Why polymer not a replacement for aircraft grade aluminum!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • RobMoore

    The Mad Scientist
    Feb 10, 2007
    4,765
    QA
    I didn't get past the thread title.

    "Aircraft grade aluminum" :lol2:

    Almost as useful as saying "milspec".
     

    Gbh

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 25, 2012
    2,260
    I could see that lower sold on Gunbroker as the bre-ban flexible stock model. :sad20:
     

    Hopalong

    Man of Many Nicknames
    Jun 28, 2010
    2,921
    Howard County
    That looks to me more like poor design / insufficient reinforcement than a testament to the (un)suitability of polymer for lowers. Even polymer frames on handguns have a good bit of steel in there.

    I would say that having a lower made entirely out of polymer would be a very bad idea.
     

    smores

    Creepy-Ass Cracker
    Feb 27, 2007
    13,493
    Falls Church
    That looks to me more like poor design / insufficient reinforcement than a testament to the (un)suitability of polymer for lowers. Even polymer frames on handguns have a good bit of steel in there.

    I would say that having a lower made entirely out of polymer would be a very bad idea.

    You have obviously not seen a Plum Crazy lower... you can flex and twist the receiver by hand. If there is steel reinforcement, its minimal. Ive seen several pictures like the one above where it's cracked partially or entirely through that portion of the receiver. I'm in the 7075 aluminum camp. Or better yet the new Turnbull color-cased steel TAR-10s! :thumbsup

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
     

    Jester1341

    Pro Judge
    Apr 22, 2010
    661
    Clear Spring, MD
    Am I the only one that read the part that said 'after six years of abuse'

    Even if it was normal use not 'abuse' SIX years!? That's like ten bucks a years.

    John
     

    smores

    Creepy-Ass Cracker
    Feb 27, 2007
    13,493
    Falls Church
    Am I the only one that read the part that said 'after six years of abuse'

    Even if it was normal use not 'abuse' SIX years!? That's like ten bucks a years.

    John

    Still a broken lower. In basic training at Ft. Knox I saw some probably 30+ year old Colt M16A1s that had been converted to A2s. I guarantee they saw 100x more abuse, and had not fallen apart. That's what matters.

    I will never understand the lengths people will go to in order to justify being cheap in this industry.

    If you want a polymer lower, fine. Just be ready for people to give you crap about it... lol

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
     

    the Javid

    Part time baby killer
    Mar 20, 2012
    199
    Bowie
    I bought it thinking it would be just as strong without having to worry about it corroding. I wasn't trying to go cheap.
     

    armed ferret

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Sep 23, 2008
    7,943
    McDoogal's
    polymer lowers are useful for an inexpensive way to build a really lightweight .22LR gun that, in a pinch, could be used as a full-blown 5.56 receiver.

    but that's really about the wisest use for 'em....22's.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    276,034
    Messages
    7,305,567
    Members
    33,560
    Latest member
    JackW

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom