Dose anyone know anything about the polymer lowers? I guess there is a company making them around Parker AZ. I was down there this last week and stopped in Guns FX which was selling a complete lower for $90. It had an adjustable stock and plastic trigger parts. Might have picked one up but they didn't have any stocks so I could not take it as a rifle. Also wasn't sure about the hole plastic deal, looked kinda week. Didn't want to fill out the paper work and have them send one to my FFL as he already had about 20 sold setting on the counter on top of the paper work for all the world to see your personal info.

If it's for an airsoft build, go for it. If you intend to build a real firearm with it, buy a forged lower.

Thats what I was thinking. The guy in the store asked if I knew anything about AR's when I stated it was plastic, and went on about how good the price was. When I asked about the strength he spouted off some crap about a Glock is mostly plastic so the lower was just as good.

Cav-Arms lowers would be the only thing I would use.





Now if you going to do a dedicated .22 build then it might be ok.

I make my living developing types of plastics.  No way would I ever buy a plastic or composite lower receiver.  Think for a moment how you would expect 20 year old polymer to look or perform.  Even if its not beaten by the elements plastic tends to age poorly, it shrinks, swells, stress-cracks, de-gasses, can sun-bleach, oxidize, and absorb solvents.  

I would wager that the sellers of these plastic lowers would say that their products have been completely tested.  They have passed artificial accelerated aging tests.  This might mean that they picked a test that their part could pass.  The whole deal  means nothing when compared to real aging.  In twenty years show me an old polymer lower that is still good, and I will think about buying one then.  For now, please go spend the extra few bucks and get a forged or billet lower.

I totally agree about not using polymer AR receivers, but the Glocks I have seen in duty use, aside from nicks and dings, seem pretty solid.  Your thoughts?

I'm not questioning your knowledge or experience... but I was given a Glock 17 from 1987 that has its polymer in essentially new condition (slide & barrel are different stories).
It certainly isn't a duty weapon or even concealed carry gun, however.

That said, I'd never purchase a polymer lower for an AR.

I do not own a Glock and would have less a problem with a polymer-framed handgun.

Think of the stresses put on the mid-section of any rifle.  Even if you do not shoot much, a rifle leaned again the wall may fall to the floor.  The relatively long barrel puts a bit of stress on the midsection of the rifle. (long barrel as compared to any handgun anyway).  Stick the bad guy with your bayonet a few times and I would not trust that plastic lower so much.  Want to knock the baddie out with the buttstock?  Better not be holding on to the barrel or your AR15 will be in two pieces.

The lower receiver on an AR15 can crack or structurally fail even if it is made from aluminum.  Imagine if you used mere glue/epoxy to repair a cracked aluminum lower.  If that thought is horrible to you then why would you want the entire lower made from epoxy or similar material?

Cav-Arms lowers are GTG, IMO





Jus' Sayin'





<––––––––––––––––––––––-



And I have a glock 19, carried almost every day since 1987



The plastic parts are basically as new, except for wear, scratches etc.

The slide is looking pretty sad, however.

Still shoots good though...........

One thing to remember is the Cav Arms lowers are designed to be plastic lowers. That's why they aren't identical to forged lowers and are great lowers.

Glocks were designed from the beginning to be plastic. The engineers that designed them took into account the physical properties of plastic in their design.

A plastic version of a forged lower would not have the same properties as a metal lower that was designed for that material.

The engineering of the lower is based very much so on the characteristics of the metal being used. A plastic lower that wasn't specifically designed to be a plastic lower would not perform as well as metal one would.  

Think of a coat hanger metaphor.  A metal coat hanger can be very thin and also be very strong. A plastic coat hanger is much beefier because the plastic isn't as durable as steel. Imagine that you had a plastic coat hanger that looked just like a metal one. I doubt it would hold a as heavy a coat as a identically dimensioned metal one would. So it would stand to reason that a plastic lower with the exact same design as a forged lower would not be as durable.

