so i guess this isn't the lower for my ferret .50bmg build?

How many rounds through it?

Maybe steel inserts molded into the area where the buffer tube would thread in would be a good idea for the next generation on Cav receivers.  I have never owned one, but I have seen them up close and they feel very sturdy and seem to be of high quality.  I wouldn't let this sway anybody from getting one.

I swear on my mother's eyeballs that I am not spamming for Cav Arms, just an honest opinion.

Quoted: My only concern is the reduced reliability.  It's great to offer a free replacement but I'd hate to depend on that when my life is on the line.  I know that structural failures happen but the composition of that stock alone makes it more prone to failure than a conventional lower.

I would not let this one incident deter me from purchasing a Cav Arms lower and I will be buying one soon.  As previously stated this was a rare case because of the .45 upper.  If you don't run a heavy enough buffer this will eventually happen with a forged lower too.

Armalite thought enough of the Cav Arms lowers to purchase all of them for their Eagle Arms line-up

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I already discussed this with the customer, and he is sending it to us for a free replacement. Now that is Customer Service +1 Cav Arms makes a great product and they stand behind it. Way to go, Guys!

I can say that Cav Arms lowers, and customer service are top notch, and I would do buisiness with them again any day!

Damn, thats a good way to have a real shtty day at the range

Quoted: Is that a Glock upper ?

No.  It's a Kimber.

I knew it had to be something out of the ordinary.  This incident, however, is a good thing in that it further tests the Cav Arms receviers for use with custom mods.  I'm sure this incident will go a long way to helping people figure out what needs to be done when creating new uppers in new calibers for use with the polymer lower.

Quoted: It was the EO Tech that broke his lower....Stuff like this is why I am an avid Aimpoint user Semper Fi Jeff

I know this is true for a fact. I have seen several KBs caused by Eotechs that were used with firearms that had Polymer receivers, stocks and other polymer components. The problem is the Eotech's Holographic diffraction field causes polymeric dissociation in the polymer molecular matrix, thus weakening the structural integrity of the receiver or stressed polymer part - and this is the result.

Eotechs should not be used with stressed polymer products for this reason.

That's why I always use an Aimpoint ML2. They will not cause this issue.

USMC03 and _DR...

Okay guys, that was my rifle.   Ammo was standard 230gr FMJ and I probably shot about 8-900+ rounds through in this configuration.  The only problem I've experienced with this setup is a mag I didnt notch far enough and dropped out of the rifle on the second shot, I looked a bit dumb on that one... doh!    

I actually didnt know anything happened to the rifle until I let go of the pistol grip and the back half fell off, no force was transferred to the shooter at all.  

I thought about a different buffer several days before this happened as I noticed the recoil was a bit sharper than I expected from the rifle, I didnt realize the buffer was slamming into the stock.  The gas key has never left a mark on the receiver so I highly doubt that was an issue.  

This is a great setup and I really hope a different buffer/spring combo will fix this issue.

Immediately when I got home from the shoot I IM'd Sinistralrifleman about this and he stepped right up and told me to send it in with no BS answers, very straightforward to deal with.  

Today as I got home from work I packaged the upper/lower and a set of poorly made mag blocks (hand tools only guys so what do you expect... )   and of course an M3 mag.   These guys know what they're doing and I figured by sending everything it'll take out the guesswork.   I did however remove the Eotech so the holographic field interference wont be there   It's in the mail, priority insured so they'll have it in a few days.   I have confidence they'll figure something out and lets be patient and see what happens.  

To Cav arms folks:
Thanks for the help here and keep the setup as long as you need.   (within reason of course)

Btw, I have a second Cav lower and continue to use that with confidence in a .223 rifle.

When you are “Wild Catting” you can expect some trouble. As was stated, the 9mm uppers will beat apart an aluminum lower unless a heavy buffer is used, so I would guess a heavy buffer would be called for in .45 ACP also. We do not make or have any .45 ACP upper here at the shop and we’ve stated numerous times that we have no plans to pursue one. The lowers were/are made for use with .223/5.56mm ammo and anything else is going to need to be “fiddled” with. We have always stated it would be someone else's (preferably another company) place to make a .45 ACP gun happen. The CAV-15 MKII in .45 ACP (or any other “off” calibers) should be considered EXPERIMENTAL until some one comes up with a reliable combination of components, puts it through its paces, and offers it for mass production.

Now Im completely confused. I purchased a MKII afew months ago for use with my OLY 45 upper. I purchased it complete and thought it had the heavy (rifle) buffer spring in it.

I was under the impression that Cav Arms widened the mag well to accept grease gun (.45acp) mags.

I actually prefer the Cav Arms lower and tend to switch it back and forth between my 45 and 223 uppers. I will have to stop doing this, I guess.

Doh. That'll ruin your day. Kudos to CavArms for jumping on it so fast!

Just a heads up there is a gunshop in Newberg, Oregon  that has been selling  complete rifles based on the cav arms lower mated to the olympic pistol cal uppers in all anailable cal's  owner told me they were designed for the different recoil ie i asked about the 10mm version.  Guess its not such a good ideahinking.gif

BUFFER WEIGHTS

Rifle - 5.15oz, made of aluminum
CAR - 2.9oz, made of aluminum
H - 3.8oz
H2 - 4.7oz
H3 – 5.6oz
9mm - 5.5oz, made of steel

Special purpose buffers designed for suppressed SMG's or 9mm carbines using high pressure (+P+) ammunition
9mm A - 6.3oz CAR style buffer
9mm B - 7.1oz CAR style buffer
9mm X - 7.9oz CAR style buffer

As I recall, the CAV15 Mk2 uses a standard carbine buffer (only 2.9oz)... seems like this would be far too light given that a 9mm requires a buffer in the 5.5-7.9oz range.

Quoted: Quoted: My only concern is the reduced reliability.  It's great to offer a free replacement but I'd hate to depend on that when my life is on the line.  I know that structural failures happen but the composition of that stock alone makes it more prone to failure than a conventional lower. I don't think that is really a worry. We have full auto guns here that have 20K+ rounds through them with no signs of cracks or splits. Please read Sinistral’s post above and understand that this was a combination of previously UNTESTED and UNPROVEN variables. The CAV-15 MkII as it was designed and as we build them is a reliable platform that I would/do take out and trust my life to, but I would not recommend that anyone use any EXPERIMENTAL combination of components for anything that matters, especially defending your life. We have already been in touch with the owner and will have a new lower out to him. We hope that he is sending the upper along with the broken lower so we can look it over and get the whole picture of what happened, but right now, I am pretty comfortable saying it is not a problem with the lower per say, but our lowers in conjuncture with a .45 ACP upper. We will make a heavy buffer for his gun and see if that cures the problem. When you are “Wild Catting” you can expect some trouble. As was stated, the 9mm uppers will beat apart an aluminum lower unless a heavy buffer is used, so I would guess a heavy buffer would be called for in .45 ACP also. We do not make or have any .45 ACP upper here at the shop and we’ve stated numerous times that we have no plans to pursue one. The lowers were/are made for use with .223/5.56mm ammo and anything else is going to need to be “fiddled” with. We have always stated it would be someone else's (preferably another company) place to make a .45 ACP gun happen.  The CAV-15 MKII in .45 ACP (or any other “off” calibers) should be considered EXPERIMENTAL until some one comes up with a reliable combination of components, puts it through its paces, and offers it for mass production.

Just my .02, and I currently don't own a Cav Arms weapon, the key words in red.. IMO, If this had been a majority of other firearms manufacturers they would politely outline those key words and offer to sell the Wilcating customer another firearm as long as they promised not to "Fiddle, Experiment, Test or do anything out of the ordinary" to the firearm.  Cav Arms stance in this scenerio has been outstanding.  Standing behind their products while other folks "Wildcat" to suit their needs.

Color me impressed.

ETA: I faqing give up, I've edited this damn post several times and can't seem to hi-lite in red the terms "Experimental, Fiddled, Wildcat, Unproven etc. etc."

ETA2: After about 20 times around, I got the hi-liting figured out.

Sly