Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous
Page / 8
Basic
  • Member
  • Sep 2002
  • USA NY, USA
Basic
  • Member
  • Sep 2002
  • USA NY, USA
  • Posts: 588
  • Feedback: 100% (15)
  • Status: Offline
Posted: 12/1/2009 5:11:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/1/2009 5:37:19 AM EST by chrisp929]
On another site whos name means stormrifle in german, it seems there is a manufacturer selling a plastic lower receiver called PLUMCRAZY.

One lower and internal parts kit for $89 !!!!!!!!!!


Anyone heard of these kids ?

Thanks

P.S. Is that fire control group plastic ? Not that it is a bad thing. The Steyr Aug trigger group is all plastic, even the hammer. I'm just pointing fingers in inquisition.

Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Oct 2008
  • USA SC, USA
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Oct 2008
  • USA SC, USA
  • Posts: 949
  • Feedback: 100% (22)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 5:17:13 AM EST
Plumstoopid if you ask me...
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Nov 2008
  • USA OR, USA
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Nov 2008
  • USA OR, USA
  • Posts: 329
  • Feedback: 100% (3)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 5:21:08 AM EST
OUCH!! That sucks!
Basic
  • Member
  • Sep 2002
  • USA NY, USA
Basic
  • Member
  • Sep 2002
  • USA NY, USA
  • Posts: 589
  • Feedback: 100% (15)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 5:23:16 AM EST
Originally Posted By RDTCU:
Plumstoopid if you ask me...
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b328/jcrowl/290t2k6-1.jpg


NOW LETS BE FAIR ....

The lower above is a VULCAN ARMS lower. NOT a Plumcrazy lower.

As you were....
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Oct 2008
  • USA SC, USA
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Oct 2008
  • USA SC, USA
  • Posts: 950
  • Feedback: 100% (22)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 5:27:43 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/1/2009 5:28:01 AM EST by RDTCU]
Originally Posted By Butterknife:
OUCH!! That sucks!


Yea, it's a blackthorne/hesse/vulcan, no it's not mine...
"Plastic" lowers have never been a good idea in my opinion, without a significant redesign like the Cav Arms lowers
Basic
  • Member
  • Jul 2003
  • IRQ IRQ
Basic
  • Member
  • Jul 2003
  • IRQ IRQ
  • Posts: 2244
  • Feedback: 100% (81)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 5:39:44 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/1/2009 5:40:29 AM EST by kells81]
Is that hammer, trigger, sear and BC made of plastic? The pins and springs look like real metal, but the major parts do not look right.

Prolly be a nice base for a 22LR dedicated project.
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Oct 2008
  • USA SC, USA
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Oct 2008
  • USA SC, USA
  • Posts: 952
  • Feedback: 100% (22)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 5:52:03 AM EST
Originally Posted By kells81:
Is that hammer, trigger, sear and BC made of plastic? The pins and springs look like real metal, but the major parts do not look right.

Prolly be a nice base for a 22LR dedicated project.


That's what i thought, but.....surely not....

The packaging says "reduced mass" fire control group...
Basic
  • Member
  • Jun 2009
  • USA FL, USA
Basic
  • Member
  • Jun 2009
  • USA FL, USA
  • Posts: 583
  • Feedback: 0% (0)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 6:01:19 AM EST
I have a curiosity to ask......that Hesse......how did it break? Was it dropped as a complete gun, did it break during firing? I always see that pic. No, a plastic lower doesn't seem like a durable one. But perhaps a carbon fibre or some type of serious strength polymer might work. I played Ice hockey with Carbon and graphite sticks, they took a pounding and never broke. Since the lower doesn't really heat up to a detrimental degree when firing, maybe those might work. Do we know exactly what this lower is made of...plastic is pretty general.
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Jun 2007
  • USA TX, USA
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Jun 2007
  • USA TX, USA
  • Posts: 942
  • Feedback: 0% (0)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 6:19:28 AM EST
IMO this lower would have never held up in Iraq or Afghan the M4's and M16's we had did well but a plastic one the first time we would have slammed it down or put to much stress on them they would have broke. For a 22LR I would imagine it would do fine but with a 5.56 round and racking off round after round I think it would start to give up. Granted they make polymer pistols but they have been tested and proven and until it is proven I would not drink that kool-aid. I want something that will hold up a little better and I believe Stoner designed it with an Al receiver for a reason. Just my .02
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson
Basic
  • Member
  • Sep 2008
  • USA USA
Basic
  • Member
  • Sep 2008
  • USA USA
  • Posts: 5282
  • Feedback: 100% (120)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 6:25:09 AM EST
Got a link for us who aren't seeing it on sturm's boards
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Feb 2001
  • USA AZ, USA
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Feb 2001
  • USA AZ, USA
  • Posts: 27707
  • Feedback: 100% (15)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 6:25:17 AM EST
This guy was selling these things a few years back. I think the company was out of Lake Havasu City, AZ.

