User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/9/2024 7:13:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Type7SOT]
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Flevvy: Just a suggestion, but it might be worth looking into a way to prevent the top cover from slamming shut using a method similar to the M249. I suppose it could be done through a simple detent that adds a bit of friction to the hinge when opened fully. Thanks for the suggestion, currently the top cover opens slightly past 90 degrees and rests on the quad rail, but there is no detent. I will look into a detent solution once I have this thing running. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2024 12:02:57 PM EDT
[#2]
Well, with bump stocks being legal again, this project just got a whole lot cooler.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2024 3:20:08 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Type7SOT: Well, with bump stocks being legal again, this project just got a whole lot cooler. I would definitely make sure that it is SuperSafety / registered M16 receiver compatible. If I had to choose between a bump stock and a Super Safety it'd be the SuperSafety everytime. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2024 3:56:27 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NWRed: I would definitely make sure that it is SuperSafety / registered M16 receiver compatible. If I had to choose between a bump stock and a Super Safety it'd be the SuperSafety everytime. It will be. Binary, FRT, super safety, rdias, lightning link, swift link, etc, all compatible. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2024 12:54:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Type7SOT]
[#5]
Sorry for the radio silence, this project is still full steam ahead. The upper receiver and top cover are currently being machined, and in the meantime I've been working out a lot of the little details. I'm not sure if the 80/20 rule applies here, but it feels like the last 20% if the design is taking 80% of the effort. Anyway, since I last posted I made the following changes:
-Finalized the stretch length and travel distance to optimize function and lower the risk of impacting the lower. The upper will use AR10 buffers and have .760" more travel than a standard upper. It will not require any spacers in the buffer tube. I believe it will be possible to achieve "constant recoil" with this setup. -Ditched the idea of integrating firing pin retention with the roller part. It will now use a traditional firing pin retention pin. - Added a biasing spring to the firing pin. As previously discussed, the firing pin will have substantial extra mass because of the additional length. I was worried about slam fires, and considered making the firing pin out of titanium to avoid this. After thoroughly researching titanium firing pins, they seem to have a short lifespan, and there is obviously considerably extra cost. So instead I opted to add a biasing spring which will eliminate slam fires and allow the use of alloy steel instead of titanium. -Changed the bolt design to allow for a standard AR15 cam pin. The original design necessitated a modified cam pin. I'm also going to integrate the picatinny rail into the top cover, rather than bolting one on. This should be a more elegant solution. Sorry no pics since I don't have anything exciting to show, but hopefully I'll have something soon. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2024 10:11:43 AM EDT
[#6]
Are you considering adding a mag feed option similar to the SAW?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2024 10:14:52 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Whiskeygunner: Are you considering adding a mag feed option similar to the SAW? It's not in the plans. It will be belt fed only, but it will be the most reliable and smoothest shooting ar15 belt fed you can have. Dual feed is cool, but most belt feds do not have this capability and I don't think it's really necessary. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2024 12:04:47 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Type7SOT: It's not in the plans. It will be belt fed only, but it will be the most reliable and smoothest shooting ar15 belt fed you can have. Dual feed is cool, but most belt feds do not have this capability and I don't think it's really necessary. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Type7SOT: Originally Posted By Whiskeygunner: Are you considering adding a mag feed option similar to the SAW? It's not in the plans. It will be belt fed only, but it will be the most reliable and smoothest shooting ar15 belt fed you can have. Dual feed is cool, but most belt feds do not have this capability and I don't think it's really necessary. Most push-through belt feds can be converted to mag fed by replacing the top cover w/ a magwell. |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 6/24/2024 9:30:08 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Type7SOT: It's not in the plans. It will be belt fed only, but it will be the most reliable and smoothest shooting ar15 belt fed you can have. Dual feed is cool, but most belt feds do not have this capability and I don't think it's really necessary. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Type7SOT: Originally Posted By Whiskeygunner: Are you considering adding a mag feed option similar to the SAW? It's not in the plans. It will be belt fed only, but it will be the most reliable and smoothest shooting ar15 belt fed you can have. Dual feed is cool, but most belt feds do not have this capability and I don't think it's really necessary. If you are still basing the design around the AR-15 lower, you already have the capability of accept magazines, switch to a normal AR upper. No need to make the belt-fed upper more complicated when a simple solution is already there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2024 9:48:33 PM EDT
[#10]
Maybe its just me, but shouldn't there be an update by now 😉
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2024 10:15:48 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By aod886: Maybe its just me, but shouldn't there be an update by now 😉 The situation is my buddy is machining the upper receiver and top cover, but hasn't been able to prioritize it yet because he has other jobs in front of mine. I contacted a major AR15 components manufacturer who expressed interest in making the complete BCG, I got as far as an NDA and sending drawings but then they stopped responding to me. This week I will be reaching out to other companies, I'm sure there are PLENTY out there who need work right now. |
|
|
|
NH, USA
|
Posted: 7/12/2024 1:17:47 PM EDT
[#12]
There’s a couple things that I was wondering about. Have you thought about using an “extension” with a standard firing pin? Since you are building your own carrier, could you just add a spring loaded plunger behind the standard AR firing pin, having the spring for the firing pin extension bear on the carrier, such that no extra mass bears on the firing pin when the carrier goes into battery?
It is my understanding that you are planning to use the standard direct impingement gas system for this belt fed upper. Is that correct? If so, are you planning to make a custom heavier walled gas tube like Colt did for the Light Support Weapon upper? I have had experience using BetaC and Surefire 100 round magazines. With a standard stainless steel carbine length gas tube, the gas tube will usually fail sometime during the third 100 round magazine in a row. Melonite treatment will help, but will not hold up to two 200 round belts. For the Valkyrie Armaments belt fed system that I am fortunate enough to own, there is one DI carbine upper, a MGI/Hydra quick change barrel upper with piston kit conversion, and a 20” water cooled DI upper. I don’t put more than a 200 round belt through the DI carbine upper. All the commercially available 5.56X45 belt fed guns that I can think of are short stroke piston driven. Is this something that you are planning to incorporate in the design? Scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2024 9:09:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Type7SOT]
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By canon3825: There’s a couple things that I was wondering about. Have you thought about using an “extension” with a standard firing pin? Since you are building your own carrier, could you just add a spring loaded plunger behind the standard AR firing pin, having the spring for the firing pin extension bear on the carrier, such that no extra mass bears on the firing pin when the carrier goes into battery? It is my understanding that you are planning to use the standard direct impingement gas system for this belt fed upper. Is that correct? If so, are you planning to make a custom heavier walled gas tube like Colt did for the Light Support Weapon upper? I have had experience using BetaC and Surefire 100 round magazines. With a standard stainless steel carbine length gas tube, the gas tube will usually fail sometime during the third 100 round magazine in a row. Melonite treatment will help, but will not hold up to two 200 round belts. For the Valkyrie Armaments belt fed system that I am fortunate enough to own, there is one DI carbine upper, a MGI/Hydra quick change barrel upper with piston kit conversion, and a 20” water cooled DI upper. I don’t put more than a 200 round belt through the DI carbine upper. All the commercially available 5.56X45 belt fed guns that I can think of are short stroke piston driven. Is this something that you are planning to incorporate in the design? Scott I have thought about a firing pin extension, but not in exactly the way you are describing. I do like your idea. I will give that some thought. Yes my plan is to stick with standard gas impingement for now. The logic behind that is I want to change as little as possible while perfecting the belt feed mechanism, other things can be upgraded down the road if the need arises. Also its a proven systems that has worked since the 1950's, and its very tunable/adaptable to different applications. I will look into the heavy wall Colt system as a possible upgrade. A few things to keep in mind when comparing this to other systems like the MCR and Valkyrie: -My design with 3/4" more travel and higher mass carrier should have a very low rate of fire (600RPM?). Ultimately I want like to achieve Stoner-63 type constant recoil. This low rate of fire should prolong barrel and gas tube life. (for people who are strictly semi-auto, this is a non-issue anyway). -The longer travel and higher mass carrier should negate the need for an extra power recoil spring. The MCR needs a very stout spring to strip links because of the short travel. A stout spring requires more gas and a more violent action overall. -My design will have a midlength gas system to lower the pressure and temperature at the gas tube (I suppose the Valkyrie system could also be changed to midlength if so desired). |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/14/2024 9:49:54 AM EDT
