Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/12/2004 10:49:40 AM EST

Lower weight?
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:51:25 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 10:51:40 AM EST by _DR]
good use for recycled plastic milk bottles
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:51:34 AM EST
Lower weight, lots tougher. Colored. Cheaper too.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:56:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By BeetleBailey:
Lower weight?


Lower weight & cost.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:24:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 11:25:04 AM EST by JoeyA]

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Lower weight, lots tougher. Colored. Cheaper too.



why's it always gotta be like that? j/k
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:28:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Lower weight, lots tougher. Colored. Cheaper too.



You make it sound like a condom
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:29:30 AM EST
call me a luddite but i'm just not comfortable with the idea of a plastic rifle receiver
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:41:32 AM EST
I love mine. It is very lightweight. I hunt with it regularly.
Bob
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:47:16 AM EST
Too match most people's cars????

MT
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 2:47:54 PM EST
Lower weight, more quickly unservicable; need more reasons? Think about a hardened steel bolt carrier traveling inside a plastic composite reciever. What kind of servicability do you anticipate?
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 3:10:15 PM EST
To fuzzywuz how is a hardened steel carrier gonna wear out a polymer upper as the polymer is even more slippery than aluminum.My H&K USP pistol hasnt had its lower worn out by my slide yet nor my glock or my USC .45 carbine wich has a massive steel bolt.I have a carbon model#4 and I think the polymer is the way of the future and a way to extend the service life of the design while being cheaper than a completely new system as parts in inventory can still be used.And where Bushmaster is one of a few companies with this technology I would love to see colt lose its contract to produce M4s something that would happen if the military went with a polymer M16 design.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 3:51:33 PM EST

Lower weight, more quickly unservicable; need more reasons? Think about a hardened steel bolt carrier traveling inside a plastic composite reciever. What kind of servicability do you anticipate?

Depends on which receiver is polymer. I don't think I'd trust a polymer upper but I just bought a CavArms lower and I like it.


My H&K USP pistol hasnt had its lower worn out by my slide yet nor my glock or my USC .45 carbine wich has a massive steel bolt

I'm not sure about the HKs but I know that on the Glock you're not saying anything valid because the Glocks slide rides on steel rails that are inserted into the polymer frame.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 4:01:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By BeetleBailey:
Lower weight?



Absolutely. The original concept was a lightweight, handyrifle. If today's polymers were available to Stoner, I believe he would have used them in the original design.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 4:13:28 PM EST
hinking.gif

So the gun grabbing liberals can't melt them down, because if they did, it'd make a toxic cloud.


hinking.gif

Might just work
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 6:05:12 PM EST
Hey Model 927!

Maybe you need to look closer at your Glock and HK. The slide is not riding on a polymer frame but actually rides on hardened metal inserts/rails moldeled into the polymer frame. I have not closely examined a Bushmaster "Carbone" or whatever they are calling their plastic creation, but I would suspect if it does not have a similar setup, despite your theory on "slippericity", that it will not hold up.

I'm sure you are familiar with the Rockwell Hardness scale, and proven scientific data, that when two dissimilar materials repeatedly come into contact with one another, the one with the least hardness shows wear the first.

I would strongly suspect absent some scientific breakthrough, there is a significant difference in the hardness of the forged steel bolt carrier and the polymer molded reciever of the "Carbone".
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 6:11:29 PM EST
BTW, no one ever said a alloy reciever will hold up as long as a hardened steel bolt carrier. Ask anyone who has put in excess of 50,000 rounds (especially fullauto) through an AR, which shows noticable wear; the bolt carrier or the reciever.

