Originally Posted by awp_101
I had never heard of any of this (InRange, WWSD, or frankly half their manufacturers) but the move to a polymer Cavarms-style lower is making it hard to take seriously...
https://www.brownells.com/firearms/r...rod132663.aspx
Why? Lighter weight, fewer parts, and durable, I don't see any downsides outside of chancing a front-heavy rifle in favor of lower overall weight and, most importantly, they look a bit goofy.
"Customer is very particular" -- SIG Sauer
There's probably a reason this style lower has been around almost 20 years, sold to 2 or 3 different companies, and not gained any popularity or widespread usage until InRange did their first WWSD rifle a few years ago.
What reason would that be, besides it looks goofy, "but muh metal", and the 2 or 3 different companies putting out products of varying quality? Is there something abhorrant about the concept itself that I'm missing?
"Customer is very particular" -- SIG Sauer
Fixed LOP, no ability to change the grip, weight savings isn't as much as people think, 1 lb 12oz for a complete Cav Arms lower vs 2 lbs 2 oz for a complete standard lower(I just weighed one of mine).
The AR lower was designed to be made of aluminum, when you introduce polymer into it there are areas that become weak. They addressed the portion at the rear of the receiver by making the stock a part of the lower, but the two ears at the front of the receiver where the upper attaches are still a common failure point with polymer receivers.
The whole WWSD project just screams "I'm being different for the sake of being different" which seems to resonate with a lot of their viewers so I'm sure they'll sell a ton whenever they come out. I appreciate a lot of their historical content they put out but the WWSD is just something that doesn't interest me in the least.
From a pure design perspective I don’t see that a polymer lower adds anything to the design so my question would be why.
A couple of other disadvantag not mentioned are having the pistol grip and butstock and buffer tube as permanent and non replaceable parts of the serialized firearm.
I also like anything that makes a firearm smaller so it is easier to store/transport like collapsible stocks. This might be an artifact from getting into guns during the awb and collapsing stocks beign verboten. Adjustability and the ability to customize are also nice.
From a purely philosophical perspective I do like the fact that we know metal guns will last a hundred years and still be functional if properly cared for and stored. Yes, I own and carry glocks, but for my uses I don’t see a polymer lower bringing the same advantages to a rifle that they do for handguns.
I wasn't aware of potential issues with the front attachment points. For the rest, sounds like it comes down to lack of customizabilty and "if it ain't broke don't fix it"? A couple ounces of weight savings (thought it would be more than that) doesn't sound particularly worthwhile unless it's backed up by substantially reduced cost. Thanks for the answers
"Customer is very particular" -- SIG Sauer
I tend to think of the poly lowers in two categories that at times get lumped together:
1) Carbon 15 style where poly is used as a 1:1 substitute for a traditional lower.
2) Cav/GWACS/KE Arms where the internal structure is designed around poly’s inherent strengths/weaknesses.
The Carbon 15 style are a hard no in my opinion. I’ve heard too many horror stories of them breaking at the receiver extension. The Cav style can be situationally acceptable depending on the desired use of the weapon. If the build principle of the entire weapon prioritizes simplicity and light weight, these may be an acceptable choice.
In the context of the WWSD project, I think it makes sense to use the lower given they are using pencil barrels and carbon hand guards. They are chasing ounces in nearly every single part selection. Frankly I think the title might be a little bit deceiving. The final product makes for a very handy rifle that is well-suited to be carried a lot or used in a competition environment, but is probably nowhere near sturdy enough for general issue military usage. I think the WWSD is like a pre-64 model 70 versus the M4 is a K98. Both are very good in their respective uses.
Anything I post is my opinion alone as a private citizen.
The WWSD is a neat design exercise, using the original Stoner idea of using modern lightweight materials & simplifying, but updating the concept by using the next generation of materials. So, instead of aircraft aluminum & plastics to replace steel & walnut, they're trying polymer & carbon fiber.
There's also a fair bit of Colyn Chapman's* design philosophy as well- "simplify, and add lightness".
I find it interesting, and hope it does well in the future.
*Lotus founder and chief terror
"You win 100% of the fights you avoid. If you're not there when it happens, you don't lose." - William Aprill
"I've owned a guitar for 31 years and that sure hasn't made me a musician, let alone an expert. It's made me a guy who owns a guitar."- BBI
Reply With Quote