"We are thankful for InRange TV’s WWSD project expanding the interest in the GWACS CAV 15 product. With this expanded interest we have virtually sold out of our MK II product line." You guys cleaned out their stock. KE arms were selling these with their triggers.
Or you can invest some money into a fiberglass shop and make some moulds. I personally work in the fiberglass production industry and would love to see my shop get some design specs for an AR lower build :D
Robert Bogan the die for a polymer mold would generally be a 2 piece that splits open after the injection process. Each half of the final product must be machined into an individual piece. That ain’t cheap, and the tolerances in injection molds, plus the cost of the materials is pretty stout for a small business. BUT injection molding is also fast as hell, and very cost efficient once it’s operational.
I’m laughing at Ian’s comment about collapsible stocks pulling mustache hairs. I issued an M16A2 while I was in the service, never a collapsible stock. I shoot my father’s AR with a collapsible stock, and lose a mustache or beard hair ever single time. I thought it was just me.
You guys create some of the coolest firearm related content on youtube. It's not much, but I'm proud to be a patreon supporter for both InRangeTV, and Forgotten Weapons.
I was in the Army during the A1-A2 transition. My training rifle was a FN A2, my first unit had Colt A1's (later converted to A2 overstamps), then I changed units and was back to FN A2's. I am 6'1" with gorilla length arms and A2 stocks are too long. The A1 got it right the first time with length of pull, barrel length, sights, FA, weight.... everything.
Great video. The thing I like about this one-piece concept is that, to me, it eliminates potential failure points. You don't have all of these seperate pieces that can come loose, or be out of spec. Fewer parts is fewer points of failure. However, if you have a failure, you can't replace the piece that broke. It's a trade off, but you've proven that this can withstand abuse and keep going in ways better than the traditional set-up.
Regarding the adjustable stock, I deliberately changed mine to a fixed one. I prefer stability and consistency to adjusting (what you are not doing anyway). An M4 being too long for closed quarters is a meme anyway.
Maybe you should have mentioned a few quirks like the proprietary takedown pins and the increased wall thickness that require modifications to that PDQ lever and that most anti-walk trigger pins (that use clips) won't work. None of them deal breakers to be sure, but little things I discovered when buying parts that would have been helpful to know ahead of time, and really should be advertised by GWACS, imo.
Those little ridges in milspec trigger pins gets the hammer spring stuck in them. Unless you made a mess installing your trigger, the spring will hold your pins, you don't need anti rotation pins
The little cut in trigger pins is actually for the hammer spring to sit in, and if you install the standard trigger correctly with the spring in those slots for both pins, the trigger will never walk out. I can't speak for every aftermarket trigger, but if you use the milspec one, you'll never need anti walk trigger pins unless you just think they look cool.
Isn't that where 3D printing comes in? So they CAN make those quick design modifications and decide if it's actually a viable option before actually going to mold-making?
The issue is that 3D printing has its own issues as well. Because of the way it works, parts breakage is more of an issue since its form is essentially layers of plastic welded together by residual heat from the feeder. Compared to molded plastic (which has much higher initial costs but results in a single continuous piece rather than a bonded layer cake), 3D printed parts can suffer from such issues. Also just because it technically works doesn't mean it'll sell.
@@classifiedad1 I think the point is to 3d print a prototype inexpensively to prove or disprove the concept before making the investment in the mold to mass produce the product
Vincente Baffoni I believe the initial concept implied manufacturing it, and then selling said product, with 3D printing. Which has the aforementioned issues meaning that while it is great for a company to rapidly prototype said lower, doing so for mass-manufacture is rather inefficient.
Got 2 of those as 'blems' a couple years ago. Sold one and kept one, I've had no issues at all. I like owning something a little different, and showing folks another option in a lower. I put a $1.50 ebay rubber grip sleeve on the grip as I've seen some do.
Karl, I bought one of these lowers on your guys recommendation, I wish I had the same experience you two have. Mine is horribley out of spec, hammer pin hole is too large and walks out, bolt catch channel is too large and the bolt catch will ride behind the mag so I have to strip the empty and won't hold bolt open, the gap between the stock and the upper is enough to see the bolt carrier touching the buffer which gasses me out, and the rear take down pin is far enough off center that I can't take the pin in and out without a hammer and punch. I really wish this was a better product because I liked the idea of a lighter one piece lower. Really glad didn't submit a form 1 on it before I bought all my other parts.
That has not been our experience with any of our GWACS lowers, and we have a few. I'd contact GWACS for warranty replacement. Always build and test fire anything before you file NFA paperwork, GWACS or otherwise. ~K
Selling plastic parts is easy. Producing and selling firearms brings .gov much more into your life. They likely decided it wasn't worth the hassle. Designing products and selling them off like the ACR is still easier than manufacturing and dealing with the compliance related to that.
I'm confident that Magpul would have done better at selling the ACR than Bushmaster and than Remington did. All the buzz disappeared and it never caught on. ATF compliance issues can take down an entire company...and when most of your products don't require an FFL and are highly profitable it just isn't worth it usually. That said they do have one AFAIK to maintain a company library of firearms and do R&D. But that's much easier to maintain compliance with than selling thousands of rifles. It's also significantly less product liability to only sell accessories. Selling firearms dramatically increases insurance costs over accessories alone even if its a small part of your business.
Yay polymers and plastics! Polymer, especially fiberglass-reinforced stuff is exactly what you want for something that needs to be light and strong, but not rigid. Not in the same way as milled aluminum is rigid, anyway. You guys did a great breakdown here of the advantages of a polymer-based lower, and I'm looking forward to putting that GWACS lower into my AR build once I get some more money coming in.
When I originally watched this, I thought to myself "Well my stock is rather far in. I must be the exception to the rule about A1 length". I rationalized why my stock would be shorter, thinking about how I'm a skinnier guy, and how it's in further because that balances better for me since I'm weaker, it works better with my armor, etc.. I was going to post a comment saying something about how you still need to plan around guys like me, but then I thought "well, what exactly is A1 length?". I measured my stock, saw that is was about 9 inches and thought there was no way the A1 was that short. A quick google searched yield the result that A1 was 9.5 inches. TL;DR: Yup. A1 is the proper length.
Also, if you're going into combat you will pretty much always have body armor on. So IF it was a problem, militaries should just standardize on shorter fixed stock to make up for plate carriers
More importantly, it still doesn't really matter as most soldiers use red dots and those have infinite eye boxes anyway so length of pull doesn't matter, you won't notice a problem unless you're at a flat range and like complaining
My AUG in the military was from 1982 and changed every 6 month it's user for 26 years befor I got it. Polymer was just fine, the whole weapon ran flawless. But I have to admit that Austria seems to have quite good chemists and some feeling for polymer in firearms (Steyr SSG69, Steyr AUG, Steyr SSG Carbon, Glock).
Apparently their molds for the Mark II died, hence why they had to stop making them. However, it sounds like they've been working on new versions, and they're planning on introducing a Mk III and Mk IV soon, so it's not all bad news.
When people think polymer is weaker than aluminum they can be right, but nylon 6 with 30% glass fiber reinforcement has the same tensile strength as 6061 aluminum.
If I were GWACS , I'd do the glock/Magpul thing and have adjustable backstraps/ frontstraps on the grip so that you can keep the monolithic assembly but still have a bit of modularity
I didnt know these things existed until i saw your videos. I am also excited for further development of polymer designed lower and I am going to buy one of these. Thank you guys and keep up the awesome videos.
To be fair to the lower that broke in the flashback video, it was being held differently to the polymer one, a longer lever arm is going to put more stress on that weak spot.
That was the very first thing I noticed when they showed the two clips. I'm all for technology advancement, but when testing things like this the tests need to be done exactly the same for both products. I honestly would like to see this test done again with the hand position moved further out as was done in the first test on the New Frontier lower.
When I lived in AZ, I had a chance to handle a carbine with a pencil barrelled upper with a GWACS (then Cavalry Arms) lower. The weight difference is almost staggering when you first pick it up. Actually, it is almost comical. Sadly, Cavalry Arms came to their demise before I was able to pick up one of their polymer lowers. Nice to see the lowers are still available. Fun fact: Cavalry Arms also made a run of mil-spec aluminum lowers. I did manage to get one of those and still have it.
I have a lower with an A1 reproduction stock on it, and it weighs 2lb 8 and 5/8 oz. On the GWACS site they say their lower weighs 1lb 5oz, so compared to the exact thing with aluminum it's nearly 1 and a quarter pounds less. I sort of learned what Ian learned with his first rifle being that 308 vepr. First firearm I ever owned was an 80% lower I made, and because I looked at too much stuff online, a Daniel defense 18 inch heavy barrel upper that the barrel weighs about 3.5 pounds. So love where you're going with all this. Only thing I would change is just go with the 20 in gunner profile on Ian's rifle.
Great video guys, helping to break the stigma of those 'crap' polymer lowers. I never quite understood the unwanted hate, aside from that weak point near the buffer. While I sell a lot of E3 Arms poly lowers, you guys are definitely peaking my interest in the GWACS/Cav Arms lower; also the A1 stock is perfect, and it doesn't pull your facial hair out.
I can vouch for the A1 length of pull story at 2gun. I'm also a (very) small framed person using an A2 stock in armor, with a very demanding optic in terms of eye relief, and I find it perfectly usable.
This is why I like you guys. You're willing to do a cons list on your pros and cons, you make a lot of sense when you do, and you put this shit through its paces before you opine. I've actually been debating the merits of the GWACS lower with a few buddies of mine for some time now and this video is an excellent argument for _both_ sides of that debate. Of course, the fact that the GWACS part covers buffer, grip, and all the like in a single unit, saves a bunch of weight, _doesn't eat your fisking beard_ , and comes in ZOMBIE GREEN are all selling points to me, but the fixed grip, fixed stock, and the nonstandard component issues discussed below are dealbreaker points for the guys that you ALSO talk about. Thanks again for this project, it's been extremely interesting to track.
You guys should really check out the V7 weapon systems Lithium Alloy lowers. Straight out of areospace just like the original AR receiver 60 years ago.
Your experiences with length of pull don't really line up with mine. I keep my stocks fully collapsed unless shooting from the prone. The majority of my shooting is done with armor, so the squared-up stance has become second nature to me. When on field training exercises, especially in force-on-force training, I find that a shorter length of pull makes the weapon easier to handle and quicker to shoulder. I have shot with A1-length fixed stocks (and MOE rifle stocks, somewhere between A1 and A2 LOP) while wearing armor, and find it difficult to acquire an acceptable sight picture. That problem may be reduced by using a reflex sight.
My plate carrier is pretty low profile (discontinued TAG rampage) and I'm pretty average size and I've never had issues with a1 length stocks, so it might just be a combination of armor bulk, the proportions of your own body, and optic setup that clash with the a1 stocks. Hopefully gwacs will start making adjustable ones like Ian and Karl mentioned.
As a Canadian, our issue armour is quite bulky (not just a plate carrier). I have found adjustable to be needed. I am intrigued by the savings in weight, however. Also, a solid stock is more stable.
Its like with bicyles. If you pay attention to even small parts you end up with a full-suspension cross bike without carbon fibre parts that weights unter 9kg with a large frame.
It seems that AR builds boil down to one concept, and that's personal preference. Especially when you build a gun from the ground up, you are choosing individual components that serve functions that are important to you, and add to the function of the entirety of the rifle. This, of course, is all tailored to what you are using the rifle for. Finally, because this is the commercial market and not the military, you are given options to choose from, and are free to select the components that best serve your function. Ian, Karl- I applaud you for thinking outside the box and providing some very important conversation and thought-provoking content. I do believe your ideas are innovative and are moving the industry forward. While I don't always agree with everything you say, I'm glad you guys say it. After all, it wouldn't be a conversation if everyone just simply agreed, or had nothing constructive to add. I'm looking very forward to seeing the WWSD concept in its full, finalized form and thoroughly enjoy the content you put out. Keep it up!
CAV-15 History and mods of the CAV-15 MKII at the bottom. Modifying the grip and stock length is possible if one is mechanically inclined. Also usually the people who do glock frame mods are capable of doing this stuff. sinistralrifleman.com/2013/01/27/history-of-the-cav-15-polymer-receiver/
300 ton press, serial tag inserted between cycles. the cycle time is about 60 seconds. halves are then welded together in a linear vibration welder. Some holes are drilled or reamed afterwards. Plastic over flow from weld is trimmed off or filed.
Is there an alternative to the GWACS receiver? It has been over a year that GWACS Armory has been working on the new mold. I wonder if they will ever restart production again.
JMT - james madison tactical - is the only polymer lower that has held up for me. i've done all the testing that I care to on a few of my lowers and all of them held up. my one lower has over 7000rds through it, to include 458 socom & grendel through it. also, THANK YOU for pointing out the A1 thing! I've been running fixed A1's and Fixed magpul carbine length stocks for AGES. eff that adjustable crap. the only exception to that for me is my Dolos pistol AR with Lawman Folder + SB15.
I've been anticipating this particular video because I wanted you guys to sell me on the GWACS CAV-15 and you have done just that. Thank you for doing this series, very informative. I think Eugene Stoner would be very pleased!
My bushmaster ACR actually has a polymer lower on it. Not comparing the two different rifles, but if they could somehow merge the two, but the bolt lock / release inside the lower the way the ACR is and still use other standard AR15 parts, I would be very excited.
I am finding this series incredibly interesting, informative and well done. Not unusual from you guys, but I like to give positive reinforcement when deserved, as I certainly do the opposite, and it seems only fair to acknowledge good work.
I may be several months too late on this, but an adjustable stock is absolutely necessary for smaller people wearing armour. I can't even comfortably hold a regular-stocked G36 while wearing a plate carrier. Having a adjustable stock turns "I can barely hold that thing up" into "I can comfortably ready, aim and shoot" for me. Now, I don't have the numbers here, but I'd wager the old G36 stocks aren't any longer than your A1-lenght one. And yes, you may be right, that lenght is absolutely fine from anyone between 173 - 193 cm but once you leave the statistic average and have to put on a plate carrier, adjustable stocks are no longer a "nice to have".
Whiles my WWSD inspired build is lacking a poly lower (something inspiring and really satisfying about holding an 80% lower youve milled witj your own hands) i am hopeful that as the 3d printing tech continues to mature and as new fillaments are developed we may see a rise of practical polymer lowers in the near future as more people can effectively and economicaly experiment with their development
Biggest issue for when I was in Marines (note I was a POG) on the line was with older gear it was way to long for most of our shooters using a a2/a4. Never measured to see if it was an length. The other major issue is with anything mounted and getting in and out of vehicles had almost all fully collapsed stocks.
7:01 I thought Karl was just being a jive turkey when he made this statement, but measured my length of pull on my adjustable stock & sure enough it was within a 1/4" of A1 length of pull.
Yup. Here’s the thing too, I know guys that run the stock almost all the way in or all the way out. Within that range as long as your optic eye relief is correct it almost doesn’t matter. What is far more important is consistency. Most collapsible stocks wiggle somewhat. I’ve definitely discovered I prefer the stability of a fixed stock.
I thought CavArms went out of business years ago. I'm happy to find that to not be the case, they're simply now called GWACS! Now if only they still made the gigantic range of colors... still, good news all around. I'll have to finally get another one.
Sheldon Robertson I traded in my stock in Cav Arms Corp for the CAV-15 mold and tooling. Later when getting an FFL became more trouble than it was worth, I sold it all to GWACS.
Cut to 2019 and GWACS is nowhere to be found, claiming their new lower would be out around a year ago. Doesn't seem to be any other polymer lower on the market with an integrated stock like this. Damn shame.
Did you look at titanium or magnesium lowers? The low temperature charpy impact numbers for glass filled nylons are my biggest concern. I'd also like to know what injection flow modeling (if any) was done along with some FEA simulation data to prove it's equivalent. Unfortunately don't see any MFG releasing that data.
You're only thinking about density, not specific strength. You need significantly less material so the lower ends up being lighter.. www.amalgamatedti.com/
Also, somebody should force the GWACS attorneys to watch the part at 7:00. Seriously, it's painfully obvious that they put zero effort into research before deposition.
I have an adjustable stock lower and really I keep it at the same length all the time EXCEPT for when my grandkids come to shoot. Then the adjustable length does come in handy for the younger ones as they need a much shorter stock than me.
That was a great video and really makes great case for the fixed stock. And i think the only problem i still have with it is it's aesthetics. Never liked the fixed stock look but that is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. Wonderful vid and series guys :D
I think magpul could and should get into the lower receiver game, their polymer blends are very sturdy and they have lots of experience with ergonomics. Something like this but with a monolithic UBR stock (where the top portion of the stock is built into the receiver) and an MOE profile grip (posibly it he interchangeable back straps and finger grooves) would be fantastic.
Agreed, the only adjustable stocks Ive used are the LMT sharpshooters in the UK and pretty much everyone used by somebody (who can actually shoot it well) I've ever picked up had the length of pull set pretty much the same
The Cav Arms owner actually posted a really good explanation why the cav arms lower was better than other polymer lowers on Getoffthex. Think it was after he sold it from the fall out on his debacle with the ATF.
Disclaimer, while I certainly hunted small game in my youth, I have never gone deer or duck hunting or anything that would require a heavier gun. That said, I always hear about heavier guns having "less recoil," "gentler 'felt' recoil," "more controllable 'recoil impulse.'" I also get how lighter, superfast bullets are devastating and lighter ammo is better for transport. However, do heavier rifles help for follow-up shots? Or is the weight of a rifle really only a factor on 3-round-burst and full auto? (Or does it depend on the ammo?)
I completely agree about the hair pulling. The fixed length Magpul stock on my wife's AR is a little short for me as she's 5'8" and I'm 6'4" but man it's so smooth on the face.
The grip issue is something that's already been solved by a bazillion polymer-framed pistol designs: swap-able back-straps (and front, preferably). Combine that with your ideas such as butt-plate extensions to change length of pull, maybe a cheek-stock riser, and when you make your new moulds you've already got a much-improved design that wouldn't cost too much more as plastic is cheap once the initial mould investment has been paid off. (Although it is _not_ lightweight, the M1A Archangel stock does all of this and comes in at under $300.)
I have used the GWACS Armory polymer lower since 2015 to teach classes. The length of pull works for must people that I've trained. I live in NJ and stocks that are adjustable are illegal. It is a lightweight part that you have to handle to believe the weight. I want another one just to build a lightweight rifle , sub 6 pounds, should be easy.
"if you were to only do 2 components, this and the barrel" Dammit. Those are the 2 components I was looking to change. I was going to ask for an opinion on a different more traditional lower, but I see I'd just be asking for a different build at this point.
I really want to take the recommendation and get this lower, but sadly every damn time I check the GWACS site they're listed as 'currently unavailable'. I don't know if they're just severely back ordered or (hopefully not) terminating production, but I've checked 4-5 times over the last few months and they're always unavailable with no backorder option. Kind of a bummer :/
"I've never had a problem with length" - Ian, 2017
Oh my
As long as you dont pull his mustache
That's what she said LOL
lmao
"We are thankful for InRange TV’s WWSD project expanding the interest in the GWACS CAV 15 product. With this expanded interest we have virtually sold out of our MK II product line."
You guys cleaned out their stock.
KE arms were selling these with their triggers.
And now they’re suing them
InRangeTV project 2021: Buy a 51% majority in GWACS so you can make them improve the polymer lower concept.
Or you can invest some money into a fiberglass shop and make some moulds. I personally work in the fiberglass production industry and would love to see my shop get some design specs for an AR lower build :D
How about a carbon fibre lower?
Dexter carbon fiber is brittle and impossible to repair once damaged. I think a polymer is better suited to the task of being a lower.
Robert Bogan the die for a polymer mold would generally be a 2 piece that splits open after the injection process. Each half of the final product must be machined into an individual piece.
That ain’t cheap, and the tolerances in injection molds, plus the cost of the materials is pretty stout for a small business.
BUT injection molding is also fast as hell, and very cost efficient once it’s operational.
They did it, how do you feel about partially predicting the future Jones?
Was the owner of Cavarms the driver of that truck?
No.
Yep... just checked my poor man's Iraq Mforgery. I have always kept the buttstock at A1 length, even when wearing bulky interceptor armor.
Jonathan Long
Mmm, interceptor.
"won't rip your facial hair out"
*SOLD*
This.
@TheVisigoth Hell the army should just recruit skinheads XD
Lars Engvik
When did they stop?!
@TheVisigoth using a KBAR
Really fun foreshadowing video to watch over here in 2022.
I’m laughing at Ian’s comment about collapsible stocks pulling mustache hairs. I issued an M16A2 while I was in the service, never a collapsible stock. I shoot my father’s AR with a collapsible stock, and lose a mustache or beard hair ever single time. I thought it was just me.
Depends on the stock my fren
You guys create some of the coolest firearm related content on youtube. It's not much, but I'm proud to be a patreon supporter for both InRangeTV, and Forgotten Weapons.
Mucho thank you!
Thanks to this video series, nobody can get these lowers anymore. That is real power!
I was in the Army during the A1-A2 transition. My training rifle was a FN A2, my first unit had Colt A1's (later converted to A2 overstamps), then I changed units and was back to FN A2's. I am 6'1" with gorilla length arms and A2 stocks are too long. The A1 got it right the first time with length of pull, barrel length, sights, FA, weight.... everything.
Great video. The thing I like about this one-piece concept is that, to me, it eliminates potential failure points. You don't have all of these seperate pieces that can come loose, or be out of spec. Fewer parts is fewer points of failure. However, if you have a failure, you can't replace the piece that broke. It's a trade off, but you've proven that this can withstand abuse and keep going in ways better than the traditional set-up.
Regarding the adjustable stock, I deliberately changed mine to a fixed one. I prefer stability and consistency to adjusting (what you are not doing anyway). An M4 being too long for closed quarters is a meme anyway.
We agree.
I literally just bought a blem for a WWSD project build yesterday, what perfect timing on this video.
Right, you've convinced me, I'll build mine to WWSD spec soon as I'm able to murica.
Maybe you should have mentioned a few quirks like the proprietary takedown pins and the increased wall thickness that require modifications to that PDQ lever and that most anti-walk trigger pins (that use clips) won't work. None of them deal breakers to be sure, but little things I discovered when buying parts that would have been helpful to know ahead of time, and really should be advertised by GWACS, imo.
We will discuss the PDQ in the PQD video, and yes, that's true. ~K
Those little ridges in milspec trigger pins gets the hammer spring stuck in them. Unless you made a mess installing your trigger, the spring will hold your pins, you don't need anti rotation pins
The little cut in trigger pins is actually for the hammer spring to sit in, and if you install the standard trigger correctly with the spring in those slots for both pins, the trigger will never walk out. I can't speak for every aftermarket trigger, but if you use the milspec one, you'll never need anti walk trigger pins unless you just think they look cool.
Isn't that where 3D printing comes in? So they CAN make those quick design modifications and decide if it's actually a viable option before actually going to mold-making?
@alan wake You could try to 3D print your own PMAGs too, no?
The issue is that 3D printing has its own issues as well. Because of the way it works, parts breakage is more of an issue since its form is essentially layers of plastic welded together by residual heat from the feeder. Compared to molded plastic (which has much higher initial costs but results in a single continuous piece rather than a bonded layer cake), 3D printed parts can suffer from such issues.
Also just because it technically works doesn't mean it'll sell.
@@classifiedad1 I think the point is to 3d print a prototype inexpensively to prove or disprove the concept before making the investment in the mold to mass produce the product
Vincente Baffoni I believe the initial concept implied manufacturing it, and then selling said product, with 3D printing.
Which has the aforementioned issues meaning that while it is great for a company to rapidly prototype said lower, doing so for mass-manufacture is rather inefficient.
@@vincentebaffoni8544 It seems that is exactly what they have done. The pre production part they showed at Shot Show was 3D printed.
I would say adjusting for armor is a relic of the issued IOTV vest which because they were so bulky around the shoulder they almost required it
I hate the iotv
Got 2 of those as 'blems' a couple years ago. Sold one and kept one, I've had no issues at all. I like owning something a little different, and showing folks another option in a lower. I put a $1.50 ebay rubber grip sleeve on the grip as I've seen some do.
Karl, I bought one of these lowers on your guys recommendation, I wish I had the same experience you two have. Mine is horribley out of spec, hammer pin hole is too large and walks out, bolt catch channel is too large and the bolt catch will ride behind the mag so I have to strip the empty and won't hold bolt open, the gap between the stock and the upper is enough to see the bolt carrier touching the buffer which gasses me out, and the rear take down pin is far enough off center that I can't take the pin in and out without a hammer and punch. I really wish this was a better product because I liked the idea of a lighter one piece lower. Really glad didn't submit a form 1 on it before I bought all my other parts.
That has not been our experience with any of our GWACS lowers, and we have a few. I'd contact GWACS for warranty replacement. Always build and test fire anything before you file NFA paperwork, GWACS or otherwise. ~K
Hopefully that's not because they're getting so many orders that they are cutting corners now.
hey Magpul!!! get to work!
I hope they buy GWACS out of their molds first. Otherwise someone is going to lose a lot of money.
Magpul doesn't want to make parts that require an FFL, at least in my conversations with them.
Selling plastic parts is easy. Producing and selling firearms brings .gov much more into your life. They likely decided it wasn't worth the hassle. Designing products and selling them off like the ACR is still easier than manufacturing and dealing with the compliance related to that.
I'm confident that Magpul would have done better at selling the ACR than Bushmaster and than Remington did. All the buzz disappeared and it never caught on.
ATF compliance issues can take down an entire company...and when most of your products don't require an FFL and are highly profitable it just isn't worth it usually. That said they do have one AFAIK to maintain a company library of firearms and do R&D. But that's much easier to maintain compliance with than selling thousands of rifles.
It's also significantly less product liability to only sell accessories. Selling firearms dramatically increases insurance costs over accessories alone even if its a small part of your business.
That would be Awesome! And sell it to the military too.
I built an m16a1 from a colt Vietnam era parts kit and you are completely right about length of pull and I'm a big 6'4" guy
Yay polymers and plastics! Polymer, especially fiberglass-reinforced stuff is exactly what you want for something that needs to be light and strong, but not rigid. Not in the same way as milled aluminum is rigid, anyway. You guys did a great breakdown here of the advantages of a polymer-based lower, and I'm looking forward to putting that GWACS lower into my AR build once I get some more money coming in.
@9:15
Ian: "No I've never had a problem with length." hahahahaha
You forgot the most important thing. You can buy this lower in ZOMBIE GREEN.
It comes in neon pink, yeah.
SOLD
Dumb
@@ggallen224 he was joking lol
Hell, I have one in zombie green. I have had thoughts of making one in Russian orange.
When I originally watched this, I thought to myself "Well my stock is rather far in. I must be the exception to the rule about A1 length". I rationalized why my stock would be shorter, thinking about how I'm a skinnier guy, and how it's in further because that balances better for me since I'm weaker, it works better with my armor, etc.. I was going to post a comment saying something about how you still need to plan around guys like me, but then I thought "well, what exactly is A1 length?". I measured my stock, saw that is was about 9 inches and thought there was no way the A1 was that short. A quick google searched yield the result that A1 was 9.5 inches.
TL;DR: Yup. A1 is the proper length.
It's funny how people have a problem with length adjustability but not when it comes to pistol braces.
