AR Sponsor
Posted: 3/16/2012 6:52:17 AM EDT
|
Video comparing a polymer and standard lower reciever
Why not? It would seem to me that polymer is better, its breaking strength is higher, its lighter and it doesn't bend (it flexes and will return to its shape). It's less likely to break, less likely to get bent and weighs half as much. What are your guys' opinions on the subject? |
|
I've also got a question regarding milspec and commercial buffer tubes.
I realize they are both different in size (and threading height) and both require two different types of stocks so you need to order the correct stock for your buffer tube type. My question is, do both fit on any lower receiver? The LW-15 linked in the first post comes with a commercial size buffer tube, does that mean I can only put commercial size buffer tubes on that reciever? Or is the buffer tube type (commercial / mil spec) only going to affect what stock you put on it? |
|
Quoted:
Video comparing a polymer and standard lower reciever Why not? It would seem to me that polymer is better, its breaking strength is higher, its lighter and it doesn't bend (it flexes and will return to its shape). It's less likely to break, less likely to get bent and weighs half as much. What are your guys' opinions on the subject? The "less likely to break"part simply isn't true. That's why. I've had three people make that claim to me, then break polymer lowers. |
|
Quoted:
I've also got a question regarding milspec and commercial buffer tubes. I realize they are both different in size (and threading height) and both require two different types of stocks so you need to order the correct stock for your buffer tube type. My question is, do both fit on any lower receiver? The LW-15 linked in the first post comes with a commercial size buffer tube, does that mean I can only put commercial size buffer tubes on that reciever? Or is the buffer tube type (commercial / mil spec) only going to affect what stock you put on it? Any tube should fit any lower. Milspec stocks will only fit milspec tubes. Commercial stocks will fit commercial or milspec tubes, but they will be sloppy on a milspec tube... |
|
Quoted:
I've also got a question regarding milspec and commercial buffer tubes. I realize they are both different in size (and threading height) and both require two different types of stocks so you need to order the correct stock for your buffer tube type. My question is, do both fit on any lower receiver? The LW-15 linked in the first post comes with a commercial size buffer tube, does that mean I can only put commercial size buffer tubes on that reciever? Or is the buffer tube type (commercial / mil spec) only going to affect what stock you put on it? Any lower should accept either. |
| First off they should run the entire lower over with a truck like a duece and half or something and compare that instead of going to just the mag well. They also have some video cuts during their press test on their lower...interesting. Second, they should do an actual fire test with live rounds not some machine that doesn't even let the hammer all the way up. |
| they got a video of it getting run over with a ford f150 bout 3:20 in the third video. The deuce would be more impressive I agree on the live fire test but dang 75k rounds would be an expensive test ... at least some hydraulic setup with some force behind it and hitting an actual firing pin. |
|
And if it does break, it's dadgum cheap to replace. It would also seem lighter than an aluminum lower, handy if you're building a pistol or lightweight build.
Personally, I try not to run over my firearms with trucks. Just a personal preference... Gig 'em, backbencher |
|
Quoted:
And if it does break, it's dadgum cheap to replace. It would also seem lighter than an aluminum lower, handy if you're building a pistol or lightweight build. Personally, I try not to run over my firearms with trucks. Just a personal preference... Gig 'em, backbencher My rifles are for protecting my family. And they're sbr'd. You worry about cheap unreliable junk and replacing it. I'll worry about quality and effectiveness. |
|
Traditional methods and ways are hard to change. That is why people will not accept a resin molded lower as a replacement for the standard aluminum forged lower. I'm sure that when Glock decided to make their pistols the people in the industry laughed and made many of the same remarks. Now look at the market, the polymer lower is so widely accepted that traditional pistols (think 1911) are considered to be old and heavy, dated and unreliable blah blah blah.....
So where does it go from here? That Carbon 15 has surely opened some eyes, it has been around for quite some time now, and while I'm no expert on them, they must be working out just fine as they are still being made to date. I prefer mine the way it is currently built, but that is not to say that I wouldn't at least try one to see if they were any good or not. It is good to see that this platform is always changing, and creative products are coming out every day. When that stops, start to worry about the end of this platform. To each their own, and keep the creative juices flowing! |
I have two in my gun safe now  for 215 complete its not a bad deal. I slapped a 5.56 upper on it and no hickups after 300 rounds. I am building guns for two of my kiddos 10 and under and they will be turned into .22lr only once they are done. They work well and like before I try not to run over my firearms as well and for kids who aren't as strong as most this will be great to teach them form and function with at a reasonable cost ie two complete guns under 300 each... Try finding a 22lr from a manufacturer for that much. And yes its all brand new parts. I haggle a lot at gun shows
|
|
Quoted:
Cav arms was a great design. Please someone buy and restart that mold! I agree. I did not like the idea of a polymer lower but finally tried my first Cav Arms. The first worked out so great it lead to another. I think the video about the stripped polymer lower (only) is missing the point, the mag well is not a stressed or part of the lower that people have had problems with when going polymer. The reports I have read and seen are that the threads strip at the back of the receiver where the buffer tube gets screwed in or that thin threaded section breaks. How about them testing that thin section against an aluminum lower. The reason the Cav Arms is so good is that they have removed that weak section by incoporating a single piece of polymer for the lower and the stock....it really works well the way Cav Arms has it set up....<><....:) |
|
I've owned multiple plum crazy lowers and had no problem with any of them. My beater rifle is a plum crazy lower with a jse upper (built it for $450 with sights). 3000 rounds through it with very few jams (mostly because of the crappy gas block moving) Just picked up a pair of LW15's (http://www.lw15.com/) and already have 500 rounds through one of them without a single issue. For $100, you really can't beat it. Everyone should have a couple in their safe just for the hell of it IMO.
