aluminum or polymer 80%?

[kcstott]

And again the conjecture on being better. No they are not. Functionally indistructable??? I don't think so.

See one thing that sticks out in my mind, function!! Not w are we talking mall rat function or USMC function??
I think some hand to hand combat training would snap any poly lower.
And again promoting light weight. That not a desireable trait.
These mall ninjas carry huge ammo load out to keep them from blowing away in a stiff breeze.

[yari]

To all those poly guys, I was a vendor when I sold my 80, I am no longer a vendor because I no longer sell anything. If you have had been here awhile you would know that. We that have been here have heard many of the poly guys argue how their lowers are as good as aluminum. Its just not true. If I were in the market for an 80 I would buy a TM. They have a long track record and good prices, even during the panic price stayed the same. How's that for trying to sell something?

PS Nathan I'll take another 1911 thanks

[phantomfinisher]

Ah, I see, you have gone from selling to pandering. Angling for discount on that 1911?

j/k

You keep saying that no argument has been made about Poly being better, when several (not just weight) have been made.

But I digress, I stand by what I said, there are great products on both sides and I too have been a customer of TM for years.

All I can say is time will tell. Quality polymer lowers are a pretty new thing. The good ones will reveal themselves to have a great track record as well.

[nick]

I don't know why you would lube a lower either. Standard forged lowers are around 8.3oz +- a couple ounces depending on the manufacturer. Our regular lowers are 5.6oz stripped and our clear trainer lower is 3.6, we believe these are the lightest on the market. So, it is a little bit more than half an ounce. In the case of the clear. It's more like a quarter pound.

Wait, you've finally released the clear lower? Or does "trainer" mean non-functional?

[TnArmsCo]

Wait, you've finally released the clear lower? Or does "trainer" mean non-functional?

Yes, we have released it and Guns and Ammo has done an article about them and our regular lowers that will be available in October's "Book of the AR-15". We received a advance copy, and the whole magazine is great. It's kind of mind blowing that we went from no product at all, to being in Guns & Ammo in less than a year. Yes, we do advertise these as trainers, but we have also fired .50 Beowulf and dumped full combat loads (270 or so rounds back to back) out of them. We are fully confident that they will function at 100% when used as a range gun. However, these are made from a non-fiber reinforced polymer and we know they aren't as strong as our regular lowers. So that is why we attached the word "Trainer" to them. It's not just a show queen. They can absolutely be fired. We still offer a lifetime replacement warranty. We just ask that they be treated as a training tool or a range only gun. Our regular fiber reinforced lowers are rated for all the hell you can throw at them and we invite you to take out your frustrations on them, not the Ghost Gun. If you have any other questions about the clear. Fire away.

[TnArmsCo]

And again the conjecture on being better. No they are not. Functionally indistructable??? I don't think so.

See one thing that sticks out in my mind, function!! Not w are we talking mall rat function or USMC function??
I think some hand to hand combat training would snap any poly lower.
And again promoting light weight. That not a desireable trait.
These mall ninjas carry huge ammo load out to keep them from blowing away in a stiff breeze.

We've actually had a gunsmith up in PA try to kill our lowers. The last time I emailed him, he was still trying. No hand to hand combat, but mortaring and using our lower as an ax really impressed him. http://apexgunsmithing.com/poly-rece...esting-part-2/ . I'm not trying to say our lowers are the best in the biz, but I do believe we have a good track record for performance and customer service. Frank Proctor is creeping up on 8000 rounds through his lower. He teaches some of his carbine classes with it. We also have a trainer in Arizona that has over 15,000 rounds through his lower. He contacted me through reddit about getting a new lower "Just because it felt like it was time for a new one" but I encouraged him to keep using it until he killed it since there were no signs of wear to the lower. No trying to change your mind. Just stating my case.

[kcstott]

So when are you guys going to actually perform lab type tests and quit with the Youtube "test"

you guys need to take an aluminum lower and one of yours and set up force gages and push pull a twist on it till failure. Expose yours to copper solvents like Sweet 7.62 and some acetone and see how they hold up.

and yes I use acetone on my weapons, it the reason I said harsh chemicals in the first place. I'm not a Frog lube douchebag where my rifle has to be cleaned an lubed with only the most socially respectable and accepted lubes and solvents. to be set in a corner of the house smelling minty fresh. No I clean my guns with what is known and proven to work regardless of smell, toxicity, hazard or what ever.

