I don't see the benefits of a polymer lower, but this may be interesting for some people...
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...ii-abuse-test/
Printable View
I don't see the benefits of a polymer lower, but this may be interesting for some people...
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...ii-abuse-test/
Wow. That's a flashback.
I had one of these on a 6.5 upper I hunted with for quite a while. That was a couple years ago before GWACS was selling them. They are certainly better than the other options but fixed stock and that pistol grip is terrible. Switched it out for aluminum...obviously.
It's still the Cav lower revisions or not. Can paint a turd different colors and shape the turd differently... it's still a turd in the end.
This fills a VERY limited market. Not only is it polymer, which already cuts out almost every serious shooter, but it has a fixed stock that if damaged, renders the lower worthless. The whole idea of molding hard use area parts to a lower has always seemed well... meh as you can't replace them. Lifetime warrenty only applies if the company has product in to replace it, as well as stays in business.
In the end, it's just old news. Most people are just buying normal lowers these days especially considering you can get plain lowers and a stock for the same cost as the Cav in many cases.
Not sure what config they are now, but the old ones had the fixed rifle stock but a carbean buffer tube. Why be married to the fixed and stuck with the CAR spring? Worst of both worlds.
Does it seem like there's a strong correlation between obesity and gun possession?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjhvi8c0MF4#t=110
Not that either of these guys are disgusting. But they have the neo-classic tactical beer gut invariably found on every gun range in America.
Or am I a judgmental dick? I was glad to see some small exercise incorporated into their stages. Not enough, but at least it's there.
I just can't imagine taking my shirt off to climb on top of my wife, and have a laundry bag of body fat sagging out over my crotch. How unpleasant that would be for her.
As I recall, the CavArms stocks had very few problems. Probably on par with other forged alloy manufacturers. I don't know enough about other attempts at it: Plum Crazy, Bushmaster, for two others I can think of.
In light of the fact that polymers are being used for limitless high-strength/light weight applications, I don't think you can make a rational blanket argument that polymer is necessarily bad for an AR lower.
I would consider using a polymer lower for an ultra light SBR, if it didn't require the stamp and process.
A friend had one and it just felt wrong. I have an aluminum fixed stock lower and it just feels right in comparison. I did see someone was molding in magnesium or something into the stressed parts on a polymer lower but can't remember who. That might be the only one I would get but it's still only saving an ounce, two, or three over aluminum. You could shed that with a lighter optic, optic mount, rail, barrel, stock, etc. so it's pointless really.
To stay on topic the original cav arms lower I have split on the weld seam inside of the first 4 years but has been working fine with duct tape around it for the last 10 or so. At the time $75 for a complete lower was a great deal. The rifle length stock with carbean re seemed strange even then. No reason to bother with it these days. Fixed length MOE on standard lower is a better option.
You should consider rethinking and revising this. As it stands, there's not much zing. I said there seems to be a strong correlation between guns and obesity; in other words, a strong link. As in, one will usually not find one without the other. How can that be construed as to imply a regulation, or social standard at risk of stigma, or ?, should exist as a prerequisite to gun possession or range participation or wife pounding?
I understand that your intent was only to call out the fact that two people you respect are (apparently) fat and (apparently) very tactical, or something. But you fail to anticipate that I'm repulsed by obesity regardless of the person carrying it. In fact, to be rudely honest (apologies), I do have less overall respect for a person who cannot maintain a healthy body, all else equal. So your attempt to shame me falls through the proverbial floor.
http://www.internetmonk.com/wp-conte...og-Smile-2.jpg
What.. what huh?....how did we get onto obesity from the jumping off point of polymer lowers? The thread drifts sometimes amaze me. :)
-Jax
Plastic lower: Ok, fair enough, but what's inherently bad about a plastic lower? It seems to work for every major pistol manufacturer, and most of the 'go metal or go home' types have quieted down about plastic pistols. Yes, most of the plastic AR lowers are crap. The Cav lower does not have the reputation of fail that the others have had. Yes, they did have some bad ones get out... but if yours wasn't in the batch that didn't get stuck together right, it will probably last a long time.
Built in stock: I'm sure you know this, but this addresses the issue that ALL other plastic lowers have (that I know of), they break somewhere between the receiver extension and the selector hole. Never seen a Cav lower do that. Why the carbine RE, then? Don't know, but if that's the biggest problem it's got, it shares it with about 80% of the ARs out there.
You're stuck with the stock, yes, but you can shorten it if you'd like. Makes a little more sense if you live someplace that doesn't like foldy stocks. As I recall, it came to life in the Clinton era, and foldy stocks were problematic. As to the grip, it's about the size and shape that most people change their metal guns too, maybe a touch bigger. Not bad for grownup hands, but if you want to make a .22 for kids out of it because it's light, the full size grip cancels that out by being too big for small hands. We did survive for many years with guns that didn't have interchangeable grips and stocks, but it's definitely behind the times in those departments (although it could be argued that changing grips and stocks is as much about fashion as function for many people).
For disclosure, I have one. I bought it because at the time, it was the easiest way to make a .45 upper that took normal capacity magazines. I lost interest in the project, and re-purposed it as a .22. I'm not overly fond of it, I probably won't buy another. I don't like the non-captive take down pins, or the fact that they are not standard AR parts. If they were captive, I wouldn't have to worry about them being non-standard.
It's not great at anything except being inexpensive, but it's pretty good at everything it does. I certainly don't worry about it breaking. Really, it just comes down to being inexpensive, and reliable.
Put this thread to bed.
Most of the people who bought the CAV lower seemed to like it. It fit their needs or wants I guess.
I bought one of their Forged Alloy lowers because they were a local manufacturer... but a polymer lower never appealed to me.
I have one of these, the newest version, and i definitely dont run it real hard or abuse it, but it gets shot fairly often at the range. The grip is kinda crappy so i have a hogue grip sleeve on it and the length of pull is perfect for me. I never regret buying it, and it has never failed me in any way... it is alittle ugly tho...
The Cav lowers were decent for what they are.
I'd go with a Tennessee Arms lower if I wanted polymer.
http://cdn1.bigcommerce.com/server42...0.1280.JPG?c=1
http://www.tnarmsco.com/
Looks good, especially for $45 on sale.
Very tempting... thanks for posting that.
The guy behind TNarmsco is a retired Marine and his brother is AF. They seem to be doing things right.
Buddy of mine has a James Madison Tactical poly lower and from what I've seen him do to them, those ones are pretty dang good for polymer, and look pretty neat to.
Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
You know, polymer lowers probably would be a whole lot more realistic in terms of what they could handle if companies just ditched the traditional BCG and gas system and did a piston system similar to other folding stock AR's. Would eliminate all the issues that polymer lowers have. Could always just run a drop in FCG like a CMC, Timney, or wilson which would solve all the trigger pin issues also.
Heck, unsure why someone doesn't just do an ar18 ordeal and not do a piss poor job like the last company did with the polymer ar18 lowers.
The problem is that companies take a part designed to be made out of aluminum, and substitute plastic, without modifying the design to take into account the properties of the material it's being made out of. A piston won't fix that. A piston just gives you a new set of problems, different than your old set of problems, plastic lower or not.
The reason it doesn't make sense to build on another platform is because you end up having to build the entire gun, not just the lower. Ain't nobody got time fo' dat.
Got me a plastic lower 'bout a year ago, just to mess around and put together a dedicated .22 AR.
HATED the plastic FCG. Switched out w mil spec FCG.
Then the take-down pins (plastic......) got on my nerves. Switch them out.
Then the (commercial dia.) RE and totally crap stock REALLY started to irritate me. Switched them out too.
Now I hate myself for the fact that I've put all this decent hardware on a POS plastic for my wife/kids/friends to shoot .22
Then it finally dawned on me that for the same $150 I spent on that piece of F@#CK*&G garbage I could have gotten any 2 totally decent rock-solid 7075 lowers and be done with it. WTF was I thinking......
(Going the TNarmsco route -which as plastic lowers go look like the best option going - add another ~ $30 or so and be done........No?)
Based on my practical hands on experience - Plastic lowers are a pointless solution looking for a non existing problem.
Please someone help me:
A stripped polymer (PLASTIC - not some hitech ninja space age ubercomposite) lower - list $70:confused: priced to sell $45/55
Average price quality 7075 alloy garden variety lower $69/79
What am I missing?
A piston in a gun like a SCAR or ar18 relocates moving mass to an entirely different point. From there there doesn't need to be any conventional receiver extension design thus eliminating the main weak point of polymer lowers. That was my point. That is why the Scar lower handles so much abuse as well, as it's not in anyway a point of major stress as by design all the stress is un the upper it's self.
Same thing with the Masada etc. Issue is the conventional ar15 system and bcg just isn't polymer friendly due to the enherant design of weight moving so far back past the receiver further stressing that thin/smaller part of the receiver.
Unless the polymer lowered gun offers something really different, such as folding stocks, ambi controls, and supporting a matched upper with different system and quick change barrel etc, there really isn't a point in using polymer to begin with. The cost savings now are so miniscule. I really have no idea why new polymer lowers are even coming out. It's nothing like the polymer pistol market. You don't see people trying to push polymer 1911's, you see them pushing glocks etc. New design new gun rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.
I have YET to see a Polymer Lower that anyone in their right mind would consider worthy of being SBR'd or registered as a MG.
/thread
Which i guess is what it is about-the chubby part i mean.
Since there is absolutely no real practical reason, nor does it even come close in quality and last but not least it really is not cheaper.....therefore it is nothing short if a novelty item. They make it because
A- its soooooooooo easy to make, and,
B- someone will buy it.
Buying one i did, so i speak from experience, see my earlier post.
But hey, never get between a fool and his money...;-)
The difference between the guy that has 40lbs of kit and the guy next to him with 20lbs is the selection and even modification of every single piece of kit; with weight being highest priority.
My last SBR build came in at 5lbs 8oz with T1/mount, backup sights, and a sling. With some of the poly lowers, I could have gotten that down to less than 5lbs unloaded. What does your lightest carbine weigh? Probably around 7-7.5lbs. I've paid hundreds more for a piece of gear that will not last as long, for the purpose of shaving less weight than that.
Till you've done ultralite, you will never understand! ;)
That's the whole issue. Replacing strength and durability to save weight.
The issue with polymer lowers is you aren't gaining anything. By the time you beef them up in all the key spots, add metal inserts here and there, do all this refining and R&D work, you really aren't far off a normal lower in terms of weight and cost. That is where the Cav lower at least comes out decent, but still, being stuck with the same grip and stock, one something known to eventually crack or warp, it really just boils down to preference I guess.