are. Lot more involved than pushing a button and deburring. Etching is used on every upper and lower before anodize. What it does is smooth everything out. The amount of material is so insignificant that it won't do anything to a lower! We are talking tenths not thous. If you are for real an engineer I hope to never use one of your products

Type 3 gives .0005"-.001" build up. If you ignore that then more power to you.

Pins are an issue, FCG pocket is not.

As far as being an operator, well what can I say, it's true I do operate, been doing that since I was 12. I also design, engineer, program, setup, run, deburr, clean, inspect, package, and deliver.



If some dude wants to call me out by name then I am going to respond.

I will officially acknowledge and apologize for my implied ad-hominem attack; they accomplish nothing. Perhaps reciprocation is in order.

My calm is now enhanced.

[Ninety]

Doc HAwk has seen too many post where BH has joined in..

[nil]

I'm having the lower shipped back to me. I plan to have it tested when I receive it to finally put this matter to rest.

Regarding my hesitation to post the name of the anodizer: I'll post that info along with our emails as soon as I have word that my lower is on its way back. If there is foul play on the part of the anodizer, I want any potential evidence back in my possession before making it public.

After talking with 2 other anodizers I've come to the conclusion that I can either cerakote it and call it a day or have another anodizer try to anodize the part. I think it's time to just take the easiest way out, have it cerakoted and just shoot it.

I've put a lot of time and money into personalizing the heck out of this lower and, at least to me, the anodizer has been very down to earth and honest with me. He's simply stated that the metal, in his experience, did not behave as 7075 aluminum has been known to behave.

This is the current condition of my lower:

There is surface pitting and overall marbling
of the unfinished surface. I do not see any defects that affect dimensional
spec for assembly. There does not appear to be any structural defects that
would prevent the lower from being integrated into a firearm. As a
professional, I cannot guarantee the application nor recommend it due to the
unidentified alloy itself, but from a visual standpoint I don't see any
mechanical defects that would obviously compromise integrity.

As an individual, I'd probably Cerakote it and run it. Polymer lowers are
far less durable than aluminum alloys of just about any variety, and the
good ones run just fine.

Again I want to point out that we didn't ruin the lower, by any means - it
simply doesn't act like 7075. If we had done some kind of shoddy work on our
first pass, we could have easily corrected it and just run it again without
you ever knowing. Communicating the material issue to you was purely a
matter of full disclosure and our high level of care for exacting quality
levels combined with my personal commitment to open and honest business
dealings.

<pictures removed>

[nil]

Nathan here should not even be required to support you at all. Isn't that the point of a "blem" unit? to give a price discount with no guarantee of service?

If this was an issue of my incompetence then I'd agree 100%.

But according to the information I have so far (as well as not yet having the lower back in my possession to have tested) it appears as if there has been a gross misrepresentation as to the material of the lower. It was advertised as 7075 and, again, according to the anodizer, is not behaving as 7075 aluminum should.

-----

Notice the immediate defensive/passive-aggressive tone TM takes when he launches straight in with “sorry your anodizer messed up” and finishes with “your anodizer completely lied to you.”

It is interesting that with no knowledge of the anodizer whatsoever, TM is able to make blanket statements about them screwing up. Notice that no questions were asked, he simply got defensive and made absolute statements.

TM is saying “it’s not a cosmetic issue it’s a forging issue" there is a shade of truth in that, there is some kind of issue in the forging itself. The material itself seems to be not to spec.

The metal testing reports provided by TM only proves that whichever lots that were tested were 7075. As someone mentioned above, the only scientific proof is a testing report on MY lower and I have no way of knowing if MY lower was tested as part of that lot. This is not 100% proof that my lower is 7075.

-----

All I want is a functioning lower for my pistol build. Were I in Nathan's position I'd have just offered a replacement and called it a day.

Nathan's responses don't match with what I expect from a reputable business and he's been on the defensive from the very beginning.

[sactown308]

Lostsheep
Respect that you have taken a different approach. Etch only takes off tenths. Your fact about ano applied is .0005-.001 is correct but that is after etch. Not relevant to etch alone. Etching is not ever going to make parts out of tolerance. Hence the reason every single lower anodized is etched before. Etch is a process to smooth and make ano bond easier.

[sactown308]

And wow you can inscribe on a simple block with a cheap auto cad. I learned that junior year in high school in a drafting class. Your not impressive buddy. Go deburr parts.

[nil]

Let's keep it on-topic and not let this devolve into a pissing match.

There's no reason for personal attacks on other Calgunners. Let's save that attitude for our CA politicians who've made it their goal to disarm us.

[TruEdge]

Back in February, Tactical Machining had a blem 80% AR15 lower for sale at $40 and it ended up coming to $55 shipped.

I milled it out, had it engraved and sent it off to be anodized.

I just got a call from my FFL that does anodizing and he told me that the blem 80% that I milled out is not able to be anodized because it's a lower quality and more impure aluminum and that it's NOT 7075-T6 aluminum as was advertised by Tactical Machining. I was told that the anodizing just isn't applying at all and that nothing's "sticking" to the lower.

My FFL told me that several went in the same batch and mine was the only one with any problems. I'm waiting on him to send me an email with pictures and a more technical description of the problem.

I've put about $200 additional into this lower for milling, engraving and anodizing and this is very distressing. I've heard nothing but good things about Tactical Machining and I hope there's something they have to say.

Has anybody had trouble anodizing their blem 80% lowers from Tactical Machining?

Update from the anodizer:

The material in the 80% we were sold (that were advertised as being 7075-T6 aluminum) is most likely 2024 aluminum, a "really cheap aluminum."

I was told this aluminum has copper as it's primary alloy agent and has very poor corrosion resistance and that it will oxidize if not cared for properly.

Nil,
I don't quite understand why you had to make this public so quickly. You just stated a few posts ago that you wanted evidence of the anodizer's foul play before you make it public but you had no problem making it public that you think tm is at fault here. Your anodizer said its NOT 7075 but did he test it? What makes him the expert? He was quick to point the finger at tm saying it was "really cheap aluminum" and "more impure aluminum" when he has NO idea. And like others have said NO lowers are made from 2024. You need to stop posting this BS until you do a test from someone who actually knows what they're talking about before you do bashing of any kind.

[nil]

Nil,
I don't quite understand why you had to make this public so quickly. You just stated a few posts ago that you wanted evidence of the anodizer's foul play before you make it public but you had no problem making it public that you think tm is at fault here. Your anodizer said its NOT 7075 but did he test it? What makes him the expert? He was quick to point the finger at tm saying it was "really cheap aluminum" when he has NO idea. And like others have said NO lowers are made from 2024. You need to stop posting this BS until you do a test from someone who actually knows what they're talking about before you do bashing of any kind.

It is my belief that things such as this that have the possibility of affecting a lot of people need to be made public as early as possible. Hopefully a few other Calgunners who received a lower similar to mine now have more information if and when they decide to have their lowers anodized. This was the only way to get the information out.

-----

From the anodizer:

We have not destructively analyzed the metal, only attempted to anodize it using standard processes which resulted in flawless finishes on all the other parts in the tank at the same exact time as yours. There is an absolute possibility that it is not 2024, but it is behaving like it. Not completely, though, because it did not definitively smut when it was etched. If it had, we would have known immediately that there was a material issue and we would not have proceeded. So the material is unknown but we are providing you with our best educated and experienced guess based upon our observations. It behaves most like 2024.

[TruEdge]

It is my belief that things such as this that have the possibility of affecting a lot of people need to be made public as early as possible. Hopefully a few other Calgunners who received a lower similar to mine now have more information if and when they decide to have their lowers anodized. This was the only way to get the information out.

There is also the possibility of your actions affecting TM's reputation with claims from an unknown anodizer that offer no concrete evidence just his claims saying may be this and blah blah that when he could just be pumping you full of s*** to cover his mistake. So like I said get some proof before making anything public.

[Doc Hawk]

Doc HAwk has seen too many post where BH has joined in..

Yeah I seem to have a radar for those threads.

Props to Lostsheep for changing course.

[k1dude]

Did the anodizer leave it in the acid bath too long? That could explain why he thinks it's unusable.

[LBDamned]

what I find peculiar is that the vast majority (including myself) feels the anodizer is mistaken... and if there is "fault" between he two vendors, a poll would absolutely blame anodizer...

considering that everyone reading this thread knows as much as the OP (unless he has left something out)... it's perplexing that he still seems to lean towards TM misleading him... and the material being something other than described.

Posting correspondence when TM requested not to... implying over and over that TM is in the wrong... commenting that TM was defensive (while ignoring the fact that he, and the anodizer immediately blamed TM and the material)... and questions why TM doesn't just send him another lower

OP, get the material tested, if it isn't what was described, then by all means call out and slam TM (and demand them to compensate for the test)... however, if it is what was described - send your anodizer the bill and tell him to buy you another lower - and of course NAME THEM... in the mean time, personally I don't think TM should be expected to do anything - in fact, I think he's been quite gracious with the time and explanation he has given (time is money in business, and because of your accusations, he has spent a lot of it - who's going to compensate him if results favor his side?)

As interesting as this soap opera has become... it really should have been taken care of out of public eye - until there was definitive resolve.

[nil]

considering that everyone reading this thread knows as much as the OP (unless he has left something out)... it's perplexing that he still seems to lean towards TM misleading him... and the material being something other than described.

Posting correspondence when TM requested not to...

...send your anodizer the bill and tell him to buy you another lower - and of course NAME THEM...

I've presented all the information that's been made available to me and I've addressed my reason for not naming the anodizer as well.

Right now all I have is a "he said he said" with both vendors pointing fingers at each other.

TM immediately shut down all dialogue after sending what he considers proof while the anodizing vendor has continued to keep me updated and has explained his reasoning and the steps he's taken every step of the way.

Tell me this: Vendor 1 has said "not my fault" and has walked away. Vendor 2 has offered solutions and is still at the table. Which vendor would you believe?

[Doc Hawk]

Did the anodizer leave it in the acid bath too long? That could explain why he thinks it's unusable.

Seems to look OK in the photos. Not sure why they would say it is unusable.

Wouldn't all the parts in the batch be botched if they left them in the bath? Isn't it a batch process?