Lake Havasu is where the original Piece of SHIT Carbon 15 was hatched from.
We need to get over the romance of carrying a 1911 pistol, and get on to the business of shooting smelly bad guys in the face with a modern handgun.
Basic
  • Member
  • Sep 2002
  • USA NY, USA
Basic
  • Member
  • Sep 2002
  • USA NY, USA
  • Posts: 590
  • Feedback: 100% (15)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 7:04:46 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/1/2009 7:04:58 AM EST by chrisp929]
Originally Posted By cosmos556:
Got a link for us who aren't seeing it on sturm's boards


http://www.sturmgewehr.com/webBBS/parts.cgi?read=262273
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Oct 2008
  • USA SC, USA
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Oct 2008
  • USA SC, USA
  • Posts: 956
  • Feedback: 100% (22)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 7:09:06 AM EST
Originally Posted By RDTCU:
Originally Posted By kells81:
Is that hammer, trigger, sear and BC made of plastic? The pins and springs look like real metal, but the major parts do not look right.

Prolly be a nice base for a 22LR dedicated project.


That's what i thought, but.....surely not....

The packaging says "reduced mass" fire control group...


Looking at the bigger picture, one of the selling points on the fire control group packaging is the fact that it's "NON METALLIC"
soooooooo, draw your own conclusions as to the quality and durability of the products that come out of that place...
Wanted war criminal from texas
Avatar
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Apr 2004
  • USA TX, USA
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Apr 2004
  • USA TX, USA
  • Posts: 13975
  • Feedback: 100% (15)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 7:49:40 AM EST
Unsafe garbage.

Cav arms is the onlycway to go for polymer lowers
Confucious say:"Do not break into house of man who have gun for every occasion"
AFA
Less whiners for a better America...
Avatar
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Sep 2008
  • USA TX, USA
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Sep 2008
  • USA TX, USA
  • Posts: 919
  • Feedback: 100% (27)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 7:52:13 AM EST
From the listing:

"Lifetime Unconditional Guarantee. We have registered some of these as machine guns and put close to 9k rounds through one, with negligible wear."

I had suggested this idea to Magpul a while back, looks like someone else hatched it!! I mean if they have a lifetime guarantee I guess they are worth a shot.


.02
SHTF Certified.... [img]anim_50cal.gif[/img]
Save Cav-Arms!
Avatar
Moderator
  • Moderator
  • Nov 2000
  • USA MD, USA
Moderator
  • Moderator
  • Nov 2000
  • USA MD, USA
  • Posts: 34625
  • Feedback: 100% (29)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 7:53:57 AM EST
'98 Jeep XJ Owner

6.8 > 6.5
Basic
  • Member
  • Feb 2008
  • USA MI, USA
Basic
  • Member
  • Feb 2008
  • USA MI, USA
  • Posts: 336
  • Feedback: 100% (81)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 7:56:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/1/2009 7:58:07 AM EST by Logan09]
To me, its the reason I don't buy a glock. I DON'T want a plastic gun! Its a good price, but I don't want my AR to look plastic. I'm sure they will withstand a lot of rnds through them, but If you drop it? Who knows?
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Feb 2001
  • USA AZ, USA
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Feb 2001
  • USA AZ, USA
  • Posts: 27711
  • Feedback: 100% (15)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 8:05:44 AM EST
Originally Posted By AFA:
I mean if they have a lifetime guarantee I guess they are worth a shot.


Keep in mind that OLYMPIC ARMS claims to have a lifetime warrantee too. They typically don't honor it, but it's there for people to feel good about.

A real lower is only 100-140 bucks... there's no reason to mess with this kind of junk.
We need to get over the romance of carrying a 1911 pistol, and get on to the business of shooting smelly bad guys in the face with a modern handgun.
Basic
  • Member
  • Dec 2008
  • USA NC, USA
Basic
  • Member
  • Dec 2008
  • USA NC, USA
  • Posts: 141
  • Feedback: 0% (0)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 8:14:04 AM EST
I'm surprised no one has brought up the videos that were posted about (or by) this company a few months back or mentioned the steak knife test.
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Oct 2007
  • USA TX, USA
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Oct 2007
  • USA TX, USA
  • Posts: 2542
  • Feedback: 100% (3)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 8:14:24 AM EST
Originally Posted By fadedsun:
Unsafe garbage.

