Yeah, composite lowers are junk, just like Glocks.
It's too bad the SCAR, ACR, ARX, and other low class junk rifles are coming out with composites. It's obvious the corporate profit mongers are foisting off inadequate materials on the fighting soldier. No wonder SOCOM stopped buying the SCAR.
Oh, yeah, they still buy the .308 version. Hmm, maybe composite lowers CAN take the abuse. Maybe composite full stocks on rifles are OK. Maybe all the new pistol designs in the last 25 years are working just fine.
You think?
It's been proven that forged aluminum was fine in the day, but an extruded upper and composite lower will do the job. After all, compared to stained walnut, a composite stock is far superior, and in the AR, the lower isn't stressed by holding together parts of the receiver to contain the cartridge. That's all done by the barrel extension.
We don't need forged aluminum, quality composite stocks have long ago proven their worth on the HK91 and many others. The Improved Carbine project is just as likely going to be a composite lower with extruded upper - and a quality AR could be made the same way, and cheaper to boot.
An extruded monolithic free float upper with rail and handguards? Sure, why not? Composite lower with drop in trigger? AR already can take that. All the lower does is hold the stock and upper together against the pressure of the human body, worst case is getting used as an expedient ladder by a soldier in full battle rattle. If anything, composites can take more abuse than a thin tube screwed into the back of the lower. Check that joint, it's not robust at all - yet it is stronger than the wrist on a Garand or M14 stock, wood OR fiberglass. I've seen those shatter when abused.
I've got no problem with composite stocks, the LCP, Glock, and Remington 700 work just fine. Composites molded 20 years ago are still going strong, and that's nearly the service life of the weapon. Composites from 45 years ago were used in the M16, nobody thinks they are dumb now.