[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Please lock. (Page 5 of 7)
 Colt receiver- pony logo bushmaster - snake logo Anderson - pony sabre - kitty polymer - this logo? Attached File |
|
Quoted:  Nice backtrack. Your first (red) comment is stating a definite (it will happen) and your second comment (blue) is backtracking to say it might happen.Cavarm lowers have been around for almost 20 years? If there were any issues with degradation, you think we would have heard of it by now? This is the age of the Internet; a mule cannot fart without someone posting about it. Quoted: Quoted: I just don't see the point. I don't find the AR to be a particularly heavy gun. And relatively little of the weight of a fully loaded AR is in the lower. But hey, who doesn't want to sacrifice reliability for a very modest weight savings? Quoted: They have a very brief track record compared to the 5+ decades of aluminum AR lowers. Polymers do change characteristics with time and are subject to degradation from UV light and atmospheric oxygen. No one can tell you how that polymer lower will hold up over time. Nice backtrack. Your first (red) comment is stating a definite (it will happen) and your second comment (blue) is backtracking to say it might happen.Cavarm lowers have been around for almost 20 years? If there were any issues with degradation, you think we would have heard of it by now? This is the age of the Internet; a mule cannot fart without someone posting about it. He's waiting for all the data to be in on gen 1 Glock 17s before jumping in the polymer pistol game. |
|
Quoted: He's waiting for all the data to be in on gen 1 Glock 17s before jumping in the polymer pistol game. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I just don't see the point. I don't find the AR to be a particularly heavy gun. And relatively little of the weight of a fully loaded AR is in the lower. But hey, who doesn't want to sacrifice reliability for a very modest weight savings? Quoted: They have a very brief track record compared to the 5+ decades of aluminum AR lowers. Polymers do change characteristics with time and are subject to degradation from UV light and atmospheric oxygen. No one can tell you how that polymer lower will hold up over time. Nice backtrack. Your first (red) comment is stating a definite (it will happen) and your second comment (blue) is backtracking to say it might happen.Cavarm lowers have been around for almost 20 years? If there were any issues with degradation, you think we would have heard of it by now? This is the age of the Internet; a mule cannot fart without someone posting about it. He's waiting for all the data to be in on gen 1 Glock 17s before jumping in the polymer pistol game. Those polymer AR mags are trash too |
|
Quoted: He's waiting for all the data to be in on gen 1 Glock 17s before jumping in the polymer pistol game. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I just don't see the point. I don't find the AR to be a particularly heavy gun. And relatively little of the weight of a fully loaded AR is in the lower. But hey, who doesn't want to sacrifice reliability for a very modest weight savings? Quoted: They have a very brief track record compared to the 5+ decades of aluminum AR lowers. Polymers do change characteristics with time and are subject to degradation from UV light and atmospheric oxygen. No one can tell you how that polymer lower will hold up over time. Nice backtrack. Your first (red) comment is stating a definite (it will happen) and your second comment (blue) is backtracking to say it might happen.Cavarm lowers have been around for almost 20 years? If there were any issues with degradation, you think we would have heard of it by now? This is the age of the Internet; a mule cannot fart without someone posting about it. He's waiting for all the data to be in on gen 1 Glock 17s before jumping in the polymer pistol game. |
|
Quoted: Colt receiver- pony logo bushmaster - snake logo Anderson - pony sabre - kitty polymer - this logo? https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/2275/461AFD5D-07E7-4504-BFF4-6370D0AB5573_jpe-1495134.JPG I'd buy a Karl lower. Just to piss off the idiots. |
|
Wow. Degens? Ian, Karl, and Russell have nothing but good reputation among those who don't take autistic screeching for fact. Glass filled nylon has a well known track record in all sorts of applications. Everything will break down and die eventually, even metal guns. This is cheap as chips at the end of the day considering the integral buffer tube and grip. The flared mag well is just a massive plus for me. If you don't want one, ok. I don't give a shit. More for me. This is my mock up of the 2020 rifle. FWIW I have no clue about texturing on the grip, or what the muzzle device will look like, but here you go:  |
|
Quoted: Wow. Degens? Ian, Karl, and Russell have nothing but good reputation among those who don't take autistic screeching for fact. Glass filled nylon has a well known track record in all sorts of applications. Everything will break down and die eventually, even metal guns. This is cheap as chips at the end of the day considering the integral buffer tube and grip. The flared mag well is just a massive plus for me. If you don't want one, ok. I don't give a shit. More for me. This is my mock up of the 2020 rifle. FWIW I have no clue about texturing on the grip, or what the muzzle device will look like, but here you go: https://i.imgur.com/1GOzzkP.png |
|
Quoted: I wonder how many carbon fiber handguards they'll be able to source for complete guns. I've been pondering a WWSD build since they started that series, and the ones Faxon sells are rarely if ever in stock. I wonder if the Faxon ones are OOS because they've been fulfilling a Brownells order for these guns... One can hope. |
|
Quoted: Nice backtrack. Your first (red) comment is stating a definite (it will happen) and your second comment (blue) is backtracking to say it might happen.Cavarm lowers have been around for almost 20 years? If there were any issues with degradation, you think we would have heard of it by now? This is the age of the Internet; a mule cannot fart without someone posting about it. Hey guys, sorry if my not liking something you like threatens you. If you want to pay more for something with far less of a track record for a very modest improvement in weight then carry on. It certainly doesn't bother me. Different strokes and all that. |
|
The main benefit of the KP-15 won’t be the weight. It will be the fact you get a flared Magwell lower receiver with a buttstock, buffer tube, pistol grip, trigger guard, take down pins, and buttplate for $99,95 (or less depending on where you buy it). Maybe you can find a aluminum lowers cheap still, our inventory of 2016 over stock is gone as of last week. Even then you $39.95 aluminum lower doesn’t include all those parts. And I must reiterate we are creating the ability to make a polymer receiver that is durable EVERY 60 SECONDS. As inventory and raw materials are depleted everywhere and we enter a prolonged period of unprecedented gun sales could you perhaps consider that this manufacturing power might be a good thing? |
|
Quoted: The main benefit of the KP-15 won’t be the weight. It will be the fact you get a flared Magwell lower receiver with a buttstock, buffer tube, pistol grip, trigger guard, take down pins, and buttplate for $99,95 (or less depending on where you buy it). Maybe you can find a aluminum lowers cheap still, our inventory of 2016 over stock is gone as of last week. Even then you $39.95 aluminum lower doesn’t include all those parts. And I must reiterate we are creating the ability to make a polymer receiver that is durable EVERY 60 SECONDS. As inventory and raw materials are depleted everywhere and we enter a prolonged period of unprecedented gun sales could you perhaps consider that this manufacturing power might be a good thing? Any chance of 80% recievers? |
|
Quoted: Any chance of 80% recievers? Quoted: Quoted: The main benefit of the KP-15 won’t be the weight. It will be the fact you get a flared Magwell lower receiver with a buttstock, buffer tube, pistol grip, trigger guard, take down pins, and buttplate for $99,95 (or less depending on where you buy it). Maybe you can find a aluminum lowers cheap still, our inventory of 2016 over stock is gone as of last week. Even then you $39.95 aluminum lower doesn’t include all those parts. And I must reiterate we are creating the ability to make a polymer receiver that is durable EVERY 60 SECONDS. As inventory and raw materials are depleted everywhere and we enter a prolonged period of unprecedented gun sales could you perhaps consider that this manufacturing power might be a good thing? Any chance of 80% recievers? From the other two times its been addressed in this thread not to mention all the informational videos theyve put out.... https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/KE-Arms-Mk-3-mold-complete-Pg-5/5-2337647/?page=2#i86068440 https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/KE-Arms-Mk-3-mold-complete-Pg-5/5-2337647/?page=3#i86267641 |