[#14]
if im you im gonna look at the later bren designs like the uk59 rather than an m249 style top cover. its gonna be pulling belt weight on the wrong part of the stroke if you use an open bolt type top cover.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2024 9:52:52 AM EDT
[#15]
I held a 11.5” belt fed 5.56 upper at my lgs last week, heavy but cool!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2024 11:18:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Type7SOT]
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UTCenturion: if im you im gonna look at the later bren designs like the uk59 rather than an m249 style top cover. its gonna be pulling belt weight on the wrong part of the stroke if you use an open bolt type top cover. Can you please elaborate on this? Why would anything change between open bolt and closed bolt? The energy of the bolt moving rearward and forward should not change based on whether its an open bolt or closed bolt design. Furthermore, the energy rearward should roughly match the energy forward, especially in a constant recoil design. The rearward energy is absorbed and stored in the spring, which is then released again in the forward stroke. The only energy lost would be in the form of heat buildup in the spring, or any recoil that is obsorbed by the shooter in the form of rearward movement. Assuming the shooter has a good handle on the recoil, the majority of the rearward energy is absorbed and re-released by the spring. My design will have more inertia than other designs because of the 3/4" extra stroke length and additional BCG mass. The BCG will have plenty of "runup" time before starting to strip rounds from the links. It should be very soft shooting and reliable. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2024 12:21:27 PM EDT
[#17]
OP, by going longer in the BCG, have you thought of just making a 3/4" stub that will lock into a stock bolt carrier?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2024 12:38:52 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By backbencher: OP, by going longer in the BCG, have you thought of just making a 3/4" stub that will lock into a stock bolt carrier? There are too many other changes besides just the length. The gas key and cam path are rotated 90 degrees to accomodate the feed mechanism, primarily. The top needs to be milled flat. A roller needs to be added, etc. |
|
|
|
NH, USA
|
Posted: 7/14/2024 1:19:02 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Type7SOT: I have thought about a firing pin extension, but not in exactly the way you are describing. I do like your idea. I will give that some thought. Yes my plan is to stick with standard gas impingement for now. The logic behind that is I want to change as little as possible while perfecting the belt feed mechanism, other things can be upgraded down the road if the need arises. Also its a proven systems that has worked since the 1950's, and its very tunable/adaptable to different applications. I will look into the heavy wall Colt system as a possible upgrade. A few things to keep in mind when comparing this to other systems like the MCR and Valkyrie: -My design with 3/4" more travel and higher mass carrier should have a very low rate of fire (600RPM?). Ultimately I want like to achieve Stoner-63 type constant recoil. This low rate of fire should prolong barrel and gas tube life. (for people who are strictly semi-auto, this is a non-issue anyway). -The longer travel and higher mass carrier should negate the need for an extra power recoil spring. The MCR needs a very stout spring to strip links because of the short travel. A stout spring requires more gas and a more violent action overall. -My design will have a midlength gas system to lower the pressure and temperature at the gas tube (I suppose the Valkyrie system could also be changed to midlength if so desired). The Colt LMG upper uses a very heavy walled gas tube. As I recall, the Colt LMG upper had a custom front sight/gas block that was straight from the gas port opening into the upper.Certainly, having a 3/4” longer running start will help. The as is hot, and the longer the tube the more that heat energy will spread out. Have you looked into “amphibian’s” research of increased stroke and increased stroke? He has done a lot of research using off the shelf components. As I recall he has gotten his Shrike upper running in the 600 RPM range. There was also an interview on Forgotten Weapons with Jim Sullivan. https://youtu.be/gOUKXIrDE0I?si=jfLltFiSp6ynwW0X Certainly mag fed requires a lot less energy to strip rounds from the feeding device than belt fed. I have experienced far less recoil and lower ROF using the Tubbs flat wire spring and the Kynshot hydraulic buffer with the five pound internal spring. Scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2024 1:24:15 PM EDT
[#20]
I have seen that video, yes.
Btw, the firing pin extension idea can be adapted to my bolt carrier. As it stands, it would work with either a longer firing pin, or a standard firing pin with an extension. It would be a simple swap out if one was desired over the other for some reason. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2024 11:10:51 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By canon3825: The Colt LMG upper uses a very heavy walled gas tube. As I recall, the Colt LMG upper had a custom front sight/gas block that was straight from the gas port opening into the upper.Certainly, having a 3/4” longer running start will help. The as is hot, and the longer the tube the more that heat energy will spread out. Have you looked into “amphibian’s” research of increased stroke and increased stroke? He has done a lot of research using off the shelf components. As I recall he has gotten his Shrike upper running in the 600 RPM range. There was also an interview on Forgotten Weapons with Jim Sullivan. https://youtu.be/gOUKXIrDE0I?si=jfLltFiSp6ynwW0X Certainly mag fed requires a lot less energy to strip rounds from the feeding device than belt fed. I have experienced far less recoil and lower ROF using the Tubbs flat wire spring and the Kynshot hydraulic buffer with the five pound internal spring. Scott I second this response. My Colt LMG upper on my M16 lower with an A5 buffer tube, Kynshot buffer, and Tubbs spring dramatically reduced the ROF and solved my bolt bounce issue with my COLT IAR upper (carbine gas for some reason). It works well with several other uppers including a 7.5 SIG 516 and a CMMG 5.7 upper. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2024 11:28:29 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By canon3825: The Colt LMG upper uses a very heavy walled gas tube. As I recall, the Colt LMG upper had a custom front sight/gas block that was straight from the gas port opening into the upper.Certainly, having a 3/4” longer running start will help. The as is hot, and the longer the tube the more that heat energy will spread out. Have you looked into “amphibian’s” research of increased stroke and increased stroke? He has done a lot of research using off the shelf components. As I recall he has gotten his Shrike upper running in the 600 RPM range. There was also an interview on Forgotten Weapons with Jim Sullivan. https://youtu.be/gOUKXIrDE0I?si=jfLltFiSp6ynwW0X Certainly mag fed requires a lot less energy to strip rounds from the feeding device than belt fed. I have experienced far less recoil and lower ROF using the Tubbs flat wire spring and the Kynshot hydraulic buffer with the five pound internal spring. Scott Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By canon3825: Originally Posted By Type7SOT: I have thought about a firing pin extension, but not in exactly the way you are describing. I do like your idea. I will give that some thought. Yes my plan is to stick with standard gas impingement for now. The logic behind that is I want to change as little as possible while perfecting the belt feed mechanism, other things can be upgraded down the road if the need arises. Also its a proven systems that has worked since the 1950's, and its very tunable/adaptable to different applications. I will look into the heavy wall Colt system as a possible upgrade. A few things to keep in mind when comparing this to other systems like the MCR and Valkyrie: -My design with 3/4" more travel and higher mass carrier should have a very low rate of fire (600RPM?). Ultimately I want like to achieve Stoner-63 type constant recoil. This low rate of fire should prolong barrel and gas tube life. (for people who are strictly semi-auto, this is a non-issue anyway). -The longer travel and higher mass carrier should negate the need for an extra power recoil spring. The MCR needs a very stout spring to strip links because of the short travel. A stout spring requires more gas and a more violent action overall. -My design will have a midlength gas system to lower the pressure and temperature at the gas tube (I suppose the Valkyrie system could also be changed to midlength if so desired). The Colt LMG upper uses a very heavy walled gas tube. As I recall, the Colt LMG upper had a custom front sight/gas block that was straight from the gas port opening into the upper.Certainly, having a 3/4” longer running start will help. The as is hot, and the longer the tube the more that heat energy will spread out. Have you looked into “amphibian’s” research of increased stroke and increased stroke? He has done a lot of research using off the shelf components. As I recall he has gotten his Shrike upper running in the 600 RPM range. There was also an interview on Forgotten Weapons with Jim Sullivan. https://youtu.be/gOUKXIrDE0I?si=jfLltFiSp6ynwW0X Certainly mag fed requires a lot less energy to strip rounds from the feeding device than belt fed. I have experienced far less recoil and lower ROF using the Tubbs flat wire spring and the Kynshot hydraulic buffer with the five pound internal spring. Scott  Interview & Shooting: Jim Sullivan, AR-15 Designer |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2024 5:30:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Type7SOT]
