Polymer lowers?

Oh, I have seen them, lots of them...great concept, execution is flawed in most cases. As for weight, only 7.6 ozs are saved, about the weight of a 30 rd aluminum magazine.

The durable ones haven't got 4 years of service life yet on them. I would like to see where they are in 4 more years of shooting, carry, and cleaning.

My concern is the hammer/trigger pin holes and the attachment holes for the upper receiver. Even the hardest aluminum receivers get some "wallow" over time.

I guess the higher quality ones are fine for low round count hunting guns, which we are talking about here.

As I said, to each their own, but not for me. For a few extra bucks I can let others beta test the new technology.
 
Last edited:
I dont think 90% of us here on PM run our AR's hard enough to break a polymer lower. Sure If I was going to be doing tacticool door breaches and abusing my AR I would get a quality aluminum upper and lower just for a greater safety factor.

For a truck gun or a hunting rifle that gets shot a couple hundred times a year I dont think you can go wrong with a polymer lower (even though I prefer the feel of a metal gun)

Even the mall ninjas on other forums like AR 15 will talk about how most of these pictures we see of destroyed lowers on the internet have a story that you are not being told. The reason that most of those lowers failed is because of operator error or abuse.
 
The way I understand it the lowers main purpose is to hold the LPK trigger etc... A lower is a lower is a lower..... Polymer is working well in other firearm applications, don't see why it won't work in the discipline you described... Let us know how it works out for you!!!
 
Originally Posted By: Field MedicThe way I understand it the lowers main purpose is to hold the LPK trigger etc... A lower is a lower is a lower..... Polymer is working well in other firearm applications, don't see why it won't work in the discipline you described... Let us know how it works out for you!!!

If you believe a lower is a lower is a lower, or "All AR parts are the same" you simply have not researched the subject enough. The lower receiver also contains the receiver extension, buffer, spring, and butstock. These areas are subject to significant stress. Unfortunately no polymer AR has been able to come anywhere near the reliability and durability of the Glock.
 
As with everything there are those resistant to change and those who are true believers. At this stage of the game, polymer in AR receivers you need to be a true believer. We have all seen the failures at the buffer extension (likely from using the weapon as a crutch or abuse) and the split mag wells (likely from KaBooms) but what is disconcerting to me are the receiver pins/trigger & hammer pin holes and their durability. You still got to take apart the gun to clean it each time you shoot, low round count or no.

Until the price of the standard forged receiver is more than $200 than the price of the polymer, I am sticking to time proven (50 years) forged aluminum receivers. $200 is about 20% of a cheap AR and significantly less than a precision version of the AR. With that much money invested in a weapon, I am not going to scrimp on the main part of the gun. Lots of old sayings about doing things like that.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Chorizo You still got to take apart the gun to clean it each time you shoot, low round count or no.



Uh oh. My guns ain't gonna be to happy to hear that.
 
Originally Posted By: ChorizoAs with everything there are those resistant to change and those who are true believers. At this stage of the game, polymer in AR receivers you need to be a true believer. We have all seen the failures at the buffer extension (likely from using the weapon as a crutch or abuse) and the split mag wells (likely from KaBooms) but what is disconcerting to me are the receiver pins/trigger & hammer pin holes and their durability. You still got to take apart the gun to clean it each time you shoot, low round count or no.

Until the price of the standard forged receiver is more than $200 than the price of the polymer, I am sticking to time proven (50 years) forged aluminum receivers. $200 is about 20% of a cheap AR and significantly less than a precision version of the AR. With that much money invested in a weapon, I am not going to scrimp on the main part of the gun. Lots of old sayings about doing things like that.

Excellent points.
 
Originally Posted By: doggin coyotesOriginally Posted By: Chorizo You still got to take apart the gun to clean it each time you shoot, low round count or no.



Uh oh. My guns ain't gonna be to happy to hear that.

Mine neither. They're gonna really feel neglected...
 
Originally Posted By: moonshine44Originally Posted By: doggin coyotesOriginally Posted By: Chorizo You still got to take apart the gun to clean it each time you shoot, low round count or no.



Uh oh. My guns ain't gonna be to happy to hear that.

Mine neither. They're gonna really feel neglected...

Surprised mine didn't file for divorce at this point.

I'd say with the number of poly lowers out there now, and the use and abuse some guys put on them, they will do fine for the most part, and will likely get design upgrades in the future to the positive also. A half a pound savings is a half a pound savings. If your not breaking doors down with them, clubbing your prey to death, or going into full combat, not sure I see much argument at this point. Being from PA where we can't use our AR's to hunt, they seem non-ergonomic to carry in the hand and heavy compared to my average guns I use. Then again, I don't trek over hill and dale with them as there is little point here. JMHO.
 
I guess it is the self discipline from my 21 years in the Marine Corps. I keep my weapons clean and don't just toss them in the closet when I am done shooting.

It is a good thing you guys have polymer.
 
Come on guys. I think we just about have Chorizo converted. I sense him weakening. He wants to buy one. Maybe two. Probably already did. But he ain't gonna tell us for fear we'll tease him. We won't tease ya buddy. We promise. Well, maybe a little.

smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: mj36639Originally Posted By: Field MedicThe way I understand it the lowers main purpose is to hold the LPK trigger etc... A lower is a lower is a lower..... Polymer is working well in other firearm applications, don't see why it won't work in the discipline you described... Let us know how it works out for you!!!

If you believe a lower is a lower is a lower, or "All AR parts are the same" you simply have not researched the subject enough. The lower receiver also contains the receiver extension, buffer, spring, and butstock. These areas are subject to significant stress. Unfortunately no polymer AR has been able to come anywhere near the reliability and durability of the Glock.

Um, I have to respectfully disagree. I'd say that containing the barrel locking block and the slide rails of a functioning pistol constitutes being subjected to 'significant stress.' I don't have a dog in this fight, either. All my ARs are aluminum, but I do own a couple of polymer frame pistols.

I think that making a polymer AR lower is a logical 'next step' for the industry - not for a CQB rifle, but for a hunting rifle. I think that if I were to personally begin manufacturing one, I would add some stainless steel reinforcements at high stress areas like the pivot pin and lower receiver extension threads. I might also insert stainless steel bushings in the hammer and trigger pin holes to minimize wear. Then again, a design like the old Cav Arms lowers with an integral buttstock and pistol grip might be worth considering, too. I think I'd go with an integral lower receiver extension rather than a buttstock, and let the owner add whatever buttstock he desired.
 

Quote:
I think that making a polymer AR lower is a logical 'next step' for the industry - not for a CQB rifle, but for a hunting rifle. I think that if I were to personally begin manufacturing one, I would add some stainless steel reinforcements at high stress areas like the pivot pin and lower receiver extension threads. I might also insert stainless steel bushings in the hammer and trigger pin holes to minimize wear. Then again, a design like the old Cav Arms lowers with an integral buttstock and pistol grip might be worth considering, too. I think I'd go with an integral lower receiver extension rather than a buttstock, and let the owner add whatever buttstock he desired.

As I have half jokingly stated before, If Glock made AR lowers I would get in line. If a company were to execute the kind of polymer lower you described I would seriously consider it. However the problem I see with that is once those extra reinforcements were added I bet the price would be on par with forged aluminum models.
 
I have no dog in the fight but I do remember the same arguments being bantered around 25 years ago when Glock hit the scene. Glock definitely did it right, right out of the chute. There may be some growing pains with the polymer lower but that is where the current state of firearms manufacture lies. And the irony of aluminum being touted as a stronger option is funny too. The irony of using "irony" when describing aluminum is funny too.

I have owned a PC lower and it functioned just fine, I sold it two months too soon unfortunately. I am well heeled in lowers but it did save a few oz and worked just fine. I did not use it as an impact weapon though.
 
The PC lowers are tougher than some might think. I had a case head issue in one and blew the mag all to pieces and also blew the mag latch out the side. other than a couple of $$ worth of parts it held up great.
 
Originally Posted By: mj36639
Quote:
I think that making a polymer AR lower is a logical 'next step' for the industry - not for a CQB rifle, but for a hunting rifle. I think that if I were to personally begin manufacturing one, I would add some stainless steel reinforcements at high stress areas like the pivot pin and lower receiver extension threads. I might also insert stainless steel bushings in the hammer and trigger pin holes to minimize wear. Then again, a design like the old Cav Arms lowers with an integral buttstock and pistol grip might be worth considering, too. I think I'd go with an integral lower receiver extension rather than a buttstock, and let the owner add whatever buttstock he desired.

As I have half jokingly stated before, If Glock made AR lowers I would get in line. If a company were to execute the kind of polymer lower you described I would seriously consider it. However the problem I see with that is once those extra reinforcements were added I bet the price would be on par with forged aluminum models.

Agreed; it might even cost more. Hopefully it would still be lighter.
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top