[ARCHIVED THREAD] - I recently examined and tested an Arizona Regulator three position FRT (Page 3 of 8)
|
Quoted: Yep, I couldn't care less about patent issues myself. I do find it odd that RB/ABC have not sent JD a CD letter or filed a suit since they seem to have targeted damn near if not every other FRT manufacturer... There’s a lot of overlap between genius and madness. RB might not want to find out exactly how much overlap in this case. I am glad that JD is pushing the boundaries. |
|
Meh Shockwave mockwave, still waiting for that SKS bump stock to make it to market.  Attached File |
|
Quoted: I talked with JD about it. He said as long as it's a reputable make, it should be fine. I bought a POF ambi 3 way selector, but I need to get a AZR to confirm my math.  Jay So, this is a standard 3 position M-16 selector that is provided with the AZ Regulator? |
|
Quoted: ..Also...Rare Breed can go fuck themselves, since they have decided to be assholes by sending out their lawyer letters to any and all folks involved in the FRT/SS market. That includes folks building Hoffman Super Safeties components, which are nothing like a Rare Breed FRT in any way. RB is doing bad guy shit, and if you support RB in this endeavor in any way, you are a bad person too. Specifically, Rare Breed is required per their settlement agreement to defend their patent, as excerpted below: 9. RBT, RBF, Mr. DeMonico, and Mr. Maxwell agree to take all reasonable efforts to engage in patent enforcement seeking prohibitory injunctions against any person or entity that manufacturers, sells, or distributes any FRT during the life of U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223 patent, provided RBT, Mr. DeMonico, and Mr. Maxwell have a good faith argument that the device is within the scope of the patent. The United States will not bear litigation costs of any patent enforcement actions. Now, it could be argued that Rare Breed shouldn't have made that agreement, but that's the deal they made. I wouldn't want to be in their position against the federal conviction machine. |
|
Quoted: I don't understand all the hate for Rare Breed ever since it was mentioned on here the details of Rare Breed's settlement. You can read the document here: https://gunrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/FRT-Settlement-Agreement-FINAL.pdf Specifically, Rare Breed is required per their settlement agreement to defend their patent, as excerpted below: 9. RBT, RBF, Mr. DeMonico, and Mr. Maxwell agree to take all reasonable efforts to engage in patent enforcement seeking prohibitory injunctions against any person or entity that manufacturers, sells, or distributes any FRT during the life of U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223 patent, provided RBT, Mr. DeMonico, and Mr. Maxwell have a good faith argument that the device is within the scope of the patent. The United States will not bear litigation costs of any patent enforcement actions. Now, it could be argued that Rare Breed shouldn't have made that agreement, but that's the deal they made. I wouldn't want to be in their position against the federal conviction machine. The issue is they keep going after things outside their patent, and they know those things are outside their patent...and that is not even taking into consideration whether their patent(s) are valid. |
|
Quoted: The issue is they keep going after things outside their patent, and they know those things are outside their patent...and that is not even taking into consideration whether their patent(s) are valid. Quoted: Quoted: I don't understand all the hate for Rare Breed ever since it was mentioned on here the details of Rare Breed's settlement. You can read the document here: https://gunrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/FRT-Settlement-Agreement-FINAL.pdf Specifically, Rare Breed is required per their settlement agreement to defend their patent, as excerpted below: 9. RBT, RBF, Mr. DeMonico, and Mr. Maxwell agree to take all reasonable efforts to engage in patent enforcement seeking prohibitory injunctions against any person or entity that manufacturers, sells, or distributes any FRT during the life of U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223 patent, provided RBT, Mr. DeMonico, and Mr. Maxwell have a good faith argument that the device is within the scope of the patent. The United States will not bear litigation costs of any patent enforcement actions. Now, it could be argued that Rare Breed shouldn't have made that agreement, but that's the deal they made. I wouldn't want to be in their position against the federal conviction machine. The issue is they keep going after things outside their patent, and they know those things are outside their patent...and that is not even taking into consideration whether their patent(s) are valid. It's like he didn't even read the part in both my posts in this thread where I said that they have been sending cease and desist letters to manufacturers of Hoffman SS components, which are NOTHING even remotely close to the RB patent. . |
|
Quoted: I don't understand all the hate for Rare Breed ever since it was mentioned on here the details of Rare Breed's settlement. You can read the document here: https://gunrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/FRT-Settlement-Agreement-FINAL.pdf Specifically, Rare Breed is required per their settlement agreement to defend their patent, as excerpted below: 9. RBT, RBF, Mr. DeMonico, and Mr. Maxwell agree to take all reasonable efforts to engage in patent enforcement seeking prohibitory injunctions against any person or entity that manufacturers, sells, or distributes any FRT during the life of U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223 patent, provided RBT, Mr. DeMonico, and Mr. Maxwell have a good faith argument that the device is within the scope of the patent. The United States will not bear litigation costs of any patent enforcement actions. Now, it could be argued that Rare Breed shouldn't have made that agreement, but that's the deal they made. I wouldn't want to be in their position against the federal conviction machine. Quoted: Quoted: ..Also...Rare Breed can go fuck themselves, since they have decided to be assholes by sending out their lawyer letters to any and all folks involved in the FRT/SS market. That includes folks building Hoffman Super Safeties components, which are nothing like a Rare Breed FRT in any way. RB is doing bad guy shit, and if you support RB in this endeavor in any way, you are a bad person too. Specifically, Rare Breed is required per their settlement agreement to defend their patent, as excerpted below: 9. RBT, RBF, Mr. DeMonico, and Mr. Maxwell agree to take all reasonable efforts to engage in patent enforcement seeking prohibitory injunctions against any person or entity that manufacturers, sells, or distributes any FRT during the life of U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223 patent, provided RBT, Mr. DeMonico, and Mr. Maxwell have a good faith argument that the device is within the scope of the patent. The United States will not bear litigation costs of any patent enforcement actions. Now, it could be argued that Rare Breed shouldn't have made that agreement, but that's the deal they made. I wouldn't want to be in their position against the federal conviction machine. "provided RBT, Mr. DeMonico, and Mr. Maxwell have a good faith argument that the device is within the scope of the patent" That is why |
|
Quoted: "provided RBT, Mr. DeMonico, and Mr. Maxwell have a good faith argument that the device is within the scope of the patent" That is why Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ..Also...Rare Breed can go fuck themselves, since they have decided to be assholes by sending out their lawyer letters to any and all folks involved in the FRT/SS market. That includes folks building Hoffman Super Safeties components, which are nothing like a Rare Breed FRT in any way. RB is doing bad guy shit, and if you support RB in this endeavor in any way, you are a bad person too. Specifically, Rare Breed is required per their settlement agreement to defend their patent, as excerpted below: 9. RBT, RBF, Mr. DeMonico, and Mr. Maxwell agree to take all reasonable efforts to engage in patent enforcement seeking prohibitory injunctions against any person or entity that manufacturers, sells, or distributes any FRT during the life of U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223 patent, provided RBT, Mr. DeMonico, and Mr. Maxwell have a good faith argument that the device is within the scope of the patent. The United States will not bear litigation costs of any patent enforcement actions. Now, it could be argued that Rare Breed shouldn't have made that agreement, but that's the deal they made. I wouldn't want to be in their position against the federal conviction machine. "provided RBT, Mr. DeMonico, and Mr. Maxwell have a good faith argument that the device is within the scope of the patent" That is why Good faith and RB don't exactly go hand-in-hand. 
|
|
Quoted: The issue is they keep going after things outside their patent, and they know those things are outside their patent...and that is not even taking into consideration whether their patent(s) are valid. Quoted: Quoted: I don't understand all the hate for Rare Breed ever since it was mentioned on here the details of Rare Breed's settlement. You can read the document here: https://gunrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/FRT-Settlement-Agreement-FINAL.pdf Specifically, Rare Breed is required per their settlement agreement to defend their patent, as excerpted below: 9. RBT, RBF, Mr. DeMonico, and Mr. Maxwell agree to take all reasonable efforts to engage in patent enforcement seeking prohibitory injunctions against any person or entity that manufacturers, sells, or distributes any FRT during the life of U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223 patent, provided RBT, Mr. DeMonico, and Mr. Maxwell have a good faith argument that the device is within the scope of the patent. The United States will not bear litigation costs of any patent enforcement actions. Now, it could be argued that Rare Breed shouldn't have made that agreement, but that's the deal they made. I wouldn't want to be in their position against the federal conviction machine. The issue is they keep going after things outside their patent, and they know those things are outside their patent...and that is not even taking into consideration whether their patent(s) are valid. |
|
Thanks for the write-up, and although definitely not an SME I came to similar conclusions when playing with mine. Thankfully I re-homed a couple from guys that had more concerns than me, but know they will be cared for in their new homes. Once again thanks to the OP for the well detailed research!! |
| OP, take photos of black things on a dark background. On a white background, the camera adjusts the exposure to the brightest object in the scene, i.e. the white background. That has the effect of underexposing the black objects and effectively rendering a silhouette. |
|
Quoted: Thanks for bringing this aspect up and weighing in. My viewpoint is from dealing with manufacturers/retailers that are being served "cease and disist" letters from Rare Breed attorneys regarding the Hoffman Super Safeties, and other FRT's devices being manufactured and sold from various retailers. The legal side of these devices in the manufacturing and sales aspect has been nothing short of a legal shit show thanks to the RB lawyers sending out letters to ANYONE that is manufacturing/retailing the various devices.....including the Hoffman Super Safeties.....which are nothing like the RB FRT in the way it operates. At 1st glance the OP's post was asserting that the AZR was violating the RB patent. And given the overreach that RB's attorneys are currently engaged in, it sent up a red flag for me. From the OP's 1st post..... -"It appears to most likely violate Rare Breed/ABC's current patents. (ref Atrius Inter Partes Review No.: 2025 1473)" It makes me wonder if the OP is being paid/receiving compensation from RB, or the legal team to post this thread to persuade folks from buying AZR FRT's because of the sentence above. And I'm wondering if the OP will be called to testify on the behalf of RB in any future/ongoing litigation against others in the FRT/SS game. Or if his thread is merely to provide information to the community in general on the legality of possessing a FRT/SS by an individual. . |
|
Great write up OP and thank you for sharing your expert opinion! I like the point you made about the ATF trying to figure out a way to make an AZR equipped gun into a MG by changing the configuration. FRTs are legal and achieve the rapid fire effect well enough. There is no reason to change the configuration to achieve the same effect. |
|
Quoted: Great write up OP and thank you for sharing your expert opinion! I like the point you made about the ATF trying to figure out a way to make an AZR equipped gun into a MG by changing the configuration. FRTs are legal and achieve the rapid fire effect well enough. There is no reason to change the configuration to achieve the same effect. 
|
|
Quoted: JD has been releasing more about every 3 days. He'll probably release a few tomorrow Quoted: Quoted: I was frightened to buy a second 3 position last time they were made available. I wish you had posted this thread about 10 days ago! JD has been releasing more about every 3 days. He'll probably release a few tomorrow They're in stock right now actually. https://arizonaregulator.com/arizona-regulator-azr-15a1-combat-trigger-3-position/ 
|
|
Do I want the whole free world filled with every design that can be made and used? Absolutely But in America business is business, and if clarification needs to be adjudicated so be it. And that may take years, injunctions, vacate, dissolve or modify. Appeals on appeals, and in the end either a decision is finalized or an agreement. But in the end all have lost money and the consumer is the one that waits. Thanks for the information OP as that is how everyone can understand the physics behind the action and designs of the thinkers who decided there is a way to get an accomplished device. But in the end we should not have the restriction anyway. |
|
I think a common concern here is the legality of running an AZR without a disconnector, and this thread puts potential users' minds at ease as long as the AZR FRT is installed all the time. Am I understanding this correctly? I also know his *legal* problems with Geissele are real, but I think it's a convenient excuse to brush over the fact that the current Geissele SSA is incompatible with this unit, (At least the drop in, "AZR-15M2-R") unless the disconnector and/or disconnector spring is removed first. It seems that because the unit pushes on the disco, it causes the trigger to not allow reset based on how the SSA is designed to function. Perhaps I'm wrong here, please correct me if so. The mere mention of Geissele causes him to effectively end the conversation and claim you're baiting him into a legal conversation. He's otherwise perfectly reasonable over the phone, although very avoidant. He just refers you to the website. I can't blame him given everything that's going on. Grumpy for sure, but reasonable. |
|
Quoted: I think a common concern here is the legality of running an AZR without a disconnector, and this thread puts potential users' minds at ease as long as the AZR FRT is installed all the time. Am I understanding this correctly? I also know his *legal* problems with Geissele are real, but I think it's a convenient excuse to brush over the fact that the current Geissele SSA is incompatible with this unit, (At least the drop in, "AZR-15M2-R") unless the disconnector and/or disconnector spring is removed first. It seems that because the unit pushes on the disco, it causes the trigger to not allow reset based on how the SSA is designed to function. Perhaps I'm wrong here, please correct me if so. The mere mention of Geissele causes him to effectively end the conversation and claim you're baiting him into a legal conversation. He's otherwise perfectly reasonable over the phone, although very avoidant. He just refers you to the website. I can't blame him given everything that's going on. Grumpy for sure, but reasonable. Aside from the C&D they sent him, what legal problems does he have with G? At least from the letter, it looks like they just asked him to make it clearer that they weren't affiliated or endorsing his product in any way. On the discos... he used to advertise that it works with the SSA. But apparently there was a design revision at some point (G confirmed this in one of the other threads that has since been locked) and part of the disco sits up a little too tall. It interferes with the bottom of the AZR lever. Given what Savage has said about operation without a disconnector at all, yeah... nah, don't do that. |
|
CharlesAFerg, Just gotta find you an older gen SSA or SSA-E (yes I can personally confirm that the SSA-E works too!) with the longer disconnector or willing to dremel the disco on new gen SSA and SSA-E and the AZR SSA (now R) will works  My H&R XM177E1 with old gen SSA     Failed To Load Title |
|
Quoted: The issue is they keep going after things outside their patent, and they know those things are outside their patent...and that is not even taking into consideration whether their patent(s) are valid. And big thanks to OP for weighing in- the more of these devices in use, the harder it will be for AFT to move the goalposts. |
|
I have been following and reading all of the information on the FRT since RB's first go round. It was an interesting turn of events. Thanks OP for examining and weighing in on the mechanical operation and legalities of the Arizona Regulator AZR-15A1. It is very fortunate for us that you are willing to give your professional opinion. I wanted to ask, for my own clarification. After installing the AZR-A1 system, is it then, by only removing the drop in unit (containing the camming levers) and firing, this, could induce a malfunction or hammer follow? Or is it by removing the 'disconnector' and firing, that this could potentially cause an illegal malfunction? I guess I was confused between it being 'which part' if it were removed that would induce malfunction. I read where the same malfunction, could occur with the RB design if those parts are removed. A lot of us now have options to choose in the forced reset design fire control. I like the ability of higher rates of fire. I'm excited about buying more ammo. |