|
Quoted: Any chance of 80% recievers? Quoted: Quoted: The main benefit of the KP-15 won't be the weight. It will be the fact you get a flared Magwell lower receiver with a buttstock, buffer tube, pistol grip, trigger guard, take down pins, and buttplate for $99,95 (or less depending on where you buy it). Maybe you can find a aluminum lowers cheap still, our inventory of 2016 over stock is gone as of last week. Even then you $39.95 aluminum lower doesn't include all those parts. And I must reiterate we are creating the ability to make a polymer receiver that is durable EVERY 60 SECONDS. As inventory and raw materials are depleted everywhere and we enter a prolonged period of unprecedented gun sales could you perhaps consider that this manufacturing power might be a good thing? Any chance of 80% recievers? |
|
Quoted: Hey guys, sorry if my not liking something you like threatens you. If you want to pay more for something with far less of a track record for a very modest improvement in weight then carry on. It certainly doesn't bother me. Different strokes and all that. Quoted: Quoted: Nice backtrack. Your first (red) comment is stating a definite (it will happen) and your second comment (blue) is backtracking to say it might happen.Cavarm lowers have been around for almost 20 years? If there were any issues with degradation, you think we would have heard of it by now? This is the age of the Internet; a mule cannot fart without someone posting about it. Hey guys, sorry if my not liking something you like threatens you. If you want to pay more for something with far less of a track record for a very modest improvement in weight then carry on. It certainly doesn't bother me. Different strokes and all that. |
|
Quoted: Not threatened. The AR platform has far less of a track record than the 1911. So the AR platform should be suspect? It's a risk vs. cost vs. reward thing. An AR built on a polymer lower isn't a better AR save for being a little bit lighter. It does nothing else better than a standard AR and sacrifices some part interchangeability, has a shorter track record, and costs more. So the reward side of the equation is rather small. A modern semi-auto handgun on the other hand has quite a few advantages over a 1911, so the reward side is substantial. But don't let my estimate of the risk vs. costs vs. reward bother you. We all have our opinions after all. |
|
Quoted: It's a risk vs. cost vs. reward thing. An AR built on a polymer lower isn't a better AR save for being a little bit lighter. It does nothing else better than a standard AR and sacrifices some part interchangeability, has a shorter track record, and costs more. So the reward side of the equation is rather small. A modern semi-auto handgun on the other hand has quite a few advantages over a 1911, so the reward side is substantial. But don't let my estimate of the risk vs. costs vs. reward bother you. We all have our opinions after all. How do you figger it costs more? |
|
Quoted: The main benefit of the KP-15 won’t be the weight. It will be the fact you get a flared Magwell lower receiver with a buttstock, buffer tube, pistol grip, trigger guard, take down pins, and buttplate for $99,95 (or less depending on where you buy it). Maybe you can find a aluminum lowers cheap still, our inventory of 2016 over stock is gone as of last week. Even then you $39.95 aluminum lower doesn’t include all those parts. And I must reiterate we are creating the ability to make a polymer receiver that is durable EVERY 60 SECONDS. As inventory and raw materials are depleted everywhere and we enter a prolonged period of unprecedented gun sales could you perhaps consider that this manufacturing power might be a good thing? But can you confirm or deny that injection molding and polymer technology has advanced since Eugene Stoner designed the AR10? 
|
|
Quoted: It's a risk vs. cost vs. reward thing. An AR built on a polymer lower isn't a better AR save for being a little bit lighter. It does nothing else better than a standard AR and sacrifices some part interchangeability, has a shorter track record, and costs more. So the reward side of the equation is rather small. A modern semi-auto handgun on the other hand has quite a few advantages over a 1911, so the reward side is substantial. But don't let my estimate of the risk vs. costs vs. reward bother you. We all have our opinions after all. You might want to stay away from those newfangled plastic pistols, too. No doubt that shit will crumble to dust in a couple of years. Those plastic pistols don't do anything a good steel framed pistol does better. |
|
Quoted: How do you figger it costs more? Maybe I'm wrong. Can you build on a polymer lower and hit the cost of what you can build on a standard aluminum lower? Talking total build cost here, not just the cost of the lower. Why are you worried about what I think. We just have different opinions. It's ok if you like something and I don't. |
|
Quoted: You might want to stay away from those newfangled plastic pistols, too. No doubt that shit will crumble to dust in a couple of years. Those plastic pistols don't do anything a good steel framed pistol does better. The difference is that those plastic pistols (which I own many of) where designed from the ground up to be polymer guns. The AR was designed for aluminum and has essentially been retrofitted to polymer. Maybe they did a good job. But I'm pretty sure that the rifle would look different if it had been designed to be built from polymer from inception. And again, what am I getting by going to polymer? How much lighter is the gun? How long am I going to schlep this thing around in a day and is the weight savings enough that I care? I've held polymer ARs. I just wasn't that impressed with the weight reduction. It wasn't enough to make me care one way or the other. And back to your allusion to a polymer pistol - the mass budget is just much different for a pistol versus an AR. The lower just isn't a huge percentage of the mass budget for a loaded AR. Seriously guys, it's ok if you like it and I don't. |
|
Quoted: It's a risk vs. cost vs. reward thing. An AR built on a polymer lower isn't a better AR save for being a little bit lighter. It does nothing else better than a standard AR and sacrifices some part interchangeability, has a shorter track record, and costs more. So the reward side of the equation is rather small. A modern semi-auto handgun on the other hand has quite a few advantages over a 1911, so the reward side is substantial. But don't let my estimate of the risk vs. costs vs. reward bother you. We all have our opinions after all. Quoted: Quoted: Not threatened. The AR platform has far less of a track record than the 1911. So the AR platform should be suspect? It's a risk vs. cost vs. reward thing. An AR built on a polymer lower isn't a better AR save for being a little bit lighter. It does nothing else better than a standard AR and sacrifices some part interchangeability, has a shorter track record, and costs more. So the reward side of the equation is rather small. A modern semi-auto handgun on the other hand has quite a few advantages over a 1911, so the reward side is substantial. But don't let my estimate of the risk vs. costs vs. reward bother you. We all have our opinions after all. BTW, i agree that the feature set and lack of modularity may not be correct form the current market, as I have posted previously. But you have not posted proof/cites/links proving the lack of durability or degradation of the Cav/gwacs lowers. Sure 20 years is shorter than 50 years, but It is still pretty substantial. |
|
Quoted: First it was durability, track record and weight. Now it is risk vs. reward? What is next? BTW, i agree that the feature set and lack of modularity may not be correct form the current market, as I have posted previously. But you have not posted proof/cites/links proving the lack of durability or degradation of the Cav/gwacs lowers. Sure 20 years is shorter than 50 years, but It is still pretty substantial. Now you're just being obtuse. If I'm talking about the risk of a less well tested technology, then of course I'm weighing that against the potential benefit. No rational person considers risk without weighing it against reward. |
|
Quoted: Don't understand why anyone would give up the ability to customize their lower. Stocks, grips, and triggers guards seem to be items people like to choose when building their lowers. IME, my adjustable stocks end up around A1-length, the MOE is about perfect for a standard angle grip, and when it comes down to it you could swap most enhanced trigger guards around without anyone noticing. |
|
Quoted: Nothing wrong with the lowers but if Mr. #ShutUpWhitey gets some sort of commission off of these lower, it’s a hard pass from me. InRange does not receive commissions or payments of any kind from KE Arms. Karl and InRange are still not allowed to have an account here because AR15.com treats them as if they were a business selling product rather than a media outlet. Goatboy has stopped responding to Karl regarding this matter so he cannot answer you directly. You are still free to quote him out of context and use ad hominem attacks against him. |
