Poor attention to detail and absolutely does not inspire confidence - Andro Corp Industries M16 Hard Bolt Carrier Group

Received my TIN BCG and looked it over. Found that the carrier itself was riddled with machine marks, inside and out. The channel that the bolt rides in was not TIN coated and had pretty deep machine marks; causing lots of resistance on the bolt movement and would likely cause premature gas ring wear. I found the cam pin channel to be the same, uncoated and riddled with machine marks. On top of that, the description claims the bolt is MPI and HP test, however the bolt is not proof stamped as such. So you are stuck taking their word for it that it was indeed tested. Further, the bolt on this BCG is 9310 alloy which is dependent on very specific heat treating in order to obtain its strength rating (unlike C158). If the Heat treat process is done right, 9310 can be stronger than C158; if done wrong, it’s significantly weaker than C158. With the lack of attention to detail on the rest of the BCG, I am unwilling to risk using this BCG in my rifle because if they aren’t willing to pay attention to the details in their machining, coatings, or test stampings, what is to say they will pay attention to the details of their heat treating. Aside note, I have low end PSA BCGs with significantly better machining than this one. So it is not just me being picky. To make matters worse, when I spoke with someone at Andro and showed him pictures of the BCG in question, he claimed that all his BCGs looked that way and that they don’t proof stamp the TIN coated BCGs. So, while I only have a sample size of one, the Andro Staff suggested that I in fact do not have a lemon that was made on 4:55pm on a Friday.