Looking for Advice on New Rifle Design

[dreyfus]

At this point, the AR is so mature that it's just really hard to compete with. Like others have said, I can jump on the internet right now and get a 16" carbine for 500 bucks. I can drive right down the road and get a $600 DPMS in half an hour. Both of those guns will shoot probably no worse than 3 inches at 100 yards, run with 99.9% reliability with any commercial ammo I feed them, mount any optic with Picatinny rails, and I wouldn't even worry about a round count unless my barrel is shot smooth.

I'm all for new ideas, and I'd be interested to see what you have planned. But man, with a field as technologically mature as small arms and a with product that's been polished for 50 years, it's really tough to see how a new design would beat out the $500 AR.

If you want a cheap beater to keep running through an apocalypse, rifles don't come much tougher than Russian surplus.

Russian surplus runs russian ammo and this design is meant to be compatible with AR-15 mags and ammo. Not to compete with AR-15s in performance.

If the price was low enough then it was envisaged as a cheap cache weapon, semi-auto, compatible with your main AR-15 mags and ammo and looking like a deer rifle so that it could avoid bans on black rifles and reconfigurable to a pump action should semi autos be banned.

 

[dreyfus]

I like the idea, and it seems sound. I would be concerned however. Looking at other "non ar" rifles trying to squeeze in alongside the AR shows us where the market is. Your competition is in the sks rifles you already mentioned, keltec, ruger mini, etc. step out of the .223 game and you join hi point, just right, more keltec, and so on. I am sorry to say it, but I'm afraid your good idea is going to be lost in the weeds of current products before it even gets a fair shake. Don't get discouraged though, your ideas are good and your sure to hit a home run at some point. This one I think would have been a hit 30 years ago in the world of thousand dollar AR rifles and 700 dollar used pickups.

You could be right. Where I think the "AR competition" went wrong is that they tried to compete with a 40 year old developed design with a massive installed base. They even look like black rifles and can't be (at this point) easily converted to pump action in the event of a semi auto ban.

Some people think I'm trying to break the law. Not at all. A non black rifle helps you comply. A semi permanently converted to pump would comply with a semi auto ban. The very model of legal compliance.

A lot of people seem to think I'm trying to compete with AR-15s.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm advocating a semi auto rifle built to be buried and only used if the world ends.

People only bury very cheap rifles and what I'm looking for here is real clues in cheap manufacture- especially bolt manufacture.

Thanks again

 

[Mosin Bubba]

Russian surplus runs russian ammo and this design is meant to be compatible with AR-15 mags and ammo. Not to compete with AR-15s in performance.

If the price was low enough then it was envisaged as a cheap cache weapon, semi-auto, compatible with your main AR-15 mags and ammo and looking like a deer rifle so that it could avoid bans on black rifles and reconfigurable to a pump action should semi autos be banned.

If you are looking to design a cheap 223 semi auto, an AR is going to be your competition. No two ways about it.

 

[moobra]

Just to clarify:

My design doesn't try to compete with established assault rifles in terms of performance. It is unlikely that my action would deliver better performance than existing rifles and quite likely it would be worse.

The only advantage I see it having is in terms of manufacturing simplicity- especially for a semi-third-world manufacturer with more labour than capital and for a bolt that has more assembly requirement than machining.

In addition, one would be crazy to compete with the AR-15 mega marketing machine and support base.

However all things selll to a market and an AR-15 will always be a black rifle. For some markets this places it at risk of bans/siezure whereas a rifle built to look like a hunting rifle may be immune to this.

In addition, the ability to convert the action to pump action would make it compliant with any semi auto ban.

Yes AR-15s can be converted to pump but will always be ban-able black rifles anyway.

The design is meant to be BURIED by preppers. Only cheap rifles get buried and cheap rifles tend to be built to low performance specs.

Hence, cheap manufacturing for this market is a crucial requirement.

So in a nutshell I'm musing that $10.50 AR-15s bought in bulk from wherever still face the risk of banning even if they are cost competitive.

Whether that creates/defines a real market....beats me.

 

[moobra]

You could be right. I'm thinking the prepper groups may be interested in a very cheap alternative i.e. just above mosin nagant with way better fire power, not designed to look like a black rifle (avoiding bans), mag and ammo compatible with AR-15 and able to be converted to pump action to remain legally compliant with a semi auto ban.

Preppers like to plan in depth and with several layer of backups.

They think thru scenarios such as walking down the road with a black rifle will get you killed while doing the same with a lever action might not. Except the lever hasn't the utility of a semi auto.

Food for thought.

 

[MachIVshooter]

My design is semi-auto, 5.56, uses AR-15 mags but is designed to be as unlike an AR-15 or any assault rifle as possible in appearance. Lots of cheap wood or wood-like synthetic, flat sided like a lever action. Closer to grand dad's deer gun than tacti-cool.

Kel Tec beat you to it a decade ago with the ~$400-$450 SU-16 & variants.

Even if you could come in at $300, I just don't think it's enough of a savings to persuade people away from the aforementioned $500 (and sometimes less) AR carbine.

I don't mean to dissuade you, but even if you could come up with what you want (trust me, as someone who has built several one-off/prototype guns, it's more difficult than you think in every facet), without the capacity to produce yourself, I believe you'd be lucky to break even on your patent costs (if you could even get one; very few patentable ideas in small arms these days).

Furthermore, if there were much of a market for it, you'd have seen something similar by now. The "prepper movement" ain't exactly a new thing, and the more dedicated (fanatical?) subset of this already smallish group you're targeting as a market are probably sufficiently armed. People who are into that game to that degree, and who are actually serious about it, realize that a $500 rifle is a drop in the bucket compared to all the other costs associated with legitimate self sufficiency. They'll shell out twice that just on batteries to store the energy their wind genny or solar panels produce. Guns are a romantic aspect of prepping, but in reality, security is only a very small part of being prepared for the more far fetched societal breakdown/WROL scenarios, and guns are a small part of that small part.

 

[Mosin Bubba]

However all things selll to a market and an AR-15 will always be a black rifle. For some markets this places it at risk of bans/siezure whereas a rifle built to look like a hunting rifle may be immune to this.

Not always.

The Ares SCR stock looks like it might be able to beat AWBs. I believe it's even legal in New York and California. The cost right now is pretty steep, but if legislation were to ever happen, every AR manufacturer would invariably switch to making copycats and prices would plummet.

Look at this. Get a 5 round magazine and flatten out that distinctive black finish down to a light grey and it would barely look like an AR-15.




If I was worried about a semi auto ban and had 300 bucks, I'd just stuff away a Mosin or a Turkish 870.

 

[moobra]

Kel Tec beat you to it a decade ago with the ~$400-$450 SU-16 & variants.

Even if you could come in at $300, I just don't think it's enough of a savings to persuade people away from the aforementioned $500 (and sometimes less) AR carbine.

I don't mean to dissuade you, but even if you could come up with what you want (trust me, as someone who has built several one-off/prototype guns, it's more difficult than you think in every facet), without the capacity to produce yourself, I believe you'd be lucky to break even on your patent costs (if you could even get one; very few patentable ideas in small arms these days).

Furthermore, if there were much of a market for it, you'd have seen something similar by now. The "prepper movement" ain't exactly a new thing, and the more dedicated (fanatical?) subset of this already smallish group you're targeting as a market are probably sufficiently armed. People who are into that game to that degree, and who are actually serious about it, realize that a $500 rifle is a drop in the bucket compared to all the other costs associated with legitimate self sufficiency. They'll shell out twice that just on batteries to store the energy their wind genny or solar panels produce. Guns are a romantic aspect of prepping, but in reality, security is only a very small part of being prepared for the more far fetched societal breakdown/WROL scenarios, and guns are a small part of that small part.

But it's still a ban-able black rifle and when preppers lay in a cache it's not for 1 rifle but hopefully 6-10. That adds up. No longer a drop in the bucket.

Most of the prepper forums I have read talk about cheap backup rifles buried in PVC pipe. It's never an AK, never an AR-15, never a Keltec. Almost always mosin nagants.

I think most would want a very cheap semi auto that didn't need different mags and ammo from their AR-15 and didn't claim to be an AR15 or its price.

Despite the claim that the manufacturers would have met such a market if it xisted, it sure seems from the frustrated people I've read that they still haven't.

 

[moobra]

Not always.

The Ares SCR stock looks like it might be able to beat AWBs. I believe it's even legal in New York and California. The cost right now is pretty steep, but if legislation were to ever happen, every AR manufacturer would invariably switch to making copycats and prices would plummet.

Look at this. Get a 5 round magazine and flatten out that distinctive black finish down to a light grey and it would barely look like an AR-15.




If I was worried about a semi auto ban and had 300 bucks, I'd just stuff away a Mosin or a Turkish 870.

If a gun has anything like the quality of an AR-15 or its performance then it will have an AR-15 price regardless of how it has been disguised.

Guns you bury need to be ultra cheap and few people will bury even a $400 gun, hence the mosin nagant burial ritual.

Also while I agree that manufacturers would respond to a black rifle or even semi auto ban with retrofit kits to get around such laws, the point is they don't yet and won't until such laws become real.

In the meantime, a cheap, reconfigurable semi auto rifle that could be comply with such laws and was available now would be more attractive than hoping.

Maybe I should conduct a short survey in prepper forums to determine the real demand.

Hmmm that could work.

 

[moobra]

I think one of the issues embedded in this discussion is that I'm proposing something that is in inherent conflict i.e. (a) cheap (b) disposable and (c) and firearms.

Most people don't want low quality guns any more than they want low quality, disposable cars.

Most manufacturers don't want to be known as manufacturers of cheap guns although in reality there have been tons and tons who have been in existence for a while and made money.

Even mainstream US gun manufacturers have paid something of a price for cutting costs too much and buyers reacted in disappointment.

However they were passing off their product as being the same quality despite cost cutting. I'm not.

We buy cheap, disposable furniture, lawn mowers, electric tools.

I don't see the problem.

 

[Mosin Bubba]

I think one of the issues embedded in this discussion is that I'm proposing something that is in inherent conflict i.e. (a) cheap (b) disposable and (c) and firearms.

Most people don't want low quality guns any more than they want low quality, disposable cars.

Most manufacturers don't want to be known as manufacturers of cheap guns although in reality there have been tons and tons who have been in existence for a while and made money.

Even mainstream US gun manufacturers have paid something of a price for cutting costs too much and buyers reacted in disappointment.

However they were passing off their product as being the same quality despite cost cutting. I'm not.

We buy cheap, disposable furniture, lawn mowers, electric tools.

I don't see the problem.

So, where are you going to cut the corners at?

A gun's not an Ikea bookshelf, it's closer to a pipe bomb that's exploding a few inches from your face. How are you going to make that disposable and still be safe enough to even use?

 

[moobra]

A rotating bolt can be easily machined from round stock and then heat treated. A receiver that has to take stress from a turning bolt is likely going to be much harder to make and be heavier.

By using a rotating bolt and barrel extension (like the AK47, M16, or G3) you can make the receiver out of sheet steel, aluminum, or plastic. The stressed parts are easily manufactured and cheap, which is why pretty much everybody makes self loading rifles that way.

BSW

Guns are complex things. Despite the claim that a tilting bolt is heavier than a rotating bolt, there are those who claiim an SKS is atually lighter than an AK-47.

From another forum:

Going back to my "fair comparison" comment regarding weight, a few things need to be considered when comparing the weights of these two rifles. The weight specifications given for the SKS are for the 20" barrel, so the paratrooper version of the SKS with a 16 1/2" barrel would be the more accurate compareson. It also needs to be factored in that the SKS has a fixed magazine, a bayonet, and bayonet lugs.

All these things add weight to the SKS that has nothing to do with the bolt type, so this weight must be subtracted in order to make a fair comparison. Removing 4" of the SKS's barrel (which equals the paratrooper version), removing the bayonet along with it's mounting lugs, and removing the fixed magazine (The weight of the magazine is not considered in the official weights given for the AK) reduces the SKS to a weight significantly lower than that of the AK. There are numerous different variables that effect the weight of each of these rifles so I won't be absolutely specific, but in an apples to apples comparison, the SKS weighes a minimum of a full pound less than an AK, and usually even more than a pound.

 

[moobra]

So, where are you going to cut the corners at?

A gun's not an Ikea bookshelf, it's closer to a pipe bomb that's exploding a few inches from your face. How are you going to make that disposable and still be safe enough to even use?

Good point. My idea, from the above discussions, is to have an assembled bolt made of castings rather than a heavily machined single unit.

By denoting the safe upper round limit of the gun to 10,000 rounds the ruggedness of 50,000 round AR-15s is not required to be met.

It might even use factory second barrels and third party trigger groups.

Even I know enough about CAD to simulate such stresses and by round limiting the gun life by legal waiver or consumer warning such a cheap gun is possible.

I'm not liable if my marketed 1 ton jack is used to suspend a 10 ton truck.

We just have to get used to the idea of disposable guns that some people want to bury for the apocalypse.

 

[Mosin Bubba]

Faced with the choice of buying a $500 AR that will run for thousands of rounds, and a $300 rifle that is so likely to kill or maim me that I have to sign a waiver just to shoot it, I'd feel inclined to spend the extra 200 bucks.

 

[dreyfus]

Faced with the choice of buying a $500 AR that will run for thousands of rounds, and a $300 rifle that is so likely to kill or maim me that I have to sign a waiver just to shoot it, I'd feel inclined to spend the extra 200 bucks.

No it would be warranted for 10,000 rounds and be safe in that zone.

That's 10,000 rounds of capability that won't be siezed in a black rifle ban or a semi auto ban because it can be reconfigurable to pump action.

That's 10,000 rounds vs no gun and if you plan to buy 10 to cache as prepper do then that's $1200 saved.

Some people might think that's OK. I buy lawnmowers that wear out every 2 years and will continue to do so because I have no intention of my mower being an heirloom I pass onto my son. Plus the new one starts every time for 2 years and I never lay a spanner on it.

Different strokes.

 

[dreyfus]

Faced with the choice of buying a $500 AR that will run for thousands of rounds, and a $300 rifle that is so likely to kill or maim me that I have to sign a waiver just to shoot it, I'd feel inclined to spend the extra 200 bucks.

You have to bear in mind that ALL guns are sold with consumer warnings.

I waded through 10 pages of warnings before I fired up my new drill press.

The drill press is dangerous no doubt but used according to instructions is fine.

Same thing for a 10,000 round gun.

Some people will baulk at a drill press less than $1000. Others know they will never in their life time use a $1000 drill press enough to justify the cost.

Any gun we bury has to be very cheap.

Price point as always.

 

[barnbwt]

The design is meant to be BURIED by preppers. Only cheap rifles get buried and cheap rifles tend to be built to low performance specs.

By denoting the safe upper round limit of the gun to 10,000 rounds the ruggedness of 50,000 round AR-15s is not required to be met.

No offense, but you don't seem to have any idea what this actually means from an engineering perspective. Impact on cost will be negligible, since the same anatomy needed for 50k is still there for 10k, it's just designed with little to no safety margin, and will explode dramatically in the event of a hot round or squib. I get the distinct impression this concept is a vague napkin-sketch idea at this stage, and your goal is to have us somehow fill in the blanks for you.

Any gun we bury has to be very cheap.

Why not just acquire the tools & know how to produce your own quality gun when law & order collapses? Are guns illegal where you live?* A simple semi-auto conversion won't be legal, they'd go after anything "readily convertible" same as machineguns or semis in Massachusetts in a doomsday scenario you claim is the market for this thing.

It might even use factory second barrels and third party trigger groups.

Ooh, badly cut chambers and unsafe disconnnector, sear, or safety engagement --sign me up!

You have to bear in mind that ALL guns are sold with consumer warnings.

Do they say the gun is built with substandard parts & will be dangerous to operate in even slightly overpressure situations, like with a tight chamber that the gun may come with?

TCB

*"labour"

 

[C.R.]

No way would I buy a gun that was "disposable" for more than oh say $50.00 for not much more than that I can get an old Mosin a proven simple rugged design that will last another 100 years if you clean it once in a while . How will you determine whan your gun is worn out,and unserviceable? When it blows up and kills you? No,Im thinking a"prepper" is going to want something reliable, and tough . I for one wouldnt want the doubt in the back of my mind,"Well is it gonna work?" and if you have a firearm,to be any good with it you need to practice with it, every one is a little different,even two of the same model built on the same day can have differences in point of aim,and what ammunition that it prefers,and as a disposable peice the tolerances would be looser than a quality unit where everything is held to a tighter standard. As for me.I like to spend a bit more on my tools and have some quality,rather than shop on price point only. Would you rather work with snap on,or crafstman tools,or the super cheap made in china tools that fail when you need them the most

 

[dranrab]

OP, you just lobbed the question out to an audience of the most enthusiastic enthusiasts. First, the average person doesn't know what Mil-Spec is. Second, the average person doesn't know about Palmetto State Armory. Third, the lowest level non-Mil Spec gun I know of is the DPMS Sportical which can be had at $499. Some describe them as 10000 round guns. The average person who buys that gun would very likely happily buy a gun as you described and use the $200 saved for ammo and accessories. Cheap but functional and reliable guns DO sell. The Ruger American is not an heirloom quality rifle, but they do what they were designed to do and they do it well. They fly off of the shelf. Your gun can be heavy. It can be less accurate than the competition. It can be less durable. But it WILL have to be reliable.

