What would you pay?

Hey guys, I'm trying to do a little informal market research, kinda gauge what degree of effort is feasible in getting a manufacturer to pick up my pack rifle design, and what my IP might be worth.

Up front, I would ask that if a folding 9mm carbine just doesn't appeal to you, please abstain from voting in the poll. I'm trying to be as accurate as possible in gauging the market potential among people who are or would be in the market for such a firearm, so low figures from people who wouldn't buy it unless it was just too cheap to pass up are going to skew my results badly.

For those of you who aren't familiar, my creation is this:



It is a 9x19mm folding carbine that weighs just 3.52 lbs empty and ~4.1 loaded with 15 rounds. The prototype uses Diamondback DB9FS magazines or slightly modified Beretta 92 mags. Obviously that's something that could change, but made sense for me. Construction is mostly 7075-T651 aluminum with carbon fiber hand guards and stock tube, some titanium parts, and a few steel parts (barrel, bolt, striker, sear). It uses standard AR grips. For any more details, check out the build thread or video:



My question is what you all think it's worth. Not what you'd like to pay, but what you'd be willing to part with to own such a creature. It's nearest/only competitor would be the Kel Tec sub-2000, with a $500 MSRP and street prices that range from $400 to well over MSRP (typical KT market, right?).

I like to think my design appeals on a different level, but what I like obviously isn't necessarily representative of the entire market. So I'd like feedback.

I have included poll options for both polymer and aluminum receiver versions, and you can select one option for each. I would also like to hear whether ya'll would prefer polymer or billet aluminum on a production gun. Polymer could obviously be done a little cheaper and save a few ounces (probably 5-6), but that doesn't necessarily mean it would be a better choice.

Thanks in advance!

Thanks for the replies so far, guys.

I'd pay $0. I see no value in the concept, and it would be too much work to scrap it for the metal.

Click to expand...

Did you honor my request in the second sentence of the OP, then?

It's a given that it's not for everybody. True of all things. I wouldn't buy a mini van at any price, but obviously plenty of people are happy to pay top dollar for one.

Fishbed77 said:

I can't believe I'm the first to say this, but it really needs to use Glock mags to appeal to a wider market (and because Glock mags are cheap and reliable).

Click to expand...

Certainly not the first, just the first in this thread. Perhaps you missed:

Obviously that's something that could change, but made sense for me.

Click to expand...

I don't own and am extremely unlikely to buy a Glock 9mm, so it would have been pretty dumb for my personal use prototype to use Glock magazines when I have a bunch of DB9FS and Beretta 92 mags.

For the record, DB9FS mags and Beretta 92 mags are also cheap and reliable. Beretta 92 mags are very much proven, and run about the same price as Glock mags (~$25/ea). The 15 round DB9FS mags are $62 shipped for a 4 pack.

A commercial version is a different story, and offering a Glock compatible version would absolutely make sense. But we're not there yet.

Llama Bob said:

I didn't mess up your poll. Don't worry.

You really might what to consider what the application of this weapon is. It seems far inferior to various existing weapons for all conceivable applications. 9mm is worse than .22 for plinking, basically useless for hunting (and illegal many places), worse than a 9mm pistol for close in self defense (too big, too slow), and worse than an AR for anything where range or terminal ballistics come into play.

People buy minivans for a reason: they haul lots of people and gear in comfort and cheaper than a full size van or suburban of similar trim. It's very clear what the application is that the minivan does well, even if you don't personally need one. This gun has no clear application.

Click to expand...

You miss my point. I wasn't drawing parallels between utility of folding carbines and mini vans, but making the point that some of us would never, ever buy one, in spite of the logic behind owning one, just like you have no interest in a folding carbine, even though they do have merits. Or maybe you just wanna argue and dog my design?

As well, practical/useful or not, 9mm carbines sell like hotcakes. Keltec can't make enough of the Sub-2Ks, the Hi Points are popular, the CZ Skorpions are flying off shelves.

The benefit most see in them is as a companion gun to your pistol that extends your range of accurate fire with a bit of a ballistic advantage. Though not legal for hunting anywhere that I know of, the you'd be a lot better off trying to take a deer at 50 or 100 yards with a 9mm carbine than a service size pistol or .22 rifle. Realistically, that kind of survival situation is highly improbable, but it's the sort of romantic notion that makes such guns popular, same as the AR for "SHTF".

It's a lot more powerful than a .22, and much smaller and lighter than any centerfire semi-auto. Though it is possible to bring an AR under the 4 lb mark with obscure and very expensive parts, the average weight of AR carbines is 6-7 lbs empty, and they certainly don't pack down to 17" long. Bottom line, you bring an AR backpacking, you're aware of it 100% of the time. The idea behind this is that it fits in your pack and it light enough to be forgotten until needed. The .22 version I built is even slimmer and lighter. Since it's not your bag, you probably didn't follow the build thread, but there is some significance to the fact that my design and the DB9FS that it shares mags with weigh just 6.1 lbs combined with both fully loaded (30 rounds). That's less than most unloaded rifles by themselves, and appeals to some people.

Of course, a lot of people also just enjoy owning and shooting PCCs.

desidog said:

While i really admire your work, i would not buy one. I see two inherent design flaws that make it a non starter to me. However, i've got somewhat of a fix too.

First is that the takedown lever is at a spot where your off hand might get it while rapidly shouldering the gun. On an AR, a lot of shooters put their off hand in that location up against the mag well... if the gun isn't full latched, but the firing pin still gets the primer, what happens? I'm thinking ouchy...maybe some case separation hitting your forearm, or even the barrel flipping over and the front sight smacking you on the head?

Click to expand...

You'd really have to see/handle/use it yourself to understand that it's not an issue. I've shot it with a mag well grip just because, even though that's not a grip I ever use. You're not going to accidentally depress a latch that requires 10 lbs of effort and 3/4" of travel, not even if you put your support hand under it at the very end. The entire gun resting on the end of the latch doesn't move it. The barrel block also can't move more than 0.028" until the latch is fully disengaged, and the latch is spring loaded, so even if bumped, it pops back into position with authority.

Second is that while the gun is folded up you cannot have an RDS or other sight on the piccatinny rail. Removal and reinstall every time you fold it is arduous and leads to re-zeroing issues...

Click to expand...

It's not a match rifle. I have taken off and reinstalled a cheap QD RDS on the .22 version dozens of times, and it remains zeroed to the point that I am able to place all shots in the bullseye of a B-6C target at 50 yards.

So, the fix: why not make it a side folder instead of top? this would enable an even smaller (flip up) front sight, and the optic stays on the rail. Of course, the front sight couldn't be the barrel catch, but i'm sure you could come up with something off the butt... maybe a hook that folds out of the butt like the blade or tools on a swiss army knife?

ETA: I had been thinking of folding to the left side of the receiver, but if you did it to the right, you could not only cover or catch the charging handle, so it wouldn't snag on stuff coming into and out of a pack, but use it's positive spring force for retention in the folded position too.

Anyway, my 2cents...

Click to expand...

It's a possibility, but if you followed the thread, I stated why I didn't make it a side folder. The synopsis is that I intend to SBR the rifle and give it a side folding stock, which will fold to the right. Because the bolt knob already protrudes there, we gain no width with the stock folded, leaving us with literally a lunch box sized rifle, about 10" x 7.5" x 3.5".

On making the front sight lower profile, you wouldn't want to. I deliberately made this one taller than the .22 to aid with cheek weld. Think AR.