Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 97

Thread: Reason #674 to not buy a Bushmaster

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    59
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SeriousStudent View Post
    Holy poop, is that real???

    I don't read gun mags anymore, unless a friend has written an article in one. Does Bushy really have that ad campaign about man cards?

    I guess calling it a "drooling moron card", while accurate, might offend their customer base.
    Makes you kind of understand why the libtard media thinks of all firearms owners as irrational freaks trying to over-compensate for something.

    Thanks, Bushmaster, for supporting that incorrect and ignorant stereotype!!!

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    334
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Fishbed77 View Post
    Thanks, Bushmaster, for supporting that incorrect and ignorant stereotype!!!
    Wait...

    You mean that Bushmaster's corporate motto isn't "Incorrect and Ignorant(tm)" ????

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,420
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyFingers View Post
    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?)
    First, I did not say they started with a 1911 frame. I was around when the Glock first came out and read a lot of articles about it. In one article in particular, the author went to the Glock factory and interviewed people. It was explained to the author that basically what they did was start with a metal frame and eliminated all parts of the frame that didn't need to be metal and replaced it with polymer. The Glock people wanted to make it clear that the frame was not 100% polymer. The Glock polymer frame does nothing a steel or alloy frame does not. It is very little different than it would be if the frame were metal. Study handgun designs and this will become clear.

    The problem with the polymer AR lower is the fact no one has left in place metal where the design needs it nor have they significantly beefed up areas that require it to return the strength lost by going to polymer. So what if the AR receiver has been made from aluminum since time immemorial? The same was true for some pistol frames as well.

    To turn it around, if someone were to design an AR frame from the beginning to be made from polymer, it would still look and function like an AR lower and likely have metal inserts where structurally needed- just like a Glock frame still looks and functions like a pistol frame

    Quote Originally Posted by BBossman View Post
    There must have been a LOT of chips on the floor after they milled away everything but four small rail sections
    Probably so! But I think they made extensive use of a Cad program
    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

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    334
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MistWolf View Post
    First, I did not say they started with a 1911 frame.
    Exactly, that's my entire point.

    Quote Originally Posted by MistWolf View Post
    So what if the AR receiver has been made from aluminum since time immemorial? The same was true for some pistol frames as well.
    You're still using the same logical fallacy. Your argument is based on a false assumption that because Glock and S&W use polymer successfully in their pistol frames, then someone must be able to successfully make an AR rifle lower receiver out of polymer. That does not follow. They are not the same thing.

    To take your argument one step further, FN should be able to make a polymer receiver for the Browning M2, since Glock makes them for their pistols, right?

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    509
    Feedback Score
    0
    Here's an example of who buys Bushmaster ARs.

    My favorite gun store employee, "Bob":

    1) Has only Kimber 1911s and highly recommends them because "they're the best, period".

    2) Tells people not to buy Colt, to buy anything but Colt, and when asked what he owns, the answer is "Bushmaster".

    I feel so good about myself when I talk to Bob.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    35
    Feedback Score
    0
    Daniel defence can get run over by a jeep, dropped out of a helicopter, and blown up,and this POS cant even make it through shipping. Holy crap thats bad I think someone should take bushmasters man card and rip it up and piss on it.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,420
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyFingers View Post
    Exactly, that's my entire point.



    You're still using the same logical fallacy. Your argument is based on a false assumption that because Glock and S&W use polymer successfully in their pistol frames, then someone must be able to successfully make an AR rifle lower receiver out of polymer. That does not follow. They are not the same thing.

    To take your argument one step further, FN should be able to make a polymer receiver for the Browning M2, since Glock makes them for their pistols, right?
    You'll just have to do your own research into manufacturing & design
    Last edited by MistWolf; 10-02-13 at 14:12.
    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

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    STL
    Posts
    176
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    I agree that a polymer lower designed using sound engineering judgement should be possible, but the economics of the process may be unsound:

    An AR lower would probably need metal at a minimum at the receiver extension threads, pistol grip attachment, all pin locations, and the mag release. For these features to be structurally effective, they would need to me made from a single stamping or welded assembly, thus creating a single piece to absorb and distribute load. This piece could then be over-molded with Glock polymer or whatever polymer you want.

    Considering the economics of designing at least a 2 piece steel substructure, plus the up-front costs of tooling for the steel and molding process, the investment required would be substantial, ~$150-200k easily.

    Considering the potential manufacturing and raw material costs, I question whether this process would yield a product with sufficient margins to be cost competitive with standard aluminum receivers: Raw stock of any "high-performance" polymers is not cheap and a manufacturing company typically needs at least ~40-50% gross margins for respectable net profits. And I'm talking about margins to the distributors, not based on the price we pay at BCM, RainerArms or anywhere else. If you can buy a stripped lower for $250 from a dealer, they bought it from the manufacturer for probably $130 or less.

    Compare the above burden with buying a ~$25k CNC machine and sending it the CAM model of a lower and hitting the start button. Al billets are not cheap either, but the tooling investment is comparatively small, and you can use the mill for other things like uppers, BUIS, trigger guards, hand guards, etc just by changing the program.
    Last edited by Krusty783; 10-02-13 at 14:40.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    334
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Krusty783:
    Not to mention that the primary benefit from this is noticeable weight savings.
    Corrosion, breakage, and/or additional features of existing aluminum lower receivers does not appear to be a significant issue, so the main driving factor here would have to be weight savings. Look at the existing polymer lower offerings without the requisite metal reinforcements we're discussing. There appear to be differences that are certainly measurable, but not really overwhelming. Weight savings need to be considered within the context of a percentage of the entire rifle. Adding metal components to increase structural strength would of course add weight, potentially making the entire exercise pointless. How much lighter would a lower receiver need to be to make this worthwhile? One ounce? Six, etc.?

    Perhaps a better strategy would be to design a 5.56 rifle from the ground up with polymer as a significant component.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    28
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyFingers View Post
    Krusty783:
    Perhaps a better strategy would be to design a 5.56 rifle from the ground up with polymer as a significant component.
    http://www.berettausa.com/arx100/ ??

    -rvb

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •