|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
Probably so! But I think they made extensive use of a Cad program
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
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?
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.
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.
Last edited by MistWolf; 10-02-13 at 14:12.
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
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.
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.
Bookmarks