 

[lysanderxiii]

The only thing I will say is:

Make one, or two, get all the bugs worked out of design and take the drawing package to a production machine shop and ask them the machine time required to make the parts. That will tell you the production costs.

 

[danez71]

Are "dreyfus" and "moobra" the same person that's proposing this idea?



I think the concept has merit in general but the 'meant to be buried' doesn't make much sense to me because that's generally the reason why the pump action conversion is part of the concept.

 

[BSA1]

The aim is to produce a backup gun for the prepper movement who are currently unable to provide an AR15 for their whole family/friends and tend to purchase WWII bolt actions or SKS and low grade AK-47 variants. I think a very low cost semi-auto compatible with AR-15 mags and ammo would be very sought after.

The idea is not to make a gun able to survive 50,000 rounds, but maybe 10,000- even if it takes a waiver to be signed by the purchaser. Most of these guns will just collect dust waiting for Armageddon and that's easier to accept at $300 a copy than $800-$1000 a copy.

IMO you are targeting the wrong market.

As a Prepper/Survivalist/Owner buying before a ban so it will be Grandfathered in the AR is likely never be easily replaced. This not only means it must be very durable, very high quality and parts easy to obtain and repair. There are many AR’s that meet these standards and parts are affordable so it is easy to stock up.

With only 10,000 rounds durably you are describing a Bic Lighter. However guns are not something that is tossed in the trash when they start to wear out.

A big selling point of the High Point is the company’s life-time warranty and customer service. I don’t know how many High Point carbines are shot enough to wear them out but knowing that if it starts to have problems I can send it to the company for repair covered by the warranty makes it very appealing especially as you note “Most of these guns will just collect dust waiting for Armageddon and that's easier to accept at $300 a copy than $800-$1000 a copy.”

As the inventor / patent holder you will have to sell your design to a company the has the machinery and a employee workforce with the knowledge to build reliable firearm. Companies spend many thousands of dollars in marketing research before introducing a new product. You are going to need this type of information if you are going to sell and bring your design to market.

 

[Telekinesis]

lot of people seem to think I'm trying to compete with AR-15s.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm advocating a semi auto rifle built to be buried and only used if the world ends.

I may be off base here, but why would you care about making a rifle "ban proof" if it's whole point is to be cached? If the gun is to be buried before any ban, and then retrieved at a point where there's no one around to enforce whatever ban may come, there's no reason to have a neutered rifle.

The only weapon that needs to survive a gun ban is the weapon that you keep in the open and plan on using during the ban (in which case you probably want something higher quality that can stand up to routine practice).



Unfortunately the market doesn't care what you think the competition is. Your rifle is going to sit on the shelf next to 20 AR-15s and that is what your buyer will see and compare it to. And I guarantee you that any marketing department in the gun industry will laugh you out of their office if you tell them that the AR is not even remotely a competitor to your rifle.

I understand the desire to make use of a new design and patent, but there are better ways to accomplish your stated goal. Think of an AR that doesn't rely on the pistol grip to retain those little selector detent springs. Add a short buffer tube/stock (honey badger esque) and that would let you remove the pistol grip for storage and make an overall smaller tube that needs to be cached.

 

[BSA1]

However all things selll to a market and an AR-15 will always be a black rifle. For some markets this places it at risk of bans/siezure whereas a rifle built to look like a hunting rifle may be immune to this.

Not always.

The Ares SCR stock looks like it might be able to beat AWBs. I believe it's even legal in New York and California. The cost right now is pretty steep, but if legislation were to ever happen, every AR manufacturer would invariably switch to making copycats and prices would plummet.

Is the ARES SCR legal in Massachusetts?

Don't underestimate our opponents. The A.G. is smart enough to figure out that it is the action not the cosmetics that make a “assault weapon.”

My $300.00 .223 is a Saiga Sporter. Unlike what the O.P. is designing my Saiga is good for 50,000 rounds. Politics is the only thing keeping more of these $300.00 guns off of the market. With foreign company building a factory in the United States to make AK's will the Sporter Carbine return to the market at a low cost around $300.00?

If so the O.P.'s proposal is deader than a doornail.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I get the distinct impression this concept is a vague napkin-sketch idea at this stage, and your goal is to have us somehow fill in the blanks for you.

Agreed. And the marketability presupposes two conditions that cannot exist simultaneously (an EBR ban and a WROL environment).

OP doesn't seem to want to listen to anyone who doesn't enthusiastically agree that it's a fine idea either. I'm out.