Somtimes I feel that the 15-22 gets a bad rap because it's polymer...

I didn't want to argue the term "pot metal" but any zinc alloy can be called pot metal.
It doesn't make it a bad thing, Ask anyone who owns a Highpoint.
I think Colt used it to put weight into an area of the gun where high strength isn't necessary but extra weight is desirable.

the thing is, Is to not get hung up on "names" and look at how it works and feels. I know there are alot of Highpoint owners who are very happy with their whole gun even tho its made of pot metal, Frame and slide anyhow.

Last time i checked plastic cost alot less than any pot metal does.
So if anything the S&W guys like me should be mad we bought Super Soaker squirt guns with metal internals.
 
Plastics are cheaper than metal? Not really.. Depends a lot on the plastic.. There are lots of composite materials that cost more than steel, pound for pound. :)
 
the glocks at our local police academy are used every year for training, thousands and thousands and thousands of rounds have been through them with no problems. I love hi-points, they are cheap and shoot great. there is nothing wrong with polymer unless it explodes in your face and causes people to start hating one of the best gun companies in the world. :(
 
For the record.... NONE of the 15-22's have "Exploded" there may have been Out Of Battery discharges, which have dislodged the extractors, but there have been no sort of exploding guns, the polymer has held up, and I can and have shown you similar Out Of Battery discharges in everything from AR 22 Conversion kits to the Ruger 10/22 to the Mark II.
 
For as many OOB as these 15-22s are reported to have (which seems to be a great deal more than other .22s) I think we would have had reports on the Forum by now if the polymer failed. And I really can't imagine that a .22 OOB would ever be capable of doing so. Though, there have been a few reports of the polymer "chipping" around the ejection port for whatever reason, and that really sucks.

As far as 'explosion' - The casing explodes and that's the issue. There's pics in this forum of a girl catching a frag in her arm.
 
Yep Polymer is pretty tough stuff.. Tough enough to make cars out of...

Add some fibers to the plastic and you get a material that can have more torsional rigidity than steel.
 
For the record.... NONE of the 15-22's have "Exploded" there may have been Out Of Battery discharges, which have dislodged the extractors, but there have been no sort of exploding guns, the polymer has held up, and I can and have shown you similar Out Of Battery discharges in everything from AR 22 Conversion kits to the Ruger 10/22 to the Mark II.

im pretty sure that most people would find the sarcasm in that post brett, i would hope that nobody would think that the gun itself exploded on somebody. if anyone that comes here wants to hate polymer, look up a company called MOOG, they make hydraulic actuators and bearings using this stuff.
 
JS,

:) It's all good! As I've said before, I don't think these rifles should fire OOB, but I can say the same about the Ceiner conversion kits, the 10/22, the Mark II and Mark III, the 22 Glock conversion kits and the Beretta 22 conversion kits, all of which I found examples of OOB on the net.

It's sad that these items were manufacturer and sent out to us, to Beta test!
 
...and for all these years I thought "pot metal" was some kinda hard rock music the kids listened to while gettin' high... silly me.

I for one welcome our new Polymer overlords!! (and love my poly guns!)
 
It seems like when I see folks comparing the 15-22 to another .22 tactical rifle platform, I hear a lot of, "It's all plastic and light", or "It feels like a toy".

To me I like the light weight design. I like having kick on a .22 rifle, for me it is part of the fun. People also forget that there are are several well made polymer based handguns out there too.

Polymer is a proven platform - "see Glock". It proven for it's durability, longevity, and lack of corrosion. Despite all the benefits people will hate on them because they may be old fashioned or they just don't understand the benefits. There are also a lot fanboys out there who will taut what they own and downplay what they don't.

For me it was simple, I basically had four choices.

.22lr conversion kit for my AR15
Dedicated upper for my AR15
Colt .22 AR15
S&W 15-22

I went with the 15-22 largely because it was polymer. I appreciate the benefits, especially the absence of the additional weight. Last time I checked this was a desirable feature in a firearm. I also liked the fact that the manual of arms closely imitates my real AR.

I think most of the people that knock would sing a different tune if they were able to put about 500 rounds through the bad boy, that's only my opinion of course.
 
I own 6 Glock handguns. One of which is the first gen G17. That particular G17 has shown no wear for the worst after some 17,000+ rounds. It was retired to the safe a few years ago for sentimental reasons. I'm sure that the polymer frame could go another 17,000 rounds without issue.
 
Ill make my opinions on polymer used in guns in 60 years which would make me 99 years old.
Plastic does become brittle with age, But iirc Glock has been around 25+ years and no signs of brittleness has showed up yet.

The only proven gun material that has been known to handle 100 years and still be usable is steel. But even then the advances in ammo many times made those steels too weak to contain them.

So no material is future proof and its all safe, Some just have more and different benefits and downsides than others.

The big test will not be if you gun will still work in 100 years it will be do they still make ammo to shoot in that gun anymore.
 
I just hope the big test isn't that you won't even be allowed to have a gun in 100 years.
 
ooo. Nice Star Trek reference.

+1

When I pick up the 15-22, it doesn't feel like a cheap piece of plastic to me. I think that the polymer will still be just like new in 100 years time. That is part of the problem with the material, if it ends up in a landfill. I could see intense UV damaging it on the surface, maybe. Most composites are UV resistant nowadays.

Composites are more tolerant of flex and strain than are metals and might actually survive more damage than machined metal parts.

This is not your daddys plastic anymore.

I want a 17HMR upper!
 
Much of the fuselage of the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Airbus A350 XWB will be composed of CFRP (carbon fiber reinforced polymer) according to my buddy, Pilot Mike. He flies a 330 Airbus and ought to know about which he speaks.

Both airplane manufacturers claim that the CFPR is both lighter and stronger than aluminum. I think, then, it ought to be strong enough for a firearm.

I like the 15-22--I don't particularly like S&W anymore.
 
just for the record i went out and bought a new hi-point C9. cleaned off the excess oil and went and shot it. felt good. nothing wrong with polymer :D
 
Déjà vu comments from the 1960's when the U.S. Air Force sent some "plastic" M-16 rifles to Vietnam for field testing against the Viet Cong & NVR.

Burt Rutan proved the reliability of composites in aircraft components decades ago. The OLD F-16 Fighter had a composite tail in the 1970's.

Now we have polymer upper & lower receivers from S&W.

Anyone except me remember the Remington Nylon 22 Rifle in the 1970's, that K-Mart use to give away for FREE every-time you purchased 5K rounds of Remington .22LR ammo?
 
Personally, I love the polymer construction. Besides the advantage of being lightweight, it is durable and corrosion proof. What's not to like?
 
Back
Top