[#23]
Over the last few weeks I've had some reality checks pull me back to earth.
 Finding machine shops for these parts is proving to be difficult. Like I mentioned before, I have a friend with a CNC shop who is doing the main receiver and top cover, but he's also very backed up with "real" customers and my parts haven't been prioritized yet. As for the bolt carrier group, I had it in my head that I could get them from one of the handful of large BCG manufactures in the country. The trouble is, they all seem to have a minimum order of 5000 units and require massive engineering fees before they will make the first one. Even if I was going to sell these, a 5000 unit order is unrealistic at this time. I can have a small machine shop make the parts, but since they don't specialize in bolt carrier groups, it will take additional engineering on my part to make sure that all of the applicable features comply with standard AR15 specs (tolerances, heat treatment, sending the parts out for precision grinding, finishing, etc). Not to mention I still need to figure out manufacturing the feed tray, feed lever, and a bunch of small parts such as rollers, latches, etc. And in addition to all of that, I need to find a source for the standard M249 parts such as the feed pawls and cartridge guides. I was able to get ONE set of these for a prototype, which was extremely expensive, and now that source is out of stock. If I'm going to try and sell these, I need a reliable source for these parts. Anyway, this is not to say I'm giving up; far from it. I am determined to keep pushing forward until I have a working prototype. Things may slow me down, but there is nothing that will stop me. EDIT: By the way, if anyone can get me an AR15 bolt with NO cam pin hole, that would be extremely helpful. Hardened or unhardened, finish or no finish is fine. I know there is someone out there making bolts who could do this pretty easily. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2024 10:18:30 AM EDT
[#24]
PM sent.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2024 10:38:10 AM EDT
[#25]
OP, if you were to lengthen your upper design further, you could perhaps take two existing carriers & mash em together? Cut the front part off one, rotate it, weld it or pin it to the rear of an existing carrier?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2024 8:23:13 PM EDT
[#26]
This news bums me out.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2024 8:41:02 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By aod886: This news bums me out. Don't be, lots of people reached out after making that post, and I have multiple solid leads for both the BCG and m249 parts now. Thanks to everyone who reached out, you know who you are. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2024 8:43:24 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By backbencher: OP, if you were to lengthen your upper design further, you could perhaps take two existing carriers & mash em together? Cut the front part off one, rotate it, weld it or pin it to the rear of an existing carrier? In theory yes, but it will be easier to just machine from scratch. Too many changes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2024 8:53:59 PM EDT
[#29]
Good luck!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2024 7:09:18 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Type7SOT: Don't be, lots of people reached out after making that post, and I have multiple solid leads for both the BCG and m249 parts now. Thanks to everyone who reached out, you know who you are. That's good news! And a blanket thanks to those that reached out to the OP. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2024 2:18:13 PM EDT
[#31]
No major updates, but while I'm waiting for parts to get machined I 3D printed a new top cover with integral picatinny rail:
 Attached File Attached FileAlso just for fun, here is the difference between the M249 feed lever and the MCR feed lever:  Attached FileMine is going to fall somewhere in the middle. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2024 5:59:01 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Type7SOT: No major updates, but while I'm waiting for parts to get machined I 3D printed a new top cover with integral picatinny rail: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/490765/1000006989_jpg-3279280.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/490765/1000006990_jpg-3279281.JPG Also just for fun, here is the difference between the M249 feed lever and the MCR feed lever: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/490765/1000006993_jpg-3279282.JPG Mine is going to fall somewhere in the middle. Looks sexy. Keep it up, OP |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2024 11:55:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Type7SOT]
[#33]
Update:
I am having the feed lever 3D printed out of stainless steel. This was more cost effective than machining, and should be good enough for prototyping/proof of concept. In should be in my hands early September. I had a heart to heart with my machinist buddy who has not made progress on the upper receiver and top cover. He just doesn't have the time to prioritize it. However, I did find another machine shop locally who wants to help me. The owner is personally interested in getting an upper receiver for himself, and said he could get started on prototypes right away. I sent him the drawings this morning. Fingers crossed! As for the bolt carrier, like I said before, the large BCG manufacturers are too big for this project with 5000+ minimum orders. I did find a smaller company who expressed interest in the project, and sent them an NDA. Unfortunately they have become very unresponsive since then. This seems to be a common theme where companies are interested at first, but once you try to move forward and place an order, they ghost you. If anyone has a recommendation for a small scale OEM BCG manufacturer, please let me know. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 8/3/2024 2:41:38 PM EDT
[#34]
Iirc @amphibian had some custom BCGs made by a shop not too long ago.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2024 5:55:20 PM EDT
[#35]
You may want to try KAK. They’re relatively active in the Fosscad community over on Reddit and have expressed interest in prototyping unique parts before.
|
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 3:34:34 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Matidas: You may want to try KAK. They’re relatively active in the Fosscad community over on Reddit and have expressed interest in prototyping unique parts before. I 2nd this. Not sure why I didn't think of them sooner. I've dealt with the owner a couple times and they are all great guys there with good quality |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 6:20:12 PM EDT
[#37]
KAK is on my list. I just have one company in front of them that I'm reaching out to first. If that doesn't work out, KAK is next.
|
|
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 8:16:22 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tktm2001: Much crying and nashing of teeth. Circa 1998 a post much like yours appeared, people put down pre-orders. Seems it took about 15-20 years for promises to be delivered. see : https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/Whatever-Happened-to-the-ARES-SHRIKE-/12-769958/ Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tktm2001: Originally Posted By Type7SOT: Originally Posted By tktm2001: Isn't this how the Shrike thing began? Can you elaborate? Much crying and nashing of teeth. Circa 1998 a post much like yours appeared, people put down pre-orders. Seems it took about 15-20 years for promises to be delivered. see : https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/Whatever-Happened-to-the-ARES-SHRIKE-/12-769958/ Geoff Herring started taking money in 98 or 99 I think IIRC, didn't deliver for a good long time. finally Ares became Fightlite and the gun became the MCR Costs went up over time, Mark Serbu helped push it across the finish line. lots of folks pulled out and took a refund. Surprised it every seen the light of day to be honest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 9:23:34 PM EDT
[#39]
Aren't the New Yorkers still pissed at Fightlite?
|
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 11:01:51 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By backbencher: Aren't the New Yorkers still pissed at Fightlite? I knew some that were furious. They held out for a decade to get their upper, just to have Geoff claim that they were illegal and he wouldn't even ship them to a non-NY address if the depositor was from NY |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2024 5:05:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Type7SOT]
[#41]
The new machine shop for the upper receiver and top cover has already started programming and ordering tools. I expect it wont be long before I have a some parts from them.