Cav arms is the onlycway to go for polymer lowers


Please let me now what part of these lowers are putting people at risk. We need to get the word out before anyone else is injured. Please post all the info you have about the failures and related injuries. Keeping the details to yourself is just crazy!

Butt secks is a lot like spinach. If you're forced to have it as a kid, you're not gonna enjoy it as an adult.-PantherArms762
Basic
  • Member
  • Feb 2008
  • USA WV, USA
Basic
  • Member
  • Feb 2008
  • USA WV, USA
  • Posts: 5667
  • Feedback: 100% (5)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 8:30:02 AM EST
Originally Posted By Logan09:
To me, its the reason I don't buy a glock. I DON'T want a plastic gun! Its a good price, but I don't want my AR to look plastic. I'm sure they will withstand a lot of rnds through them, but If you drop it? Who knows?


plenty of "plastic" on the AR
Basic
  • Member
  • Feb 2006
  • USA GA, USA
Basic
  • Member
  • Feb 2006
  • USA GA, USA
  • Posts: 8085
  • Feedback: 100% (117)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 8:33:12 AM EST
Originally Posted By markm:
This guy was selling these things a few years back. I think the company was out of Lake Havasu City, AZ.

Lake Havasu is where the original Piece of SHIT Carbon 15 was hatched from.


Isn't it also where all those Girls Gone Wild Spring Break videos come from?


Haha!

Kool-aid
Avatar
Lifetime Member
  • Life Member
  • Apr 2004
  • USA USA
Lifetime Member
  • Life Member
  • Apr 2004
  • USA USA
  • Posts: 7443
  • Feedback: 100% (12)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 8:33:56 AM EST
Originally Posted By SIPCAT-C:
Originally Posted By Logan09:
To me, its the reason I don't buy a glock. I DON'T want a plastic gun! Its a good price, but I don't want my AR to look plastic. I'm sure they will withstand a lot of rnds through them, but If you drop it? Who knows?


plenty of "plastic" on the AR


handguard and stock? 2 pieces that really wont hurt you if they break, the rifle will still be functional even if they are removed. functional meaning able to fire
I use a flamethrower for home defense, it always beats the racking of the 870 and the "superior" wounding effects of the AR
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Oct 2008
  • USA SC, USA
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Oct 2008
  • USA SC, USA
  • Posts: 957
  • Feedback: 100% (22)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 8:39:05 AM EST
Originally Posted By cwebbcam:
Originally Posted By fadedsun:
Unsafe garbage.

Cav arms is the onlycway to go for polymer lowers


Please let me now what part of these lowers are putting people at risk. We need to get the word out before anyone else is injured. Please post all the info you have about the failures and related injuries. Keeping the details to yourself is just crazy!


Did you happen to realize that the FIRE CONTROL GROUP IS PLASTIC TOO???
If nothing else, this could lead to accidental discharges, doubles, or just flat-out failure...

They may not explode catastrophically in your hands, leaving a small crater where you stood, but they WILL wear faster and they WILL break easier than even the cheapest cast aluminum piece... (all quality receivers are forged or billet, so even better)
Basic
  • Member
  • Mar 2009
  • USA WA, USA
Basic
  • Member
  • Mar 2009
  • USA WA, USA
  • Posts: 683
  • Feedback: 100% (5)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 8:42:46 AM EST
Originally Posted By TaylorWSO:
Originally Posted By SIPCAT-C:
Originally Posted By Logan09:
To me, its the reason I don't buy a glock. I DON'T want a plastic gun! Its a good price, but I don't want my AR to look plastic. I'm sure they will withstand a lot of rnds through them, but If you drop it? Who knows?


plenty of "plastic" on the AR


handguard and stock? 2 pieces that really wont hurt you if they break, the rifle will still be functional even if they are removed. functional meaning able to fire


Grip, magazine, sights now even. Let's face it, modern polymers are more than suited to tasks that were previously unthinkable. Now, I'm not saying that plastic fire control groups are a good idea (who knows, they may prove to work though) but the attitude that "I don't want a plastic gun" is stupid, and immediately makes me think of some old fudd that gripes about anything that's not a 1911, and how he doesn't trust "those plastic pistols."
Basic
  • Member
  • Feb 2008
  • USA WV, USA
Basic
  • Member
  • Feb 2008
  • USA WV, USA
  • Posts: 5669
  • Feedback: 100% (5)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 8:44:08 AM EST
Originally Posted By TaylorWSO:
Originally Posted By SIPCAT-C:
Originally Posted By Logan09:
To me, its the reason I don't buy a glock. I DON'T want a plastic gun! Its a good price, but I don't want my AR to look plastic. I'm sure they will withstand a lot of rnds through them, but If you drop it? Who knows?


plenty of "plastic" on the AR


handguard and stock? 2 pieces that really wont hurt you if they break, the rifle will still be functional even if they are removed. functional meaning able to fire


Agreed. Just saying it's not disastrous to employ the use of plastics on firearms.
Glocks are rugged as sin. ARs have fielded very well.

That said, this plumcrazy shit looks extremely suspect.
Basic
  • Member
  • Feb 2008
  • USA WV, USA
Basic
  • Member
  • Feb 2008
  • USA WV, USA
  • Posts: 5670
  • Feedback: 100% (5)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 8:44:39 AM EST
Originally Posted By Market_Garden:
Originally Posted By TaylorWSO:
Originally Posted By SIPCAT-C:
Originally Posted By Logan09:
To me, its the reason I don't buy a glock. I DON'T want a plastic gun! Its a good price, but I don't want my AR to look plastic. I'm sure they will withstand a lot of rnds through them, but If you drop it? Who knows?


plenty of "plastic" on the AR


handguard and stock? 2 pieces that really wont hurt you if they break, the rifle will still be functional even if they are removed. functional meaning able to fire


Grip, magazine, sights now even. Let's face it, modern polymers are more than suited to tasks that were previously unthinkable. Now, I'm not saying that plastic fire control groups are a good idea (who knows, they may prove to work though) but the attitude that "I don't want a plastic gun" is stupid, and immediately makes me think of some old fudd that gripes about anything that's not a 1911, and how he doesn't trust "those plastic pistols."


That's what I was hinting at.
Basic
  • Member
  • Sep 2006
  • USA OR, USA
Basic
  • Member
  • Sep 2006
  • USA OR, USA
  • Posts: 174
  • Feedback: 0% (0)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 8:47:12 AM EST
I don't understand the interest in synthetic lowers to save a few ounces and a couple bucks. The functioning of the whole gun is on the line...
Basic
  • Member
  • Mar 2009
  • USA WA, USA
Basic
  • Member
  • Mar 2009
  • USA WA, USA
  • Posts: 684
  • Feedback: 100% (5)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 8:48:38 AM EST
Originally Posted By nukeman:
I don't understand the interest in synthetic lowers to save a few ounces and a couple bucks. The functioning of the whole gun is on the line...


Kind of like how people didn't understand the interest in polymer pistol frames initially? Remember how they were all going to fall apart?
Basic
  • Member
  • Sep 2006
  • USA OR, USA
Basic
  • Member
  • Sep 2006
  • USA OR, USA
  • Posts: 175
  • Feedback: 0% (0)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 8:52:10 AM EST
Originally Posted By Market_Garden:
Originally Posted By nukeman:
I don't understand the interest in synthetic lowers to save a few ounces and a couple bucks. The functioning of the whole gun is on the line...


Kind of like how people didn't understand the interest in polymer pistol frames initially? Remember how they were all going to fall apart?


A polymer frame on a pistol dosen't see the same kind of twisting or bending moments that a lower reciever would experience.
Basic
  • Member
  • Mar 2009
  • USA WA, USA
Basic
  • Member
  • Mar 2009
  • USA WA, USA
  • Posts: 685
  • Feedback: 100% (5)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 8:55:21 AM EST
Originally Posted By nukeman:
Originally Posted By Market_Garden:
Originally Posted By nukeman:
I don't understand the interest in synthetic lowers to save a few ounces and a couple bucks. The functioning of the whole gun is on the line...


Kind of like how people didn't understand the interest in polymer pistol frames initially? Remember how they were all going to fall apart?


A polymer frame on a pistol dosen't see the same kind of twisting or bending moments that a lower reciever would experience.


You've done some engineering studies on this I take it? I haven't personally, but I'd put my money on a pistol frame seeing more stress during firing than an AR lower.
Only person not killed by use of NcStar products
Avatar
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Aug 2007
  • USA CO, USA
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Aug 2007
  • USA CO, USA
  • Posts: 13111
  • Feedback: 100% (37)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 8:58:17 AM EST
Saw one of those a few weeks ago at a gun show here...wasnt sure what to make of it...

If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Oct 2008
  • USA SC, USA
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Oct 2008
  • USA SC, USA
  • Posts: 959
  • Feedback: 100% (22)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 9:12:54 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/1/2009 9:15:28 AM EST by RDTCU]
Originally Posted By Market_Garden:

You've done some engineering studies on this I take it? I haven't personally, but I'd put my money on a pistol frame seeing more stress during firing than an AR lower.


Glocks are designed to flex while cycling to reduce felt recoil and distribute stresses. If an AR receiver flexes during cycling, it can bind.
The lower sees a SIGNIFICANT amount of stress in the rear tower area before the bolt unlocks, simply due to the mass of the stock hanging out there, negating the shoulder it is against.

Also: PLASTIC FIRE CONTROL GROUP!

I have a feeling THEY didn't do too many engineering studies when they developed this lower and FCG... Weapons WILL be abused, and they should be designed with a significant factor of safety to account for this. I'm not going to cut my FOS in half just to save $20. I would hate to see someone attempt a stuck-case extraction with that lower.

(BTW, threads don't hold up too well in plastic either...)
Basic
  • Member
  • Feb 2006
  • USA GA, USA
Basic
  • Member
  • Feb 2006
  • USA GA, USA
  • Posts: 8089
  • Feedback: 100% (117)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 9:14:47 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/1/2009 9:15:59 AM EST by engineer2001]
By the way, Glock frames can and will crack. They can only take so much stress and use (or heat/UV) before they crack.
http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/g19_cracked.html There's one example.

Yes, I own a Glock 21 (.45 ACP) and shoot it when I feel like not hitting anything. FOr some reason, I can shoot targets all day with my 1911s and can't hit crap with my Glock. I guess I need more practice to get used to it.
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Oct 2008
  • USA SC, USA
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Oct 2008
  • USA SC, USA
  • Posts: 960
  • Feedback: 100% (22)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 9:16:53 AM EST
Originally Posted By engineer2001:
By the way, Glock frames can and will crack. They can only take so much stress and use (or heat/UV) before they crack.
http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/g19_cracked.html There's one example.

Yes, I own a Glock 21 (.45 ACP) and shoot it when I feel like not hitting anything. FOr some reason, I can shoot targets all day with my 1911s and can't hit crap with my Glock. I guess I need more practice to get used to it.


My G29 (10mm) is pretty darn accurate...
Basic
  • Member
  • Mar 2009
  • USA WA, USA
Basic
  • Member
  • Mar 2009
  • USA WA, USA
  • Posts: 686
  • Feedback: 100% (5)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 9:18:01 AM EST
Originally Posted By RDTCU:
Originally Posted By Market_Garden:

You've done some engineering studies on this I take it? I haven't personally, but I'd put my money on a pistol frame seeing more stress during firing than an AR lower.


Glocks are designed to flex while cycling to reduce felt recoil and distribute stresses. If an AR receiver flexes during cycling, it can bind.
The lower sees a SIGNIFICANT amount of stress in the rear tower area before the bolt unlocks, simply due to the mass of the stock hanging out there, negating the shoulder it is against.

Also:PLASTIC FIRE CONTROL GROUP!

I have a feeling THEY didn't do too many engineering studies when they developed this lower and FCG...


Thanks for making that bold and red for me, because I can't read. Wait, actually that's you. If you bothered to read my previous post you'll note that I said the plastic FCG may not work. My point is that there are lots of ignorant people out there who see "plastic" and think "that must be shit." The fact is we are seeing modern polymers in things that in the not too distant past we'd never have even thought them viable. I'm not defending this specific lower, or the FCG. I'm arguing against the ignorance of people that have a knee jerk reaction to anything polymer, and base their (always strong) opinions off nothing more than their assumptions.
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Oct 2008
  • USA SC, USA
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Oct 2008
  • USA SC, USA
  • Posts: 962
  • Feedback: 100% (22)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 9:22:06 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/1/2009 9:24:35 AM EST by RDTCU]
Originally Posted By Market_Garden:
Thanks for making that bold and red for me, because I can't read. Wait, actually that's you. If you bothered to read my previous post you'll note that I said the plastic FCG may not work. My point is that there are lots of ignorant people out there who see "plastic" and think "that must be shit." The fact is we are seeing modern polymers in things that in the not too distant past we'd never have even thought them viable. I'm not defending this specific lower, or the FCG. I'm arguing against the ignorance of people that have a knee jerk reaction to anything polymer, and base their (always strong) opinions off nothing more than their assumptions.