|
Quoted: I have been following and reading all of the information on the FRT since RB's first go round. It was an interesting turn of events. Thanks OP for examining and weighing in on the mechanical operation and legalities of the Arizona Regulator AZR-15A1. It is very fortunate for us that you are willing to give your professional opinion. I wanted to ask, for my own clarification. After installing the AZR-A1 system, is it then, by only removing the drop in unit (containing the camming levers) and firing, this, could induce a malfunction or hammer follow? Or is it by removing the 'disconnector' and firing, that this could potentially cause an illegal malfunction? I guess I was confused between it being 'which part' if it were removed that would induce malfunction. I read where the same malfunction, could occur with the RB design if those parts are removed. A lot of us now have options to choose in the forced reset design fire control. I like the ability of higher rates of fire. I'm excited about buying more ammo. It's by removing the cam unit and then placing the selector in the 3rd position, which holds the disconnector down. The rifle would then function the same as any other standard ar15 that has had its disconnector removed. Eta: really this was the only question all along. I dont think anyone doubted the frt nature of the device, but debate sprung up suddenly about this configuration. |
|
Quoted: It's by removing the cam unit and then placing the selector in the 3rd position, which holds the disconnector down. The rifle would then function the same as any other standard ar15 that has had its disconnector removed. Eta: really this was the only question all along. I dont think anyone doubted the frt nature of the device, but debate sprung up suddenly about this configuration. Quoted: Quoted: I have been following and reading all of the information on the FRT since RB's first go round. It was an interesting turn of events. Thanks OP for examining and weighing in on the mechanical operation and legalities of the Arizona Regulator AZR-15A1. It is very fortunate for us that you are willing to give your professional opinion. I wanted to ask, for my own clarification. After installing the AZR-A1 system, is it then, by only removing the drop in unit (containing the camming levers) and firing, this, could induce a malfunction or hammer follow? Or is it by removing the 'disconnector' and firing, that this could potentially cause an illegal malfunction? I guess I was confused between it being 'which part' if it were removed that would induce malfunction. I read where the same malfunction, could occur with the RB design if those parts are removed. A lot of us now have options to choose in the forced reset design fire control. I like the ability of higher rates of fire. I'm excited about buying more ammo. It's by removing the cam unit and then placing the selector in the 3rd position, which holds the disconnector down. The rifle would then function the same as any other standard ar15 that has had its disconnector removed. Eta: really this was the only question all along. I dont think anyone doubted the frt nature of the device, but debate sprung up suddenly about this configuration. Thank you. |
|
Quoted: It's by removing the cam unit and then placing the selector in the 3rd position, which holds the disconnector down. The rifle would then function the same as any other standard ar15 that has had its disconnector removed. Eta: really this was the only question all along. I dont think anyone doubted the frt nature of the device, but debate sprung up suddenly about this configuration. Yep. No one that I am aware of, myself included, ever said it is definitively/inherently a MG. People said exactly what Len confirmed- that it could be construed to be a MG by ATF if you have the parts installed sans the device itself, or be argued to be "readily convertible" if you have a higher power buffer spring and could get continuous automatic fire by removing the device. The above probably wouldn't have ever been a concern if 01Zulu had not been so evasive when people with a lot of years of experience on this topic (Len and I both included, among others) directly, publicly, asked him related technical questions and made clear our concerns, and Zulu refused to answer. That makes a person look... suspicious. |
|
Quoted: They're in stock right now actually. https://arizonaregulator.com/arizona-regulator-azr-15a1-combat-trigger-3-position/ https://i.imgur.com/JNMFEv4.jpeg Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I was frightened to buy a second 3 position last time they were made available. I wish you had posted this thread about 10 days ago! JD has been releasing more about every 3 days. He'll probably release a few tomorrow They're in stock right now actually. https://arizonaregulator.com/arizona-regulator-azr-15a1-combat-trigger-3-position/ https://i.imgur.com/JNMFEv4.jpeg And, they’re gonna again. Damnit! I was sitting on a work call when they went on sale. |