Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43

Thread: Tara TM-4

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,421
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    [QUOTE=Airhasz;1727537]
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyFingers View Post
    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...
    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
    INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

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

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    4,149
    Feedback Score
    18 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MistWolf View Post
    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.
    Experience is a cruel teacher, gives the exam first and then the lesson.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    43°N 83°W
    Posts
    2,517
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    [QUOTE=MistWolf;1727550]
    Quote Originally Posted by Airhasz View Post

    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 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?
    'Evil Minds That Plot Destruction'

  4. #34
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Colt builds War Horses, not show ponies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    This is 2012. The world is going to end this December and people are still trying to debate the merits of piece of shit, cost cutting crap AR's. Really?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,646
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    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!!!
    Last edited by Moltke; 08-22-13 at 17:30.
    Ken Bloxton
    Skill > Gear

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    43°N 83°W
    Posts
    2,517
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Moltke View Post
    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!!!

    You probably have it correct and that stipple line has me LMFAO.
    'Evil Minds That Plot Destruction'

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    18
    Feedback Score
    0
    It has been assigned the NATO Stock Number (NSN) 1005-77-000-0005.
    Doesn't that mean that it has passed NATO standards?

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Quote Originally Posted by bombim View Post
    It has been assigned the NATO Stock Number (NSN) 1005-77-000-0005.
    Doesn't that mean that it has passed NATO standards?
    Pretty sure dog food has a NSN as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Colt builds War Horses, not show ponies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    This is 2012. The world is going to end this December and people are still trying to debate the merits of piece of shit, cost cutting crap AR's. Really?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    18
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by sinlessorrow View Post
    Pretty sure dog food has a NSN as well.
    Good to know that NATO dogs can be fed with NATO-standard dog food.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    4,149
    Feedback Score
    18 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sinlessorrow View Post
    Pretty sure dog food has a NSN as well.
    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.
    Experience is a cruel teacher, gives the exam first and then the lesson.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 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
  •