User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 12:54:03 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
recently bought a scorpion evo pistol. it's pretty much all polymer, including the receiver. which got me thinking , the scar has a polymer receiver as well. and everyone loves it. fires the same 5.56x45 ammo we all love, even handles .308, without issues. so are polymer receivers really such a bad thing? probably not, at least not when made by a bigger company that can actually come up with some good stuff and afford to do some R&D and find out what works and what doesn't, like FN and CZ for example. but when we talk about AR's the immediate answer is no. don't do it. and i agree. the modern AR pretty much always uses a carbine receiver extension. and even if it uses a rifle extension, it still locks up to the receiver the same way. the design of the buffer tube just doesn't lend well to plastic. and who really cares when aluminum receivers are going for $50. no reason to go plastic. but what about the lowers with the integrated stocks, that don't require a receiver extension screwed on. assuming the design was ok in your book, and you liked the feel of that stock, would you still be opposed to a polymer lower? it does eliminate the weak point of a polwer AR lower. can't really say it does anything better though. i'm also curious if there are any other rifles that aren't total crap running a polymer lower. this is mostly a rant, but i definitely wouldn't mind some feedback and opinions. The only polymer AR lower worth using is the formerly Cavalry Arms, now GWACS Armory, CAV-15 Mk II. It is a viable polymer lower because it was designed to be made of polymer and not a standard lower made of polymer. The CAV-15 is very durable, but it is what it is and does not lend itself to modification. If you can live with the built-in pistol grip and built-in A1 size/shape stock, then it will work fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 1:14:08 AM EDT
[#2]
So I'm new to firearms. Only been an owner for 3 years and I agree with what your pointing out here. Seems to me that the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" line is sometimes so rampant or common in the gun community that, in a lot of ways, the AR platform has been held back from true innovation. Don't get me wrong. I understand that the AR continues to succeed at its purpose but why not truly bring it into the modern age? instead it seems as though we're dressing up grandma in flannel and skinny jeans and pretending like shes young again.
If the weapons of the future are polymer then we should stop alienating it from the weapon of the present. God forbid the whole industry follows Colt. And I understand that certain modifications would need to be made to the design but as Walter (Jeff Dunham) has said "we have the technology." just one mans opinion |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 3:23:28 AM EDT
[#3]
Commercial companies, even big names, have released a lot of stuff that proved to be crap.
Currently H&K's rep with polymer guns if falling hard, due to real issues. I don't mind being spoiled with buying proven stuff. I love innovation, but not following whatever miracle product or fad is the new thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 3:34:34 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It is a viable polymer lower because it was designed to be made of polymer and not a standard lower made of polymer.
This. If you make a polymer lower with the same internal and external dimensions as an aluminium one then it will not be strong enough. If you beef it up then you start to run into compatibility issues with parts/accessories because of the altered dimensions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 4:27:27 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So I'm new to firearms. Only been an owner for 3 years and I agree with what your pointing out here. Seems to me that the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" line is sometimes so rampant or common in the gun community that, in a lot of ways, the AR platform has been held back from true innovation. Don't get me wrong. I understand that the AR continues to succeed at its purpose but why not truly bring it into the modern age? instead it seems as though we're dressing up grandma in flannel and skinny jeans and pretending like shes young again. If the weapons of the future are polymer then we should stop alienating it from the weapon of the present. God forbid the whole industry follows Colt. And I understand that certain modifications would need to be made to the design but as Walter (Jeff Dunham) has said "we have the technology." just one mans opinion As you have stated, you are new to firearms, so that should kind of be a clue. Anyways, you say that the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" line is bad, but why? Can you explain to me what advantages you gain by using polymer as a build material for an AR lower? I'm all for advancements with any firearm, but there should be a tangible benefit to these changes, and there simply isn't one to a polymer AR lower. ETA: I'm not sure what you're talking about with your "bring the AR into the modern age" comment. What do other "more modern" 5.56 rifles do that the AR doesn't (especially factoring in the enormous AR aftermarket) other than be different? Maybe do a little more reading and a little less posting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 6:28:26 AM EDT
[#6]
Ive been hearing a lot about scar lowers breaking, so i wouldn't exactly call it fool proof.
Ive seen sl-8's (civilian g36) with cracked lowers |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 7:03:56 AM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 7:50:21 AM EDT
[#8]
Topic Moved
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 3:26:25 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only polymer AR lower worth using is the formerly Cavalry Arms, now GWACS Armory, CAV-15 Mk II. It is a viable polymer lower because it was designed to be made of polymer and not a standard lower made of polymer. The CAV-15 is very durable, but it is what it is and does not lend itself to modification. If you can live with the built-in pistol grip and built-in A1 size/shape stock, then it will work fine. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
recently bought a scorpion evo pistol. it's pretty much all polymer, including the receiver. which got me thinking , the scar has a polymer receiver as well. and everyone loves it. fires the same 5.56x45 ammo we all love, even handles .308, without issues. so are polymer receivers really such a bad thing? probably not, at least not when made by a bigger company that can actually come up with some good stuff and afford to do some R&D and find out what works and what doesn't, like FN and CZ for example. but when we talk about AR's the immediate answer is no. don't do it. and i agree. the modern AR pretty much always uses a carbine receiver extension. and even if it uses a rifle extension, it still locks up to the receiver the same way. the design of the buffer tube just doesn't lend well to plastic. and who really cares when aluminum receivers are going for $50. no reason to go plastic. but what about the lowers with the integrated stocks, that don't require a receiver extension screwed on. assuming the design was ok in your book, and you liked the feel of that stock, would you still be opposed to a polymer lower? it does eliminate the weak point of a polwer AR lower. can't really say it does anything better though. i'm also curious if there are any other rifles that aren't total crap running a polymer lower. this is mostly a rant, but i definitely wouldn't mind some feedback and opinions. The only polymer AR lower worth using is the formerly Cavalry Arms, now GWACS Armory, CAV-15 Mk II. It is a viable polymer lower because it was designed to be made of polymer and not a standard lower made of polymer. The CAV-15 is very durable, but it is what it is and does not lend itself to modification. If you can live with the built-in pistol grip and built-in A1 size/shape stock, then it will work fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2015 9:13:41 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So I'm new to firearms. Only been an owner for 3 years and I agree with what your pointing out here. Seems to me that the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" line is sometimes so rampant or common in the gun community that, in a lot of ways, the AR platform has been held back from true innovation. Don't get me wrong. I understand that the AR continues to succeed at its purpose but why not truly bring it into the modern age? instead it seems as though we're dressing up grandma in flannel and skinny jeans and pretending like shes young again. If the weapons of the future are polymer then we should stop alienating it from the weapon of the present. God forbid the whole industry follows Colt. And I understand that certain modifications would need to be made to the design but as Walter (Jeff Dunham) has said "we have the technology." just one mans opinion There's nothing wrong with innovation. The problem with making an AR "better" involves a redesign of the receiver. The area around the buffer and rear takedown pin is the weakest area on the AR lower design. This is the reason we see them made of 7075 forgings and billets. In the past some manufacturers produced die-cast lowers, and in some cases these lowers suffered the same problem around the buffer tube as the poly lowers. if you compared early AR lowers to the current designs, you'll see several reinforcements have also been implemented near the buffer. Two examples of a successful redesign are are SCAR (they omitted the buffer assembly from the lower) and the Cav15 mk II (changed thickness in the web between grip and buffer assembly by integrating stock, buffer tube,and pistol grip into he lower.) In both examples, they solved the problem through drastic modification, and that doesn't lend well to the rest of the AR world where that prefers universally swappable modular components. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2015 2:47:49 PM EDT
[#11]
I have two AR poly lowers, one of the last Plum Crazy Lowers that they made and a New Frontier Arms. While neither lower receiver has given me any problems the FCG in the New Frontier failed, causing it to double tap. Actually appears to have melted or disintegrated near the pivot point of the hammer. It spent most of it's time on a 7.62x39 upper so it saw some harder than normal use but never mag dumps or excessive use, mostly slow fire.