Probably because that's the only way around the current infringements.
The Faxon barrel and a light weight handguard made all the difference for my build. A light weight optic and mount are also important.
Also, if you're going into combat you will pretty much always have body armor on. So IF it was a problem, militaries should just standardize on shorter fixed stock to make up for plate carriers
More importantly, it still doesn't really matter as most soldiers use red dots and those have infinite eye boxes anyway so length of pull doesn't matter, you won't notice a problem unless you're at a flat range and like complaining
That is actually an interesting method of testing the strength of your lower.
I just bought my second KP15, both in FDE because it looks so nice. Maybe I’ll get a black one next.
@9:14 Ian: "I've never had a problem with length." Kudos, sir.
My AUG in the military was from 1982 and changed every 6 month it's user for 26 years befor I got it. Polymer was just fine, the whole weapon ran flawless. But I have to admit that Austria seems to have quite good chemists and some feeling for polymer in firearms (Steyr SSG69, Steyr AUG, Steyr SSG Carbon, Glock).
AUG stocks are also thick as brick. I am impressed with how much poly they injected into those bad boys.
I think they had to. I've seen old pictures from testing in the 70's. The rifles had to be good after overrun with a car, as had the polymer mags.
At the end of the wwsd project, I want to see a break down of cost, weight, and availability of these parts.
Really wish this lower was still available.
:(
Apparently their molds for the Mark II died, hence why they had to stop making them. However, it sounds like they've been working on new versions, and they're planning on introducing a Mk III and Mk IV soon, so it's not all bad news.
Cameron Norton That was a more recent issue, iirc.
When people think polymer is weaker than aluminum they can be right, but nylon 6 with 30% glass fiber reinforcement has the same tensile strength as 6061 aluminum.
If I were GWACS , I'd do the glock/Magpul thing and have adjustable backstraps/ frontstraps on the grip so that you can keep the monolithic assembly but still have a bit of modularity
Lol but they could do that themselves.
I always look forward to new wwsd videos and the other stuff too! My go to when I'm tubin
If you have big hands I think some heat-shrink tennis racket sleeves could "adjust" that grip well enough.
I didnt know these things existed until i saw your videos. I am also excited for further development of polymer designed lower and I am going to buy one of these. Thank you guys and keep up the awesome videos.
thanks for the work and your open minds, taking the AR back to the rifle that was always the best of breed to me.
To be fair to the lower that broke in the flashback video, it was being held differently to the polymer one, a longer lever arm is going to put more stress on that weak spot.
That was the very first thing I noticed when they showed the two clips. I'm all for technology advancement, but when testing things like this the tests need to be done exactly the same for both products. I honestly would like to see this test done again with the hand position moved further out as was done in the first test on the New Frontier lower.
When I lived in AZ, I had a chance to handle a carbine with a pencil barrelled upper with a GWACS (then Cavalry Arms) lower. The weight difference is almost staggering when you first pick it up. Actually, it is almost comical. Sadly, Cavalry Arms came to their demise before I was able to pick up one of their polymer lowers. Nice to see the lowers are still available. Fun fact: Cavalry Arms also made a run of mil-spec aluminum lowers. I did manage to get one of those and still have it.
I have a lower with an A1 reproduction stock on it, and it weighs 2lb 8 and 5/8 oz. On the GWACS site they say their lower weighs 1lb 5oz, so compared to the exact thing with aluminum it's nearly 1 and a quarter pounds less. I sort of learned what Ian learned with his first rifle being that 308 vepr. First firearm I ever owned was an 80% lower I made, and because I looked at too much stuff online, a Daniel defense 18 inch heavy barrel upper that the barrel weighs about 3.5 pounds. So love where you're going with all this. Only thing I would change is just go with the 20 in gunner profile on Ian's rifle.
Great video guys, helping to break the stigma of those 'crap' polymer lowers. I never quite understood the unwanted hate, aside from that weak point near the buffer. While I sell a lot of E3 Arms poly lowers, you guys are definitely peaking my interest in the GWACS/Cav Arms lower; also the A1 stock is perfect, and it doesn't pull your facial hair out.
I can vouch for the A1 length of pull story at 2gun. I'm also a (very) small framed person using an A2 stock in armor, with a very demanding optic in terms of eye relief, and I find it perfectly usable.
This is why I like you guys. You're willing to do a cons list on your pros and cons, you make a lot of sense when you do, and you put this shit through its paces before you opine. I've actually been debating the merits of the GWACS lower with a few buddies of mine for some time now and this video is an excellent argument for _both_ sides of that debate.
Of course, the fact that the GWACS part covers buffer, grip, and all the like in a single unit, saves a bunch of weight, _doesn't eat your fisking beard_ , and comes in ZOMBIE GREEN are all selling points to me, but the fixed grip, fixed stock, and the nonstandard component issues discussed below are dealbreaker points for the guys that you ALSO talk about. Thanks again for this project, it's been extremely interesting to track.
Good to hear it's A1 length. Is the buttplate removable? I like the curve of the old VIetnam buttpad, vs. the A1 with the trapdoor.
ruclips.net/video/1Q3u7q0JSS8/видео.html
You guys should really check out the V7 weapon systems Lithium Alloy lowers. Straight out of areospace just like the original AR receiver 60 years ago.
Your experiences with length of pull don't really line up with mine. I keep my stocks fully collapsed unless shooting from the prone. The majority of my shooting is done with armor, so the squared-up stance has become second nature to me. When on field training exercises, especially in force-on-force training, I find that a shorter length of pull makes the weapon easier to handle and quicker to shoulder.
I have shot with A1-length fixed stocks (and MOE rifle stocks, somewhere between A1 and A2 LOP) while wearing armor, and find it difficult to acquire an acceptable sight picture. That problem may be reduced by using a reflex sight.
My plate carrier is pretty low profile (discontinued TAG rampage) and I'm pretty average size and I've never had issues with a1 length stocks, so it might just be a combination of armor bulk, the proportions of your own body, and optic setup that clash with the a1 stocks. Hopefully gwacs will start making adjustable ones like Ian and Karl mentioned.
As a Canadian, our issue armour is quite bulky (not just a plate carrier). I have found adjustable to be needed. I am intrigued by the savings in weight, however. Also, a solid stock is more stable.
I think what Karl is missing here isn't that adjustable stocks aren't there *because* they're needed, but rather *in case* they're needed.
Its like with bicyles.
If you pay attention to even small parts you end up with a full-suspension cross bike without carbon fibre parts that weights unter 9kg with a large frame.
Building an ar and a mtb ist that much different
A solution for the grip would be an inter changeable back strap like how a Sig grip is made.
It seems that AR builds boil down to one concept, and that's personal preference. Especially when you build a gun from the ground up, you are choosing individual components that serve functions that are important to you, and add to the function of the entirety of the rifle. This, of course, is all tailored to what you are using the rifle for. Finally, because this is the commercial market and not the military, you are given options to choose from, and are free to select the components that best serve your function.
Ian, Karl- I applaud you for thinking outside the box and providing some very important conversation and thought-provoking content. I do believe your ideas are innovative and are moving the industry forward. While I don't always agree with everything you say, I'm glad you guys say it. After all, it wouldn't be a conversation if everyone just simply agreed, or had nothing constructive to add. I'm looking very forward to seeing the WWSD concept in its full, finalized form and thoroughly enjoy the content you put out. Keep it up!
CAV-15 History and mods of the CAV-15 MKII at the bottom. Modifying the grip and stock length is possible if one is mechanically inclined. Also usually the people who do glock frame mods are capable of doing this stuff.
sinistralrifleman.com/2013/01/27/history-of-the-cav-15-polymer-receiver/
300 ton press, serial tag inserted between cycles. the cycle time is about 60 seconds. halves are then welded together in a linear vibration welder. Some holes are drilled or reamed afterwards. Plastic over flow from weld is trimmed off or filed.
Is there an alternative to the GWACS receiver? It has been over a year that GWACS Armory has been working on the new mold. I wonder if they will ever restart production again.
JMT - james madison tactical - is the only polymer lower that has held up for me. i've done all the testing that I care to on a few of my lowers and all of them held up. my one lower has over 7000rds through it, to include 458 socom & grendel through it.
also, THANK YOU for pointing out the A1 thing! I've been running fixed A1's and Fixed magpul carbine length stocks for AGES. eff that adjustable crap. the only exception to that for me is my Dolos pistol AR with Lawman Folder + SB15.
I will probably never use a polymer lower ever, but if I do this would be the one. Great video.
Back before we knew gwacs true colors.
What are their true colors?
I never thought I'd say this about Carl, but that little "hmmm" he made at 4:50 was adorable.
Wow this video has aged like milk
Edit, not because of any points made in this video.
Had other things to do but this was the video I've been waiting to see the most.
I've been anticipating this particular video because I wanted you guys to sell me on the GWACS CAV-15 and you have done just that. Thank you for doing this series, very informative. I think Eugene Stoner would be very pleased!
Has anyone done cold weather testing on these I like the idea of using one for a hunting rifle build
My bushmaster ACR actually has a polymer lower on it. Not comparing the two different rifles, but if they could somehow merge the two, but the bolt lock / release inside the lower the way the ACR is and still use other standard AR15 parts, I would be very excited.
I will be buying one when they are back in stock. I was never interested in a polymer lower until now.
I am finding this series incredibly interesting, informative and well done. Not unusual from you guys, but I like to give positive reinforcement when deserved, as I certainly do the opposite, and it seems only fair to acknowledge good work.
I may be several months too late on this, but an adjustable stock is absolutely necessary for smaller people wearing armour. I can't even comfortably hold a regular-stocked G36 while wearing a plate carrier. Having a adjustable stock turns "I can barely hold that thing up" into "I can comfortably ready, aim and shoot" for me. Now, I don't have the numbers here, but I'd wager the old G36 stocks aren't any longer than your A1-lenght one. And yes, you may be right, that lenght is absolutely fine from anyone between 173 - 193 cm but once you leave the statistic average and have to put on a plate carrier, adjustable stocks are no longer a "nice to have".
I still have my Cav Arms lower from when Eagle Arms was blowing them out. I’ll buy one in every color when Brownells has the new ones in stock.
Whiles my WWSD inspired build is lacking a poly lower (something inspiring and really satisfying about holding an 80% lower youve milled witj your own hands) i am hopeful that as the 3d printing tech continues to mature and as new fillaments are developed we may see a rise of practical polymer lowers in the near future as more people can effectively and economicaly experiment with their development
Biggest issue for when I was in Marines (note I was a POG) on the line was with older gear it was way to long for most of our shooters using a a2/a4. Never measured to see if it was an length. The other major issue is with anything mounted and getting in and out of vehicles had almost all fully collapsed stocks.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who loses moustache hairs to my ARs
7:01 I thought Karl was just being a jive turkey when he made this statement, but measured my length of pull on my adjustable stock & sure enough it was within a 1/4" of A1 length of pull.
Yup. Here’s the thing too, I know guys that run the stock almost all the way in or all the way out. Within that range as long as your optic eye relief is correct it almost doesn’t matter. What is far more important is consistency. Most collapsible stocks wiggle somewhat. I’ve definitely discovered I prefer the stability of a fixed stock.
Reeeeee. Please GWACS. Get the MkIII in stock :(
This is the future with 3d printing
I thought CavArms went out of business years ago. I'm happy to find that to not be the case, they're simply now called GWACS! Now if only they still made the gigantic range of colors... still, good news all around. I'll have to finally get another one.
elitearbor Cav Arms Corp closed in 2010, GWACS Armory LLC acquired the CAV-15 assets and began production in 2011/2012
Sheldon Robertson I traded in my stock in Cav Arms Corp for the CAV-15 mold and tooling. Later when getting an FFL became more trouble than it was worth, I sold it all to GWACS.
Rifles First The SAR site? Cavalry manufacturing LLC still sell those. The body is solid aluminum
two paths but similar results in teh Steyr AUG. i like new tech. i am ordering a lower next week hopefully and get in line at Brownells
Cut to 2019 and GWACS is nowhere to be found, claiming their new lower would be out around a year ago. Doesn't seem to be any other polymer lower on the market with an integrated stock like this. Damn shame.
@@panzerabwerkanone And now they are doing a wwsd 2020, with an improved polymer stock!
Did you look at titanium or magnesium lowers? The low temperature charpy impact numbers for glass filled nylons are my biggest concern. I'd also like to know what injection flow modeling (if any) was done along with some FEA simulation data to prove it's equivalent.
Unfortunately don't see any MFG releasing that data.
You're only thinking about density, not specific strength. You need significantly less material so the lower ends up being lighter..
www.amalgamatedti.com/
Reaper5.56 Xx I'll do some research. My background is in titanium and composite material research. There's a way to do it I promise.
Titanium is heavier then alumium already though.
Also, somebody should force the GWACS attorneys to watch the part at 7:00.
Seriously, it's painfully obvious that they put zero effort into research before deposition.
I have an adjustable stock lower and really I keep it at the same length all the time EXCEPT for when my grandkids come to shoot. Then the adjustable length does come in handy for the younger ones as they need a much shorter stock than me.
That was a great video and really makes great case for the fixed stock. And i think the only problem i still have with it is it's aesthetics. Never liked the fixed stock look but that is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. Wonderful vid and series guys :D
I think magpul could and should get into the lower receiver game, their polymer blends are very sturdy and they have lots of experience with ergonomics. Something like this but with a monolithic UBR stock (where the top portion of the stock is built into the receiver) and an MOE profile grip (posibly it he interchangeable back straps and finger grooves) would be fantastic.
Agreed, the only adjustable stocks Ive used are the LMT sharpshooters in the UK and pretty much everyone used by somebody (who can actually shoot it well) I've ever picked up had the length of pull set pretty much the same
Other nice thing about a plastic lower is that you can spin weld bits to it. Just have to match materials.
I totally agree. I've set my stock to the perfect length, and never ever moved it.
The Cav Arms owner actually posted a really good explanation why the cav arms lower was better than other polymer lowers on Getoffthex. Think it was after he sold it from the fall out on his debacle with the ATF.
Yup, one of those guns were mine. With it adjusted as I normally keep it, it was exactly the same length.
That beard pull is why i got a B5Sopmod stock.
Great vid guys. Been waiting for this one for awhile!
Why would they not include a rifle length buffer when they have an A1 length stock and it's not adjustable....
Disclaimer, while I certainly hunted small game in my youth, I have never gone deer or duck hunting or anything that would require a heavier gun. That said, I always hear about heavier guns having "less recoil," "gentler 'felt' recoil," "more controllable 'recoil impulse.'" I also get how lighter, superfast bullets are devastating and lighter ammo is better for transport. However, do heavier rifles help for follow-up shots? Or is the weight of a rifle really only a factor on 3-round-burst and full auto? (Or does it depend on the ammo?)
....For some reason I have a sudden desire to see an AR10 or HK417 with an enlarged GWACS lower
I completely agree about the hair pulling. The fixed length Magpul stock on my wife's AR is a little short for me as she's 5'8" and I'm 6'4" but man it's so smooth on the face.
Will you guys be covering bolt carriers for the WWSD project? Or you just using aero bcs'?
The grip issue is something that's already been solved by a bazillion polymer-framed pistol designs: swap-able back-straps (and front, preferably). Combine that with your ideas such as butt-plate extensions to change length of pull, maybe a cheek-stock riser, and when you make your new moulds you've already got a much-improved design that wouldn't cost too much more as plastic is cheap once the initial mould investment has been paid off. (Although it is _not_ lightweight, the M1A Archangel stock does all of this and comes in at under $300.)
I have used the GWACS Armory polymer lower since 2015 to teach classes. The length of pull works for must people that I've trained. I live in NJ and stocks that are adjustable are illegal. It is a lightweight part that you have to handle to believe the weight. I want another one just to build a lightweight rifle , sub 6 pounds, should be easy.
I enjoyed this video thank you Ian and karl
Is the lower compatible with a more retro-looking carry handle style upper?
Yes
"if you were to only do 2 components, this and the barrel"
Dammit. Those are the 2 components I was looking to change.
I was going to ask for an opinion on a different more traditional lower, but I see I'd just be asking for a different build at this point.
I really want to take the recommendation and get this lower, but sadly every damn time I check the GWACS site they're listed as 'currently unavailable'. I don't know if they're just severely back ordered or (hopefully not) terminating production, but I've checked 4-5 times over the last few months and they're always unavailable with no backorder option. Kind of a bummer :/
+misterballistics Yup. Same here.