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?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Some people want to be different at any cost. These things are a solution looking for a problem.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >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.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        yeah I was thinking that, this style of lower would be perfect for a mass mobilization of troops

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        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

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      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.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      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?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Do you have an measurable evidence of it being less durable? Anything statistically significant besides anecdotes?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          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.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. Put a le retro fixed carry handle upper on one and you can get so many heckin updoots from kind strangers

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    they're the only good polymer lowers

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The appeal is that they feel good in the hand.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      id buy one if it wasnt for cucksards hands involved in it

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      gross

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >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.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Length of pull is a meme if you are not using a magnified optic.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So does your mom's pussy, but we both know that don't mean much

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The funny thing is that they weigh like 2oz less than a regular aluminium lower without a stock lmao

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >without a stock
      What???

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          An a1 stocks weights 8oz

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And a B5 CAR-15 stock weighs 4 oz.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do these have an A1 stock's LOP?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              yeah. or the echo93 chopped ones are even shorter, about the same as a carbine tube with stock at 2nd position

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Are the ar9 stocks any good?

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >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

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Bro didn't just buy an Armalite AR-180B

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        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

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      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.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      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

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Cope. An m16a4 upper with the polymer wonder looks like complete ass

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          skill issue

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          have you tried the OD Green one?

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >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.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >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

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >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.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >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

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >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

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >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

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >profit
                unsure you understand the concept tbh senpai

                https://i.imgur.com/ckBv5eR.jpeg

                >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.

                >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

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >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?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >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

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >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

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >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?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >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

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

                https://i.imgur.com/ytK1jIW.jpeg

                Fucj you

                frick you more

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                enjoy your heavy gay nipple grip gun that breaks bolts if you try to use it

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >that breaks bolts if you try to use it
                source?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                eceleb
                google isn't bringing anything up

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >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

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >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

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                99% of end users have never taken advantage of any of those characteristics.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >99% of users have not adjusted their stock
                delusional

                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?

                They're $150 stripped, more than a complete PSA lower.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >what is gun.deals
                Do you like burning money? I bet you shop directly at KVAR for AK's too

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >>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.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Literally file a chamfer on any the inside edge of any safety axis and you achieve russels design for free.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're right. They move their stock to the second position and never move it again.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >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

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                cope post

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Fucj you

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                there are also holes in the receiver you can store them in

                ?si=CPLkqs78COjJbCPI

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >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.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the hard part is the flow modelling and other engineering work, actually machining the molds is cheap I think

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        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

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I like it

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What is the appeal of these things?
    Fun builds

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I've decided I hate fun.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous
      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous
  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah the weight reduction and the world works on this idea of supply and demand

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      a third of a million have been sold

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Different type of polymer lower anon

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You're gonna get anthrax airstrikes in your personal gay chinese ass with that attitude gaygo

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      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.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Garbage 20 years ago when they were made by Cav Arms, still garbage today.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Cheap, lightweight lower.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      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

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why are you telling me this? Leave me alone

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          no

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Since theyre one piece and you can’t attach a standard stock they bypass my state’s assault weapons ban

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      don't bypass mine sadly.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How do 3D printed ones evolving?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        FDM printed stuff will never be as strong as injection molded.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          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

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >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

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    @61510208
    I won

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *