Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: RRA poly lower trouble.

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    128
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Lessons learned.
    RRA rated their lower for anything below .458 SOCOM. I figured I could put a couple hundred rounds through it in a years time and get the lower I wanted. Then either sell it as a complete pistol lower or put it in the back of the safe for a rainy day.



    Sent via telegraph with the same fingers I use to sip whiskey.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,799
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Noodles View Post
    Yes, a poly could work fine. But in aluminum geometery? No. And why bother when aluminum AR lowers are so plentiful? Because you can save a couple dollars on the inferior product? Well, everybody needs to learn it themselves I guess.
    Quote Originally Posted by eodinert View Post
    I'm shocked anybody would manufacture a plastic lower that's dimensionally the same as an aluminum one, and expect any other result than the back half coming off.
    I see both of you are saying "in aluminum dimensions" and I agree that's the problem.

    Cavalry Arms developed a nylon lower a while back, which was later sold to GWACS Armory and is still made and sold:

    http://www.gwacsarmory.com/lower-receivers-ar-15/

    I have one made Cav Arms and it works fine. No issues of durability, nor does it have a reputation for any. But many dimensions are thicker than on aluminum lowers, and the weak points of receiver-buffer tube and trigger guard are eliminated.

    I think there are some plastics available that would allow you to use aluminum dimensions with more than adequate strength, but you would probably spend several times more on the plastic lower for no benefit. When the raw forgings are $30 or less and people sell them machined starting in the low $40s, plastic is pointless.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________
    Use InfoGalactic instead of Wikipedia - avoid Wikipedia's left bias

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
    ____________________________________________________________________________________

    Product reviews stating "Only 4 stars because I haven't used it yet" are an idiot's signature.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    499
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    People used to say all the same things about polymer handguns, but once the manufacturing techniques get ironed out, they'll be as ubiquitous as G19s.
    http://polymar15.robarguns.com/


    Sent from 80ms in the future
    Jimmy

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    USA! USA! USA!
    Posts
    1,200
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    So..... Basically they owned up to the fact that the product was so terrible it couldn't be fixed, and gave you a full refund? Lol, RRA even knows they're terrible.
    Last edited by Tzook; 01-27-16 at 19:35.
    Gun and Gear Reviews- www.almosttacticalreviews.com

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    212
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    RRA will not replace it but they won't take them off the shelves either. They are out to make money and could care less about building a quality product.
    RRA, Bushmaster, Bushmaster #2 (Windham) will continue to offer the poly lowers and poly lower rifles no matter how many crack and break. As long as people keep buying them, they will continue to build them.




    Sent from my iPhone6
    via TapaTalk

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    5,411
    Feedback Score
    43 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by PaLEOjd View Post
    RRA will not replace it but they won't take them off the shelves either. They are out to make money and could care less about building a quality product.
    RRA, Bushmaster, Bushmaster #2 (Windham) will continue to offer the poly lowers and poly lower rifles no matter how many crack and break. As long as people keep buying them, they will continue to build them.


    Sent from my iPhone6
    via TapaTalk
    Yep, it is a numbers game. Most people that buy poly lower aren't running them hard enough to fail, the bean counters have figured that even with the returns they are making a profit.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,291
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SomeOtherGuy View Post
    I see both of you are saying "in aluminum dimensions" and I agree that's the problem.

    Cavalry Arms developed a nylon lower a while back, which was later sold to GWACS Armory and is still made and sold
    I have a Cav Arms lower. It's not my favorite; I rate it right there with fat girls and mopeds... but it works, it's reliable, and it does what it says on the tin.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,287
    Feedback Score
    0
    Never had a fat girl OR a moped break my heart tho...

    Somehow I think a poly lower just might.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    334
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by jbjh View Post
    People used to say all the same things about polymer handguns, but once the manufacturing techniques get ironed out, they'll be as ubiquitous as G19s.
    To make that an accurate comparison, the G19 frame would have to be a dimensionally exact copy of a metal-frame handgun. It is not.
    Polymer-frame handguns are designed to be made from polymer, not metal, with the correct reinforcing in the correct areas to function properly when made from polymer.
    The AR-15 lower receiver was designed to be made from aluminum, based on the specific properties of that material.
    The Glock G19 fires 9x19mm handgun cartridges, the AR-15 fires 5.56mm rifle cartridges, which have very different characteristics.
    This argument has been shown to be inaccurate in multiple previous threads.
    Last edited by CrazyFingers; 01-28-16 at 11:22.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    499
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyFingers View Post
    To make that an accurate comparison, the G19 frame would have to be a dimensionally exact copy of a metal-frame handgun. It is not.
    Polymer-frame handguns are designed to be made from polymer, not metal, with the correct reinforcing in the correct areas to function properly when made from polymer.
    The AR-15 lower receiver was designed to be made from aluminum, based on the specific properties of that material.
    The Glock G19 fires 9x19mm handgun cartridges, the AR-15 fires 5.56mm rifle cartridges, which have very different characteristics.
    This argument has been shown to be inaccurate in multiple previous threads.
    Sorry if my post wasn't clear.

    I was not directly comparing a G19 to an AR-15. My comment was regarding discussions in the past about the durability of polymer framed handguns. And in mentioning manufacturing techniques, I assumed that covered engineers understanding the properties of the materials they use, and adapting designs accordingly, not just making copies of existing guns.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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
  •