AR Sponsor
Posted: 8/2/2014 7:20:49 PM EDT
| anybody used the Omni receivers.they have metal inserts at the back and the pin holes?they looked good,flared magwell. |
|
I have used three omnis, they a grrrrr-eat. I just ordered a few from Tennesee Arms, they have not arrived yet, but the look nice and have brass nuts for the buffer tube to screw into, so that seems like a plus. My high-power rifle has an Omni on it, and has seen many thousands of rounds.
I also did an 80% lower that cracked at the buffer tube threads, but the company was good and sent me out another, I will just not try it again on a 300BK pistol. http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af103/nwalker73/oniAR_zps1f395cdd.jpg this uses a gen 2 Omni which I have been very please with, the uppers lock in tight with no play but to each his own, I also like thealuminum lowers to add weight to a target rifle, but on pistols, fuhgettaboutit, I want plastic all the way, uber light |
|
Quoted:
I have used three omnis, they a grrrrr-eat. I just ordered a few from Tennesee Arms, they have not arrived yet, but the look nice and have brass nuts for the buffer tube to screw into, so that seems like a plus. My high-power rifle has an Omni on it, and has seen many thousands of rounds. this uses a gen 2 Omni which I have been very please with, the uppers lock in tight with no play but to each his own, I also like the aluminum lowers to add weight to a target rifle, but on pistols, fuhgettaboutit, I want plastic all the way, uber light What is the weight difference between your plastic lower, and an aluminum. Must be huge |
Judging by the review from the link, It reenforces what Iv'e been told STAY AWAY from plastic/polymer. Now I have NO personal experience with the fancy named plastic, Its way to infant for my liking. give it another 10-15 years and let some others work out the bugs in them. Not for me.
|
|
Quoted:
Judging by the review from the link, It reenforces what Iv'e been told STAY AWAY from plastic/polymer. Now I have NO personal experience with the fancy named plastic, Its way to infant for my liking. give it another 10-15 years and let some others work out the bugs in them. Not for me. Oh, it CAN be done. It's up to someone to quit trying to do it "on the cheap". |
| I'm fairly certain that people said to stay away from plastic when Glock first got started too...however we know that to be entirely false at this point in their game. Like was previously stated, a company just needs to stop trying to be cheap about it and use some good material. |
|
Quoted:
I'm fairly certain that people said to stay away from plastic when Glock first got started too...however we know that to be entirely false at this point in their game. Like was previously stated, a company just needs to stop trying to be cheap about it and use some good material. The problem is the Glock was designed from the ground up to be polymer, It has reinforcement where it needs it. I have seen the brass or aluminum reinforced lowers but the weight savings at that point is almost pointless. A better option at that point is a mag tactical, but i would prefer the stronger 7075 aluminum Balios lite at the cost of a little more weight with added reliability. |
|
I thought junk until I checked out the lowers from James Madison Tactical. I'd take one of those now that I've seen them up close. Even saw them hang a 200lb weight off the receiver extension. It's fiber reinforced and they beefed it up around the receiver extension mounting area. No affiliation.
|
|
Quoted:
There is no significant difference in weight or cost but a significant difference in durability. Poly for toys...aluminum is for rifles. If an ounce or two is hard on you...go to the gym. I found the weight difference significant and noticeable. For my intended usage of that build, the weight savings vs and the potential durability loss was an acceptable trade off. For many applications and users, that may not be the case. If I could only have 1 AR forever, it probably would not be polymer. But for a light build to play around with, I like it. I went with NFA. |
|
Quoted:
I thought junk until I checked out the lowers from James Madison Tactical. I'd take one of those now that I've seen them up close. Even saw them hang a 200lb weight off the receiver extension. It's fiber reinforced and they beefed it up around the receiver extension mounting area. No affiliation. I am running two of these currently, no problems to report. I like the design and the FDE is a very good match to Magpul.  " />
|
| i love how these guys provide proof of function by saying "no problems" LMAO. well thank you for that scholastic breakdown of the types of shooting you have done with the lower. I dont have a problem with plastics as long as they function properly, which this doesn't seem to. I really dont see the purpose of a poly lower. the weight is a non issue, ACTUALLY, a lower that is TOO light will throw the weapons balance way off. |
|
Quoted:
i love how these guys provide proof of function by saying "no problems" LMAO. well thank you for that scholastic breakdown of the types of shooting you have done with the lower. I dont have a problem with plastics as long as they function properly, which this doesn't seem to. I really dont see the purpose of a poly lower. the weight is a non issue, ACTUALLY, a lower that is TOO light will throw the weapons balance way off. Are you asking how they function? Did you want to know round count and type of ammo? Or were you just here to dismiss the product as "no good"? |
| Haters will hate. I have them both. I like alum and poly for different reasons and really don't care what anyone else thinks says or does. If you don't like poly or don't feel it's "safe" then don't use poly. There's plenty of other options for you. For those that say there's no weight difference either have never held/ used one side by side with alum or have too much tacticool crap on their gun to notice, is it my go to fail safe gun? Nope. But I'll grab it in a heartbeat if I have to. In the words of my brother, it is what it is. Stay safe, practice as much as you can afford to. |
| IMHO.. Most Polymer companies are 5+ years away from producing a lower that would be reliable enough for me to try. I wouldn't buy one without fully function testing one first and use it as I do my cheap lowers, examples being Andersons and PSA's. These become truck guns that get beat the snot out of, left behind truck seat, picked up, fired til their blazing hot and tossed in the bed of my truck for a bit just to be shot again by me or a friend at my farm's shooting range. Would any Polymer lower manufacturer put their lower through this? I doubt it and I don't even consider it abuse or torture, just a typical day out on the farm shooting and having a good time. Don't get me wrong, I have lowers/complete rifles that I'd never treat this way, and get babied but I'm not afraid to run them hard. |
|
Quoted:
Blah, blah, blah some stuff we heard about poly lowers on hand guns and that is 80% of the market these days. The JTM seems like a very nice piece and for most people it will serve just fine. Would I have it as my only rifle no but one of many sure. Pistols with polymer frames are designed around the characteristics and behavior of the material used. If someone made an exact one for one copy of an alloy or steel frame, (which were based on those material's properties) they might not perform as well. I think some designs are getting better, regarding the reinforcing of certain areas of the lower, however at some point the price and weight savings isn't going to amount to much. |
|
When the guys that owned Calvary Arms stated they couldn't come up with an AR lower that used a standard receiver extension. That pretty much settled the issue for me.
Yes, I do like the weight savings, but until someone offers a Lower that is manufactured from actual Carbon Fiber mat I'll avoid the CHEAP ASS PLASTIC lowers that WILL fail! |
|
I like the Cav-15mk II design. While changing things around to make a synthetic material lower that works, they also shaved weight by integrating the buffer tube and stock into the lower.
If you're practicing "every ounce counts," they provide perspective on how much a buffer tube and stock attributes to the weight of the rifle. |
|
Quoted:
I like the Cav-15mk II design. While changing things around to make a synthetic material lower that works, they also shaved weight by integrating the buffer tube and stock into the lower. If you're practicing "every ounce counts," they provide perspective on how much a buffer tube and stock attributes to the weight of the rifle. THIS! ^ |
AR Sponsor