Just look at the vulcan hesse blackthorne plastic lower pics that are floating around here. Perfect example.

ETA:

Sounds like another LLC of Vulcan arms. They are junk. Buy a forged from Anvil Arms for $99.

There are a bunch of people out there using Cav Arms lowers who will not say anything bad about them. They have used them and have not had any issues with them.  I find it interesting that the majority of people who bad mouth them have never owned them for any length of time. In my little collection I have one and it has had a fair amount of use. No, not in combat! Its a range/plinking gun and it serves very well for that even though I have total faith that it would do anything that I would ever need it to do. Sometimes certain people forget that when some of us buy or build up a rifle we do not plan on being Rambo or being called to fire 100,000 rounds down the barrel. That said I know the guys at Cav Arms have a lower that they have shot like 40,000 rounds with, all calibers, and its still going strong. As far as what it will do in fifty years, who cares? I will be dead and gone. I do know that the Nylon 66 rifle I got back in the 1960's is still running strong after nearly fifty years.

" The first, most successful and best known of the series was the Nylon 66 autoloader, introduced in 1959. Produced until 1991, it became the most popular Remington .22 of all time. The Nylon 66 soldiered on and on. It remained a strong seller through the 1970's and well into the 1980's, finally being discontinued in 1991. (Some sources say 1989.) Total Nylon 66 sales of all models exceeded 1,058,000 rifles."

Gee, over one million of these "inferior" plastic rifles were sold over a thirty year period. One would think that in that time span people would have wised up and stop buying something that was no good. Of course, they were not a perfect rifle, few are. But they were immensely popular for their strengths. I recall how some made fun of them when they came out and said they would never last.

Back in the mid sixties when I was in a far away land defending my country the Army started using a new light weight rifle. We made fun of it. It was a TOY, it had all these cheap plastic and aluminum parts on it. It could never last! Anyone with any brains knew a real rifle like our M-14's had STEEL receivers, wooden stocks and shot a .30 caliber bullet. We KNEW that these new cheap "Matty Matel" plastic rifles would never last.

Times change.... Don't be too quick to make fun of or discount a polymer lower for a rifle.

    Plastic trigger parts ?????????

    I have a few guns over 100 years old .  Taken care of , steel lasts for ever .

    Having said that , I once was tempted to build a light weight AR with a synthetic lower .

God bless
Wyr

    The problem with the early M-16's was jamming , not breaking .  Or maybe I have it backwards , the GI's broke them in frustration , after they jammed ?

    But that is another controversy .  And I was not there .

    But I have read of the stocks breaking when used to " butt stroke " a bad guy .


God bless
Wyr

I had a bushy polymer lower that was actualy nice. They are good for a lightweight build.

But a hesse llc I would fear. Also check up on anvil before suggest somone buing a lower

from them. Alots been happening to them lately.

Yep plastic or polymer or what ever. The trigger, safety, mag release and hammer where plastic. He had a lower with a DPMS parts kit just to show that they would work but the one on sale comes with the plastic parts kit.

It is lightweight that was for sure and a Pmag dropped out of the well but I wonder about the strength of the lower.

And the lowers are standard lowers. Stock screws in the back and the hole nine yards. Wish I could find a pic or maker but I haven't had any luck.

heck i bought 4 lowers from spikes for 89 bucks a piece.

Believe these folks are out of busness.  I'd be real careful in that department.

Not all plastics are equal.  For example CavArms uses a glass reinforced polymer that IMHO is stronger that any forged aluminum receiver.  CavArms lowers are so strong that they offer a lifetime warranty on their receivers.  They will even replace their receiver if it is damaged by neglect, fire, you used it as a golf club, you ran over it with your tank, etc.  Besides LaRue Tactical, I don't know if any company offering that type of warranty on aluminum receivers.  I am not affiliated in any way with CavArms, I am just a satisfied customer.  BTW, my 12 year old Glock 19 polymer frame looks as good as it did when I bought it.