Then you can publish your results and have empirical evidence that one is better then the other. Very simple. But all this opinion flying around, this guy tested that way and he shot X number of rounds through it. yeah thats scientific hold water like a sieve.

The primary part of product development is product testing and not by focus groups.

[TnArmsCo]

So when are you guys going to actually perform lab type tests and quit with the Youtube "test"

you guys need to take an aluminum lower and one of yours and set up force gages and push pull a twist on it till failure. Expose yours to copper solvents like Sweet 7.62 and some acetone and see how they hold up.

and yes I use acetone on my weapons, it the reason I said harsh chemicals in the first place. I'm not a Frog lube douchebag where my rifle has to be cleaned an lubed with only the most socially respectable and accepted lubes and solvents. to be set in a corner of the house smelling minty fresh. No I clean my guns with what is known and proven to work regardless of smell, toxicity, hazard or what ever.

Then you can publish your results and have empirical evidence that one is better then the other. Very simple. But all this opinion flying around, this guy tested that way and he shot X number of rounds through it. yeah thats scientific hold water like a sieve.

The primary part of product development is product testing and not by focus groups.

Well, the acetone I can do. We are still a small shop and do what we can physically to the lowers to test them. We do have a machine shop in the press building, but it is for machining parts, I'm not sure if they have force gauges. Most of the tooling they have is for fixing the molds. There isn't a local "lab" for me to send to that I know of. The only numbers I have on Nylon 6-6 are from the Data sheets that are available to anyone online. I do as much as I can to test these without sending them out to a BASF style lab that has the thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of equipment needed to do the type of testing you're speaking of. And while I would love to have that done, it's not up there on our list of things to throw money at. Everything we have is tied up in the AR-308 mold. Hopefully one of these days we will have the extra capital to get the third party lab work done. But, since we're still the little fish..we can't do that right now.

[Nathan Krynn]

If I were in the market for an 80 I would buy a TM. They have a long track record and good prices, even during the panic price stayed the same. How's that for trying to sell something?

PS Nathan I'll take another 1911 thanks

Thank you for this. Especially the part about the panic. I am extremely proud of the fact we did not price gouge like other companies. I never know if people remember these things but being a god fearing man I just have to answer to my own morals.

We do have 1911's in stock constantly now that we have got a second mill making them.

Oh yeah, keep an eye out for something new coming out.

Speaking of different materials you know us Camp Perry guys used to love steel receivers too.

(all of this has nothing to do with the OP or polly VS metal, sorry)

[Germz]

I don't trust polymer. Maybe on a .22lr AR, but I don't trust it on anything else.

[kcstott]

Well, the acetone I can do. We are still a small shop and do what we can physically to the lowers to test them. We do have a machine shop in the press building, but it is for machining parts, I'm not sure if they have force gauges. Most of the tooling they have is for fixing the molds. There isn't a local "lab" for me to send to that I know of. The only numbers I have on Nylon 6-6 are from the Data sheets that are available to anyone online. I do as much as I can to test these without sending them out to a BASF style lab that has the thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of equipment needed to do the type of testing you're speaking of. And while I would love to have that done, it's not up there on our list of things to throw money at. Everything we have is tied up in the AR-308 mold. Hopefully one of these days we will have the extra capital to get the third party lab work done. But, since we're still the little fish..we can't do that right now.

Not to throw you guy under the buss but don't you have a tool maker standing around that you can ask how to test something???

the number one most common and publicized failure of polymer lowers is the the receiver extension tower. so heres how you test it. go get a stack of forged lowers in 7075, a stack of 6061 billet and some 7075 billet just for GP

have your tool maker build you an adapter out of 4130ph or P20ph, build a fixture the will use the take down pins as a mount and a boss that will mount in a Hydro press. also have him make you a stub of the 1 3/16 threaded end of a buffer tube also made from 4130 or p20 ph.

Now go get your pressure gage on your Hydro press calibrated with a cert traceable to the NIST and ANSI. should cost around $50 for a calibration and cert. Preferably your gage will have a peak needle on it that is resettable.

Set up your fixture, get a Go Pro camera looking at the gage and fixture. install a lower and pump it down until the buffer tower fails or some other failure. Record your results, review the camera if necessary. do this to about five to ten of each type of lower and you'll see a decent base line reading.

Now install your polymer and push on it and see what fails and how it compares to Aluminum. There's your hand to hand combat test in a nut shell.

Now for firing type stress you need to pull on the tower that can be done with a double acting cylinder and well built fixture and again a calibrated gage.

pump it up and pull on it till it fails.

Now you have empirical data to post and site on the web site.

Not to difficult.

But if you guys had some decent engineering software you could put your design in and run it with stress analysis and see how much it can withstand. You can change materials in a drop down box.

[ModulusArms]

I think they both have their advantages but if you are going to buy a 100% lower I don't really see a comparison.

I ran a quick analysis for you folks. I can't share everything because we have done a lot of proprietary analysis and I can't share it all.

I am attaching a couple images which show the results.

For those of you not familiar with this I can tell you a few conclusions and assumptions. First, the ONLY difference from one analysis to the next is a material change and loading. Second, I used 7075-T6 for one and Nylon 10/6 for the other. The model is loaded axially down the buffer mount through the threads. This uses the same model for each so the reinforcements that are present on some polymer lowers is not included. If someone supplies a polymer lower model I can use a real one.

Major takeaways are that the 7075-T6 lower can handle roughly 1000 lbs before yielding. Nylon 6/10 can handle roughly 290 lbs. Its important to note that the aluminum one would start to yield at this point but would not break in half. It would just bend a bit. Eventually it would break if you kept going. The nylon would deform much more during the loading. In the attached images you can visually see the deformation in the lower.

The aluminum one would handle repetitive cycles well but since aluminum does not have an endurance limit it does weaken due to fatigue. The amount of cycles before this would be an issue is so high it doesn't matter in reality. Some polymers handle fatigue well but Nylon doesn't handle it very well. It would fail at lower and lower values after you put it through numerous cycles. If you had a glass filled or similar polymer they can add some strength but you lose impact resistance and they become brittle.

Temperature will really weaken the polymer and it would crack in cold temperatures. They will also deform more under elevated temperatures.

The density of the polymer is roughly half that of aluminum depending on exact blend but they need to have more plastic to add strength. They also needed inserts which add weight. The polymer should be lighter, though.

These are all rough numbers and showed be used qualitatively and not quantitatively.

**Disclaimer: I am a vendor for aluminum lowers. I am also a mechanical engineer and design aluminum and plastic injection molded parts regularly.

[TnArmsCo]

I think they both have their advantages but if you are going to buy a 100% lower I don't really see a comparison.

I ran a quick analysis for you folks. I can't share everything because we have done a lot of proprietary analysis and I can't share it all.

I am attaching a couple images which show the results.

For those of you not familiar with this I can tell you a few conclusions and assumptions. First, the ONLY difference from one analysis to the next is a material change and loading. Second, I used 7075-T6 for one and Nylon 10/6 for the other. The model is loaded axially down the buffer mount through the threads. This uses the same model for each so the reinforcements that are present on some polymer lowers is not included. If someone supplies a polymer lower model I can use a real one.

Major takeaways are that the 7075-T6 lower can handle roughly 1000 lbs before yielding. Nylon 6/10 can handle roughly 290 lbs. Its important to note that the aluminum one would start to yield at this point but would not break in half. It would just bend a bit. Eventually it would break if you kept going. The nylon would deform much more during the loading. In the attached images you can visually see the deformation in the lower.

The aluminum one would handle repetitive cycles well but since aluminum does not have an endurance limit it does weaken due to fatigue. The amount of cycles before this would be an issue is so high it doesn't matter in reality. Some polymers handle fatigue well but Nylon doesn't handle it very well. It would fail at lower and lower values after you put it through numerous cycles. If you had a glass filled or similar polymer they can add some strength but you lose impact resistance and they become brittle.

Temperature will really weaken the polymer and it would crack in cold temperatures. They will also deform more under elevated temperatures.

The density of the polymer is roughly half that of aluminum depending on exact blend but they need to have more plastic to add strength. They also needed inserts which add weight. The polymer should be lighter, though.

These are all rough numbers and showed be used qualitatively and not quantitatively.

**Disclaimer: I am a vendor for aluminum lowers. I am also a mechanical engineer and design aluminum and plastic injection molded parts regularly.

Could you do that same test and some how factor in the brass insert we have in the buffer tower?

[SERIAL SNIPER]

Well, the acetone I can do. We are still a small shop and do what we can physically to the lowers to test them. We do have a machine shop in the press building, but it is for machining parts, I'm not sure if they have force gauges. Most of the tooling they have is for fixing the molds. There isn't a local "lab" for me to send to that I know of. The only numbers I have on Nylon 6-6 are from the Data sheets that are available to anyone online. I do as much as I can to test these without sending them out to a BASF style lab that has the thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of equipment needed to do the type of testing you're speaking of. And while I would love to have that done, it's not up there on our list of things to throw money at. Everything we have is tied up in the AR-308 mold. Hopefully one of these days we will have the extra capital to get the third party lab work done. But, since we're still the little fish..we can't do that right now.

after this statement alone i would never buy anything from you. " I do as much as I can to test these without sending them out to a BASF style lab that has the thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of equipment needed to do the type of testing you're speaking of. And while I would love to have that done, it's not up there on our list of things to throw money at"
this tells me your jumping on the bandwagon to make a fast buck. kinda like ice arms did look where there at these days. It looks like you mentality is FU%K testing just get the product out there so we can make money. another question is if your not willing to do the proper tests of your product where else did you cut corners? something you have to remember your not making shoes where if they don't work correctly you throw them away. your essentially making firearms where if it fails somebody could get hurt.

i seem to remember about 15 years ago watching the super bowl and you had all these adds for .com companies. then the very next year all of them were belly up and there was a monkey riding a horse through a ghost town with all the .com busts. it seems that we are going through that same thing right now. how long till we add your name to the bust list. with all the other poly lower people

[TnArmsCo]

after this statement alone i would never buy anything from you. " I do as much as I can to test these without sending them out to a BASF style lab that has the thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of equipment needed to do the type of testing you're speaking of. And while I would love to have that done, it's not up there on our list of things to throw money at"
this tells me your jumping on the bandwagon to make a fast buck. kinda like ice arms did look where there at these days. It looks like you mentality is FU%K testing just get the product out there so we can make money. another question is if your not willing to do the proper tests of your product where else did you cut corners? something you have to remember your not making shoes where if they don't work correctly you throw them away. your essentially making firearms where if it fails somebody could get hurt.

i seem to remember about 15 years ago watching the super bowl and you had all these adds for .com companies. then the very next year all of them were belly up and there was a monkey riding a horse through a ghost town with all the .com busts. it seems that we are going through that same thing right now. how long till we add your name to the bust list. with all the other poly lower people

No, we haven't done the testing because we can't afford it.Forgive me for telling you the truth and not making it seem like we are a bigger company than we are. All of our capital when we first started went back into making corrections to our mold. Even though you may think the material is cheap, the tooling is not. We are not a fly by night company and we make the highest quality Hybrid lower in the industry. If you would look further than what you see on a forum page and look at what our customers think of our lowers, you will find that our product and our customer service is all top notch. If you disagree with the testing of our lower and don't believe enough was done, that is your opinion. We would not, and did not send out an unsafe product. We have yet to have a replacement in due to failure, only replacements to upgrade to an improved model. Comparing us to Ice Arms is kind of a low blow when you haven't had any experience with our products or service. We are veteran own and operated and stand behind our product 110%. We are available anytime at 731-334-5106 or by email at john@tac-llc.com or dave@tac-llc.com if you would like any details on our lowers, manufacturing process, or testing procedure.
Thanks , john