taylorwso Posted March 17, 2023 Report Share Posted March 17, 2023 (edited) Guy is building a lower that fits the mcr and take the belt boxes/nutsacs. available for order 80% 100% https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/MCR-80-percent-lower-with-cut-out-for-nutsac/5-2621227/ Edited March 21, 2023 by taylorwso 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigan Posted March 20, 2023 Report Share Posted March 20, 2023 Paul at Cryostructure is awesome. I was curious about this as I recently bought some of his "broken" 80 percent receivers to cut the magwell fence off of, and it was clearly a prototype for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
har1690 Posted March 20, 2023 Report Share Posted March 20, 2023 I believe that upper is a Gen 5. I have the same upper and has the heat sink installed. Nice addition to have... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OA/DAW Posted March 21, 2023 Report Share Posted March 21, 2023 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddy H Posted March 21, 2023 Report Share Posted March 21, 2023 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/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjrphs Posted March 21, 2023 Report Share Posted March 21, 2023 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbntex Posted March 22, 2023 Report Share Posted March 22, 2023 (edited) 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 March 22, 2023 by jbntex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taylorwso Posted March 22, 2023 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2023 21 hours 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 200 bucks, link is in the op Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryo Posted March 25, 2023 Report Share Posted March 25, 2023 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taylorwso Posted March 25, 2023 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2023 1 hour ago, Ryo said: Is cryostructure.com legit? yes a couple guys know him and bought from him posted on the other post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guntrustlawyer Posted March 27, 2023 Report Share Posted March 27, 2023 Just purchased some 100% lowers. I bought some mark 46 ammo box hangers and was going to fabricate my own lowers. Paul at cyrostructures saved me the hassle. Prompt service and excellent communications. He does custom work as well. Marty Seidler San Antonio Arms Co. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guntrustlawyer Posted June 2, 2023 Report Share Posted June 2, 2023 Four shrike lowers ready to go. Been waiting for these. Marty Seidler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OA/DAW Posted June 3, 2023 Report Share Posted June 3, 2023 I recently received my 100% lower. The fit and function is excellent. The company is legit and gave us great service. I would recommend them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marks Posted June 5, 2023 Report Share Posted June 5, 2023 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guntrustlawyer Posted June 5, 2023 Report Share Posted June 5, 2023 Paul at Cryo says the shelf is the correct height for a dias. Mine is being shipped now, for use with Dias on Shrike upper. Marty Seidler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OA/DAW Posted June 7, 2023 Report Share Posted June 7, 2023 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guntrustlawyer Posted June 24, 2023 Report Share Posted June 24, 2023 On 6/7/2023 at 9:49 AM, OA/DAW said: Our lower functioned perfectly with a DIAS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guntrustlawyer Posted June 24, 2023 Report Share Posted June 24, 2023 Works great. Used Geisselle SSF trigger. Marty Seidler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Got Uzi Posted June 24, 2023 Report Share Posted June 24, 2023 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guntrustlawyer Posted June 25, 2023 Report Share Posted June 25, 2023 Costs much less than an fn mark 46 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Got Uzi Posted June 25, 2023 Report Share Posted June 25, 2023 For $200 I may just have to buy one of those lowers and put it in the safe for a rainy day. That is slick! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guntrustlawyer Posted June 25, 2023 Report Share Posted June 25, 2023 (edited) They make great gifts for shrike owners and for those with beltfed 9mm uppers. Edited June 25, 2023 by guntrustlawyer Correct spelling again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGTedFL Posted June 26, 2023 Report Share Posted June 26, 2023 ...waiting for mine....placed order for a pair of lowers some time ago. I did ask about shelf height for the RDIAS, and was told it was correct. Glad to hear others can confirm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGTedFL Posted June 26, 2023 Report Share Posted June 26, 2023 20 hours ago, guntrustlawyer said: They make great gifts for shrike owners and for those with beltfed 9mm uppers. Stocking stuffers at Christmas ...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGT Fish Posted June 26, 2023 Report Share Posted June 26, 2023 23 hours ago, guntrustlawyer said: They make great gifts for shrike owners and for those with beltfed 9mm uppers. I really wish they would make those 9mm uppers again. Seems they just make regular 9mm ARs now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guntrustlawyer Posted June 26, 2023 Report Share Posted June 26, 2023 Freedom Ordnance makes 9mm belt fed uppers which are available for purchase on its website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGT Fish Posted June 26, 2023 Report Share Posted June 26, 2023 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhouston8 Posted July 6, 2023 Report Share Posted July 6, 2023 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taylorwso Posted July 6, 2023 Author Report Share Posted July 6, 2023 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhouston8 Posted July 6, 2023 Report Share Posted July 6, 2023 semi guys don't deserve nutsacks ! there. i said it. hahahaha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OA/DAW Posted July 6, 2023 Report Share Posted July 6, 2023 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% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHollow Posted July 6, 2023 Report Share Posted July 6, 2023 (edited) 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 July 6, 2023 by HHollow 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattnh Posted July 6, 2023 Report Share Posted July 6, 2023 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taylorwso Posted July 6, 2023 Author Report Share Posted July 6, 2023 1 hour ago, mattnh said: Any advantages over a SAW? not even close 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbntex Posted July 7, 2023 Report Share Posted July 7, 2023 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbntex Posted July 7, 2023 Report Share Posted July 7, 2023 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHollow Posted July 8, 2023 Report Share Posted July 8, 2023 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhouston8 Posted July 8, 2023 Report Share Posted July 8, 2023 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattnh Posted July 8, 2023 Report Share Posted July 8, 2023 Looking forward to the review. I agree with you wrt “special” m27 links. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taylorwso Posted July 8, 2023 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2023 They are nice. They are also milled pretty close to the m16 pocket. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Seidler Posted July 9, 2023 Report Share Posted July 9, 2023 Ready to go with DIAS! 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Idaho Freedom Posted August 7, 2023 Report Share Posted August 7, 2023 I just purchased one of these lowers to go on a 12 inch fight lite upper that John/JEC III is setting up to run on a lightning link. So glad he mentioned this lower!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhouston8 Posted August 7, 2023 Report Share Posted August 7, 2023 ^^^ I'm doing the exact same . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhouston8 Posted August 7, 2023 Report Share Posted August 7, 2023 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.