|
|
Quoted:
Traditional methods and ways are hard to change. That is why people will not accept a resin molded lower as a replacement for the standard aluminum forged lower. I'm sure that when Glock decided to make their pistols the people in the industry laughed and made many of the same remarks. Now look at the market, the polymer lower is so widely accepted that traditional pistols (think 1911) are considered to be old and heavy, dated and unreliable blah blah blah..... So where does it go from here? That Carbon 15 has surely opened some eyes, it has been around for quite some time now, and while I'm no expert on them, they must be working out just fine as they are still being made to date. I prefer mine the way it is currently built, but that is not to say that I wouldn't at least try one to see if they were any good or not. It is good to see that this platform is always changing, and creative products are coming out every day. When that stops, start to worry about the end of this platform. To each their own, and keep the creative juices flowing! I agree it is nice to see new things being tried and think it would be nice to see a polymer lower but one with better strength. Comparing a Glock and an AR receiver is a bit apples to oranges. The Glock is a handgun and thus smaller and more rigid as a result. An AR receiver has parts coming off of it that create leverage (the buffer tube and Upper receiver/barrel) and the pistol grip is smaller and mounted by a screw not continuous with the lower. Glock has made changes to their pistols to improve strength and we have see Glock frames crack from stress of long term use, however, very uncommon. Glock fcg utilizes primarily metal parts apart from the actual trigger part. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cav arms was a great design. Please someone buy and restart that mold! I agree. I did not like the idea of a polymer lower but finally tried my first Cav Arms. The first worked out so great it lead to another. I think the video about the stripped polymer lower (only) is missing the point, the mag well is not a stressed or part of the lower that people have had problems with when going polymer. The reports I have read and seen are that the threads strip at the back of the receiver where the buffer tube gets screwed in or that thin threaded section breaks. How about them testing that thin section against an aluminum lower. The reason the Cav Arms is so good is that they have removed that weak section by incoporating a single peice of polymer for the lower and the stock....it really works well the way Cav Arms has it set up....<><....:) All of this. And Glocks were designed to be polymer. AR receivers were not. Thus the breakage at that neck near the RE. |
I own a PlumCrazy lower, put it on a DSA fluted upper. Have had ZERO problems with it, more than that, I'm pretty impressed with it compared to aluminum rifles. Personally I feel like most of the negative arguments aren't anything different than what the industry was saying about Glock when they were the new kids on the block.....and we have all seen how that has gone.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cav arms was a great design. Please someone buy and restart that mold! I agree. I did not like the idea of a polymer lower but finally tried my first Cav Arms. The first worked out so great it lead to another. I think the video about the stripped polymer lower (only) is missing the point, the mag well is not a stressed or part of the lower that people have had problems with when going polymer. The reports I have read and seen are that the threads strip at the back of the receiver where the buffer tube gets screwed in or that thin threaded section breaks. How about them testing that thin section against an aluminum lower. The reason the Cav Arms is so good is that they have removed that weak section by incoporating a single peice of polymer for the lower and the stock....it really works well the way Cav Arms has it set up....<><....:) All of this. And Glocks were designed to be polymer. AR receivers were not. Thus the breakage at that neck near the RE. Agreed, but my post wasn't comparing the two types of weapons, just the fact that they were unconventional and that Polymer has had it's fair share of distrust and dislike. These few manufacturers are pioneers in the AR world, and I'm sure that there will be revisions and different designs to come. |
|
I am by no means a polymer expert, nor did I stay at a holiday inn express last night. What I can tell you, from an engineering standpoint, is that the comparison between the polymer and the forged lowers in that particular linked video (being placed in a hydraulic press) is almost literally comparing apples to oranges.
Fact of the matter is that although almost the same amount of "press" was achieved, the actual forced applied could have and would have been significantly different. Ultimately, If I put a 2"x2"x.125" piece of cold rolled tube in that press and squashed it .166" and then removed it, you would see obvious deflection and the interior cross section of the material would no longer be the same. But then if I took a 2"x2" piece of foam and squashed it .166" and removed it, it would return to it's shape easily. Point being that each piece did not see the same amount of pressure at all. It's a great magic trick, nothing more. Again, I'm no AR expert, nor a metallurgist, so take it for what it's worth. |
|
Quoted:
I am by no means a polymer expert, nor did I stay at a holiday inn express last night. What I can tell you, from an engineering standpoint, is that the comparison between the polymer and the forged lowers in that particular linked video (being placed in a hydraulic press) is almost literally comparing apples to oranges. Fact of the matter is that although almost the same amount of "press" was achieved, the actual forced applied could have and would have been significantly different. Ultimately, If I put a 2"x2"x.125" piece of cold rolled tube in that press and squashed it .166" and then removed it, you would see obvious deflection and the interior cross section of the material would no longer be the same. But then if I took a 2"x2" piece of foam and squashed it .166" and removed it, it would return to it's shape easily. Point being that each piece did not see the same amount of pressure at all. It's a great magic trick, nothing more. Again, I'm no AR expert, nor a metallurgist, so take it for what it's worth. Well said and makes a lot of sense....<><....:) |
|
Quoted:
My rifles are for protecting my family. And they're sbr'd. You worry about cheap unreliable junk and replacing it. I'll worry about quality and effectiveness. Dadgum, you must have a longer engagement range than I worry about. I stick to a 20 ga PG 870 w/ buckshot for my defense needs; the AR pistol is a range toy. If I have to use an AR for work, Uncle will loan me a M4. Gig 'em, backbencher |
AR Sponsor