Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 51

Thread: US Arms Polymer Lower

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,799
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    US Arms Polymer Lower

    Last year, I was poking around on a high traffic firearms site when a company rep came on asking members for volunteers to run a polymer lower through it's paces. I contacted the rep by PM and told them I'd be willing to buy one and run it as hard as I would a forged aluminum receiver and would report the results honestly. The rep got back to other members who volunteered but my request was ignored and I griped about it here on m4carbine.net. Brian at US Arms saw my complaint and contacted me to ask if I'd like to evaluate their new plymer lower. He said I was welcome run it hard and report the results- warts and all. Though skeptical about plastic lowers, I agreed to give them a fair shake. http://usarmsllc.com/Patriot-15.html



    I expected a stripped lower, but they sent me one that was complete. Everything is polymer except the FCG, pins, springs, castlenut and end plate and buffer. That's right, the FCG is metal, including the hammer. The receiver extension is also polymer and is molded to the commercial pattern. I think US Arms would do better if they used the mil-spec dimensions.



    The receiver seems stiffer than other polymer lowers I've looked at. The fence on the right side that runs from the front receiver pin to the mag release has been made thicker for added strength and rigidity. There is also a fence running around the mouth of the mag well which is flared without being too big. The lower comes with an integral trigger guard which has a large opening. Stock is of the M4 style and has a surdy polymer sling loop. The RE has six positions. Buffer has no markings so I assume it's carbine weight. I assume the action spring is of the standard variety.

    Standard AR triggers run from atrocious to decent. This trigger has the usual gritty creep, is a little on the heavy side but has a surprisingly crisp break. I haven't taken the time to pull the FCG out and grease it up but I think it will be fairly nice once I do. As tested, MSRP for a complete lower is $199. It's $89 for a stripped lower. PSA is offering a complete polymer lower for $129

    I borrowed a 16" upper from a PSA carbine to test this lower with. The receiver pins are a little stiff and need a tool to push open. Fit around the back of the upper is a little off. There is a small gap at the curve but where it's vertical, it fits a bit snug. The good news is that for those who worry about such things, there's no rattle!



    The complete lower M4 style stock weighs in at 1 lbs, 12 oz. In comparison, a PSA lower with a S&W made M4 stock weighs in at 2 lbs, a weight savings of a quarter pound. A PSA upper with an Aimpoint H1 Micro, Surefire x300 weapon light, Mossie Tactical light rail and round mid-length handguards was used to test the US Arms polymer lower. The whole package weighed in at 6 lbs, 11 oz. The same upper on a PSA lower with M4 stock weighted in at 6 lbs, 15 oz.



    There was a little binding towards the end of the travel when cycling the action. A couple rounds of 55 gr American Eagle did not completely go into battery during firing. However, after I added a few drops of oil to the BCG and the problem went away. Maybe it was the drag, maybe it was a dry BCG, maybe a combination of both. Because of the weather, I was only able to fire one mag. What first struck me was the carbine felt lighter and livelier even with the weight shifting towards the muzzle. I still dislike the duckbill of the A2 pistol grip and don't like black furniture. I didn't notice the M4 stock being uncomfortable compared to the Magpul CTR but a longer shooting session might change that impression.

    The receiver has clean edges and corners and is without distortion. The surface has a matte finish that matches the PSA upper well. There is more flash at the mold line than there should be and the only mag that drops free is the Lancer L5. Magpuls, Troys and GI mags need to be stripped out. There is more stiction than usual between the stock and RE but nothing to preven the shooter from easily making adjustments.

    I contacted Brian at US Arms about my concerns. He said they are tightening up QC and expressed concern the flash and tight mag well made it past QA. He also told me I could return it so they could address the problems. He's dedicated to making this right.

    A few other items of note: Adjusting the windage and elevation of an Aimpoint Micro in a cold rain is very awkward. Removing the small caps with stiff hands was difficult and I worried I'd drop the cap and lose it.

    The plastic of the IO cover is stiffer when it's cold. When I popped the caps off the lenses, they didn't flip out of the way. I had to snap the covers together to see through the sight. The caps did an excellent job of keeping the rain off when snapped closed over the lenses

    Every rifle should have a sling.

    Hats with full brims rock. Never leave home without your jacket.

    In full disclosure, I did not buy this lower. US Arms sent it to me (via a local FFL, Quantum Guns in Spanish Fork Utah) without charge, for evaluation. Other than them sending me this lower, I have no other connections with the company, financially or otherwise.

    As weather and time permits, I'll continue putting this lower through it's paces. I won't baby it, but I'm not gonna set out to see how much it'll take before it breaks. It's advantages over other polymer lowers is increased stiffeness and a metal LPK. It's advantage over an aluminum lower is a weight savings of a quarter of a pound. MSRP is higher than than some other polymer lowers, but street pricing should make them more competitive. Whether or not they prove to be durable enough, only tine will tell. I'll give updates with my findings
    Last edited by MistWolf; 09-08-13 at 11:55.
    The number of folks on my Full Of Shit list grows everyday

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    North Florida
    Posts
    2,683
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Having lost a rifle on a canoe trip I am interested in a cheap, lightweight rifle that would not break my heart if lost. I will follow your reports.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,321
    Feedback Score
    0
    Well written report.

    For $200, right now you can by a complete lower half with a forged aluminum receiver. I know it's not the point of your post, but as a purchaser, my first question would be 'why?'.

    That, and the single biggest weakness in lowers like this, the area between the grip and where the receiver extension screws in. I'm fairly sure that a little bit of army style IMT (Individual Movement Technique) would render it inoperative. Feel free to demonstrate ;-)

    Having said that, I'll take free guns any day.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    596
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)
    Very interested in seeing how it runs after hard use.
    "We prepare, so we don't end up at the superdome"- unknown

    "IMHO, if you wanted to shoot crap ammo, you should have bought a crap upper. It makes baby Jesus cry when he sees crap ammo put through a nice upper."- C4IGrant

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Southern WV
    Posts
    577
    Feedback Score
    0
    Nice write up. Makes me think back to when Glocks were called junk. Thanks for the report.
    John

    If you spend much time around the guys who really, really know their craft, and who truly live this stuff, you tend to find that they are very soft-spoken and modest -- almost to the extreme. To my mind, that is a model worthy of emulation

    AC

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    43°N 83°W
    Posts
    2,517
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Nice going securing a free lower for testing! Good review so far, I'm looking forward to following this thread to see how it holds up after running it hard.
    'Evil Minds That Plot Destruction'

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    34
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    I've heard from some people that the weak spot on these is where the buffer tube meets the lower if you have the m4 style stock. Any thoughts on that? I have heard good things about the A2 style polymer lowers given the fact that the lower and buttstock are one solid piece.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,799
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    That was the Cav Arms lower. It strengthened the area where the receiver extension nornally mounts but it had the disadvantgage of having a fixed length stock. I'm not sure they are being made any more
    The number of folks on my Full Of Shit list grows everyday

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Western NY State
    Posts
    59
    Feedback Score
    0

    Re: US Arms Polymer Lower

    I'm curious as well to hear the end result...

    Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2

    I also deal with 5-10% of the population 80-90% of the time...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    OUTPOST 31
    Posts
    10,518
    Feedback Score
    30 (100%)
    That's certainly one of the better looking poly lowers I've seen to date.

    I imagine at some point someone will figure out the right properties and given the proliferation of scaled down 3D printers we'll be seeing a lot more of these. Progress of some sort is inevitable.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •