The extra money you save is in no way worth the headache!
PA
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The extra money you save is in no way worth the headache!
PA
"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
I remember that marketing campaign and from a marketing standpoint it's actually brilliant for appealing to the male buyer of an AR type rifle. I've found that people who buy rifles, pistols and gear from most gun rag ads aren't doing a lot of research and the flashiest ad gets their dollar. Look at the BCM ads in the back of SWAT magazine then compare it to the Bushmaster, Kimber and DPMS ads in the same magazine, pretty boring with just gear and prices.
Reads a lot, posts little.
Yep, you are definitely right. But it does make me shake my head....![]()
I keep seeing this repeated over & over again, but that's not why the Glock frame worked. A Glock frame works because there's still steel in it where needed. Glock engineers actually started with a steel frame design and removed metal from places it wasn't needed and left it in place where it was, then molded a polymer frame to hold the steel pieces in place. If someone would do the same with an AR receiver, it would work just as well
INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
- ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
- MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
- MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
- BOOM!
- HA-HA!!
-WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"
I am American
So, they took a M1911A1 pistol frame and removed metal from places it wasn't needed, and left it in place where it was, and huzzah, they created the G17?
Because that's essentially the argument you continue to use. I was talking about taking Eugene Stoner's design which has used aluminum for 50 years, with a center-fire rifle cartridge, and trying to adapt it to use polymer. A rifle design, with a thin receiver extension attachment point which has a disturbing tendency to break on polymer rifles, as shown by the OPs picture.
We're not talking about a pistol designed from scratch to incorporate polymer, using a pistol cartridge, with no receiver extension.
There is a significant difference between adapting general handgun engineering theory into a brand new design using new materials, and making a carbon-copy of an existing rifle design using wildly different materials, regardless of whether you add steel reinforcement points.
You're making a logical fallacy known as "hasty generalization", which states that because X is true for A, and X is true for B, then X must be true for Z, without accounting for significant differences between A/B and Z.
Glock (A) and Smith & Wesson (B) frames successfully use polymer, therefor AR receivers (Z) can successfully use polymer. This does not logically follow.
(PS: carbon-copy, get it?)![]()
Last edited by CrazyFingers; 10-02-13 at 10:54.
Bookmarks