I don't say "o it's plastic it must be crap"
I DO say "Look they did something stupid with the FCG, what does that say about the quality of their engineers and products"

The AR Lower was designed with aluminum in mind. This lower is not a significant redesign, but uses a weaker material...

(this said, i have nothing against Cav Arms and their polymer lower, they actually put some engineering effort into it and i've never seen a polymer-related failure)
Basic
  • Member
  • Mar 2009
  • USA WA, USA
Basic
  • Member
  • Mar 2009
  • USA WA, USA
  • Posts: 687
  • Feedback: 100% (5)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 9:25:13 AM EST
I'd like to see the company put the plastic FCG through some tests, and publish the results. I really wouldn't expect them to hold up well, but at least then we're basing opinions on something concrete rather than just everyone jumping up and down about something before they have any real info at all.
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Oct 2008
  • USA SC, USA
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Oct 2008
  • USA SC, USA
  • Posts: 963
  • Feedback: 100% (22)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 9:27:19 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/1/2009 9:29:15 AM EST by RDTCU]
Originally Posted By Market_Garden:
I'd like to see the company put the plastic FCG through some tests, and publish the results. I really wouldn't expect them to hold up well, but at least then we're basing opinions on something concrete rather than just everyone jumping up and down about something before they have any real info at all.


Plastic...impact...sear surfaces... i don't see a problem...

If they're actually selling those (FCG's) WITHOUT already having done some significant torture testing to prove that the components WILL hold up, then they're being irresponsible...

Other companies have tried the polymer lowers (without redesigning it) and have not had the best results (Bushmaster and Vulcan come to mind...)
Basic
  • Member
  • Sep 2006
  • USA OR, USA
Basic
  • Member
  • Sep 2006
  • USA OR, USA
  • Posts: 176
  • Feedback: 0% (0)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 9:36:17 AM EST
Originally Posted By Market_Garden:
Originally Posted By nukeman:
Originally Posted By Market_Garden:
Originally Posted By nukeman:
I don't understand the interest in synthetic lowers to save a few ounces and a couple bucks. The functioning of the whole gun is on the line...


Kind of like how people didn't understand the interest in polymer pistol frames initially? Remember how they were all going to fall apart?


A polymer frame on a pistol dosen't see the same kind of twisting or bending moments that a lower reciever would experience.


You've done some engineering studies on this I take it? I haven't personally, but I'd put my money on a pistol frame seeing more stress during firing than an AR lower.


I have a degree in Metallurgical Engineering..but the reason I think the pistol frame dosen't see much stress is because it's pretty much just holding those metal rails which the slide sits. On a AR lower, you have a stock attached to the back, a pistol grip, and 2 points where the upper is attached. If you are shooting from a prone position (for example) with a sling, then you have several bending, torqueing, and tensile forces happening on the reciever at the same time. That's why I see it as a different issue. Maybe if you held your AR with 1 hand like a pistol, then polymer might be ok.
That's just my opinion, for what it's worth.
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Oct 2008
  • USA SC, USA
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Oct 2008
  • USA SC, USA
  • Posts: 964
  • Feedback: 100% (22)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 9:44:01 AM EST
Originally Posted By nukeman:
I have a degree in Metallurgical Engineering..but the reason I think the pistol frame dosen't see much stress is because it's pretty much just holding those metal rails which the slide sits. On a AR lower, you have a stock attached to the back, a pistol grip, and 2 points where the upper is attached. If you are shooting from a prone position (for example) with a sling, then you have several bending, torqueing, and tensile forces happening on the reciever at the same time. That's why I see it as a different issue. Maybe if you held your AR with 1 hand like a pistol, then polymer might be ok.
That's just my opinion, for what it's worth.


Also think about where the forces of recoil enter a pistol frame vs an AR lower. The impact on a pistol is in the front of the frame and is dissipated through the entire frame in compression. The impact on an AR holding it loosely against a shoulder or as a pistol it all concentrated on the buffer tube tower (in tension) when the buffer/bolt carrier reach the end of stroke...
Basic
  • Member
  • Nov 2009
  • USA IA, USA
Basic
  • Member
  • Nov 2009
  • USA IA, USA
  • Posts: 1
  • Feedback: 100% (2)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 10:08:24 AM EST
Some years ago when my department decided to switch from revolvers to automatics, one of the guns evaluated was the Glock. I was one of ten on the evaluation team for this project. All the major brands at that time wanted the bid and sent their reps to demo the guns for us and have us shoot them on the indoor/outdoor shooting range. All guns performed very well, the Beretta was a work of beauty. The Glock was at the other end, an ugly looking thing and made of plastic, we were sure it would never do.

