What is the appeal of these things? The weight reduction? Aren't polymer guns a meme?
What is the appeal of these things? The weight reduction? Aren't polymer guns a meme?
What is the appeal of these things? The weight reduction? Aren't polymer guns a meme?
Some people want to be different at any cost. These things are a solution looking for a problem.
The appeal is that they are a cheap lower with decent engineering and a nice weight reduction. It's not the best AR lower out there, but it is the best polymer AR. No, polymer guns are not a meme provided they are designed to be polymer from the ground up. Simply making a dimensionally correct AR lower in polymer does not work, unless you use a polymer that is stronger than aluminium, which is challenging.
Honestly they would be great to build in case of total war, where large stocks of weapons are required and perfect quality is secondary. They can still work in the civilian market as decent quality, very cheap lowers.
I know polymer guns have evolved and aren't made with recycled plastic (most of them at least), but every time I think about the Bushmaster ACR or the G36, I keep thinking "man, I hope it doesn't crack" . Same thing with back up iron sights, its just a insurance for me.
>I know polymer guns have evolved and aren't made with recycled plastic (most of them at least),
Even if they were made of recyled plastics, as long as the quality control on said plastics is good enough, they use a proper amount of reinforcing fibers and they design it as such from the get go, it should be fine.
>every time I think about the Bushmaster ACR or the G36, I keep thinking "man, I hope it doesn't crack" .
I can't tell you much about the ACR, but the G36 has maintained it's accuracy standard untill the latest, which was tested during its replacement program. For a stopgap solution that was designed to be cheap, lightweight, mass-producable and accurate enough for gruntwork, it has survived for long enough to warrant replacement due to age, after 25 years of service. Not too bad, if you ask me. Metal can break too, just look at AR boltheads with a sufficiently high round count.
yeah I was thinking that, this style of lower would be perfect for a mass mobilization of troops
I love mine, people who shit on it for being polymer don't understand what says is truth
I don't even care about perceived weight savings. There's something to be said for the simplicity of a unibody lower
it's a total meme, you save a negligible amount of weight and in return you get a weaker lower (aka the one serialized part that is the firearm) and can't ever change the grip or stock. as a bonus it looks cheap and shitty. is right.
lol what cost? These lowers are like $60 brand new: what can you put together a lower, grip, buffer tube, stock, and trigger guard together for?
https://palmettostatearmory.com/psa-ar15-complete-moe-ept-btr-stealth-lower-black.html
It's at the cost of durability and longevity. The original design is so proven and so reasonably priced that there's no good reason to get something else. And you should generally never be buying the absolute cheapest option for anything, not just guns.
Do you have an measurable evidence of it being less durable? Anything statistically significant besides anecdotes?
What is this really proving? You get one of the lowest quality lowers of all time that you will still have to replace the stock anyways. LPK's are cheap as chips if not borderline free.
This. Put a le retro fixed carry handle upper on one and you can get so many heckin updoots from kind strangers
they're the only good polymer lowers
The appeal is that they feel good in the hand.
id buy one if it wasnt for cucksards hands involved in it
gross
>What is the appeal of these things? Weight reduction?
Yep. It's for min-maxing like the cool guntubers.
Choosing a fixed stock with a non-replaceable grip and no length of pull or comb height adjustment seems a bit silly if your goal is to perfect the fit to your body. The chances of that stock's dimensions being ideal for you are a crapshoot.
Length of pull is a meme if you are not using a magnified optic.
So does your mom's pussy, but we both know that don't mean much
The funny thing is that they weigh like 2oz less than a regular aluminium lower without a stock lmao
>without a stock
What???
>Complete aluminium lower with a2 grip and milspec buffer weight with no stock
13oz
>Complete polymer lower with milspec buffer weight
16oz
Yes you've been lied to. Not by me. But by leddit.
An a1 stocks weights 8oz
And a B5 CAR-15 stock weighs 4 oz.
Do these have an A1 stock's LOP?
yeah. or the echo93 chopped ones are even shorter, about the same as a carbine tube with stock at 2nd position
Are the ar9 stocks any good?
