Jump to content

shrike/areas/mcr 80/100 percent lowers cut for nutsack-available now

Recommended Posts

  • taylorwso changed the title to shrike/areas/mcr 80/100 percent lowers cut for nutsack-available now
8 minutes ago, OA/DAW said:

If a 100% lower was provided, do you know if one of these can be had?  If so, how much?

Signed anxious at dawandoa@earthlink.net 

This link was posted in the original post ……..        https://www.cryostructure.com/product/purpose-built-ar-15-belt-fed-100-lower-receiver-bfar/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Herring made some "nutsack" lowers years ago when he was 1st developing the Shrike upper.  He did not release any of those lowers that I'm aware of, IIRC for fear that ATF would view these "nutsack" lowers as just a fire-control / grip assembly and not a "receiver" like a standard AR15/M16 lower.  

From what I recall, Geoff's rationale for not selling "nutsack" lowers was that, with his upper in combination with "just a grip frame" (no feed portal / magazine well to feed the Shrike upper), ATF would then rule the Shrike upper as a Title 1 firearm.  To my knowledge Geoff still will not offer a "nutsack" lower.  

What's at stake if ATF were to re-classify the MCR / Shrike upper as a Title 1 firearm?  IMO, at stake are these uppers falling down the same "rabbit hole" as BRP's XMG upper, where ATF has indicated in writing that using an XMG in conjunction with a Lightning Link, RDIAS or RR M16 magically turns it into a Post Sample. That ruling killed the XMG and another avenue of versatility for transferable M16 owners.  It would probably do same to the "Shrike" upper.

Some have already gone down this road with (RDIAS or Lightening Links) and some of the single-shot lowers that were produced in the past (myself included).  From what I've seen, most have kept their projects pretty low key and under the radar.  I have personally never posted pics of my setup on the interwebs for the above reasons.  It would probably be smart to do same with this project, lest we risk another XMG-type ruling.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that Ares/Fightlight has been historically very risk adverse and has not sold short barrels or full auto carriers to folks without owning pre-requisite NFA firearm(s), won't sell uppers to folk in mag capacity restricted states (even though they can legally still be used with 10rd mags/belts),  and refused to sell SAW box cut lowers, etc.

However, a magwell-less SAW cut box lower is nothing more than an AR15 single shot lower with what really amounts to a cosmetic slot cut in it.  Mechanically  these SAW box cut lowers are not any different than the myriad of single shot AR lowers that have been sold by multiple vendors over the past couple decades.  The actual SAW box slot isn't mechanically required for the MCR/Shrike to function on a magwell-less AR lower.  My personal Shrike/MCR saw box lower I made out of a single shot lower as a base receiver.  

The ATF seems to go after and attempt to reclassify AR upper receivers as firearms if they don't feed through the magwell and also don't rely upon the inherent AR15 buffer tube assembly for function.   There are plenty of AR upper examples that are not capable of feeding through the magwell (but still use the buffer tube as a critical functional assembly) that are also not classified as legal firearm receivers.   e.g. AR57, Lakeside LM7, TM AM15, Freedom Arms FM9.

The BRP upper didn't use either the mag well on the AR Lower, nor the AR15 buffer tube assembly for function,  and when placed under scrutiny was reclassified.

While the MCR/Shrike upper is always at some risk of reclassification as it can feed outside of the magwell, I don't see these new 3rd party SAW box lowers as adding any more significant risk to reclassification than any of the other 3rd party AR pattern single shot lowers or even the AR pattern "7.62x39" AK magwell lowers (that also can't feed a MCR/Shrike via a STANAG mag) which have been previously offered for sale and to which a MCR/Shrike could be attached.

The bigger issue with these lowers is that Ares/Herring still has a patent on these SAW box style lowers and this manufacturer appears to be clearly violating Ares Defense's patent that is in effect until 2026.


IMHO its one thing for an end user to make their own lower for personal use, its another issue to commercially sell these lowers in violation of Ares patent.  It honestly wouldn't surprise me if the vendor gets a cease and desist and/or a patent violation suit filed unless they have a license to produce these. 

Just my 2 cents anyway.

Edited by jbntex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...