Contrary to our preconceived opinion the Glock did very well on the range. During the combat shoot eval it did extremely well; the natural pointing body design helped with accuracy and allowed us to quickly get back on target between shots. In the end the choice came down to the Beretta or the Glock.

The Glock rep then did something unexpected. Because we were skeptical of the strength of the plastic (he kept calling it polymer, but the competition kept calling it plastic) he encouraged us to do one more test. He put a new red plastic dummy round in the chamber and handed us the gun. He asked us to throw it onto the bare concrete floor as hard as we could. All ten of us threw it down hard to try and break the thing. It did not break. We handed it back to him and he ejected the dummy round and showed it was still in perfect condition, the firing pin had not struck the primer end no matter how hard the gun hit the ground. The gun had some marks on the polymer edges where it hit the concrete, but had not broken; the metal parts only had light scratches. The gun fired correctly and the sights were still zeroed. We then asked the others to do that with their guns to show they were as tough as the Glock. They all refused and admitted their guns would probably not do as well. We chose the Glock and the department never looked back.

Polymer has proven to be very strong and is much easier to handle in the below zero temps we see here in the winter. For the AR-15 however I think I will stick with proven aluminum receivers.
A2 obsessed
Avatar
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Nov 2008
  • USA LA, USA
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Nov 2008
  • USA LA, USA
  • Posts: 535
  • Feedback: 100% (20)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 10:12:05 AM EST
Originally Posted By Barvan40:
Some years ago when my department decided to switch from revolvers to automatics, one of the guns evaluated was the Glock. I was one of ten on the evaluation team for this project. All the major brands at that time wanted the bid and sent their reps to demo the guns for us and have us shoot them on the indoor/outdoor shooting range. All guns performed very well, the Beretta was a work of beauty. The Glock was at the other end, an ugly looking thing and made of plastic, we were sure it would never do.

Contrary to our preconceived opinion the Glock did very well on the range. During the combat shoot eval it did extremely well; the natural pointing body design helped with accuracy and allowed us to quickly get back on target between shots. In the end the choice came down to the Beretta or the Glock.

The Glock rep then did something unexpected. Because we were skeptical of the strength of the plastic (he kept calling it polymer, but the competition kept calling it plastic) he encouraged us to do one more test. He put a new red plastic dummy round in the chamber and handed us the gun. He asked us to throw it onto the bare concrete floor as hard as we could. All ten of us threw it down hard to try and break the thing. It did not break. We handed it back to him and he ejected the dummy round and showed it was still in perfect condition, the firing pin had not struck the primer end no matter how hard the gun hit the ground. The gun had some marks on the polymer edges where it hit the concrete, but had not broken; the metal parts only had light scratches. The gun fired correctly and the sights were still zeroed. We then asked the others to do that with their guns to show they were as tough as the Glock. They all refused and admitted their guns would probably not do as well. We chose the Glock and the department never looked back.

Polymer has proven to be very strong and is much easier to handle in the below zero temps we see here in the winter. For the AR-15 however I think I will stick with proven aluminum receivers.


And I was starting to think that a Glock isn't what I want.
Basic
  • Member
  • Feb 2006
  • USA GA, USA
Basic
  • Member
  • Feb 2006
  • USA GA, USA
  • Posts: 8091
  • Feedback: 100% (117)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 10:24:15 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/1/2009 10:24:41 AM EST by engineer2001]
Originally Posted By Barvan40:
...Polymer has proven to be very strong and is much easier to handle in the below zero temps we see here in the winter. For the AR-15 however I think I will stick with proven aluminum receivers.


Welcome to AR15.com!

That said, your post confuses me. You talk about how your preconceived notions were obliterated and the Glock was champ because of the design (and the plastic is what made it so impact resistant). Then, you express the same preconceived notions about AR receivers. Why? I think the entire post except your last sentence is a very good reason to try a plastic lower and not prejudge, don't you?
Basic
  • Member
  • Feb 2006
  • USA GA, USA
Basic
  • Member
  • Feb 2006
  • USA GA, USA
  • Posts: 8092
  • Feedback: 100% (117)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 10:28:47 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/1/2009 10:30:09 AM EST by engineer2001]
Originally Posted By RDTCU:
My G29 (10mm) is pretty darn accurate...


