View Full Version : Manufacturers, we need MCX style lowers
Flint_Ironstag
11-03-21, 22:25
No idea if Sig will ever make them available again, but there’s a huge opportunity here. Price them sanely, and they’ll sell like hot cakes.
Thank You
No idea if Sig will ever make them available again, but there’s a huge opportunity here. Price them sanely, and they’ll sell like hot cakes.
Thank YouSpecifically a lower with a rear rail instead of a receiver extension or something more? Brownells has their 180 lower.
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
Flint_Ironstag
11-04-21, 00:45
Yeah, it’s ugly and appears skinny in comparison to the upper. I need something complementary. Specifically:
- picatinny butt 100% compatibility with Sig stocks & braces
- QD holes
- low shelf
- full ambi
- full auto markings
- minimal branding
Some candidates. I am a newb on an iPad and can’t post photos this sec. will edit from a PC when possible.
https://3rdgentactical.com/humboldt-lower-receiver/
https://slrrifleworks.com/slr-b15-ambi-billet-lower-receiver/
https://sharpsbros.com/livewire-ar15/
No idea if Sig will ever make them available again, but there’s a huge opportunity here. Price them sanely, and they’ll sell like hot cakes.
Thank You
Maybe I haven’t had enough coffee yet, but how is a 1913 receiver end going to work on an AR15 platform weapon?
Maybe I haven’t had enough coffee yet, but how is a 1913 receiver end going to work on an AR15 platform weapon?Well obviously you would load one round in the chamber, install the BCG, and then close the receiver. Duh!
bamashooter
11-04-21, 07:52
No idea if Sig will ever make them available again, but there’s a huge opportunity here. Price them sanely, and they’ll sell like hot cakes.
Thank You
https://i.imgur.com/I7lk0qP.jpg
"Price them sanely" => Someone who has no idea how R&D and manufacturing work.
Maybe I haven’t had enough coffee yet, but how is a 1913 receiver end going to work on an AR15 platform weapon?
Well, it's for an MCX...
Five_Point_Five_Six
11-04-21, 09:25
No idea if Sig will ever make them available again, but there’s a huge opportunity here. Price them sanely, and they’ll sell like hot cakes.
Thank You
No, they wouldn't.
Flint_Ironstag
11-04-21, 15:03
No, they wouldn't.Check Gunbroker prices and get back to me.
Well, it's for an MCX...
Who makes a post about lower receivers in an AR section of an AR specific board, to query a non AR component without at least making clarification?
Flint_Ironstag
11-04-21, 23:49
MCX is in the thread title. Still seems like the best place to ask.
call_me_ski
11-06-21, 06:02
Check Gunbroker prices and get back to me.
A half dozen people bidding up a couple of items does not indicate a viable market.
Flint_Ironstag
11-06-21, 18:53
A half dozen people bidding up a couple of items does not indicate a viable market.
Plenty of demand from other sources.
No idea if Sig will ever make them available again, but there’s a huge opportunity here. Price them sanely, and they’ll sell like hot cakes.
Thank You
Have they been out long enough for patents to expire?
Flint_Ironstag
11-07-21, 00:33
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see how patents have anything to do with this. It's a lower, with a picatinny butt, ambidextrous, low shelf, full auto markings. Anybody with manufacturing experience should be able to crank one out. Beef it up to visually hold its own against the thicker MCX upper.
This is simple stuff for any manufacturer with a modicum of inclination and expertise.
In fact, whomever has the testicles to take up the gauntlet, send me one for review. ��
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see how patents have anything to do with this. It's a lower, with a picatinny butt, ambidextrous, low shelf, full auto markings. Anybody with manufacturing experience should be able to crank one out. Beef it up to visually hold its own against the thicker MCX upper.
This is simple stuff for any manufacturer with a modicum of inclination and expertise.
In fact, whomever has the testicles to take up the gauntlet, send me one for review. ��
If it's proprietary to SIG and unlike other lowers, then I bet they own the rights for 10 years.
Flint_Ironstag
11-07-21, 01:58
MCX upper conversion kit is designed to fit any mil spec AR15 lower. Doesn't need to copy anything Sig does to their particular lowers, as stated above. Why is everyone making this out to be more complex than it is?
It's a damn lower with a picatinny butt, and some other standard features. Gee Whiz.
MCX upper conversion kit is designed to fit any mil spec AR15 lower. Doesn't need to copy anything Sig does to their particular lowers, as stated above. Why is everyone making this out to be more complex than it is?
It's a damn lower with a picatinny butt, and some other standard features. Gee Whiz.
Because that pic butt might be proprietary to SIG and people are trying to answer your question.
Either SIG claims the exclusive right to that design still OR nobody cares enough for anyone else to make them. Did Sig stop making them? I'm wondering why you don't just buy a SIG lower for your MCX uppers?
Can't you use a Picatinny adapter (https://www.knsprecisioninc.com/product/ar-mcx-stock-adapter-with-flange/) on a billet receiver? Why do you need a special lower?
https://i1.wp.com/www.knsprecisioninc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/IMG_7794.jpg
call_me_ski
11-14-21, 14:49
He would have to use the adaptor that Sig supplies with all uppers it sells. The Sig adaptor adds the same pic rail to the rear and also has supports on the shoulders for the recoil springs. Those supports prevent an MCX lower from working well with some of the other bufferless uppers such as the BRN-180. An MCX lower sold separately is uniquely useful to someone that has an MCX upper without buying a complete MCX and is not satisfied with the supplied adaptor. Considering the incredibly small amount of uppers shipped by Sig vis-ŕ-vis complete guns, the overlap of those two groups is likely incredibly small. For some reason OP is convinced there is a market for MCX specific lowers.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.