Also, the new vendor for the BGC has received the files for those parts, so now I'm just waiting on a quote. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2024 8:37:57 PM EDT
[#42]
Good news! Thanks for the update.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2024 12:35:47 PM EDT
[#43]
@Type7SOT
Have you consider asking Arfcom Community for a down payment? lets say $1k per member will give them first dibs at one at your cost or something like that, 500 of us at $1k is $500k probably enough to get this thing of the ground. just in case you decide to go that route, I'm pledging my $1k... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2024 1:12:31 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MiamiSniper: @Type7SOT Have you consider asking Arfcom Community for a down payment? lets say $1k per member will give them first dibs at one at your cost or something like that, 500 of us at $1k is $500k probably enough to get this thing of the ground. just in case you decide to go that route, I'm pledging my $1k... Crowdfunding is a terrible idea for the funders. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/13/2024 1:20:17 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MiamiSniper: @Type7SOT Have you consider asking Arfcom Community for a down payment? lets say $1k per member will give them first dibs at one at your cost or something like that, 500 of us at $1k is $500k probably enough to get this thing of the ground. just in case you decide to go that route, I'm pledging my $1k... This is the exact problem already happening with the cryostructure upper and why we can't have nice things in the gun community. Don't pay for things that don't exist yet. This is not an affront to OP, who is doing great work. However, so many things can kill a product before it goes to production that its worth waiting from the sidelines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2024 7:38:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Type7SOT]
[#46]
I am very reluctant to start taking anyones money before I have something to ship.
For one, I have seen that go wrong many times, and I'd hate to be on either side of that transaction. But also, this is supposed to be fun for me. If I start taking money from people, it becomes an obligation. I would rather focus on design and not have to worry about being in debt to someone, or giving status updates once a week about why their order hasn't shipped. That would completely take the fun out of this project. What I might do, if arfcom lets me, is take $0 preorders so I can gauge interest and figure out how many units to make in a run. But I would need to get permission from someone here first, because that would surely be considered advertising. Full disclosure, I dont have the money available to do giant runs of 100's of units, so I'm going to have to start small. I was thinking about doing something like a run of 10 parts kits. It would include everything you need to convert an AR15 host gun to belt fed. That should keep the cost manageable for both me and the people buying. Also small update, I got a shipping notice on the metal 3D printed feed arm, so that will be in my hands soon! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2024 8:53:08 PM EDT
[#47]
That seems like a reasonable and prudent approach to it. what kinda price point are you looking at if you do go that route? spare / wear parts availability as it is a new design?
|
|
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 8/13/2024 9:00:27 PM EDT
[#48]
I love your drive here and I'm also on the cryo wait list. We as a community need more diversity in the belt fed market. Sure I could buy a MCR and I might still, but I love to see others coming up with new products.
I agree crowd funding can definitely be challenging for all parties involved. Wish there was a better way to back projects like this without the risk, or putting you in a position that makes it feel like a job and not your passion or hobby. On the other side of it there's a bunch here who can throw some stupid money around which can help offset the costs. We need a no obligation system where we see cool projects like what your doing and can throw some money at them without expecting anything in return. Like a monetized like button. I for one am hoping you succeed and have a dedicated beltfed lower just waiting on an upper for testing purposes  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2024 4:26:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Type7SOT]
[#49]
Metal 3D printed feed lever came in!
 Attached FileCompared to MCR and M249 feed levers:  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2024 6:25:54 PM EDT
[#50]
Feed trays are currently being made! They are mostly sheet metal, but with metal 3D printed feed lips which will be brazed on. I should have the sheet metal parts (including forming) a week from today, and the feed lip parts will be in mid-September.
 Attached FileThe feed tray is actually one of the more difficult parts to make. This hybrid approach is a good way to make them cost effective in small quantities without a ton of special tooling. Long term I would like to make them 100% sheet metal. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