No more plastic parts for me. One poly lower is sitting in the parts bin as a parts donor for the other, which now has a metal FCG. Eventually I'll pick up another stripped Anderson or PSA lower and replace that as well, then both poly lowers will wind up in the trash. I've held a poly lower w/poly parts. a poly lower with metal parts, and a full aluminum lower side by side, the metal parts will make a noticeable weight difference but the lower itself does not IMHO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2015 8:45:12 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ive been hearing a lot about scar lowers breaking, so i wouldn't exactly call it fool proof. Ive seen sl-8's (civilian g36) with cracked lowers plenty of aluminum AR's have falied as well, but we don't write them off entirely, obviously. think of how many scars have probably been produced, vs how often we hear of catastrophic failure. and then consider what most of the scars are used for. they're usually submitted to some pretty harsh treatment if they are owned by a government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2015 12:05:26 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
plenty of aluminum AR's have falied as well, but we don't write them off entirely, obviously. think of how many scars have probably been produced, vs how often we hear of catastrophic failure. and then consider what most of the scars are used for. they're usually submitted to some pretty harsh treatment if they are owned by a government. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ive been hearing a lot about scar lowers breaking, so i wouldn't exactly call it fool proof. Ive seen sl-8's (civilian g36) with cracked lowers plenty of aluminum AR's have falied as well, but we don't write them off entirely, obviously. think of how many scars have probably been produced, vs how often we hear of catastrophic failure. and then consider what most of the scars are used for. they're usually submitted to some pretty harsh treatment if they are owned by a government. Quality forged 7075 aluminum lowers rarely fail, and when they do, it's usually from gross abuse. There has been story after story of polymer lowers failing from simply firing a couple hundred rounds (if not less), so don't even try to equate the two. They are nothing alike. Also, go find one of the GD threads on the SCAR where confirmed SOF guys have listed their beefs with it. Cracking lowers was one of the many reasons. It should also be mentioned that we don't see more of these issues because the SCAR was designed and engineered from the ground up to use polymer as a lower build material. This is not the case with the majority of the polymer AR lowers on the market (the CavArms poly lower being the lone exception that I'm aware of). Nobody has answered my question yet either. What tangible benefit will AR users realize from using a polymer AR lower? I'm not aware of many shortcomings with the tried and tested forged 7075 units. Most arguments I see for the polymer revolve around the goal of "being different for the sake of being different." |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2015 1:21:48 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quality forged 7075 aluminum lowers rarely fail, and when they do, it's usually from gross abuse. There has been story after story of polymer lowers failing from simply firing a couple hundred rounds (if not less), so don't even try to equate the two. They are nothing alike. Also, go find one of the GD threads on the SCAR where confirmed SOF guys have listed their beefs with it. Cracking lowers was one of the many reasons. It should also be mentioned that we don't see more of these issues because the SCAR was designed and engineered from the ground up to use polymer as a lower build material. This is not the case with the majority of the polymer AR lowers on the market (the CavArms poly lower being the lone exception that I'm aware of). Nobody has answered my question yet either. What tangible benefit will AR users realize from using a polymer AR lower? I'm not aware of many shortcomings with the tried and tested forged 7075 units. Most arguments I see for the polymer revolve around the goal of "being different for the sake of being different." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ive been hearing a lot about scar lowers breaking, so i wouldn't exactly call it fool proof. Ive seen sl-8's (civilian g36) with cracked lowers plenty of aluminum AR's have falied as well, but we don't write them off entirely, obviously. think of how many scars have probably been produced, vs how often we hear of catastrophic failure. and then consider what most of the scars are used for. they're usually submitted to some pretty harsh treatment if they are owned by a government. Quality forged 7075 aluminum lowers rarely fail, and when they do, it's usually from gross abuse. There has been story after story of polymer lowers failing from simply firing a couple hundred rounds (if not less), so don't even try to equate the two. They are nothing alike. Also, go find one of the GD threads on the SCAR where confirmed SOF guys have listed their beefs with it. Cracking lowers was one of the many reasons. It should also be mentioned that we don't see more of these issues because the SCAR was designed and engineered from the ground up to use polymer as a lower build material. This is not the case with the majority of the polymer AR lowers on the market (the CavArms poly lower being the lone exception that I'm aware of). Nobody has answered my question yet either. What tangible benefit will AR users realize from using a polymer AR lower? I'm not aware of many shortcomings with the tried and tested forged 7075 units. Most arguments I see for the polymer revolve around the goal of "being different for the sake of being different." i wasn't talking about standard AR receivers made from polymer in that post, we've all agreed that using a polymer lower of standard design is a bad idea. this thread wasn't entirely about the AR receivers either, but rather the role polymer receivers will play in the future of full powered rifles/smgs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2015 2:47:19 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: recently bought a scorpion evo pistol. it's pretty much all polymer, including the receiver. which got me thinking , the scar has a polymer receiver as well. and everyone loves it. fires the same 5.56x45 ammo we all love, even handles .308, without issues. so are polymer receivers really such a bad thing? probably not, at least not when made by a bigger company that can actually come up with some good stuff and afford to do some R&D and find out what works and what doesn't, like FN and CZ for example. but when we talk about AR's the immediate answer is no. don't do it. and i agree. the modern AR pretty much always uses a carbine receiver extension. and even if it uses a rifle extension, it still locks up to the receiver the same way. the design of the buffer tube just doesn't lend well to plastic. and who really cares when aluminum receivers are going for $50. no reason to go plastic. but what about the lowers with the integrated stocks, that don't require a receiver extension screwed on. assuming the design was ok in your book, and you liked the feel of that stock, would you still be opposed to a polymer lower? it does eliminate the weak point of a polwer AR lower. can't really say it does anything better though. i'm also curious if there are any other rifles that aren't total crap running a polymer lower. this is mostly a rant, but i definitely wouldn't mind some feedback and opinions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2015 9:42:51 AM EDT
[#16]
i wasn't talking about standard AR receivers made from polymer in that post, we've all agreed that using a polymer lower of standard design is a bad idea. this thread wasn't entirely about the AR receivers either, but rather the role polymer receivers will play in the future of full powered rifles/smgs. With the right materials (polymer properties) and proper design, I don't see any issue with the use of polymer in the future. It wasn't too long ago when power tools were heavier and were encased in cast metal housings. The polymers of the time either failed under the use of heat, or they were too brittle. Engineers kept experimenting , and the right materials were developed. The ca arms stocks have generally held up but with the ban ending everyone wanted collapse able stocks. Cavarms did a group buy or sale or something after the ban when I think they wanted some new equipment, but before the raid. There did not seem to be a lot of interest here I find that to be a fair assessment. Some design fixes/ improvements are going to counter act against other design features. It's hard to avoid. If a completely collapsible stock wasn't that much an issue, I'm sure most shooters would find the Cav 15's A-1 length stock acceptable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2015 10:16:14 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
plenty of aluminum AR's have falied as well, but we don't write them off entirely, obviously. think of how many scars have probably been produced, vs how often we hear of catastrophic failure. and then consider what most of the scars are used for. they're usually submitted to some pretty harsh treatment if they are owned by a government. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ive been hearing a lot about scar lowers breaking, so i wouldn't exactly call it fool proof. Ive seen sl-8's (civilian g36) with cracked lowers plenty of aluminum AR's have falied as well, but we don't write them off entirely, obviously. think of how many scars have probably been produced, vs how often we hear of catastrophic failure. and then consider what most of the scars are used for. they're usually submitted to some pretty harsh treatment if they are owned by a government. Most if the breakage reports are from the government. Outside of kb's you hardly see a 7075 aluminum ar lower crack like a polymer version will |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2015 11:51:06 AM EDT
[#18]
In over 20 years of Army infantry I have never heard of an M4/M16 lower breaking. I'm sure it has happened...but if military SCAR lowers are breaking enough for it to be a known issue then it doesn't sound like the polymer is stronger.