Well, my G21 is probably accurate too. I accurately shoot the dirt in front of the target or behind the target with it. It's not the Glock that's bad - it's my lack of practice with it. I was just getting used to the funky sights when I had Glock here in Smyrna install night sights on it. Now, the 3-dot sights make me even worse with it. I can't hit the broad side of a barn. I hate 3-dot sights. I wish I had them install Heinie/Straight-8 sights like my Taurus PT-111 has. I do great with those.

Anyway, just clarifying - the gun is not at fault. It's just the way I grip it (not used to it yet) and the sights that I can't seem to get accustomed to.
Basic
  • Member
  • Sep 2008
  • USA USA
Basic
  • Member
  • Sep 2008
  • USA USA
  • Posts: 5292
  • Feedback: 100% (120)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 10:36:02 AM EST
Originally Posted By plinkr415:
And I was starting to think that a Glock isn't what I want.


Oh, you want a Glock. I bought one just to have a "glock fo-tay", and I have been surprised at the ruggedness & accuracy of my G22. If I had to do it again, I'd have bought two.
Basic
  • Member
  • Mar 2009
  • USA IL, USA
Basic
  • Member
  • Mar 2009
  • USA IL, USA
  • Posts: 156
  • Feedback: 0% (0)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 10:37:05 AM EST
yea its a plastic, for about the same coin you can get a spikes lower and add a fcg for 50 or 60 more and have a real ar lower. not have any worries about the stock breaking off or pistol grip or lugs breaking off. i see no where where this has metal imbedded in it like polymer frame pistols do. if this was in fact made by glock im shure key stress points would of been made with appropriate metal inserts/ but on the other hand if it were to be used as the op suggests as a 22 plinker lower and wasnt bashed about much ... and you absolutly had to save $60 because you spent too much for the lw barrel for that spikes upper for instance..... this imo is a buttload of horsepucky considering the price difference is so small between a forged lower and this and it doesnt even have metal fcg parts from the look of it. thats the real crux of this thing, a metal lower vs this pretty much dubious plastic lower and the difference in price/ to me its not worth the shipping and ffl fees.
Basic
  • Member
  • Sep 2008
  • USA USA
Basic
  • Member
  • Sep 2008
  • USA USA
  • Posts: 5294
  • Feedback: 100% (120)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 10:39:42 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/1/2009 10:40:06 AM EST by cosmos556]
Originally Posted By bada61265:
yea its a plastic, for about the same coin you can get a spikes lower and add a fcg for 50 or 60 more and have a real ar lower. not have any worries about the stock breaking off or pistol grip or lugs breaking off. i see no where where this has metal imbedded in it like polymer frame pistols do. if this was in fact made by glock im shure key stress points would of been made with appropriate metal inserts/ but on the other hand if it were to be used as the op suggests as a 22 plinker lower and wasnt bashed about much ... and you absolutly had to save $60 because you spent too much for the lw barrel for that spikes upper for instance..... this imo is a buttload of horsepucky considering the price difference is so small between a forged lower and this and it doesnt even have metal fcg parts from the look of it. thats the real crux of this thing, a metal lower vs this pretty much dubious plastic lower and the difference in price/ to me its not worth the shipping and ffl fees.


Good call. If I saw one for $80 at a gunshow and had cash, I'd be awfully tempted to tinker with it; as is, this is not a cheap proposition to tear part. I really would love to test this design, but I'm saving my pennies for that RR I want so badly...
Read my blog to meet a hero
Avatar
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Sep 2007
  • USA NJ, USA
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Sep 2007
  • USA NJ, USA
  • Posts: 9527
  • Feedback: 100% (4)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 10:48:17 AM EST
I wouldn't spend my money on it.
"Go take a long walk on a short pier"----my dad

"Strive for perfection and you will easily surpass excellence"----my dad

".............."---Harpo Marx
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Apr 2009
  • USA SC, USA
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Apr 2009
  • USA SC, USA
  • Posts: 664
  • Feedback: 100% (1)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 10:58:25 AM EST
Originally Posted By Ridge_Runner_5:
Saw one of those a few weeks ago at a gun show here...wasnt sure what to make of it...

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/89Sunbird/e02508fa.jpg


i say make a door stop out of it. about all it's good for. and maybe .22's
A2 obsessed
Avatar
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Nov 2008
  • USA LA, USA
Bronze
  • Team Member
  • Nov 2008
  • USA LA, USA
  • Posts: 536
  • Feedback: 100% (20)
  • Status: Offline
  • Link To Post: Click
Posted: 12/1/2009 10:58:26 AM EST
Ya girl present with tha music blastin, and she keep askin "How it shoot if it's plastic?"
Arrow Left Previous
Page / 8
Top