I dont think you are comprehending what I wrote. I said that they didnt solve a problem with polymer, they created a whole new product. And as far as the bold, I never made mention of them being "crap".
Printable View
The pistol is covered here
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=103946
You're correct. "Calling it crap" I made as a blanket statement and unfortunately worded it poorly.
My response to you was about it being a "solution looking for a problem". Glock did not create a new product, they made basically the same thing out of a different material
Just to clarify, I don't think Glock makes a bad or inferior product. To say that would be foolish, given the wide industry market share of Glock and especially since I have a G19 Gen3. Now, whether that specific revision of their product is crap is a different matter, since it is a mean brass-to-the-face machine, but that's a different discussion.
I think the point that most users here are making is that the AR-15 lower receiver is not comparable to the Glock pistol frame for many reasons, and the amount of steel/aluminum reinforcements required in a polymer AR-15 lower to make it good to go would probably make the entire exercise pointless.
How are they not comparable? Because the stress they are subjected to is different? Both are a polymer product using steel inserts at critical points
How do you know it would weigh the same?Quote:
...the amount of steel/aluminum reinforcements required in a polymer AR-15 lower to make it good to go would probably make the entire exercise pointless.
Let's say it's weight and durability is the same as a forged lower. It would just be a lower made of a different material. If it cost more, it'd be a lower made of a different material that was not a good value.
Let's say it's just as durable but lighter. It would be a lower made of a different material that's also lighter. If it costs more, then it's up to the shooter to decide if the weight savings is worth the extra cost. If it costs the same or even less, so much the better
There's a lot of "what ifs" in your comment.
First, no, a Glock frame and an AR-15 lower receiver are two completely different things. One was designed, tested, and proven using forged 7075 aluminum, with a receiver extension screwed in, a pistol grip screwed in, a front pivot location, a double-stack magazine well, etc., all for a center fire rifle cartridge.
The other was designed, tested, and proven using polymer, as a pistol-caliber handgun frame. To say the two design philosophies are remotely comparable for stress, longevity and durability is to compare an apple to a labrador. They just aren't the same thing.
Now, if you wanted to compare a Glock frame to a rifle designed from the start to incorporate large amounts of polymer, then we'd have a reasonable discussion.
I'm not saying that a combat-worthy rifle cannot be made from mostly polymer. I'm saying that making an AR-15 lower receiver from mostly polymer with enough metal reinforcing inserts to bring it up to TDP-reliability while still providing a meaningful weight advantage would probably be an exercise in futility.
Show me one and I promise I'll eat my words.
Of course there are a lot of "what ifs" in my statement, none of us have any first hand experience with this lower, nor do we know anyone who has! C'mon, use a little critical thinking here:big_boss:
What you're missing is that the Glock pistol frame isn't much different from a pistol frame made from metal and the differences are based on pistol function, not the material used. The only difference that using polymer allows is the lack of grip panels and that's because polymer is more comfortable to the hand than metal. If the Glock frame were originally designed to be steel or aluminum, it's function and basic form would still be the same. An AR lower, whether it's made from forged aluminum or polymer with metal inserts (assuming it's as durable) does the same thing. It's only futile if it offers no performance advantage for it's cost.
The negative comments being made about this lower remind me of when Glock first introduced the G17. Makes me nostalgic for the days when it was fashionable to heap hate on the new Combat Tupperware because we all knew it was futile to make a pistol out of plastic, even before anyone had shot one
You're still comparing apples to oranges.
Saying that an AR-15 lower receiver can be made out of polymer because a Glock pistol frame is made out of polymer, and ignoring the glaring differences between the two items in both design and intent is simply not logically consistent.
[QUOTE=CrazyFingers;1727335]There's a lot of "what ifs" in your comment.
I agree with all the what ifs that keep getting referred to. Mwolf needs to pick up a plastic lower, run five or ten thousand rounds through it and show everybody it can perform or this debate is the same old thread that has been going on since plum crazy...:help: