AR Sponsor
Posted: 12/24/2016 9:30:40 PM EDT
|
Is there anything I should watch out for when using a plastic lower? A local gun store was selling them for 40 along with an Anderson lower parts kit for another $40, so I thought I'd give it a try.
I somehow didn't realize it was plastic at first when I was looking at it, but it seems sturdy enough. I decided to go for a budget .223 build with it. |
|
Quoted:
Is it a fmk? For some reason there is a stack of those at every shop near me. I've never heard a review of them, but typically polymer is more prone to breakage. I'm sure they don't all break. Quoted:
Is it a fmk? For some reason there is a stack of those at every shop near me. I've never heard a review of them, but typically polymer is more prone to breakage. I'm sure they don't all break. It is. Kudos to you, it's the first time I've seen them at this shop. I guess we'll have to see if it'll hold up. If it doesn't,oh well, it was cheap. Quoted:
Here's the most recent thread about polymer lowers http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_4/705691_EPArmory-80--Gen-2-Opinions-.html The LPK would normally be $50+s&h, so even if it broke you're only out $30. Go ahead and build it up and give us a review. Thank you for the link kind sir. I'll be sure to do that. |
|
The good news: The Ar1 eXtreme comes with a lifetime warranty; and of course, it’s Proudly American. The bad news: Those reports of good CS and quick replacements.....are happening because replacements have been necessary. I don't know how many they've sold, or anything percentage-wise that have had to be replaced. Polymer can work, I'm just not certain FMK has figured out how to do it. |
|
Quoted:
Is it a fmk? For some reason there is a stack of those at every shop near me. I've never heard a review of them, but typically polymer is more prone to breakage. I'm sure they don't all break. Here's FMK website. Polymer lowers have been around for a number of years, and although I'm sure the technology is getting better, you just don't see either serious shooters or high volume shooters flocking to them. My personal opinion is that they work fine for handguns but not with rifles with the higher stresses they incur. I also have an issue with the use of the term "mil spec" by the manufacturer. There is nothing mil spec about polymer. |
|
Quoted:
The weak spot is the thin area above and below the rear takedown pin. The metal insert is there to keep the buffer tube threads from stripping out. The insert actually goes all the way into the rear takedown pin area essentially linking the buffer tube and rear takedown by metal instead of polymer. ATI |
|
Don't drop it. I got this off someone for $250.
Attached File |
| Thanks fellas for all the input. I figured there was a more or less negative view on plastic lowers like this, which is is part of the reason I decided to make it my super budget build. I don't plan on putting more than $540 into it when it's all said and done. If it does break, being that it is considered a registered firearm, what does one do with it? Send it back to FMK? I imagine you can't just toss it in the garbage. |
|
I have 2 FMK's that I got as giveaway items at an NRA banquet. I consider them to be complete junk. Now, keep in mind, I'm not a brand specific user, and don't consider lots of the high dollar stuff to be better, but I think these are absolutely atrocious. It seems like every part is designed to be garbage. I thought I was going to save these to assemble beginner rifles for my boys, but I think I will probably trade both of them in on a ball of used fishing line or something.
There is no reinforcing material anywhere, the grip screw threads into plastic, ugly molded-in flat trigger guard, takedown pin holes are irregular and oversized(slide the pin out, and the pins tip over about 30 degrees, shouldn't be long before these fall out entirely). Basically everything is built like it's an aluminum forging even though there's no strength there. And considering the fact that a person would only be saving $10 on a build, I don't see any reason to ever consider one of these. Now, some polymer lowers have gotten my attention, but I haven't tried them out yet. Realistically, they need to be designed different than a forged lower. The ability of the varying materials is really not better or worse, but different - Polymer receiver design needs to approach this differently. Anyway, if you bought a FMK, you might as well save up another $50 for the day when you can't stand it anymore, and replace it with something that can be trusted. |
|
Destructive Testing of Polymer Lower AR15
It's worth the watch really. |
|
Quoted:
I can keep going if you want.... Please, keep going. Maybe one day people will listen and learn. There's no reason to buy plastic lowers. They got "popular" after Sandy Hook when that's all people could find. When you can get Anderon lowers for $40 to $60, cost is no excuse. |
|
Quoted: When it comes to tupperware lowers, there is one choice. CavArms/GWACS.
Forget about the tupperware lowers that are clones of a regular AR lower. Go CavArms or aluminum. I have one of the CavAid lowers. it's been a fine piece if kit. $65 Sabre Defense/Cav Arms Mk 2 $35 lifetime warranty from GWACS on old lowers One $2 proprietary part you'll need (includes shipping)  Failed To Load Title Yes, that's a bullet hole through the buffer tube. It still runs afterwards. |
|
Quoted:
Here's FMK website. Polymer lowers have been around for a number of years, and although I'm sure the technology is getting better, you just don't see either serious shooters or high volume shooters flocking to them. My personal opinion is that they work fine for handguns but not with rifles with the higher stresses they incur. I also have an issue with the use of the term "mil spec" by the manufacturer. There is nothing mil spec about polymer. Quoted:
Quoted:
Is it a fmk? For some reason there is a stack of those at every shop near me. I've never heard a review of them, but typically polymer is more prone to breakage. I'm sure they don't all break. Here's FMK website. Polymer lowers have been around for a number of years, and although I'm sure the technology is getting better, you just don't see either serious shooters or high volume shooters flocking to them. My personal opinion is that they work fine for handguns but not with rifles with the higher stresses they incur. I also have an issue with the use of the term "mil spec" by the manufacturer. There is nothing mil spec about polymer. Polymer works fine in firearms (rifles or pistols), so long as the part is designed and engineered to use polymer from the get go. Substituting polymer for aluminum while using the blueprints that were engineered strictly for aluminum is a recipe for failure. |
|
Quoted:
Except this one maybe? (Metal insert in the weak area mentioned) http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j69/maximusscriptorius/OMNI-HYBRID-Stripped-Lower-660x494_zpsm2wf5gyj.jpg They typically tend to break at the takedown pin hole, not the threaded buffer tube portion. |
|
Quoted:
The differences between the two different BTs has nothing to do with the receiver. Receivers will accept either Thanks for the catch, there was a graphic I saw that has the threaded end called out as different dimensions but as I look into deeper now everyone says they are the same. Both my rifles have A2 stocks so it was a moot point for me as I built mine. |
| If they put an insert in all the proper areas to solve the issue, you'd end up with an all-metal lower. So, why not save yourself the time, money and nervousness of breaking it and just spend $10 more on one that will withstand being run over by a herd of moose. |
AR Sponsor