|
Quoted: Any chance of 80% recievers? 1) The ATF previously ruled as soon as two halves of the CAV-15 existing in the same location it was a firearm 2) The ATF previously ruled that other polymer receivers with seams long the fire control group were already beyond 80% 3) The very nature of the KP-15 means it will have a seam along the fire control group even if that area is filled in because it is molded in two halves and welded together 4) The ATF has delayed or ceased issuing rulings on 80% firearms because of political pressure. We have a very expensive ATF specialist attorney that looked into this for us, and he said the prognosis wasnt good. 5) The tooling cost to make a new mold is hundreds of thousands of dollars. That cost would be a complete waste without ATF approval. So frankly it is not worth the financial risk to simply not get an answer or be denied currently. If someone wants to fund an 80% version completely at risk, contact me and have $500,000 in your bank account. |
|
Quoted: 1) The ATF previously ruled as soon as two halves of the CAV-15 existing in the same location it was a firearm 2) The ATF previously ruled that other polymer receivers with seams long the fire control group were already beyond 80% 3) The very nature of the KP-15 means it will have a seam along the fire control group even if that area is filled in because it is molded in two halves and welded together 4) The ATF has delayed or ceased issuing rulings on 80% firearms because of political pressure. We have a very expensive ATF specialist attorney that looked into this for us, and he said the prognosis wasnt good. 5) The tooling cost to make a new mold is hundreds of thousands of dollars. That cost would be a complete waste without ATF approval. So frankly it is not worth the financial risk to simply not get an answer or be denied currently. If someone wants to fund an 80% version completely at risk, contact me and have $500,000 in your bank account. Quoted: Quoted: Any chance of 80% recievers? 1) The ATF previously ruled as soon as two halves of the CAV-15 existing in the same location it was a firearm 2) The ATF previously ruled that other polymer receivers with seams long the fire control group were already beyond 80% 3) The very nature of the KP-15 means it will have a seam along the fire control group even if that area is filled in because it is molded in two halves and welded together 4) The ATF has delayed or ceased issuing rulings on 80% firearms because of political pressure. We have a very expensive ATF specialist attorney that looked into this for us, and he said the prognosis wasnt good. 5) The tooling cost to make a new mold is hundreds of thousands of dollars. That cost would be a complete waste without ATF approval. So frankly it is not worth the financial risk to simply not get an answer or be denied currently. If someone wants to fund an 80% version completely at risk, contact me and have $500,000 in your bank account. Shit that sucks thanks for the attempt. |
|
Quoted: The difference is that those plastic pistols (which I own many of) where designed from the ground up to be polymer guns. The AR was designed for aluminum and has essentially been retrofitted to polymer. Maybe they did a good job. But I'm pretty sure that the rifle would look different if it had been designed to be built from polymer from inception. And again, what am I getting by going to polymer? How much lighter is the gun? How long am I going to schlep this thing around in a day and is the weight savings enough that I care? I've held polymer ARs. I just wasn't that impressed with the weight reduction. It wasn't enough to make me care one way or the other. And back to your allusion to a polymer pistol - the mass budget is just much different for a pistol versus an AR. The lower just isn't a huge percentage of the mass budget for a loaded AR. Seriously guys, it's ok if you like it and I don't. Quoted: Quoted: You might want to stay away from those newfangled plastic pistols, too. No doubt that shit will crumble to dust in a couple of years. Those plastic pistols don't do anything a good steel framed pistol does better. The difference is that those plastic pistols (which I own many of) where designed from the ground up to be polymer guns. The AR was designed for aluminum and has essentially been retrofitted to polymer. Maybe they did a good job. But I'm pretty sure that the rifle would look different if it had been designed to be built from polymer from inception. And again, what am I getting by going to polymer? How much lighter is the gun? How long am I going to schlep this thing around in a day and is the weight savings enough that I care? I've held polymer ARs. I just wasn't that impressed with the weight reduction. It wasn't enough to make me care one way or the other. And back to your allusion to a polymer pistol - the mass budget is just much different for a pistol versus an AR. The lower just isn't a huge percentage of the mass budget for a loaded AR. Seriously guys, it's ok if you like it and I don't. This lower has been designed from the ground up to be polymer, it isn't like some that are just a sucky poly version of an aluminum lower. I'm also not getting how it costs more. This lower is $89 and you don't have to buy a stock, grip, receiver extension, castle nut, or endplate. Say you buy an Anderson for $40 flat, and pick up a receiver extension/endplate/castle nut for $30, that leaves $20 for a stock and grip. They're lighter, simpler to assemble, more durable in a lot of testing, and end up costing less. |
|
Quoted: InRange does not receive commissions or payments of any kind from KE Arms. Karl and InRange are still not allowed to have an account here because AR15.com treats them as if they were a business selling product rather than a media outlet. Goatboy has stopped responding to Karl regarding this matter so he cannot answer you directly. You are still free to quote him out of context and use ad hominem attacks against him. Fuckin A For people who probably claim to be more tolerant than the left, and probably claim to be pretty conservative if not libertarian... they sure do like attacking pro 2A Youtubers. "He's a satanist, ergo he worships evil." Ok boomer. |
|
I will be buying one, if for no other reason, than the innovation of it. Cranking one out every 60 seconds is worth showing my support to. This lower might not be for everyone, but it will make a contribution to the industry and community in the form of knowledge, testing, and whatever results come from this. That deserves me buying one to try, at the very least. Thanks for doing this! |
|
Quoted: I will be buying one, if for no other reason, than the innovation of it. Cranking one out every 60 seconds is worth showing my support to. This lower might not be for everyone, but it will make a contribution to the industry and community in the form of knowledge, testing, and whatever results come from this. That deserves me buying one to try, at the very least. Thanks for doing this! Im buying it because it looks and sounds cool. |
|
I'm intrigued by these. I need an AR as an alternative to the one I just built so I'm not out a ton of money if I have to actually use it, socially, as here in CA if the cops take your gun, might as well write it off unless you have the $$ to spend to file a lawsuit to try and get it back. Could save some money, and I also want reasonably light weight, so these are attractive. My only issue is that to make it detachable mag and AWB compliant, I'd need a grip fin, which is something I really don't like. I also don't know what the actual weight savings are compared to a conventional set-up (with a basic collapsible stock, or an A1 stock). So I'm on the fence. Intrigued, nevertheless. If I got one, I'd probably mate it to a slickside carry-handle upper, 16" mid-length pencil barrel, and some sort of basic handguards with a FSB. |
|
I am not a fan of Karl's politics per say but he is a nice enough dude and I like what he does so I don't really care about his politics/religion. I don't like mormanism but if somebody came up to me with a free 1911 or a hi-power I wouldn't say no. You should be paying attention to what the item is not the person behind it. If you don't like the idea of a durable (and proven by various videos and articles by Russell Phagen) polymer lower that includes the buffer, pistol grip, and stock for <100$s then go somewhere else? Yes the market has moved towards wanting more modularity and that will, in some regards, probably turn people off especially in regards to the pistol grip but the product is still way on the cheap end. You can conceivably buy a kp15 lower for <100$, a lower parts kit for <100$ and then some aero or anderson complete upper for ~200$s and voila, 400$ AR15. You can't ask for a whole ton more than that if you just go plinking every now and again. If you want a competitive rifle it still works in that capacity for using a pistol grip angle that is pretty popular, a stock length that most people end up using, all for 100$s. Like other than fudd lore that is vehemently anti polymer because of muh superior m14 or something despite that rifle having a service life shorter than the Bush Jr presidency and the lack of presumed modularity that most would likely end up at anyways, what's the issue with the kp-15? |
|
Quoted: Now you're just being obtuse. If I'm talking about the risk of a less well tested technology, then of course I'm weighing that against the potential benefit. No rational person considers risk without weighing it against reward. Are you aware of how many fallacies you've invoked in this thread? Since you're not really talking about the lower, you might as well talk about rhetoric. The rewards have been listed. Only reason to deny that is to boost your post count. GD is awesome, aint it! |
|
I've been impressed with the strength of the sabre arm lowers I have, but they all required significant sanding and fitting. Kinda expected that for $20 Figured maybe it was some "tolerance stack" as it were, or related to the colt smg/45/whatever magwell stuff, as that's where a lot of the trouble was. These look good though with the design, and for $90, seem like a pretty reasonable option. May order one |