Jump to content

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


taylorwso

Recommended Posts

  • taylorwso changed the title to shrike/areas/mcr 80/100 percent lowers cut for nutsack-available now

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.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20060283067

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

Is cryostructure.com legit?  This dedicated lower would be sweet.

I was thinking that we could take that mag insert and shave it down to size, cut a lower and make them fit together. Screw the adapter in at the right height and coat it to make it look more clean.

Another idea is to take a AR that accepts AK magazines and make a mag adapter for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 6/5/2023 at 1:48 PM, marks said:

Has anyone used one of these nut sack lowers for a RDIAS? Curious if the shelf in the back is milled at the right height. Not all lowers are which is why I ask. They look pretty nice!

Our lower functioned perfectly with a DIAS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Now that is a sweet setup!! If I had a transferable RDIAS I’d be all over one of these…I’m considering one for my post sample DIAS just to play with instead of taking out my HK23EK all the time. I love that lower design. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, guntrustlawyer said:

Freedom Ordnance makes 9mm belt fed uppers which are available for purchase on its website.

They've been OOS for a while now. But I'll sign up for the notification list. Maybe I'm just missing the drop. I keep getting emails about their mag-fed "FX" series guns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
3 hours ago, rhouston8 said:

Can anyone tell me about specific experience using this lower with a RLL ?

I imagine the only buyers of this lower would be RLL, RDIAS owners and dealer/manu dudes.

 

 

actually a lot of semi guys don't want the nutsac to hang 1 ft below the gun.  Huge upgrade IMO.

 

The lowers should work just fine with a RLL even though I don't run one. A dias works perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/21/2023 at 1:40 PM, 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 

Remove this post:  I got my lower and it is wonderful.  Class A/100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2023 at 8:15 AM, jbntex said:

...  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.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20060283067

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.

Read the patent and it is clear that these lowers are ok to sell.  Many patents are acquired as scare tactics are narrow so as to be almost no protection. 

The patent has three claim groups.

Claims 1-9. A receiver body, comprising:
an accessory mounting structure;
one of an integrally-formed, non-detachable hand grip mounting....

Claims 10-17. A firearm, comprising:
an upper receiver body configured for receiving belt-fed ammunition; and
a lower receiver assembly attached to the upper receiver body...

Claims 18-23. A receiver system, comprising:
an upper receiver body configured for receiving belt-fed ammunition; and
a lower receiver body including an accessory mounting structure...

 
The patent protection does not apply to a loose lower receiver that does not have a non-detachable hand grip.  
Edited by HHollow
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve never played hands-on with an MCR.

Sounds like they can be finicky (links,

ammo, part wear).  Any other issues?  Are the latests dual-feed MCR units much better than older ones?

Any advantages over a SAW?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, HHollow said:

Read the patent and it is clear that these lowers are ok to sell.  Many patents are acquired as scare tactics are narrow so as to be almost no protection. 

The patent has three claim groups.

Claims 1-9. A receiver body, comprising:
an accessory mounting structure;
one of an integrally-formed, non-detachable hand grip mounting....

Claims 10-17. A firearm, comprising:
an upper receiver body configured for receiving belt-fed ammunition; and
a lower receiver assembly attached to the upper receiver body...

Claims 18-23. A receiver system, comprising:
an upper receiver body configured for receiving belt-fed ammunition; and
a lower receiver body including an accessory mounting structure...

 
The patent protection does not apply to a loose lower receiver that does not have a non-detachable hand grip.  

I don't know why a stripped lower would avoid patent protection. The non-detachable handgrip part you highlighted is about the mounting structure for the handgrip.   

Claim 6 thru 8  are specific to the SAW box style lower.

6. The receiver body of claim 1 wherein the accessory mounting structure is configured for engaging a mating mounting structure of the accessory for enabling the accessory to be secured in a relatively fixed position with respect to the receiver body.

7. The receiver body of claim 6 wherein: the accessory mounting structure includes a tapered engagement Surface; and the mating mounting structure of the accessory includes a mating tapered engagement Surface whereby engagement of said tapered engagement Surfaces limits an engagement depth of the accessory with respect to the accessory mounting structure.

8. The receiver body of claim 6 wherein: the accessory mounting structure includes a keyed engagement structure; and the mating mounting structure of the accessory includes a mating keyed engagement structure configured for being engaged by the keyed engagement structure of the accessory mounting structure.

Looking at the diagrams in the Ares patent is pretty clear that Cryo pretty much copied Ares patented SAW box lower hook, line, and sinker.  Now whether that hold up in litigation I don't know as I don't have a crystal ball.....but the drawings in the Ares patent compared to the Cryo lowers look pretty damning to me.  Legal mumbo-jumbo aside, it would be difficult to defend that Cryo isn't pretty clearly infringing upon Ares unique design/invention for financial gain. 

 

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2023 at 5:13 PM, mattnh said:

I’ve never played hands-on with an MCR.

Sounds like they can be finicky (links,

ammo, part wear).  Any other issues?  Are the latests dual-feed MCR units much better than older ones?

Any advantages over a SAW?

 

Having shot both (and owning a Shrike.  There are some perceived advantages to the Shrike/MCR over the M249.

1. Weight.  (This could be a pro or con)   The MCR is a lot lighter than a M249.   The Shrike/MCR is sub 10lbs where the M249 is 50% more at 15+ lbs.  Obviously this is config dependent as well.  However shooting a 12" barrel MCR vs. a Para M249 the weight difference is noticeable.

2. The MCR seems to run better when fed with mags than the 249.  Not that anybody really cares...but if you do run out of belts at the range the Shrike/MCR happily feeds from mags as well.  One of my buddies shoot mags through his pretty regularly once he runs out of belts.  I have other M16s so just grab another gun to shoot mags.

3.  Cyclic rate on the MCR is more adjustable using the gas regulator and different buffers. The Shrike/MCR has a suppressor setting as well where the 249 is generally either fixed or has a normal/adverse setting depending upon the barrel.  Granted the M249 ROF is natively a bit slower than the Shrike/MCR.  Maybe there is a suppressor setting barrel available now as well.

4.  This could be a pro or con but the Shrike/MCR has a much better trigger (and lots of trigger upgrade options being AR pattern), has a semi-auto setting vs. full auto only on the M249,  and is closed bolt operation for much better first round accuracy as the bolt isn't flying forward when you pull the trigger. 

5.  There are transferable Shrike's/MCR available so unless you want to spend north of 7 digits on the one transferable 249 (assuming the current owner would sell it to you) a transferable 249 is pretty much unobtanium for all practical purposes.

Overall the M249 is still a more robust beltfed design, no doubt about that.  The Shrike/MCR bolt over travel and ability to strip round from tight links is reduced compared to the M249.   I personally run a lower power recoil spring vs. the factory OEM spring so do have stretched "shrike links" I use.

I have two friends with recent (past couple of years) MCR purchases and both  have run pretty much flawlessly without issue  The only part I have broken in ~10 years has  been a firing pin and I lost a small c-clip off the top cover at one point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jbntex said:

I don't know why a stripped lower would avoid patent protection. The non-detachable handgrip part you highlighted is about the mounting structure for the handgrip.   

Claim 6 thru 8  are specific to the SAW box style lower.

6. The receiver body of claim 1 wherein the accessory mounting structure is configured for engaging a mating mounting structure of the accessory for enabling the accessory to be secured in a relatively fixed position with respect to the receiver body.

7. The receiver body of claim 6 wherein: the accessory mounting structure includes a tapered engagement Surface; and the mating mounting structure of the accessory includes a mating tapered engagement Surface whereby engagement of said tapered engagement Surfaces limits an engagement depth of the accessory with respect to the accessory mounting structure.

8. The receiver body of claim 6 wherein: the accessory mounting structure includes a keyed engagement structure; and the mating mounting structure of the accessory includes a mating keyed engagement structure configured for being engaged by the keyed engagement structure of the accessory mounting structure.

Looking at the diagrams in the Ares patent is pretty clear that Cryo pretty much copied Ares patented SAW box lower hook, line, and sinker.  Now whether that hold up in litigation I don't know as I don't have a crystal ball.....but the drawings in the Ares patent compared to the Cryo lowers look pretty damning to me.  Legal mumbo-jumbo aside, it would be difficult to defend that Cryo isn't pretty clearly infringing upon Ares unique design/invention for financial gain.

All claims in the patent describe an item (receiver, firearm, receiver system) that has a pistol grip and a buttstock of some kind.  Claims 6 though 8 referenced above each include claim 1 which requires a pistol grip and a buttstock.   This means it is ok to sell the stripped lower but might very well violate the patent if it were to be sold with a grip and stock installed. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MattNH and guys,

once I receive my recently purchased new shrike MCR…I’ll provide a review of it - from a red neck mag dumper’s point of view. Not as an Operator etc etc. 

I’m just looking for another 556 beltfed to add to my one horse 556 beltfed stable ( MM23E). So that will be the comp. 
 

I’ll give it a fair shake and unbiased review. Again from POV of an average machine gun owner /shooter ( not SOT , dealer , etc). If it’s frustrating and sucks I’ll say as much. If its easy plug n play and great I’ll say that. Up front I’ll tell you while I will abide by standard break in recs…no way I’m going to “ stretch” and keep those M27 links segregated somehow. That’s just retarded and is a deal breaker. 
 

more in the following months on this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 7/8/2023 at 8:53 AM, rhouston8 said:

MattNH and guys,

once I receive my recently purchased new shrike MCR…I’ll provide a review of it - from a red neck mag dumper’s point of view. Not as an Operator etc etc. 

I’m just looking for another 556 beltfed to add to my one horse 556 beltfed stable ( MM23E). So that will be the comp. 
 

I’ll give it a fair shake and unbiased review. Again from POV of an average machine gun owner /shooter ( not SOT , dealer , etc). If it’s frustrating and sucks I’ll say as much. If its easy plug n play and great I’ll say that. Up front I’ll tell you while I will abide by standard break in recs…no way I’m going to “ stretch” and keep those M27 links segregated somehow. That’s just retarded and is a deal breaker. 
 

more in the following months on this. 

some follow up....

I did get my shrike upper in. I put it on my reg reg Colt SP1 converted AR15 lower. I did 200 round s of mag fed semi break in w M855. Then blasted a few belts ...

All worked fine. So far so good. No major issues.

I do plan to get JEC to cut one of those funky uptight saw AR15 semi lowers for use with my RLL too.

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.

Guest
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...