Personally, I'd be willing to try the CAV Arms design for sure and also the TN Arms lowers where they reinforced the extension area with a high shelf, more material, and metal thread inserts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2015 1:33:02 PM EDT
[#19]
I have built several rifles for customers who wanted polymer lowers. Most were just interested in seeing how they worked out, and if there was any difference
in durability between the two, and a couple wanted the lighter weight gun for the ladies/kids to play with. Most will be safe queens, and a few will be truck guns. Out here in the real world, most folks aren't going to carry/shoot them enough to matter. Since I can buy either a poly lower or a aluminum lower for the same price, it's all up to the customer to decide what they want. Me, I don't really care since I can build whatever I want (I have a flat spot steel lower I welded together for the ultimate in durability). I also built several 80% poly lowers as well as 80% aluminum lowers. I haven't seen much difference, but I don't run my guns hard. Here is a pistol I built with the TENN Arms clear lower. I am running a durability test on it. So far, with 500 rounds through it, no problems or issues. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 2:51:48 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nobody has answered my question yet either. What tangible benefit will AR users realize from using a polymer AR lower? I'm not aware of many shortcomings with the tried and tested forged 7075 units. Most arguments I see for the polymer revolve around the goal of "being different for the sake of being different." https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_4/676733_Fruity_Ghost___DIY_100s_of_ARs_cheaper__faster__gentler_.html $2.50 lowers is the tangible benefit. Mind, the properly reinforced ones might end up costing $3.00, or w/ an integrated stock, even $5 or $10! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 11:40:39 AM EDT
[#21]
If I intended to shave weight from a rifle, I wouldn't shave it from somewhere critical, like the lower unless I did it using a Cav15 mkII lower. With a standard pattern poly AR lower you might shave 4-8 ounces. You could shave more with a buffer tube made of a lighter material, a lighter stock, lighter handguards, or even a lightweight profile or carbon fiber wrapped barrel.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 11:45:35 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_4/676733_Fruity_Ghost___DIY_100s_of_ARs_cheaper__faster__gentler_.html $2.50 lowers is the tangible benefit. Mind, the properly reinforced ones might end up costing $3.00, or w/ an integrated stock, even $5 or $10! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Nobody has answered my question yet either. What tangible benefit will AR users realize from using a polymer AR lower? I'm not aware of many shortcomings with the tried and tested forged 7075 units. Most arguments I see for the polymer revolve around the goal of "being different for the sake of being different." https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_4/676733_Fruity_Ghost___DIY_100s_of_ARs_cheaper__faster__gentler_.html $2.50 lowers is the tangible benefit. Mind, the properly reinforced ones might end up costing $3.00, or w/ an integrated stock, even $5 or $10! Integrate the stock, pistol grip, and buffer tube, and cast the receiver in two halves, and you'll have the Fruity Ghost version of a Cav15 lower. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 2:03:45 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Integrate the stock, pistol grip, and buffer tube, and cast the receiver in two halves, and you'll have the Fruity Ghost version of a Cav15 lower. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Nobody has answered my question yet either. What tangible benefit will AR users realize from using a polymer AR lower? I'm not aware of many shortcomings with the tried and tested forged 7075 units. Most arguments I see for the polymer revolve around the goal of "being different for the sake of being different." https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_4/676733_Fruity_Ghost___DIY_100s_of_ARs_cheaper__faster__gentler_.html $2.50 lowers is the tangible benefit. Mind, the properly reinforced ones might end up costing $3.00, or w/ an integrated stock, even $5 or $10! Integrate the stock, pistol grip, and buffer tube, and cast the receiver in two halves, and you'll have the Fruity Ghost version of a Cav15 lower. I've got a $65 Sabre Defense lower I could cut in half & do that with - but how am I going to get the two parts together? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 4:42:29 PM EDT
[#24]
The original Cav lowers were held together by screws. The later models were either bonded by some form of sonic or linear vibration welding. Don't forget to add a strengthening material, such as fiberglas.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 4:48:37 PM EDT
[#25]
I think I would rather wait a little longer on the poly lowers. Most may not have issues but I imagine that over the next few years they will have the science down even better, no telling what they are going to be able to come up with.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2015 1:05:52 AM EDT
[#26]
Most firearms designed to use a polymer LOWER do NOT use a polymer "receiver". The receiver is usually a steel block inserted INTO the polymer (aka Glock style) that takes the abuse. Such as a Glock, (which people mistakenly say is a polymer receiver. It is not. It is a STEEL receiver block with a polymer frame around it. The inserts take the abuse (shock, friction, impact, etc) while the polymer is simply a "frame" that locates everything in it's place.
AR's were not designed to utilize polymer, and dimensionally they do not really have much room for metal inserts. And being that mil spec lowers are 7075 T6 aluminum, by the time you'd take a poly lower and beef it up with a proper load handling steel insert block... you'd have a larger, and heavier receiver than a mil spec (thus no advantage). There are companies that claim poly can take the abuse (in place of metal) for AR use.... but I'm not going to agree with that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2015 3:44:46 AM EDT
[#27]
Indeed. What are folks able to come up w/....
Not mine... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2015 11:26:35 PM EDT
[#28]
CAV-15 Abuse Testing
Short version Long Version Karl just won Trooper division at the 2015 Independence Day Action Rifle Match and placed 6th/76 shooters over all with this beat to hell, abused gun. 
When people tell me that polymer designs aren't advanced enough yet or aren't ready yet, I don't know what else could show more definitively that they are wrong. The CAV-15 MKII has existed since 2003. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 12:01:24 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nobody has answered my question yet either. What tangible benefit will AR users realize from using a polymer AR lower? I'm not aware of many shortcomings with the tried and tested forged 7075 units. Most arguments I see for the polymer revolve around the goal of "being different for the sake of being different." I see no advantage to the polymer or hybrid lowers with the threaded buffer tube areas over aluminum. I see a definite niche for the GWACS MKII that has advantages over aluminum. 1. Weight. 2. Cost. Just picked up GWACS complete lowers for significantly less than a complete Anderson build. 3. Ease of build. Lower plus LPK and you're done. 4. Durability. I watched a rifle kaboom with a Cav/GWACS lower due to a pistol powder load. The upper fragged into 3-4 pieces. The barrel extension was destroyed. The Cav lower basically just cracked. If it was aluminum, I am convinced it would have been much worse to the operator. Also, please see the above post with the testing. That rifle performed very well at the recent match after being run over, shot, and having push ups done on it. The Cav MKII weighs less, cost less, and is arguably more durable than aluminum. I had always really liked them and the only issue I had was with gen 1 PMAG compatibility. I don't remember what the issue was. These hybrid and other polymer lowers have tainted the MKII reputation and I would never purchase or run one. I have no affiliation with GWACS and am not in the industry. I run mostly aluminum lowers, but own three GWACS for the above reasons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/10/2015 4:13:47 PM EDT
[#30]