I'm merely saying that absent something to prove otherwise I will bet my money on a metal alloy reciever remaining servicable longer than a plastic polymer .
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 6:16:41 PM EST
Who gives a damn how long it lasts, if you spend $4000 on ammo to wear it out are you gonna whine about paying CavArms $30 to rebuild it?
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 6:19:10 PM EST
Steel inserts or not they still make contact with the polymer and yes the polymer is smoother and more friction resistant than aluminum I have 6000 rounds on my model #4 no signs of wear.And the Bolt of the USC also makes contact with its polymer receiver and no more or less wear in the 5 years I have had it.I suppose we will be hearing next how the steel components will wear out the aluminum upper or FCG holes in the lower.So yes on my pistols the slide rides on steel insert rails but still makes contact with the receiver and thats not worn either.And Im sure you know hardness and wear factor aside that the bolt carrier has its own rails that let it ride in the upper.And yes a harder material will wear a softer material first unless that material is the same tesil stregnth at the same dimensions even though its lighter.Friction and heat are also a factor in wear and the less friction the less wear.And yes a bolt carrier may be harder and less flexible than polymer but like I said less friction less wear,and I didnt know you were a scientific expert at least I can be gratefull that you didnt acuse me of bad assembly of my rifle like you did another member in a different post,But then again you seem to know it all......sorry for my insolence proffessor!!!!
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 6:41:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By livefreeordieNH:
call me a luddite but i'm just not comfortable with the idea of a plastic rifle receiver



Hey luddite ! Stoner invented the design so it could be constructed out of materials other than the norm....like steel.

At the time he designed it aluminum was cutting edge light material.

Now plastics are WAY AHEAD of what they were during the conception of this design. I see plastic as a logical upgrade.

Lightweight, easier & cheaper to produce, etc. I love the cold feel of my aluminum receiver but can someone come up with something positive that a aluuminum receiver has OVER a polymer receiver for normal utility rifle purposes ?
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 6:51:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Who gives a damn how long it lasts, if you spend $4000 on ammo to wear it out are you gonna whine about paying CavArms $30 to rebuild it?


Well put.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:03:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By model927:
Steel inserts or not they still make contact with the polymer and yes the polymer is smoother and more friction resistant than aluminum I have 6000 rounds on my model #4 no signs of wear.And the Bolt of the USC also makes contact with its polymer receiver and no more or less wear in the 5 years I have had it.I suppose we will be hearing next how the steel components will wear out the aluminum upper or FCG holes in the lower.So yes on my pistols the slide rides on steel insert rails but still makes contact with the receiver and thats not worn either.And Im sure you know hardness and wear factor aside that the bolt carrier has its own rails that let it ride in the upper.And yes a harder material will wear a softer material first unless that material is the same tesil stregnth at the same dimensions even though its lighter.Friction and heat are also a factor in wear and the less friction the less wear.And yes a bolt carrier may be harder and less flexible than polymer but like I said less friction less wear,and I didnt know you were a scientific expert at least I can be gratefull that you didnt acuse me of bad assembly of my rifle like you did another member in a different post,But then again you seem to know it all......sorry for my insolence proffessor!!!!


webster.commnet.edu/grammar/runons.htm
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:06:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By DarkKnight:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Who gives a damn how long it lasts, if you spend $4000 on ammo to wear it out are you gonna whine about paying CavArms $30 to rebuild it?


Well put.



Of course it is, I wrote it


Just funnin' with you.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:14:26 PM EST
To holophile I really dont give a shit about grammar mr anal retentive.If mispelled words affect you that bad that you cant help giving links on how to spell you have too much time on your hands buddy.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:23:29 PM EST
cheaper; easier to mold

matches your glock

easier to blow up!
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:24:44 PM EST
To clarify a few common misconceptions...

A typical modern reinforced Polyamide (Nylon) has the following advantages over 7075 T6 (Mil-spec for AR lowers and uppers):

-Better resistance to frictional wear - It is both self lubricating and it will "absorb" some foreign debris thus taking it out of harms way

-Better resistance to yield - will not permantently deform when run over by a truck (kinda like stretch armstrong)

-Will not corrode

-Less expensive - both in material cost and post-production cost.

-Can be molded to net shape in one step - no forging, no machining, no deburring etc.

-No conversion coating required (no anno) and nothing to scratch off over time

-Less limitaions in design - plastic will take whatever shape you like.

-and of course it's lighter

When plastic parts fail, it is most often becasue they were designed wrong or not used as intended - which can also happen with aluminum.

Granted, plastics come with their own set of nuances and are not ideal for all applications but when you look at the potential advantages, aluminum loses out.

I agree that Stoner would have come to the same conclusion if he had the choice.

I would also add that Speshul Wepuns should do as their name suggests and resort to the manufacture of childrens chew toys... or maybe thay already have.

Cheers.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:28:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Lower weight, lots tougher. Colored. Cheaper too.



Pick up my CavArms lower this week
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:31:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 7:40:08 PM EST by El_Roto]

To holophile I really dont give a shit about grammar mr anal retentive.If mispelled words affect you that bad that you cant help giving links on how to spell you have too much time on your hands buddy.



That was a link on punctuation, not spelling.


I always love it when someone comes to a place where writing skills = good communication and when confronted with their inadequacies in that area retort, "I don't have to learn the language, you're just being picky/anal/a d*ck."

Well, you don't have to learn how to write, model927, but no one here has to take you seriously either.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:42:42 PM EST
Huked ohn fonics werked four mee.

Sumday eye wil lern me how two spel and git gud grammer to.



Link Posted: 10/12/2004 7:45:53 PM EST
I want one so that Bush can be blamed because Cheney was "one of four to vote against banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors." - according to Edwards.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 9:46:13 PM EST
BTW aren't most armies moving to plastic? i.e. Germany, US, France, Austria, Spain, Italy, Australia, etc. Also the AR upper and lower recievers are not under that much stress, so I don't think it makes a difference. Also plastic does better with salt water exposure than aluminium.

I suspect next will be ceramic barrels, lighter weight, better heat tolerance, etc.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 9:58:03 PM EST
Lower IR signature also.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:51:43 PM EST
The real benefit of plastic in guns is because it drives gun-curmudgeons nuts.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 9:55:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By USMC_LB:
Lightweight, easier & cheaper to produce, etc. I love the cold feel of my aluminum receiver but can someone come up with something positive that a aluuminum receiver has OVER a polymer receiver for normal utility rifle purposes ?



The ability to change out stocks and pistol grips.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 10:22:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mike_L:

Originally Posted By USMC_LB:
Lightweight, easier & cheaper to produce, etc. I love the cold feel of my aluminum receiver but can someone come up with something positive that a aluuminum receiver has OVER a polymer receiver for normal utility rifle purposes ?



The ability to change out stocks and pistol grips.


You can change out stocks and pistol grips with the Bushmater polymer lower.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 10:31:04 AM EST
Model927:

I'd never question your intellect.

Sounds like you've got answers.

Why are you posting questions in the first place?
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 10:51:24 AM EST
Isn't the weight difference between a carbon & alluminum only like 3/4 of a pound? I know that's not feather weight, but does the weight benefit outweigh (no pun intended) the performance?
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 12:36:18 PM EST
Cavalry Arms claims a full pound of weight savings between an aluminum receiver with an A2 stock and a standard grip versus their MKII.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 12:45:56 PM EST
Most of that difference is in the buffers--the CAR buffer in the Cav MkII is quite a bit lighter than the rifle buffer in the A2 stock.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 1:17:22 PM EST
yes and no.
CAR buffer 2.9oz.
Rifle buffer 5.2 oz.
Difference of about 2.3 oz. or slightly more than an 1/8th of a pound.

Cav Arms = no receiver extension, no butt plate, no foam filler in buttstock, no separate grip/grip screw, etc req'd.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 5:18:02 PM EST
I spent nearly $180 shaving 1lb from my Bushy 20" HBAR: barrel re-profile under the handguards; ACE skeletonized stock.

A pound is nothing to sneeze at when you raise your rifle for the 50th time that afternoon (especially when you're an out-of-shape keyboard herder like me).
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:10:15 PM EST
I don't dislike the Polymer Lower's. I just feel like I would be limiting myself by not having the ability to add new stuff like a stock or a pistol grip, etc. I love my VLTOR stock and TD pistol grip and may pony up for a Magpul stock someday and would never be able to do any of that. I guess that is my biggest reason not to go Polymer. As Far as Durability, I'm gonna guess it's a horse a piece and not a big deal compared to Aluminum.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:24:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By Harv24:
I don't dislike the Polymer Lower's. I just feel like I would be limiting myself by not having the ability to add new stuff like a stock or a pistol grip, etc. I love my VLTOR stock and TD pistol grip and may pony up for a Magpul stock someday and would never be able to do any of that. I guess that is my biggest reason not to go Polymer. As Far as Durability, I'm gonna guess it's a horse a piece and not a big deal compared to Aluminum.



My polymer lower accepts ALL of those options.

Bob
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:33:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/13/2004 6:35:34 PM EST by _DR]
Polymer lower, anyone?




who says you can't change out the stock
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:05:27 PM EST
Thats a cav arms I think the bushy model #4 is way stronger.To fuzzywuzz"whatever" newbie to El Roto puncuation has nothing to do with substance of ones opinion.Sometimes I write so quick I neglect puncuation.Weather you take me seriously or not really does not matter to me,Im entitiled to my opinion reguardless.I dont post in the hopes of winning your approval you have your opinions and I respect that.Its just your attacks at what I consider an insignificant mistake is what makes me really laugh.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:20:36 PM EST
That was a Cav arms in an untested configuration (new .45). In normal operation, I can very easily say that the cavalry arms plastic lowers are easily more durable than "conventional" lowers.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:25:16 PM EST
.45 well that changes things a bit,thought it was .223.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 8:13:56 PM EST
It seems to me the weak link in a plastic AR is the upper reciever; specifically, the barrel/barrel extension/reciever interface.

This needs to be re-engineered to the characteristics of the synthetic material. Then we might have something REAL interesting...agreed?
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 8:41:41 PM EST
Slightly off topic; anyone have experience with a range of synthetic lowers and comfortable making recommendations?
I have been considering a synthetic lower but want to be able to use a magpul 93a and the soon to be released Magpul pistol grips.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 8:51:03 PM EST
The Bushmaster model # 4 takes standard AR assemblies.
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 5:55:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By otto_esq:
yes and no.
CAR buffer 2.9oz.
Rifle buffer 5.2 oz.
Difference of about 2.3 oz. or slightly more than an 1/8th of a pound.

Cav Arms = no receiver extension, no butt plate, no foam filler in buttstock, no separate grip/grip screw, etc req'd.


I stand corrected. I thought the difference was more. BTW, the CavArms do have regular buttplates.


Eukatae,
I don't have personal experience, but search here for Vulcan and you should find a couple threads by I think Combat_Diver about his build with Vulcan receivers. His has 2k+ rounds through it now. He had some wear problems with the upper, but so far no problems with the lower. It takes regular AR parts.

model927,
All of that punctuation stuff is designed to make the text easier to read. If you want people to actually read your posts then at least use periods, spaces between sentences, and capital letters. Most people will forgive minor spelling errors if they can tell what you meant, but lots of people won't take the time to decipher a "sentence" that goes on for 20-30 lines. And they shouldn't have to.
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 6:58:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mike_L:
I stand corrected. I thought the difference was more. BTW, the CavArms do have regular buttplates.


They can take regular buttplates - but they give out plastic buttplates when you purchase their stocks - I'd imagine they use the same ones on their rifles

A2 Buttplate: 3.8 oz
Cav Arms Buttplate: 1.1 oz

BTW I appreciate the plastic lower and plan on getting a Cav-Arms.

However it's kinda foolish to say they are stronger than the Aluminum lowers. I've never seen a forged aluminum lower fail from use with .45 ACP (or .50, or .458 or.....). The plastic lowers are good, and they are better in some ways - but they do have their limitations.

As with all engineering its trade-offs.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top