www.tara-perfection.com/tm-4
It is a short-stroke piston system from Montenegro.
Aside from the usual stuff, it has a polymer lower receiver
Has anyone ever tried it?
Printable View
www.tara-perfection.com/tm-4
It is a short-stroke piston system from Montenegro.
Aside from the usual stuff, it has a polymer lower receiver
Has anyone ever tried it?
What is with the influx of these threads lately? Polymer lower, short stroke piston, whats not to love? :rolleyes:
Tara Group is located in Montenegro and I doubt they are allowed to import this rifle to the US.
The lower uses steel inserts which, if designed correctly, will eliminate the problems other polymer lowers have
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0zKNBVVrWos/0.jpg
The Ford Pinto, if designed correctly, would not have burst into flames on a cloudy day.
But seriously folks, even if the steel inserts correct the deficiencies seen in other polymer lowers, it still feels like a solution in search of a problem.
The whole polymer lower issue, steel inserts or not, seems to create a problem that no solution was necessary for. Why risk structural and functional integrity to shave a minute amount of weight off, weight that is centered and balanced and not even an issue to start with?
Ironic that we told Gaston Glock the very same thing. Like it or not, composite technology is making manufacture easier everyday. It's just a matter of time before someone in the AR world gets it right. When we had the "Light is Right" vs "Go to the Gym" wars on this site, those whose opinions are based on real life experiences said "Ounces Equal Pounds and Pounds Equal Pain". Saving weight at the center of gravity does make a difference- it makes the rifle lighter without changing the polar axis of movement. If balance is so important, it gives that much more room to adjust it fore & aft.
If the steel insert is done correctly, the lower will be as strong as a forged 7075 receiver with less weight. Possibly even stronger. All the insert has to do is reinforce the pin holes and take the stress of the RE. That's it.
I'm not a fan of the composite lowers I've seen as they have been fragile. The steel insert could change that. If this lower were as strong as a forged, lighter and at a comparable price point, that would be a good thing. While the "Plug & Play" crowd may not realize the advantages, a part that can be made lighter will allow a savvy builder to make the weapon lighter overall or shift the weight somewhere else to change the handling and/or improve reliability & durability without a weight penalty
Dude its an M16 for the 21st century! Eliminates the horrible DI...NO COMPROMISE!!!!
They also make a knock off Glock.
I'm originally from the former Yugoslavia so it's kinda cool to see neighboring ex yugo state doing an innovative take on the M4. ;)
Im not sure of the big benefit of a polymer lower, but why not try something new? I'm tired of new piston uppers tough, HK has that covered for the pretty small group of users who really benefit.
I realize the stress in a Glock frame is different than the lower of an AR. My point is that when Glocks first came out, many folks thought it was a bad idea, myself included.
The wear points on an AR polymer lower will be the pin holes. Put metal there and the polymer won't wallow out. One stress point of an AR lower is the "L" shape that's threaded part for the RE. Reinforce that with a metal insert and the polymer lower won't be any more susceptible at that location than an aluminum lower. Another will be the forward receiver pin hole. Release the aft pin and shotgun the upper and it will put stress there on a polymer lower. Reinforce that point as well and a polymer lower will be very durable
I wonder if they hired the former Yugo designers and quality control inspectors?
Mortaring a polymer lower has me worried more than anything else. Never had to 'mortar' my M&P or USP. The stress on the RE housing would concern me more than anything if the pivot/take down area was properly reinforced.
-Jax
Glock didnt start with an aluminum/steel frame and work backwards. They started with the polymer part and designed a gun around it. They didnt create a solution to an existing problem (especially when there is none as far as AR15's are concerned), they created a new product.
What problem is solved by using polymer in a pistol frame? None. Polymer pistol frame designs aren't anything radical compared to other frames. It does the same job as metal frames do, with the exception of being lighter, no different than a polymer AR lower with a metal insert.
How do you know Glock engineers didn't start with a metal frame? If I were to venture a guess, I'd say they started with a metal frame, stripped away everything that didn't need to be steel and replaced it polymer.
If you're going to call something crap, back it up with facts and/or experience, not conjecture and prejudice
Is Montenegro on some sort of blacklist? They are on their way to becoming a NATO member so I think they are considered as a US ally. The US is a very large AR market so I'm sure the US is part of Tara's business plan.
Aside from its neighboring countries, the US would probably have the
first models available for civilians.
The entire world is on a blacklist as far as modern rifles are concerned. They'd either have to import in in some weird configuration and change it here or they'd have to build a manufacturing facility in the US(or license their design.)
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:
[QUOTE=Airhasz;1727537]In this thread, I'm talking about a poly lower reinforced with metal inserts, not an all poly lower. I have yet to see a poly lower I'm impressed with.
I don't know if the Tara lower with metal inserts is a good one. All I'm trying to point out is the concept is sound and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand
I might not say sound specifically. A different approach at something that has failed in the past maybe, but the concept has yet to prove its "soundness."
I think what it comes down to is the type of polymer being used and whether they have used other polymer lowers as a guide in designing the critical stress points.
[QUOTE=MistWolf;1727550]
I agree the metal inserts are a good upgrade to poly lowers and I think you would be a great candidate for such testing. Maybe send this thread to Tara and have them send you a lower to torture. Do they have a hard core test showing known weak areas for viewing?
According to the site there is at best a 30% weight reduction, but at what cost?
Cutting a steel skeleton and the wrapping polymer around it would almos certainly be more expensive, and only save a few oz.
I also get everyone wants to save weight, but the M4 is a 7lb rifle when loaded, at some point you can be to light and then you will see increased muzzle rise and recoil.
I would like to try this polymer AR version, and the Glockoff pistol.
--------
For you naysayers, who is a company that you'd trust to build polymer guns correctly? What if Glock bought this design and started making lowers? Would you trust Glock engineers to figure it out and make a good product?
The problem isn't that this can't be done, it's that it can't be done as well as aluminum and someone just needs to figure out how. Polymer lowers already exist, right now they're in a state of refinement, but 20 years from now they might be the standard.
10 years from now you'll be reading the next generation of shooters posting that we should all be using polymer AR's because aluminum AR's are overly heavy, outdated tech. And you'll respond with whatever 1911 shooters say - it's a work of art, original design, metal is more durable, don't need your space agey technology black magic!
Plus come on, we could stipple our whole lowers people!!! OMG!!!
It has been assigned the NATO Stock Number (NSN) 1005-77-000-0005.
Doesn't that mean that it has passed NATO standards?
Not a NATO stock number, but a National Stock Number.
Actually, eight of them.
http://www.dlis.dla.mil/webflis/pub/...page=1&start=y
Not sure what the criteria for the NATO stock number is, but as Montenegro isn't part of NATO wondering why it was certified and for who.