Problem anodizing blem 80% AR-15 Lower Receiver

[nil]

I am with Nathan on this one. TM is a good company and takes care of their customers.

Am I not a TM customer? Is calling me a liar taking care of me? How have I been taken care of?

[nil]

Nil we would really appreciate it if you let us know who your anodizer is. I have a lower I'm about to get anodized, not a TM lower and want to know who it is in San Diego.

Oh yeah, where did you get the engraving done at?

I'll post the anodizer's info when I get my lower back.

The engraving was done by Victor at Micro Laser Welding in Fontana. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...5#post13624965

[Spyguy]

Am I not a TM customer? Is calling me a liar taking care of me?

When and where did TM call you a liar? TM only stated that your anodizer lied to you. Unless there are other communications that you have not yet published.

Btw, you do realize that TM does not forge their lowers, right? So when you allege that TM sold you a forged lower made of 2024 Al, what you are asserting is that one of the few national forges that make AR lower forgings somehow made a batch of forgings using a completely wrong alloy. And you just happen to be the one person, of all the manufacturers who receive these forgings, to discover this unbelievable error. Got it.

This is not a "he said, she said" situation: simple deductive reasoning leads any critical mind to the conclusion that the fault lies somewhere between you and your anodizer.

[nil]

When and where did TM call you a liar? TM only stated that your anodizer lied to you. Unless there are other communications that you have not yet published.

You're right. All Nathan's done is point the finger back at the anodizer.


-----


I'm going to step away from this thread for a few days until I get my lower back and can have it tested.

[hawaii five-0]

Did you ever have a moment when you though "Maybe it wasn't such a good idea to try to save $40 on my receiver?" I don't think Nathan did you wrong (Its 7075), but you did sign up for a known inferior product in this case. Although it didn't happen, your first contact with TM could have ended like this- "Oh, that was a blem lower".

[hawaii five-0]

Did you ever have a moment when you though "Maybe it wasn't such a good idea to try to save $40 on my receiver?" I don't think Nathan did you wrong (Its 7075), but you did sign up for a known inferior product in this case. Although it didn't happen, your first contact with TM could have ended like this- "Oh, that was a blem lower".

[Nathan Krynn]

Like some have said there are only a handful of forge house in all of the USA. Every shipment is batch tested and I have posted the independent lab results.

Do you really believe that completely wrong metal would slip through the forge, then we wouldn't notice it on the machine when it gummed up the tools?

You should read the emails coming from the anodizer. He claims to be a gunsmith yet keeps referencing a 2024 forging that has never been made in the history of mankind. He said he did several parts at the same time yet the pics I and you have show one part. When you anodize you dip them all together. He says he did a whole seven parts last week, we machined close to 3k. A lot of them went to an anodizer that has the military contract with computer controlled equipment not some guy with a stop watch, they all come out fine.

Like someone said time is money in business yet because I care I responded to his emails and calguns. However this is totally baseless and getting out of control. Publicly you guys know I don't respond like this normally but TM's and my character is being attacked without any proof over and over again by this guy and the anodizer. When I said in the first one I hope he doesn't put this in a forum, it was to save his embarrassment and secondly this can damage a company's reputation and why would we risk forty jobs and a multi million dollar business over saving a few dollars on a forging that doesn't exist in the history of mankind. I agree with others, go ahead and get it tested.

I thank everyone who has defended TM, you all know TM nor I would do something like this.

Here is the bottom line, the OP went to calguns and put TM on blast and is trying to RUIN our reputation. He is claiming we are using 2024 which doesn't exist in forgings, period. Notice he says he is putting ALL the info out there to save others, yet he left out the two batch tests I provided him in email yesterday. Notice I posted online the one for Brass Aluminum (forge house name).

The anodizer says I am defensive, of course I am, this is a completely false accusation saying we are committing fraud and selling a forging that doesn't even exist.

Lastly you notice he wont name the anodizer, ask yourself why. When I went home yesterday I knew why, his lower is messed up from the anodizer and he knows they will not replace it. Since we make them he thinks by making a scene online he will shame us into giving him a free lower. Look at his first email to me, it says that we are using the wrong metal and what will we do about it. If any of you think this is not true, read the last email he sent me.

Nathan,

If you can send me a replacement lower I will consider this matter closed. All I want is a functioning lower.

There is an old saying, you get more fly's with honey then vinegar. All my customers know I go to bat for them and the sad part is if he didn't accuse TM of fraud, a god fearing man of lying many times (me), and didn't try to ruin TM's reputation online, I probably would have hooked him up.

[Lostsheep]

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.

Everyone here objects because you lack the restraint towards TM that you apparently have for the anodizer despite the fact that the majority of us feel that the anodizer is more likely to be at fault.

Secondly, after seeing photos of you FCG pocket, I have another possible cause of the problem for you. You obviously blasted the FCG pocket after you machined it. It is possible that the blasting process left a contaminate on the surface of your lower which interfered with the ano process. (That one was a wild a55 speculation but possible)

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.

If you consider Surfcam cheap then you are obviously way too cool for me. Why would I spend more than 2 minutes writing a program for you? In fact why am I still typing this? I am done with you. Go ahead, you may have the last word as I KNOW you will need it.

Since your such a hot shot, I am sure you have some sort of verification ability. Run this code through that program buddy(I'll even allow you to get your setup guy or programmer to help you):

%
O1
(SACTOWN.NCC 3/12/2014)
(JUST FOR YOU BUDDY)
M6 T32
M8
G0 G90 S5000 M3 E1 X6.108 Y-0.0696
H1
G0 Z0.1
G1 Z-0.1 F10.
X6.0604 Y-0.0893 F20.
X6.0128 Y-0.1369
X5.993 Y-0.1846
X5.9692 Y-0.256
Y-0.375
X5.993 Y-0.4465
X6.0128 Y-0.4941
X6.0604 Y-0.5417
X6.108 Y-0.5614
X6.2032
X6.2509 Y-0.5417
X6.2985 Y-0.4941
X6.3182 Y-0.4465
X6.342 Y-0.375
Y-0.256
X6.3182 Y-0.1846
X6.2985 Y-0.1369
X6.2509 Y-0.0893
X6.2032 Y-0.0696
X6.108
G0 Z1.
X5.5366
Z0.1
G1 Z-0.1 F10.
X5.8699 F20.
G0 Z1.
X0.0229 Y-0.3077
Z0.1
G1 Z-0.1 F10.
X0.2114 F20.
G0 Z1.
X0.0209 Y-0.5676
Z0.1
G1 Z-0.1 F10.
Y-0.0696 F20.
X0.3305
G0 Z1.
X0.4495
Z0.1
G1 Z-0.1 F10.
Y-0.4267 F20.
X0.4733 Y-0.4982
X0.5209 Y-0.5458
X0.5924 Y-0.5696
X0.64
X0.7114 Y-0.5458
X0.759 Y-0.4982
X0.7828 Y-0.4267
Y-0.0696
G0 Z1.
X1.3066 Y-0.1886
Z0.1
G1 Z-0.1 F10.
X1.2869 Y-0.141 F20.
X1.2393 Y-0.0934
X1.1917 Y-0.0737
X1.0964
X1.0488 Y-0.0934
X1.0012 Y-0.141
X0.9815 Y-0.1886
X0.9577 Y-0.2601
Y-0.3791
X0.9815 Y-0.4506
X1.0012 Y-0.4982
X1.0488 Y-0.5458
X1.0964 Y-0.5655
X1.1917
X1.2393 Y-0.5458
X1.2869 Y-0.4982
X1.3066 Y-0.4506
G0 Z1.
X1.8066 Y-0.0696
Z0.1
G1 Z-0.1 F10.
X1.4747 Y-0.4015 F20.
G0 Z1.
X1.4733 Y-0.0696
Z0.1
G1 Z-0.1 F10.
Y-0.5696 F20.
G0 Z1.
X1.5936 Y-0.2855
Z0.1
G1 Z-0.1 F10.
X1.8066 Y-0.5696 F20.
G0 Z1.
X2.4733 Y-0.3097
Z0.1
G1 Z-0.1 F10.
Y-0.5696 F20.
G0 Z1.
X2.2828 Y-0.0696
Z0.1
G1 Z-0.1 F10.
X2.4733 Y-0.3077 F20.
X2.6638 Y-0.0696
G0 Z1.
X3.3066
Z0.1
G1 Z-0.1 F10.
Y-0.4267 F20.
X3.3305 Y-0.4982
X3.3781 Y-0.5458
X3.4495 Y-0.5696
X3.4971
X3.5686 Y-0.5458
X3.6162 Y-0.4982
X3.64 Y-0.4267
Y-0.0696
G0 Z1.
X4.5209 Y-0.141
Z0.1
G1 Z-0.1 F10.
X4.4733 Y-0.0934 F20.
X4.4019 Y-0.0696
X4.3066
X4.2352 Y-0.0934
X4.1876 Y-0.141
Y-0.1886
X4.2073 Y-0.2363
X4.2311 Y-0.2601
X4.2788 Y-0.2798
X4.4216 Y-0.3274
X4.4692 Y-0.3471
X4.493 Y-0.371
X4.5128 Y-0.4186
Y-0.49
X4.4651 Y-0.5376
X4.3937 Y-0.5614
X4.2985
X4.227 Y-0.5376
X4.1794 Y-0.49
G0 Z1.
X4.6794 Y-0.4029
Z0.1
G1 Z-0.1 F10.
X4.9175 F20.
G0 Z1.
X4.608 Y-0.5696
Z0.1
G1 Z-0.1 F10.
X4.7985 Y-0.0696 F20.
X4.989 Y-0.5696
G0 Z1.
X5.4413 Y-0.1886
Z0.1
G1 Z-0.1 F10.
X5.4216 Y-0.141 F20.
X5.374 Y-0.0934
X5.3264 Y-0.0737
X5.2311
X5.1835 Y-0.0934
X5.1359 Y-0.141
X5.1162 Y-0.1886
X5.0924 Y-0.2601
Y-0.3791
X5.1162 Y-0.4506
X5.1359 Y-0.4982
X5.1835 Y-0.5458
X5.2311 Y-0.5655
X5.3264
X5.374 Y-0.5458
X5.4216 Y-0.4982
X5.4413 Y-0.4506
G0 Z1.
X5.7032 Y-0.0716
Z0.1
G1 Z-0.1 F10.
Y-0.5696 F20.
G0 Z1.
X6.4651 Y-0.0696
Z0.1
G1 Z-0.1 F10.
X6.5842 Y-0.5696 F20.
X6.7032 Y-0.0696
X6.8223 Y-0.5696
X6.9413 Y-0.0696
G0 Z1.
X7.0842 Y-0.5696
Z0.1
G1 Z-0.1 F10.
Y-0.0696 F20.
X7.4175 Y-0.5696
Y-0.0696
G0 Z1.
X2.9019
Z0.1
G1 Z-0.1 F10.
X2.8543 Y-0.0893 F20.
X2.8066 Y-0.1369
X2.7869 Y-0.1846
X2.7631 Y-0.256
Y-0.375
X2.7869 Y-0.4465
X2.8066 Y-0.4941
X2.8543 Y-0.5417
X2.9019 Y-0.5614
X2.9971
X3.0447 Y-0.5417
X3.0924 Y-0.4941
X3.1121 Y-0.4465
X3.1359 Y-0.375
Y-0.256
X3.1121 Y-0.1846
X3.0924 Y-0.1369
X3.0447 Y-0.0893
X2.9971 Y-0.0696
X2.9019
G0 Z1.
M5 M9
G0 G49 G91 Z-1.
G28 X-2.9019 Y0.0696
M2
%

[TruEdge]

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?

Starting to sound like your as shady as the anodizer. Nathan has laid it out pretty well from what I have seen and like he said in his last post lets see the emails from the anodizer. I've even seen someone offer to pay half of the metal test but you didn't even acknowledge that so it would seem you don't want to send it off because your afraid of that actual truth of it being 7075 coming out. Seems to me you just want a free lower because the anodizer will not take responsibility. Cut your losses and cerakote the lower and get on with your life. +1 to Nathan's response.

[kalieracer]

Nil,

You only quoted part of what I said. So I am going to call you out.

You are being a petty prick with this thread. With little to no understanding of the process of MFG of a forged lower from Materials to finishing .

TM buys these lowers from a forge and then machines them. Different materials require different cutting setups and broaching setups, they would have noticed in QC that the thing was way out of spec or cut wrong. Instead this was just a cosmetic blem lower.

TM is not in the wrong here, they posted the lab tests for the batch. You are not willing to accept that something might have when wrong on your end and to move on. The easy thing to have done was to have it coated and enjoy your pistol and taken it for face value. But you feel its worth arguing with Calgun members and good vendor. Look if it was a shady vendor , other members would be supporting you . Other members have given constructive advice about this .

Maybe you should stick to store bought and then you have a right to ***** if its not prefect or not buy it when doing an inspection at the store.

Am I not a TM customer? Is calling me a liar taking care of me? How have I been taken care of?

[klewan]

My money is on surface contamination of some kind. I've done enough painting and other surface treatments to know how that messes up the finish coat. The way it's got spots with no finish; probably surface tension is preventing those areas from being wetted and completely coated.

[nil]

Did you ever have a moment when you though "Maybe it wasn't such a good idea to try to save $40 on my receiver?" I don't think Nathan did you wrong (Its 7075), but you did sign up for a known inferior product in this case. Although it didn't happen, your first contact with TM could have ended like this- "Oh, that was a blem lower".

Until I have the lower tested I don't know what it's made of. All I have to go on is the anodizer saying it's not behaving like 7075 and TM saying it is.

The "known inferior" product was expected to be 7057 aluminum and I've been told that it might not be. The "known inferior" product was still advertised as 7075.

[spdrcr]

You just won't let go and keep digging your hole deeper and deeper. Now, without any materials testing, you are stating matter-of-factly that the TM lower is a "known inferior product"?

You should take your own advise and step away from this thread until you have some actual proof. Right now you are just embarrassing yourself.

[nil]

Here is the bottom line, the OP went to calguns and put TM on blast and is trying to RUIN our reputation. He is claiming we are using 2024 which doesn't exist in forgings, period. Notice he says he is putting ALL the info out there to save others, yet he left out the two batch tests I provided him in email yesterday. Notice I posted online the one for Brass Aluminum (forge house name).

The bottom line is this: You are claiming to know my intentions and are claiming that I intended to ruin TM's reputation. I've stated my intentions very clearly.

Lastly you notice he wont name the anodizer, ask yourself why. When I went home yesterday I knew why, his lower is messed up from the anodizer and he knows they will not replace it.

I've said a few times already why I can't name the anodizer, but I'll say it again. The anodizer has my lower, aka evidence. Whether it's evidence of the anodizer's wrongdoing or evidence that the lower is not 7075 is still unknown. When I receive the lower back I will have it tested. If it's 7075 I will apologize. If it's not, I expect an apology and compensation.

Look at his first email to me, it says that we are using the wrong metal and what will we do about it.

Here's my initial email to TM, note the bolded sections:

Hi there,

Back in February, I purchased a blem 80% AR15 lower from Tactical Machining.

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

I just got a call from my anodizer 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. The material in the 80% (that was 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.

My anodizer told me that several went in the same batch and mine was the only one with any problems. He's sent me an email with more details of the problem as well as pictures of what happened to my lower when it was attempted to be anodized. I've attached the email and pictures as a PDF.

According to him, this lower is unusable.

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 that can be done.

Thank you.

I relayed what I was told by the anodizer and was asking for a possible solution.

If any of you think this is not true, read the last email he sent me.

Nathan,

If you can send me a replacement lower I will consider this matter closed. All I want is a functioning lower.

That email was sent to you because that's what I would consider a solution to this problem.

... the sad part is if he didn't accuse TM of fraud, a god fearing man of lying many times (me), and didn't try to ruin TM's reputation online, I probably would have hooked him up.

fraud (noun): wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

This is the first time the word "fraud" has been mentioned. The only statements I've made have been that the material might not be 7075, and later (after getting clarification from the anodizer) that it didn't behave as 7075 should.

[nil]

Everyone here objects because you lack the restraint towards TM that you apparently have for the anodizer despite the fact that the majority of us feel that the anodizer is more likely to be at fault.

I've explained the reason for this several times.

Secondly, after seeing photos of you FCG pocket, I have another possible cause of the problem for you. You obviously blasted the FCG pocket after you machined it. It is possible that the blasting process left a contaminate on the surface of your lower which interfered with the ano process. (That one was a wild a55 speculation but possible)

The bead blasting was done by the anodizer prior to anodizing.