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.