Sweet, new AR poly lowers $100

Originally Posted By: liliysdadWhy anyone buys a poly lower, I will never understand.

Glock, Springfield, HK, Smith & Wesson, FNH, Walther, Beretta... All make polymer pistol lowers/frames that sell like hotcakes.
Why is the lower of America's most popular rifle any different?

 
Originally Posted By: liliysdadWhy anyone buys a poly lower, I will never understand.

Half a pound plus of weight diff, around 30% cheaper than the cheapest alum lower, and they work well unless you're clubbing them to death with it.......
 
Originally Posted By: liliysdadWhy anyone buys a poly lower, I will never understand.

I am with you leave the plastic for the barbie doll won't buy a plastic pistol either give me a Kimber. Just my opinion.
 
Originally Posted By: PharmerJonOriginally Posted By: liliysdadWhy anyone buys a poly lower, I will never understand.

Glock, Springfield, HK, Smith & Wesson, FNH, Walther, Beretta... All make polymer pistol lowers/frames that sell like hotcakes.
Why is the lower of America's most popular rifle any different?



ya, why would anyone want to deal with the ruggedness and reliability of a polymer lower.... god knows my XD is a peice of garbage....

http://web.archive.org/web/20051212091303/http://springfield-armory.primediaoutdoors.com/SPstory11.html

and while i cant find it at the moment, there was video a few years back of one placed on a bbq grill (no ammo in it) until the lower had bars from the grill burned into it and it still functioned.

so yea, kimbers are awesome, but dont knock poly... there's some good stuff out there too
 
This is one of the earlier Plum Crazy poly lowers with a JSE upper...Including the optic, ($50 pawn shop) the whole rifle cost me $524 and that accomplished my goal of a light weight, inexpensive AR...After running 100 rounds through it, the trigger smoothed out to the point that I've never felt the need to upgrade it..

While I have never, and don't intend to, pushed the rifle to find out the failure point for any of the parts, for the purpose of having a utility rifle that you can throw in the trunk or drag through the brush and mud that is reasonably dependable, I have no problems with it...

I've shot poly framed handguns in various competitions and for daily carry purposes and have always found them to be accurate and more comfortable to carry/shoot...Everyone has their personal preferences, but I see no reason to reject any of them out of hand unless you plan to use it for a hammer..


Same rifle painted

Target with 17 rounds rapid fire at 50 yards, so accuracy is not bad either...
 
Comparison to polymer framed handguns is ludicrous. Polymer handguns were designed, from the onset, with the material in mind. ARs were not. The only polymer AR I would even consider would the CavArms version, as it has different dimensions to mitigate the weakness in design that result from an inch for inch copy, in a weaker material.
 
Initial design doesn't matter. Model ts were designed from the onset to be made by hand, hand fitted, out of solid steel. It's not much of an argument to say the new corvette is a worse car because that's not how cars were intended.

The ar was intended to be a 4moa rifle, improvements to the initial design changed that. It was also designed from the materials available at the time. Time moves on.

I would expect a metal receiver to work better for the abuses a military rifle receives, but i wouldnt expect any civy rifle seeing a fraction of that abuse, so a different material should be fine.
 
Originally Posted By: liliysdad Polymer handguns were designed, from the onset, with the material in mind. ARs were not.

bet you hate the new aluminum body ford pickup, seedless watermelons and composite arrows? the list is endless.
tongue_smilie.gif
 
In each of these red herring comparisons made, the design was made with the material in mind..except for the watermelons, not really getting that one.

I have no doubt a polymer lower can be made, and made well. CavArms proved that many years ago. The issue arises when an item designed around a certain material is copied, inch for inch, with a weaker material. There are areas, such as the grip/buffer tube junction and front pivot pin bore, that simply dont cut it with polymer. Sure, most folks will never have an issue, but breakages are so commonplace, that why anyone still buys them is a mystery to me. Couple this with the fact that an aluminum lower can be had for less than 50 bucks without even trying..and the mystery grows even more.

Keep buying that junk if it works for you, apparently there are many like you. For this same reason, there remains a market for BSA scopes, and Hi Point firearms. Do not, however, claim that they are "just as good" as an aluminum lower. That goes well beyond opinion, and is simply incorrect.
 
Originally Posted By: liliysdadbreakages are so commonplace, that why anyone still buys them is a mystery to me.

help with the mystery. where are all these commonplace breakages being seen? i have seen a couple that "supposedly" broke for no good reason. yeah right. but far from common place. can you put up documentation of a half dozen different ones?
 
I have personally, with my own eyes, seen three Bushmaster Carbon 15s break, two at the grip/extension tube junction, one at the front pivot. I have personally seen, with my own eyes, seen two Professional Ordnance (pre Bushmaster) Carbon 15s break, both at the grip/extension tube junction. I have personally, with my own eyes, seen two broken Plum Crazy and one Frontier lower. All of these at the same grip/extension tube junction. I have seen, with my own eyes, two broken CavArms lowers, both at the front pivot.

This does not even mention the numerous Carbon 15 uppers I have seen fail.

Like I said earlier, the CavArms at least made an effort to change dimensions in places where a weak point could be foreseen. They did negelct the front pivot point, but those I have seen, and the ones I have been told about, all broke from letting the upper fall unsupported.

Of the others, the majority of the failures I have seen in the grip/extension buffer area are from falling to prone drills, or from mortaring a Phase II malfunction. Either of these are normal, non abusive actions when done correctly.

Tell me some more how "supposed" these issue are.
 
While I personally would not purchase a poly lower (because I'm old enough to remember the first plastics that came out in the '40s that were about as durable as wet cardboard
smile.gif
).

I'd suspect that breakage due to "mortaring" or assuming prone positions are probably due to incorrect execution; especially in assuming the prone position. Even the old wooden stocks would break at the wrist if placement of "trigger" hand was too high on the stock.

Correct placement in assuming prone position is to break fall w/butt of rifle w/hand at the very end of the stock @ buttplate, thus placing no strain on stock....all the more important if weapon has plastic receiver (or aluminum for that matter I would think.)

Regards,
hm
 
Originally Posted By: hm1996While I personally would not purchase a poly lower (because I'm old enough to remember the first plastics that came out in the '40s that were about as durable as wet cardboard
smile.gif
).

I'd suspect that breakage due to "mortaring" or assuming prone positions are probably due to incorrect execution; especially in assuming the prone position. Even the old wooden stocks would break at the wrist if placement of "trigger" hand was too high on the stock.

Correct placement in assuming prone position is to break fall w/butt of rifle w/hand at the very end of the stock @ buttplate, thus placing no strain on stock....all the more important if weapon has plastic receiver (or aluminum for that matter I would think.)

Regards,
hm



I completely agree on form...that being said, I have yet to see an aluminum lower break from the same treatment. As for mortaring, I have seen stocks, and even cheap, commercial aluminum buffer tubes break...but never an aluminum lower.
 
condensedOriginally Posted By: liliysdad
3 Bushmaster Carbon 15s break
2 Professional Ordnance Carbon 15s break
2 broken Plum Crazy
1 Frontier lower.
2 CavArms lowers
numerous Carbon 15 uppers I have seen fail.



that is 10 plus "numerous" others you have seen. must be 100s maybe 1000s, more that other people have seen. seems odd the internet is not saturated with stories of broken poly uppers. just don't hear of to many problems with them. oh well.
 
you really should look at the pictures. several duplicates of the same broken one. after the first line or 2 there is no broken ones. i repeat, not many broken poly lowers in the real world.
 
So, the world I have lived in for the last dozen or so years, since I saw my first broken Carbon 15, is not real? Or, rather, am I a liar?
 
Originally Posted By: liliysdadComparison to polymer framed handguns is ludicrous. Polymer handguns were designed, from the onset, with the material in mind.

So a poly frame 1911 by Rock River would be ludicrous?
smile.gif

rrapoly.jpg
 
If it were an exact copy of the same part in steel or alloy, yes it would be. It is quite obvious from that photo, and from earlier versions like the BUL, that it is not. Further, the ad type states there is a steel frame insert. Again, a red herring.

That being said...that thing makes as little sense as a polymer lower.

Im done arguing about it. I have seen what I have seen, and what I have seen tells me these things, with the exception of the CavArms product, are junk. I have no doubt, however, they will continue to sell, because cheap sells, even cheap [beeep].
 
Back
Top