[Vikingdad]

Originally Posted by Dillinger

I believe Colt's bigger pin size were for the Takedown and Pivot pins, effectively making it impossible for you to assemble an "other" lower and slap a Colt upper on it.

I am not a Colt expert (or fan ) so I can't say for certain but I do believe that they only did this on those two pins, for a short period in production time, and that it did not effect your other pins.

As such I believe you are good to go Viking - you can always check and see if the trigger has any slop to it. If you shake the lower and it rattles like a baby toy, you have a problem.

JD

Originally Posted by Quentin

If the hammer/trigger pins are the large size they won't slide in a milspec stripped receiver. If they did fit you must have .154"pins from a fairly new or very old Colt.

ETA:
If you used small pins on the large hammer and trigger to make them fit then yes you have a problem.

Originally Posted by Quentin

BTW, Colt went to the large pins before the 1994 AWB hoping to distinguish its commercial ARs from military/LE. Their argument was the large pin "sporter" models would not accept triggers and uppers from "evil" ARs. Didn't work of course and caused needless headaches. They went back to milspec size after the ban sunset.

I was under the impression that the takedown pins were the only ones that differed in size, but I was wrong. The parts I have have the .250" takedown pins but the larger .171" trigger pins. I picked up some of the smaller pins at a LGS but didn't think about the trigger being the same .032" size holes (facepalm).

I guess the question is was the receiver, having standard takedown pin size and oversize trigger pins, a rarity and if so did that make it more or less valuable? (I understand that rare and valuable are not synonyms.) It is a moot point now because I do not have the lower, just all of the parts that were stripped off of it and a description with pictures. The guy I got the parts from was hoping that the ban would be lifted in CA, but, alas, this will not come to be.

[Quentin]

The large pin receivers are not a rarity but they are Colt so probably are in demand at least with some people. Especially if you need a large pin mate to a receiver you already have.

There are conversion pivot/takedown pins but I haven't seen that for the trigger or hammer pins, though the right size shim could work. I'd get a new fire control group, you don't want doubling or any unsafe condition. A standard LPK is cheap plus the spare parts are handy anyway.

[Vikingdad]

I have plenty of LPKs, but you are right, spares are always handy to have around. Have you got any fire control groups you want to let go cheap? Maybe a two-stage?

[Quentin]

Nope, don't have any spares. I bought something like 7 LPKs (DD, Stag, ArmaLite and even Del-Ton) and kept the best 4 FCGs for my three ARs and a spare LPK. I sold the others LPKs for a fair price so it worked out for everyone since even those triggers were acceptable, with the DTI the worst.

Oh, some of the guys here have bought and like the ACT FCGs for about $65. It's a good milspec unit.

[GREGULON]

Yeah yeah but what's the difference.

[Vikingdad]

Originally Posted by GREGULON

Yeah yeah but what's the difference.

The milspec standard is .154", that is what you need for the vast majority of the lowers out there, unless you have a Colt receiver with the .171" trigger pin holes. They also make .1555" pins (I have seen that Rock River makes these) which you can jam into the .154" holes which is supposed to prevent the pins from rotating I guess? but they make anti-rotating pin sets as well so I would be inclined to use those rather than an oversize pin set.

Of course I am a newbie to the world of ARs so take what I say with a grain of salt. And those of you more knowledgeable please let me know where I am wrong.