polymer lower receiver

Discussion in 'AR-15 Discussion' started by jlee0812, Sep 1, 2013.

  1. jlee0812

    jlee0812 New Member

    76
    0
    0
    anyone have any experience with these? I was looking at them online and just kinda curious
     
  2. JohnJak

    JohnJak New Member

    365
    1
    0
    Purest s will have nothing to do with them.

    I have 2 and never had a problem with them.
     

  3. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,818
    120
    63
    I have a carbon 15. Works great for 5.56/.223. I haven't built a large caliber, polymer.
     

    Attached Files:

  4. ScottA

    ScottA FAA licensed bugsmasher Lifetime Supporter

    7,141
    0
    0
    I had a Plum Crazy poly lower. I didn't have any problems with it, but I did sell it during the craze and more than paid for my build on a standard lower.
     
  5. sweeper22

    sweeper22 New Member

    2,706
    0
    0
    If the build comes together okay, they can be fine. I've had some. I actually still have a couple. But the plastic can stretch/tear/split when hammering in a roll pin. I know this, because I've had it happen. And then your $50-100 polymer lower evolves into a conversation piece about your poor taste. I've also seen some issues (other folks' builds) with mags either not releasing or locking up properly.

    So I have a pretty limited level of experience, and yet have seen a high percentage of problems. I will never buy another polymer lower myself. They can in fact be fine. But there are too many potential issues, and too many reasons to build on aluminum instead.

    BTW- NFA is a better option than ATI in my opinion, but I've seen problems with each. The ATI poly lowers are actually finished nicer than NFA, but they're absolute junk. Neither makes sense when you can get outstanding aluminum lower for $90-180...including trendy name brands, fancy finishes, and billet.
     
  6. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    11
    38
    its not about purity ;)

    some have had problems and almost all companies that make them have reported issues with them. enough so that im not convinced the tech has advanced enough for them to be durable or reliable as a shtf gun, but should serve fine as a range or plinking type application.

    i also dont think its enough of a price gap or weight gap to warrant dealing with the liekly issues that crop up with the things. i would rather spend a few more dollars and not worry about such issues.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2013
  7. Overkill0084

    Overkill0084 Active Member

    4,910
    2
    38
    +1
    $30 saved by getting a polymer lower seems like false economy when looking at the total cost of a rifle build.
     
  8. Quentin

    Quentin New Member

    7,551
    1
    0
    Since the lower is the serialized part of the AR and thus considered the "firearm", I'm not willing to take a chance on polymer. I know it's proven on the Glock but the AR is not a Glock.
     
  9. aandabooks

    aandabooks New Member

    1,598
    0
    0
    I've been seeing them for under $50 again. Not interested in building an AR right now but have been thinking about buying a couple and putting them away for the next drought/supply crunch.
     
  10. jlee0812

    jlee0812 New Member

    76
    0
    0
    All good replies... I was just wondering... I was reading about some fitting issues and longevity problems about them...
     
  11. jlee0812

    jlee0812 New Member

    76
    0
    0
    Also from what I've read... the m&p lower is a quality lower... no need to change it.. :)
     
  12. sweeper22

    sweeper22 New Member

    2,706
    0
    0
    If everything comes together great, they'll probably last pretty well. But that's a huge "if". The fitting issues are real. The holes have a tendency to be a bit tight and inconsistent. And those tight holes then become loose if they split/stretch/warp/etc when hammering a pin or part in. And then you have a lousy setup.

    There just aren't too many justifiable reasons to build on a polymer lower with the aluminum/alloys being so cheap and readily available at the moment. Here's a great billet lower for $125. You can't beat that!
     
  13. Dahamp2003

    Dahamp2003 New Member

    262
    0
    0
    NFA is good. I had one and loved it. For a lightweight build, its perfect. Or if you really dont have money its a good alternative. Id def buy it complete with theyre parts put in by them though. I used a slide fire full auto bumpstock on it and it worked flawlessly. I actually liked the accutrigger better than the standard mil spec triggers. Theres a cult like resistance to them though. Dont understand it. Unless youre going to afganistan, its fine. I had one, Im talking from experience, not hearsay.
     
  14. sethweese

    sethweese New Member

    59
    0
    0
    I bought an ATI Omni complete a few months ago. I bought it right when the "Crunch" was ending and it was a great price that I couldn't pass up I felt ! I have only gotten it out a few times due to outstanding debt, but I have had nothing but decent luck ! I think I need to do some slight filing on the feed ramp cause I tend to get a hang up that looks like the nose of the bullet is being stopped on the ramp. If you want to see what I mean, check on YouTube for video named "First Shots ATI Omni" ! (And i don't know how to post a link from my phone) First video I did on new video camera and first actually edited video I did. It's not a professional shot or edited vid, but I suck with computers. To keep a long story short, I feel I made a great purchase of my ATI Omni !!! I would post a picture but at work and I only made a vid on my phone of the AR and not a pic. Hope this helps and feel free to ask any questions about my opinions on this matter.
     
  15. 7.62 Man

    7.62 Man New Member

    904
    0
    0
    I bought one of the Plum Crazy complete owers & have over 3000 rounds through it now.
    [​IMG]
    The only problem I have had was at about 2000 the trigger got impossible to pull, I switched to a steel FCG & haven't had a problem since.