The point of greatest stress on an AR lower is the buffer tube section. Cav Arms profile in that area is considerably thicker than a metal AR.  I've got a Cav Arms lower on my "to buy" list, and I'm not worried a bit.

That being said, Plastic fire control parts are a no-go.

This sounds like an airsoft lower and a snake oil salesman to me.

Lifetime guarantee on lower is fantastic.  Let us assume the lower breaks in 20 years and the company is still around. You get a pretty new plastic lower for free.  Unfortunately, when Chelsea Clinton was elected president in 2028 she worked with Congress to re-institute the ASB.  Now your new serial number is post-ban and you must remove all your evil banned accessories. So much form the joy of a free lower.

I would rather epoxy the broken plastic lower and keep my crippled pre-ban.

Seriously?  

CavArms is alright.  Anything else...Run away...

I was kidding. Chelsea Clinton or her mother will never be president and the AWB will never come back in any form.

However, all polymer chemically degrade over time.  Faster at higher temperature.  Faster in sunlight.  Even faster in the presence of oils or solvents.  Metals not so much.

Is it really worth the savings?  Spend a couple more bucks and get the time tested lower.

Yes, the M-16 did jam, not break. My point was that when the rifle was first introduced many discounted it as they only wanted STEEL rifles.  To many this M-16 being made out of aluminum was inferior as they thought it would break. In their minds the aluminum was just not as strong as steel. They would quote you facts and figures on why the rifle would be too weak made from such a light metal.

What I am saying is, we hear the same thing now about "plastics". Now, Vulcan/Hesse/etc. didn't help this argument out by making that POS lower of theirs. As has been pointed out they just took a standard AR lower and made a mold so they could inject plastic into it. I have seen this lower and I would not trust it. There is no proper engineering work in it at all. The Cav Arms lower is, however, engineered to be made of the materials they use in it. It has additional supports  and material added to insure it can perform its function. And, its not just some cheap plastic shot in a mold.

Sabre Defense, a well respected company, sold a rifle under their name that Cav Arms supplied the lower for. Its the same one Cav sells, just has the Sabre name and logo on it.
Sabre Defense Light weight rifle

We hold on to our old ways and thoughts for darn good reasons. We KNOW they work! This is especially true if our lives depend on something. I fully understand why some do not trust these light weight lowers. I got one to add to my collection because I wanted to try out this idea and see for myself how it worked. I would gladly buy another Cav Lower if I could find on locally.

Being new does not make something either bad, nor good. Only time will prove that point. Back in the '60's many were wrong about the M-16. It did need some time to get the kinks out but Eugene Stoner was right about aluminum being a suitable  material for his rifle. I also believe that Cav Arms did their homework also and that their lower is fine for what it is intended to be.

No one is saying Cav Arms lowers, nylon 66 or glocks are crap just because they are plastic. Like I said earlier, all of those time tested firearms were designed from the beginning to be made of polymer/plastic and that's why they hold up so well. Hell, I have 2 glocks my self.

The problem is that you can't just make a plastic/polymer lower that is identical in dimensions to a forged lower and expect it to perform the same.  If the lower the OP was talking about was just a plastic copy of a forged lower, then there is no way in hell I would buy it. If it was a CAV arms, BM carbon 15 or similar, then yes, it would be worth it.

But as it has been pointed out, if the lower is of questionable manufacture or not one of the well known/well built polymer lowers like Cav or BM, why not just spent a little more money for a good quality forged lower that will last?

I just put together a Cav arms lower with a bushmaster carbonfiber stripped upper,carbonfiber tensioned 17 remington barrel,carbonfiber free float tube and a jard 1 1/2 pound trigger.
WHY
 Easy to pack hunting coyotes in the mountains and on long hikes.
Whats wrong with a under 4 1/2 pound scoped, highly accurate and dependable rifle?