[jhog]

Hey all,
Has any one had any experience with New Frontier Armory's LW15 Composit lower? Went to their website and watched the torture test crunching a alum. lower then their comp. lower. It surpassed the alum. and sprang back and was able to load a mag, awsome! They also offer a lifetime warranty. Supposed to be stronger than the Plumcrazy lower and cheaper too. Their barrels also sparked my intrest, 16'' match grade stainless 8 twist 3 grove polygon rifleing. Any thoughts?

[Gatoragn]

http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f20/psa-meet-plum-crazy-58052/

[jhog]

Originally Posted by Gatoragn

http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f20/psa-meet-plum-crazy-58052/

Already did. Looking for info on New Frontier Armory.

[EW1066]

I watched the same video and I can tell you that the methodology of their testing was biased to make thier lower look good. Sure they showed the amount of deflection, but what they didn't show was the amount of force required to create that deflection. I can say with some level of certainty that the composit lower would have been crushed to failure if subjected to the same FORCE required to compress the aluminum lower that much.

Caveat emptor


EDUB

[AgentTikki]

id buy one for a range toy or plinker..........problem is I'm sitting on 2 lowers atm......no it'll be a while.

And btw old glock 17 and 19 probably have 10k rounds out them no worse for wear...I expect my grand kids to shoot em. Polymer is great.

[EW1066]

Originally Posted by AgentTikki

id buy one for a range toy or plinker..........problem is I'm sitting on 2 lowers atm......no it'll be a while.

And btw old glock 17 and 19 probably have 10k rounds out them no worse for wear...I expect my grand kids to shoot em. Polymer is great.

Glocks were designed from the beginning to be a composit structure. So its designed to play to the strengths of the material used. It cannot be expected that composits will perform better than a metal part when using the exact same form factor as the metal part. You must change the thiskness and form to play to the strength of the material used. Molding an exact copy of an AR lower will make it lighter but not stronger.

ETA: If they want to prove something with their crush test they should do it again. Only this time, do it where the buffer tube attaches to the lower and apply the same force to each and see which one fails first. Or at the center of the lower where the bolt catch and mag release go through the lower. These would be true tests of the structure. The true test of how strong a structure is how much FORCE it can resist not how much it can FLEX

EDUB

[jhog]

Originally Posted by EW1066

Glocks were designed from the beginning to be a composit structure. So its designed to play to the strengths of the material used. It cannot be expected that composits will perform better than a metal part when using the exact same form factor as the metal part. You must change the thiskness and form to play to the strength of the material used. Molding an exact copy of an AR lower will make it lighter but not stronger.

ETA: If they want to prove something with their crush test they should do it again. Only this time, do it where the buffer tube attaches to the lower and apply the same force to each and see which one fails first. Or at the center of the lower where the bolt catch and mag release go through the lower. These would be true tests of the structure. The true test of how strong a structure is how much FORCE it can resist not how much it can FLEX

EDUB

I concur, thought it was a little strange that they used the magwell area instead of in the center.