Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
New lightweight AR-15 project
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="NikatKimber" data-source="post: 3057689" data-attributes="member: 423"><p>I was able to play with a friend's before I ordered mine (at the same time he ordered two more). Trigger is surprisingly better than expected, quality seems alright. </p><p></p><p>Assuming they went with a higher power hammer spring due to the *significantly* lower mass, I can't see a problem with ignition except for hard primers that give standard hammers grief if paired with lighter springs. </p><p></p><p>As far as the use of polymer, again assuming that the proper polymer was used; I have no issues with it here or in the lower. </p><p></p><p>Polymer is an amazing engineering material. What it lacks is the extreme strength and heat resistance of metals. What it gains is the light weight and elasticity. In the right application and when designed for the properties, polymer is superior to metal. Wear properties can be poor if not designed properly. </p><p></p><p>The only downside IMO to a poly lower is that the buffer system is a stressed functional part of the system. This has been addressed with some of newer "hybrid" poly lowers that are molded over a metal core where the buffer tube screws in that takes the eccentric load and transfers it back to the lower portion of the receiver. Otherwise, the lower receiver just holds the magazine and fire control group in relative position to the bolt carrier. The simple FCG of the AR-15 lends itself well to the properties of polymer. A bullpup or around the magazine (like pistols) design with linkages would not work as well - or would require some of the parts to be metal.</p><p></p><p>Would I want a poly AR-15 lower / lpk on a battle rifle? No. Certainly not for the lower receiver, due to the reason mentioned above. The LPK just because I haven't studied the engineering application well enough to know if the poly is a long term substitute for the original steel parts. It could very well be in the AR-15, and a cursory look at the properties of poly and the design of the parts leads me to think so. However I can't say that for sure.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="NikatKimber, post: 3057689, member: 423"] I was able to play with a friend's before I ordered mine (at the same time he ordered two more). Trigger is surprisingly better than expected, quality seems alright. Assuming they went with a higher power hammer spring due to the *significantly* lower mass, I can't see a problem with ignition except for hard primers that give standard hammers grief if paired with lighter springs. As far as the use of polymer, again assuming that the proper polymer was used; I have no issues with it here or in the lower. Polymer is an amazing engineering material. What it lacks is the extreme strength and heat resistance of metals. What it gains is the light weight and elasticity. In the right application and when designed for the properties, polymer is superior to metal. Wear properties can be poor if not designed properly. The only downside IMO to a poly lower is that the buffer system is a stressed functional part of the system. This has been addressed with some of newer "hybrid" poly lowers that are molded over a metal core where the buffer tube screws in that takes the eccentric load and transfers it back to the lower portion of the receiver. Otherwise, the lower receiver just holds the magazine and fire control group in relative position to the bolt carrier. The simple FCG of the AR-15 lends itself well to the properties of polymer. A bullpup or around the magazine (like pistols) design with linkages would not work as well - or would require some of the parts to be metal. Would I want a poly AR-15 lower / lpk on a battle rifle? No. Certainly not for the lower receiver, due to the reason mentioned above. The LPK just because I haven't studied the engineering application well enough to know if the poly is a long term substitute for the original steel parts. It could very well be in the AR-15, and a cursory look at the properties of poly and the design of the parts leads me to think so. However I can't say that for sure. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
New lightweight AR-15 project
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom