Polymer lowers - Page 2
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Long Guns > Auto & Semi-Auto Discussion > AR-15 Discussion > Polymer lowers

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-10-2012, 07:52 PM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
mjkeat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Wichita,Kansas
Posts: 4,026
Liked 8 Times on 8 Posts

Default

All joking aside I may give one a try despite their reputation. I wish I could find a Cav Arms lower though.

__________________

“The bitterness of poor quality Lingers long after The sweetness of low price is forgotten.”
-John Ruskin

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quentin View Post
"The biggest issue with assembling an AR isn't so much getting the parts together right - it's getting the right parts together."
mjkeat is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 07:53 PM   #12
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Cattledog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Portland,OR
Posts: 1,459
Liked 588 Times on 378 Posts
Likes Given: 535

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JTJ View Post
A complete with adjustable stock polymer lower runs about $120. The Plum Crazy lowers are made in Lake Havasu City. I think there are a couple of newer brands on the market now. I know they have sold a lot of them but dont know how they hold up. I do know of one that got run over by a truck and it did not hurt it. Just some scratches. I hear rumors of failures but no pictures. The only thing I have against them is they dont return my calls when I am trying to get donations to the FNRA. It would not hurt them to donate a lower for a raffle or auction. Charter Arms has been donating a Pink Lady for the past 3 years. I am hoping they see this.
Yeah, a friend of mine checked out a plum crazy set up like that on Craiglist. Said he could flex and twist it in his hands. Call me crazy, but I don't think bendable materials and the AR platform are a good mix. There are plenty of polymer receiver firearms out there but they were designed that way from the beginning. $85.00 is a perfectly reasonable price for a stripped alum lower. Im not seeing how poly could be better in any way.
__________________
Join the NRA Here!


"You can have it fast, cheap and accurate...pick any two."~Me

"Educate and Inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them." ~Thomas Jefferson
Cattledog is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 08:13 PM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
AgentTikki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: City of Lost Angels, Kommifornia
Posts: 3,444
Liked 335 Times on 264 Posts
Likes Given: 51

Default




sorry guyz dunno how to embed vids....yet......
__________________
Assumption is the mother of all ****ups.
Know what you know, Know what you don't know. -Paul Pedzolt
"Jack of all trades, master of none, though oftentimes better than master of one" -Mynshul
AgentTikki is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 08:51 PM   #14
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
EW1066's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 312
Liked 88 Times on 51 Posts
Likes Given: 17

Default

I have watched that second video before 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.

As for the Glock comment. 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.

When someone comes out with a composite AR lower that was designed from the ground up to be what it is, I'll take a second look. Until then they can keep them

EDUB

__________________

When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.

Thomas Jefferson

EW1066 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 09:08 PM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Wichita
Posts: 131
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts

Default

The only thing I didn't really like about that second video was the fact that they went off travel distance instead of pressure. It might take less pressure to cause the polymer lower to crack or shatter than it does for the forged, plus if the polymer shatters it's entirely worthless, you can always pry on the forged and try to make it spread back out a bit.

As for the general feelings about polymer and feeling cheep, you're 100% correct! I had the opportunity to handle one at a gunshow from plumcrazy and it did feel incredibly cheap compared to a standard forged weapon. If you don't mind that, or you can learn to deal with it, they seem to be a pretty decent alternative to a standard forged.

__________________
TacticalPrecision is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 09:45 PM   #16
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Cattledog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Portland,OR
Posts: 1,459
Liked 588 Times on 378 Posts
Likes Given: 535

Default

Yeah, Im not impressed with the "deflection" test. A pressure test would have been more telling. Better yet: Do a practical test (I cant imagine a situation where my magwell would be in danger of being crushed...wtf) and install the same buttstock on each receiver. Then mount the receiver in a vise and apply downward pressure to the buttstock until failure. A force gauge or just adding weights will tell that story. Show me that test. Still I have to ask "why." The poly AR lower is the answer to a question no one asked.

__________________
Join the NRA Here!


"You can have it fast, cheap and accurate...pick any two."~Me

"Educate and Inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them." ~Thomas Jefferson
Cattledog is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 10:42 PM   #17
Supporting Member
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Sniper03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,211
Liked 2551 Times on 1247 Posts
Likes Given: 1285

Default

I personaly thought the tests were pretty hokey! Nothing but a sales gimmick in my opinion. For one the hammer never traveled in its complete radius of travel the entire test. To me it was more a test of the Hammer and Trigger unit in the receiver. And nothing was mentioned about possible opening of the trigger and hammer pins holes in the receiver that could possibly occur if the Hammer had been functioning to full travel as it would in the real operation for 75,000 cycles. Then the press! Give me a break! Anyway if I were going to have to spend over a hundred dollars + on a polymer receiver I would certainly buy a good 7075 T-6 Aluminum Lower. The mention by one here on the thread of tolerances and flex of the Polymer Lower sure brings on another issue. And sure makes sense. Sometimes on the standard receivers we can have tolerance problems between the Hammer and Bolt Carrier Groups matching correctly. With any flex at all that could certainly generate more of an issue. No I am not totally against Polymer in the weapon industry since I have some Glocks and Springfield XD Pistols as well as a Kahr P-380.
By the way as a little Armorer information. If you ever run into an AR that has been shot to the point that the Hammer and Trigger Pin holes are opened up slightly get a set of KNS Anti Rotate Pins. They will correct the problem. For those who do not know most Trigger and Hammer Pins do turn slightly in the receiver as the weapon is fired. Primarily the Trigger Pin. If nothing else I believe the lubricity of the Polymer surface would create less resistance to the turning. Only a thought!

03

__________________

The Constitution is not an instrument for the Government to restrain the people. It is an instrument for the people to restrain the Government!
*Patrick Henry

Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

-- John F. Kennedy

Sniper03 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 11:30 PM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Quentin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Idaho
Posts: 6,548
Liked 1002 Times on 705 Posts
Likes Given: 1002

Default

Since the lower receiver is the "firearm" I'd like assurance that it will last. Last as in "a lifetime". And I like it to look good so I'll stick with 7075 aluminum. I side with EW1066 as far as original designs using polymer like the Glock and XD but will pass on a plastic AR lower for now, unless we're talking the S&W M&P15-22 (and even there I went with the Colt M4 .22 with metal receivers).

__________________

______
The biggest issue with assembling an AR isn't so much getting the parts together right - it's getting the right parts together. You'll remember the quality of a gun long after you forget how much you paid for it.
________________________________________
US Army 1966-69, VFW Life Member, Retired Geek

Quentin is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 11:55 PM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jg3
Why polymer?...go to PSA and get a stripped lower for around the same price
I'm building a (light) carbine. The polymer lower shaves a whole pound off the weapon.
__________________
WildMan225 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 12:03 AM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Quentin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Idaho
Posts: 6,548
Liked 1002 Times on 705 Posts
Likes Given: 1002

Default

The polymer lower does NOT shave a pound off the rifle!

__________________

______
The biggest issue with assembling an AR isn't so much getting the parts together right - it's getting the right parts together. You'll remember the quality of a gun long after you forget how much you paid for it.
________________________________________
US Army 1966-69, VFW Life Member, Retired Geek

Quentin is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Polymer .45 ACP, yay or nay? indyfan Semi-Auto Handguns 49 06-23-2011 10:16 PM
Polymer AR-15 lowers indyfan AR-15 Discussion 13 04-16-2011 01:39 PM
Need Polymer Help.... Benning Boy The Club House 106 06-24-2010 05:40 PM
Let's see some polymer M14sRock Semi-Auto Handguns 18 06-08-2009 05:47 PM