I bought one on a whim and regret it. I like the grip but every upper I put on it looks like absolute ass. I challenge anyone to post a complete rifle with this lower that doesn't look hideous. It's impossible.
>I challenge anyone to post a complete rifle with this lower that doesn't look hideous
I don't own one but I think they look totally fine on most builds. might just be a (you) problem
>Bro didn't just buy an Armalite AR-180B
That's approaching decent but only because of the weird side charging thing. I think the biggest aesthetic flaw is the forward assist looks weird with the kp-15 lower. 95% of AR's with that lower look like shit though
Get a T91 Wolf Upper and a chunky prism sight or a rear sight that isn't a standard A2 iron. Pair with a Brownell's 25 round straight mag plus a Magpul mag tab for the drip, 20 round mags if you don't mind the proportions being a little off.
Weight reduction and corrosion resistance are all reasons. Cost is another factor. Polymer stocks are cheaper and more dimensionally stable than wooden stocks.
What's strange is people who insist that all parts of a firearm must be metal, especially low stress parts that aren't the chamber.
Fixed stocks are a vibe, and making an actually durable polymer lower is cool, that's about it for why I have one. I also like being able to run a all-in-one buffer tube that can easily slide in and out without dealing with a buffer tube indent, but when I bought mine that wasn't a reason for me getting it. It definitely is a solution in search of a problem by and large, but it's not a completely worthless product, just something where the benefits won't really be relevant for most people outside of maybe the cost of it.
if it looks okay with an a2 stock it'll look fine with this thing, shit, from further away you can't even tell the difference
Cope. An m16a4 upper with the polymer wonder looks like complete ass
skill issue
have you tried the OD Green one?
heres the tldr
the polymer lowers are useful in contexts where high production volume is necessary, but only outside of the states, since the economy of scale for aluminum lowers is already so large
>weight reduction
A basic lower with a lightweight stock will weigh an ounce more.
>cost
They're not cheaper than a complete PSA lower.
They exist because some people value being different above all else.
Maybe for places that trash their guns every 10-20 years to keep their barely surviving local firearms industry on life support, like Europastan. I'm not a plastic hater but I don't see polymer lasting through decades of service and numerous deployments unscathed.
Example: here's an XM16e1 lower still in active service. I just don't think a polymer lower would last 60 years of service on numerous continents. In civilian hands, maybe.
>I just don't think a polymer lower would last 60 years of service on numerous continents
so just replace the lower with another
I think you're vastly underestimating the toughness of modern fiber reinforced polymers
on top of that, in a vacuum, the polymer lowers could be manufactured at a far lower cost in addition to the far faster production time, as forges and high performance aluminum alloys are more costly
you could be right about polymer lowers not lasting nearly as long as aluminum ones, but there are rifles that are extremely reliable with polymer components, like the scar
>so just replace the lower with another
So now you're buying two. You've doubled the cost.
>in a vacuum, the polymer lowers could be manufactured at a far lower cost in addition to the far faster production time
Maybe? But we're still talking an aluminum upper so you already need aluminum forges operating at scale. Is it actually going to be cheaper? Is it going to be cheaper if the gun lasts 60 years of service like the M16 family? Most of the European countries are adopting HK416s, not SCARs. With what little info I can dig up it seems the HK416 is cost comparable to G36s, which is as plastic as can be.
it doesn't seem any theoretical cost savings actually manifest in the real world.
>So now you're buying two. You've doubled the cost.
injection molding is cheap enough where i'd still be confident that a polymer lower is less than half the cost of an aluminum one, just in materials alone and utterly ignoring capital costs
>Is it going to be cheaper if the gun lasts 60 years of service like the M16 family?
yes, because the unit cost is so cheap
also, I'd argue that the metric of lasting 60 years really doesn't matter for a service rifle
the particular flavor of a modern service rifle that a country uses matters so little and accounts for such a small percentage of our military spending anyway
>With what little info I can dig up it seems the HK416 is cost comparable to G36s, which is as plastic as can be. it doesn't seem any theoretical cost savings actually manifest in the real world.
german autistic upcharging
since when has HK or even FN ever been "price competitive" to civilians?
imo, the scar has it right: extruded Al upper and polymer lower, and forged AR components are so cheap in the US because of the expansive economy of scale and the fact AR15s are basically open source
if you understood the limitations and benefits of these manufacturing techniques I think you'd understand
that being said, I personally prefer the ergos of a collapsible stock and like I said earlier, it makes little sense to have a kp15 in the US since it's neither price competitive or different in performance
>since when has HK or even FN ever been "price competitive" to civilians?
Who cares about civilians? That's not who matters if we're talking doing things at scale outside the US like you insist on doing. Get real.
>imo, the scar has it right
Then why does nobody use it? The scar fricking sucks and if it weren't for videogames it would not still exist.
>since it's neither price competitive or different in performance
It's not in other countries either. You're speaking of hypotheticals that do not exist anywhere and never have, and in fact we see the exact opposite occur.
This feels like a "communism has never been tried" argument.
>bro true polymer would totally be cheaper except all the times it wasn't and like the HK416 dominating all of the polymer guns doesn't count because of bourgeois interference
anon, it's clear that you don't have fundamental knowledge about manufacturing, but there's no need to be upset at me
do you really think that the 416 costs more to produce than the G36? Do you really not understand how fast plastic injection molding is? google price per weight for 6061 Al and 30% filled nylon and see for yourself
Do you really think an MP5, which is more or less just stamped steel, is worth $2500 in materials and labor? frick no it isn't
I don't know, nor do I care why militaries don't use the scar more. I am not commentating on each rifles individual performance, but rather production costs based on manufacturing techniques. They all perform marginally the same and it really doesn't matter for a large military. The point I am making is that forges and machining operations are more costly compared to injection molding, and the performance of both in terms of rifles is negligible
do you maybe think that the success of AR15 derivatives is related to the huge number of M16s floating around the earth?
This is why I use the phrase "in a vacuum" when describing these situations. This discussion is not at all comparable to socioeconomic policy like communism, lmao
>do you really think that the 416 costs more to produce than the G36?
No idea, but shouldn't you be arguing the opposite
>do you really think repeated over and over
wow anon just discovered profit
>profit
unsure you understand the concept tbh senpai
>Molds are huge part of the cost, that shit costs hundreds of thousands to manufacture.
true, but the cost will be recouped after enough units, which also includes a higher production rate
forging dies are also very costly, although probably not as bad
havent even touched on the fact that the poly lower reduces part count and complexity
there's a time and place for it, but not for us
>havent even touched on the fact that the poly lower reduces part count and complexity
But also significantly reduces capability. Gone is the ability to adjust length of pull, open the trigger guard for use with gloves, and many features simply do not work. You didn't really need a retained buffer+spring or captive takedown pins, right?
>significantly
debatable. your gripes are specifically related to the kp15, not to poly lowers as a whole, and are addressable through design changes imo
I agree that there are tradeoffs, but I could see a military going one way or the other
>your gripes are specifically related to the kp15
Every other polymer lower has the gripe of "it breaks immediately" which is an even worse thing.
>but I could see a military going one way or the other
well they seem to overwhelmingly be going for the Hk416 and AR15.
>well they seem to overwhelmingly be going for the Hk416 and AR15.
economy of scale, established captial, etc.
like I said, a gorillion times, the context is in a vacuum and not for the US mil or civilian
>economy of scale, established captial, etc.
But none of that is real anon. There was no economy of scale when HK started 416 production. It still took over. Because it is a superior design.
dont be dishonest.
NATO users want AR15 controls because thats what they've used for decades
I'm sure there are other considerations as well, but don't pretend like the AR precedent didn't play a crucial role in directing military small arms, the fricken 416 upper fits on AR lowers anon
why do you think the 416 is superior to the scar? I don't think it really matters either way.
>NATO users want AR15 controls because thats what they've used for decades
No, they hadn't. You're a total moron. The FAMAS France used did not have AR-15 controls. The G3 Norway used did not have AR-15 controls. The Galil Estonia used did not have AR-15 controls. The G3 Sweden uses does not have AR-15 controls. The AK Finland uses does not have AR-15 controls. The G36 Germany used did not have AR-15 controls. The G3 Denmark used did not have AR-15 controls.
And yet all these countries have adopted or are adopting AR-15s and/or HK416s.
>I'm sure there are other considerations as well, but don't pretend like the AR precedent didn't play a crucial role in directing military small arms
Anon, that literally only mattered to the USA. Nobody in fricking Europe cared because they don't have AR-15s you stupid shit. Do you think all of NATO was using M4s?
You're not even intelligent enough to be dishonest because you have no goddamn idea what you are talking about.
and how much does the US contribute to NATO? it logistically makes sense to standardize together
for every country that you named that didnt use ARs, there was one that did
there's no need to be dishonest anon
>for every country that you named that didnt use ARs, there was one that did
No, there fricking wasn't. There were two, total, USA and Canada.
> it logistically makes sense to standardize together
Then why don't they all use M4s
>uhhh hurr
yeah dumbass, because it doesn't work like that, they're already standardized on ammunition and magazines, they're not sharing guns.
you're also forgetting estonia and UK, and others that I cant be bothered to remember
>>Then why don't they all use M4s
because its old
why is the 416 compatible with AR lowers? why would HK designers make this intentional decision?
fundamentally, I've never argued that poly lowers or metal lowers were better or worse than one another, and all modern rifles are more or less equivalent
it's all a lateral step, and you would be hardpressed explaining why the 416 is superior to the scar, seeing as how you own neither
dont be dishonest anon
>you're also forgetting estonia
I am not and listed them, they used the galil until recently
>UK
still uses the L85 and has not moved to an AR-15 or HK for general issue
You accuse me of being disingenuous then post bullshit like this. There was no mass use of the AR-15 that caused all of NATO to switch over.
>why is the 416 compatible with AR lowers?
To sell to the US government.
>it's all a lateral step, and you would be hardpressed explaining why the 416 is superior to the scar, seeing as how you own neither
Uhuh
>scar
kills optics, stock sucks compared to AR style, reciprocating charging handle is actually AIDS, and the amount of tiny screws that need to be tightened and secured correctly makes it a nonstarter from a maintenance standpoint.
>To sell to the US government.
yes I agree, the design of the rifle was influenced by a major user of AR derivatives
wheres your complete rifle, fricking KEK anon
not even a complete mutt 416
so why is your overpriced mutt rifle better than a scar?
>yes I agree, the design of the rifle was influenced by a major user of AR derivatives
Major use by the USA. Not by NATO as a whole, since again, development on the HKM4 as it was then called began in the 1990s. When not a single NATO country besides the USA and Canada had ARs as standard issue rifles. By the time they actually saw service, the only NATO country in Europe that had an AR as standard issue was fricking Denmark.
>so why is your overpriced mutt rifle better than a scar?
I already told you. Now why are you seething so hard that the scar sucks ass? You should have already known this since the most prolific user of the rifle is fricking Kenya. The people the gun was made for didn't even want it once they actually used it.
>I already told you
you've said nothing of value about the design of either rifle, dumbass
it's real cute that you thought that a naked upper that you dont even own changes anything, kek
>you've said nothing of value about the design of either rifle
I've told you exactly why nobody anywhere likes the scar and why nobody issues it as a standard issue rifle if they think they might actually wind up using it. There's a reason it came out and nobody anywhere gave a frick and even the people who expressly requested the existence of the gun went "ah nah yeah we were wrong take it back" and then all bought 416s lmao
>Naked upper
It's the easiest way to show you what it is.
>that you dont even own
lol post yours then, here's what it looks like currently in the glory of my broken camera.
frick you more
enjoy your heavy gay nipple grip gun that breaks bolts if you try to use it
>that breaks bolts if you try to use it
source?
eceleb
google isn't bringing anything up
>blah blah shid fard
still waiting for your commentary on rifle design choices loser
>muh adoption
and the US adopted the fat loser sig rifle, big fricking deal
literally not your mutt 416, everyone has a fricking non potato phone camera, the alternative being that you spent all your savings on a mutt rifle and cant afford a phone
do better anon
>still waiting for your commentary on rifle design choices loser
go ahead and scroll up
>literally not your mutt 416
do NOT look up what the service rifle of the USMC is
>the alternative being that you spent all your savings on a mutt rifle and cant afford a phone
I could buy a new phone, but why would I?
>alternative being that you spent all your savings on a mutt rifle
I think that was my cheapest rifle to put together, either that or my SR-15
99% of end users have never taken advantage of any of those characteristics.
>99% of users have not adjusted their stock
delusional
They're $150 stripped, more than a complete PSA lower.
Stop buying them at MSRP from Russel's shitty site: they've been on brownells for like $65 routinely. You can get them at other retailers for like $100 easily even not during a sale.
>they've been on brownells for like $65 routinely.
>routinely
is a lie, considering Brownells sold all of them at blowout prices just to get rid of them and are not ordering more because they want nothing to do with Karl.
>You can get them at other retailers for like $100 easily even not during a sale
I see it for $123, which means still just as I said, a stripped lower costs more than a complete standard polymer lower.
>what is gun.deals
Do you like burning money? I bet you shop directly at KVAR for AK's too
>>what is gun.deals
the place where they only have one vendor with KP15s in stock for $99 without a safety selector, which means you'll have to buy that direct from KE arms for $40 or accept that any selector you install is permanent and cannot be removed without destroying something.
Literally file a chamfer on any the inside edge of any safety axis and you achieve russels design for free.
You're right. They move their stock to the second position and never move it again.
>adjust the length of pull
bandsaw or a spacer
>open the trigger guard for use with gloves
it's already extra large
>many features simply do not work
name them and I will call you stupid
>retained buffer+spring
the detent exists, do you need me to take a picture of mine for you?
>captive takedown pins
luckily there's a trapdoor in the buttstock you can store them in
cope post
Fucj you
there are also holes in the receiver you can store them in
?si=CPLkqs78COjJbCPI
>injection molding is cheap enough where i'd still be confident that a polymer lower is less than half the cost of an aluminum one, just in materials alone and utterly ignoring capital costs
Materials for polymer lower costs pennies. What costs in polymer lowers and largely polymer firearms in general is assembly work and injection molds. Molds are huge part of the cost, that shit costs hundreds of thousands to manufacture.
>the particular flavor of a modern service rifle that a country uses matters so little and accounts for such a small percentage of our military spending anyway
Rifles itself might be irrelevant cost for military, what costs is ammunition stockpiles and training system itself. Special forces might go flavor of the month specialist rifles every imaginable specialized role, but overall special forces tiny compared military at large.
>the US because of the expansive economy of scale and the fact AR15s are basically open source
Reason AR-15 is basically open source and has massive economies of scale and 6 gorillion manufacturers offering anything from complete rifles to accessories is how US military has handled the contracts.
Injection mold costs are often exaggarated.
This design is not even that complicated, just a two part mold I don't even know if they have any extra elements.
So it's only four steel plates that have to be CNC'd, no need to even polish them because there are no shiny surfaces. That's $1000 per mold maximum, these molds are not a very big part of the whole cost.
it's just a two piece mold that poops out two halves of a gun and then they vibration weld them together and trim the flashing
the hard part is the flow modelling and other engineering work, actually machining the molds is cheap I think
Yeah, the polymer lower would be good if you needed a huge amount of rifles quickly. Maybe min-maxing a light build for a mom or wife wouldn’t be a bad idea. But aside from that it’s nothing more than a neat aside
I like it
>What is the appeal of these things?
Fun builds
I've decided I hate fun.
Yeah the weight reduction and the world works on this idea of supply and demand
They feel nice in the hand and they're incredibly cost effective as a lower. They're 4 parts for $100 (less now). Plus, muh light weight feels nice in competition
wait, people BUY these things? I thought the entire point of a shitty polymer lower was that at least it came out of your 3d printer and the pedophile state never knew it existed
a third of a million have been sold
Different type of polymer lower anon
Because a brand new A1 stock not made by cmmg is already $90. Might as well get a lower and grip to go with it.
I like mine because it was cheap, and it works, and I like trying different things. I like it for the same reason I mainly get pencil profile barrels and love iron sights - I enjoy what I enjoy and build according to what I want my rifle to do, not what someone else wants it to do
Stop being homosexual larpers and internet-raised zoomers. This board used to be about how cool and fun guns are, not whether they're going to protect you against Chinese airstrikes or anthrax or whatever your personal gay little cope fantasy is
You're gonna get anthrax airstrikes in your personal gay chinese ass with that attitude gaygo
It's a meme. They will eventually break, the AR15 system is too dependent on the rear takedown/receiver extension/safety junction being aluminum or stronger
As an 80% or unserialized part sure
You can make most components be equally strong no matter the material used. Just gotta make it thicker. The only problem is if you're lacking space like in a firearm bolt or if you're dealing with crazy pressures like firearm barrel.
The appeal, ironically, is that they're only an ounce or two lighter than an aluminum lower with an A2 stock—which makes the assembled rifle FEEL lighter because there's more junk in the trunk balancing out the 16+ inch steel pipe hanging off the front of the upper and all the shit you've got bolted onto your handguard.
You can accomplish the same thing with a normal lower and a V7 steel buffer tube and any decently heavy adjustable stock, but most people don't understand the concept of a center of gravity and, in pursuit of a lighter-feeling rifle, just make the whole gun lighter willy-nilly.
Garbage 20 years ago when they were made by Cav Arms, still garbage today.
Cheap, lightweight lower.
No advantage
Unproven meme made popular by youtube psuedo historian ecelebs with no engineering credentials
All of these fools are proven wrong time and time again, but "muh easily digestible content" keeps these midwits on top
Karl just brought back the classic Inrange vs content with him vs Phagan with cowboy guns
they're running a different stage from the modern kit guys (fewer targets/hits but the same movement) and I think Karl rigged it in favor of the cowboy guns because he placed first overall
Why are you telling me this? Leave me alone
no
Since theyre one piece and you can’t attach a standard stock they bypass my state’s assault weapons ban
don't bypass mine sadly.
How do 3D printed ones evolving?
the newer ones work as well as any injection molded mess like the one in OP. they're always gonna look like moronic bugman dog shit, but live free or fricking die.
FDM printed stuff will never be as strong as injection molded.
which is exactly why the most functional designs incorporate strategic metal reinforcements that you can get from any hardware store. still moronic bugman shit ever since we got our 80 percent receivers back, but I appreciate their existence just on the principle of the matter
If you're gullible and fall for memes (they aren't any lighter than spec aluminum lower setups and they aren't cheaper either) or a contrarian moron they have appeal. People at large moved away from them a decade ago, largely when Plum Crazy lowers got shitcanned by the GayTF and removed the only actual cheaper-than-usual option from the market. The only reason they're even still mentioned today is Kucky Karl shilled CavArms to high heaven a few years back.
>What is the appeal of these things?
overweight never serveds who look at richer, smarter, more successful men than them and think to themselves "that's not fair, that should be me" and search for the absolute quickest moron contrarian "it's completely different from what has worked perfectly fine without issue for the last 50 years... people will buy this in droves and make me rich"
then generally they lose their fricking mind when their thought experiment doesn't come to fruition and try to blame non existent external sources such as corporate interference or quite literally internet bullies
all the while their wives' sons get laughed at in school because their step dad can't afford them the newest set of heelies or whatever the frick zoomers are about these days
I have one because it was like $70 and a novelty. I didn't care for how the grip felt or how it assembled, also didn't like that it was carbine buffer instead of rifle buffer. Ultimately just stripped it and put it in the parts bin. I'd rather just get another anderson lower and build something else.
@61510208
I won