Stupid, stupid question about holes.

[knockonit]

as with CA, i have maybe a half dozen i built from their lowers, never had issue, other than the little pin having to be found to finalize a fix.
they still go boom a lot
Rj

 

[cool arrow]

hell, Sean made me one with a custom ser# for my Beowulf, and even THAT upper didn't damage the lower.

I have had good luck with them, AND he was always a call away if I had any questions. His customer service was really good, and of the 4 or 5 that I have owned over the years, never had a crack or any problem.

One thing I would add if I was to buy another one though, would be anti-roll pins to keep the holes from wallowing over time.

 

[Jack Dupp]

Ugh. Poly lowers sucked then and they will still suck now. There's a reason Stoner designed them with the metals he chose. And I don't recall ever seeing the military using poly lowers in their armories.

 

[QuietM4]

The very first AR I ever bought was a Cavalry Arms. HUGE piece of sh!t. Right side of the mag well was on a different level than the left side so uppers wouldn't sit flush (about 3mm off), both trigger pins liked to walk out after about 200 rounds, only aluminum mags would fit (and even then I would have to file the mag catch on the mag so it would lock in place)...and then you realized that it is impossible to change the stock or grip.

Sold it after about 4 months...then I just started building my own AR's (the only factory build AR I've owned since was a Larue OBR)

 

[randall_dubya]

As OP mentioned, Forgotten Weapons has a video on the new poly lower.

It's a long watch, but does a solid job of explaining pros and cons of the various designs: History of the Monolithic Polymer AR: From Colt to KE Arms

As for the original question, I'd slap some QD cups in them (perhaps something like this, if the sizing matches up). Even if not planning to run a sling, eventually you may change your mind, plus it's nice to have the option.

 

[Solar_Empire]

Ugh. Poly lowers sucked then and they will still suck now. There's a reason Stoner designed them with the metals he chose. And I don't recall ever seeing the military using poly lowers in their armories.

Stoner used what he did because the technology of the time restricted him. Remember the original AR-10 (7.62x51) weighed a touch under 8 pounds. Plastic was brittle and cracked and barrels had to be thicker due to the inability to get consistent metallurgy. Thin barrels would heat up inconsistently and cause drastic POI shifts. Nowadays we have pencil barrels that can get mag dumped multiple times back to back and retain zero with no POI shift, the positive consequences of technology. People often forget that good plastics (and manufacturing processes in general) haven't been around that long. As for the military using poly lowers for rifles, if you mean the US then you would be correct but the G36 comes to mind that is military issued with a polymer receiver.

I bought one and am happy with it so far. Admittedly I am not shooting as much as before but a couple hundred rounds through mine so far and it's been smooth. The weight savings is noticeable and I am contemplating a second one.

 

[brian10x]

As OP mentioned, Forgotten Weapons has a video on the new poly lower.

It's a long watch, but does a solid job of explaining pros and cons of the various designs: History of the Monolithic Polymer AR: From Colt to KE Arms

As for the original question, I'd slap some QD cups in them (perhaps something like this, if the sizing matches up). Even if not planning to run a sling, eventually you may change your mind, plus it's nice to have the option.

QD cups. I'll explore that option! Thanks!