Bufferless?

[Suwannee Tim]

I am utterly puzzled by folks who argue that you shouldn't attempt to innovate or adapt the AR. To the man that tries, even if he fails, I give a big kudos. It takes a lot of cash and time to build something like the Para side folder, it takes a lot of nerve to risk that much cash and time. Innovation, adaptation and risk-taking are powerful forces that advance the state of the art. To folks who have never done any of these things I suppose it is obvious you shouldn't do these things. I am grateful to and admiring of risk-takers and innovators.

[munch520]

Sure I could try to design an engine that runs on cow farts too. Does the market want it? No. But you should applaud me because I'm creative? I don't think so. The days are long gone when I get scratch and sniff stickers on my work just because I had a creative idea.

Is it needed is the question? Our family and business are very active in the entrepreneurial scene in our area; there are plenty of broke guys out there that think just because they're creative, they'll make money. If the market is saturated and there is no need for 're-inventing the wheel', people aren't going to buy your product just because you're creative. Especially at that price point.

[buckshot1220]

I am utterly puzzled by folks who argue that you shouldn't attempt to innovate or adapt the AR. To the man that tries, even if he fails, I give a big kudos. It takes a lot of cash and time to build something like the Para side folder, it takes a lot of nerve to risk that much cash and time. Innovation, adaptation and risk-taking are powerful forces that advance the state of the art. To folks who have never done any of these things I suppose it is obvious you shouldn't do these things. I am grateful to and admiring of risk-takers and innovators.

The point isn't that we are resisting adaptation or innovation. We have to realize that there is only a certain amount of adaptation that can be done when you are using the same receiver that has been around for +/- half a century and still achieve results similar too, or better than, something that is designed ground-up for a piston, folding stock, bluetooth automatic garage door opener etc.

As for the Para, ZM, RRA and so on, I really don't regard these as innovation. They use a receiver block similar to what ACE has produced for the AR and other rifles for some time now and hacked the BCG in half to cobble together a recoil system that will fit and hopefully work in adverse conditions. When they fail to sell and go by the wayside, like the Para, what are the owners going to do for parts?

[Suwannee Tim]

I have been shooting for almost a half a century and I have witnessed a lot of controversies in that time. Optics on service rifles, the flat top AR, the M4, the AR10/M16/AR15 design itself were, in their youth, harshly and widely criticized. If, over the millennia, the innovators had listened to the naysayers we wouldn't be shooting our Aimpoint sighted M4s, we'd be sitting around the campfire in a loincloth and a bone in our nose. I've observed that there are always an abundance of reasons for the risk-taker to not take risks and for the innovator to not innovate and never a shortage of people to point out these reasons.

[donwalk]

Hmmm..wondering whatever happened to wanting to build, create, or have something "Just Because". Folks have been defending themselves from anti gunners for so long they feel everything must be justifiable.

Pretty sad display.

a "Sign of the times"...sad but true...

as has been said in earlier reply's there are many other good, reliable, accurate, available rifles to apply the folding stock to...the Ruger Mini 14/30 being one of them.

I'd like to say that i had a Mini-14 years ago and purchased a folding stock for it...i was NOT satisfied with it at all! i did not like the feel, operation and steadiness of it at all!

in fact, later down the line, i changed my M4 to a fixed A2 buttstock and like it MUCH better...JMO

[CaptainDooley]

I have been shooting for almost a half a century and I have witnessed a lot of controversies in that time. Optics on service rifles, the flat top AR, the M4, the AR10/M16/AR15 design itself were, in their youth, harshly and widely criticized. If, over the millennia, the innovators had listened to the naysayers we wouldn't be shooting our Aimpoint sighted M4s, we'd be sitting around the campfire in a loincloth and a bone in our nose. I've observed that there are always an abundance of reasons for the risk-taker to not take risks and for the innovator to not innovate and never a shortage of people to point out these reasons.

If someone wants to innovate in firearm design they should - but they should develop a system from the ground up to support their innovations - not hack up a known good system into something it can't reliably support for the sake of their ideas. Look at Magpul's rifle and the SCAR... Those are two companies that know ARs and recognized there were limitations they couldn't overcome to do what they felt needed to be done in the realm of innovation...

In fact, no one here has said "DON'T INNOVATE!" What they said was - this particular innovation is ill-conceived and doesn't really work ON AN AR, nor it is 100% necessary - so they don't see the need when someone else already built said "better mousetrap" in more modern rifles.

[DeltaSierra]

I have been shooting for almost a half a century and I have witnessed a lot of controversies in that time. Optics on service rifles, the flat top AR, the M4, the AR10/M16/AR15 design itself were, in their youth, harshly and widely criticized. If, over the millennia, the innovators had listened to the naysayers we wouldn't be shooting our Aimpoint sighted M4s, we'd be sitting around the campfire in a loincloth and a bone in our nose. I've observed that there are always an abundance of reasons for the risk-taker to not take risks and for the innovator to not innovate and never a shortage of people to point out these reasons.

So, if I take a Ford Escort and chop off the rear part of the cabin and replace it with a wood truck bed, should I have people pat me on the back for such a wonderful innovation even though what I did was completely useless?

My new innovation cannot function as it was originally designed, and it cannot function well in its new redesigned configuration either.


-------------------------------

The point here is that the Para/ZM/RRA/OA-93 weapons are NOT well designed, and the idiot that came up with the brilliant idea that an AR type rifle needs a folding stock shouldn't be praised for chopping a bolt carrier in half, and welding a piston on where the carrier key should be...


If you want a useless hacked-up weapon, by all means, go for the Para/ZM "design".

[Suwannee Tim]

I'll tell you one more thing about innovation. It's impossible to know up front which innovations will work and which will fail. I have worked in electronics manufacturing for decades where rapid advance is a way of life. I have personally had too many ideas I thought were sure bets and seen them go sour and seen too many seemingly bad ideas succeed to join the ever present crowd hurling slings and arrows at the innovators.

All you guys hurtling the slings and arrows, Eugene Stoner had to endure the same sort of naysayers. John Moses Browning, Richard Gatling, Georg Luger, Paul Mauser, every one of them had the same insults hurled at their inventions. It's something anyone and everyone who wants to depart from the status quo has to cope.

It's the easiest thing in the world to sit on the sidelines and yell at the quarterback that he's doing it wrong. He's heard it all before.

[DeltaSierra]

I totally support departing from the the status quo, as you put it.

What I think is entirely stupid is to take a chop saw to a workable design of known performance, and calling that innovation.

You are free to think whatever you want, but this particular "design" is not a design, but rather, it is a poorly assembled collection of half-baked bubba-style modifications.

If you are going to market a weapon, at least redesign the bolt carrier, rather than chopping up the existing design....

[Suwannee Tim]

.......this particular "design" is not a design, but rather, it is a poorly assembled collection of half-baked bubba-style modifications.....

Are we talking about the same gun? The Para TTR? The 2010 Shooting Illustrated Magazine's Golden Bullseye Award for Rifle of the Year. That gun?