Might catch flak but oh well. I'm running an fmk poly lower, fits snug, no flaws in it yet with several hundred rounds through it (If I guessed its around 500, haven't counted them.) I have a cmmg lpk in it and a psa 6 position stock. Really light weight, I think less than 7 lbs total.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/10/2015 4:37:51 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When people tell me that polymer designs aren't advanced enough yet or aren't ready yet, I don't know what else could show more definitively that they are wrong. The CAV-15 MKII has existed since 2003. Anyone that knows of the Cav lower lists it as the sole exception when making that statement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/11/2015 9:47:45 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see no advantage to the polymer or hybrid lowers with the threaded buffer tube areas over aluminum. I see a definite niche for the GWACS MKII that has advantages over aluminum. 1. Weight. 2. Cost. Just picked up GWACS complete lowers for significantly less than a complete Anderson build. 3. Ease of build. Lower plus LPK and you're done. 4. Durability. I watched a rifle kaboom with a Cav/GWACS lower due to a pistol powder load. The upper fragged into 3-4 pieces. The barrel extension was destroyed. The Cav lower basically just cracked. If it was aluminum, I am convinced it would have been much worse to the operator. Also, please see the above post with the testing. That rifle performed very well at the recent match after being run over, shot, and having push ups done on it. The Cav MKII weighs less, cost less, and is arguably more durable than aluminum. I had always really liked them and the only issue I had was with gen 1 PMAG compatibility. I don't remember what the issue was. These hybrid and other polymer lowers have tainted the MKII reputation and I would never purchase or run one. I have no affiliation with GWACS and am not in the industry. I run mostly aluminum lowers, but own three GWACS for the above reasons. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nobody has answered my question yet either. What tangible benefit will AR users realize from using a polymer AR lower? I'm not aware of many shortcomings with the tried and tested forged 7075 units. Most arguments I see for the polymer revolve around the goal of "being different for the sake of being different." I see no advantage to the polymer or hybrid lowers with the threaded buffer tube areas over aluminum. I see a definite niche for the GWACS MKII that has advantages over aluminum. 1. Weight. 2. Cost. Just picked up GWACS complete lowers for significantly less than a complete Anderson build. 3. Ease of build. Lower plus LPK and you're done. 4. Durability. I watched a rifle kaboom with a Cav/GWACS lower due to a pistol powder load. The upper fragged into 3-4 pieces. The barrel extension was destroyed. The Cav lower basically just cracked. If it was aluminum, I am convinced it would have been much worse to the operator. Also, please see the above post with the testing. That rifle performed very well at the recent match after being run over, shot, and having push ups done on it. The Cav MKII weighs less, cost less, and is arguably more durable than aluminum. I had always really liked them and the only issue I had was with gen 1 PMAG compatibility. I don't remember what the issue was. These hybrid and other polymer lowers have tainted the MKII reputation and I would never purchase or run one. I have no affiliation with GWACS and am not in the industry. I run mostly aluminum lowers, but own three GWACS for the above reasons. As I've stated before in this forum, the GWACS lowers are the lone exception in the polymer AR lower realm. I don't agree with all your points on why they're "better" (hell one of them is a "negative" in my book), but they don't suffer from the serious structural integrity issues that every other polymer AR lower on the market does (or at least all the one's I'm currently aware of). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2015 10:49:09 AM EDT
[#33]
i have four polymer lowered AR's. they all ruun just as well as aluminum AR's. i have one poly with 10's of thousands of rounds through it. my favorite poly lower is the omni gen2, i also have tennesee arms and "JMT" lowers. no issues from any, some run hard, some just in pistol calibers. i guess i am just asking for catastrophic failure, i'll let you know......
that being said, i don't really see the point in poly lowers anymore. there used to be a cost savings factor, but with PSA's blems and Anderson Arms sub 50$ alum lowers, i likely will not get another poly unless doing another 80% |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2015 11:56:54 AM EDT
[#34]
I love my Cav-15's, but have stayed away from the other plastic/polymer AR lowers because of research I've done where they break at the buffer tube area.
Very interesting thread currently going on right now about lowers, installing supports, and how to make them last. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_4/676733_Fruity_Ghost___DIY_100s_of_ARs_cheaper__faster__gentler_.html |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
